A Second Response to Pro-Fracking Groups

After carefully reading and analyzing the Pro-fracking groups response to what we have set forth about fracking we feel the group did not accurately interpret our information. We feel the pro-fracking group completely ignored every fact and opinion we put forth and went back to their true, but misguiding facts.

The first example is set forth when they claim that our posting on twitter of closing 37 different fracking stations is a complete mistake. They believe that there is a lack of research about fracking and how it affects our environment. As we have stated in our previous blogs, fracking has been proven to have a major affect on our environment. According to money.cnn.com, fracking has put states like Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma at the same risk of earthquakes as California is. This puts the citizens of these states in serious danger. The opposing group argues that there is not enough research to back up our claims that fracking causes serious environmental harm. We counter this by providing many academic sources that have done studies on how detrimental fracking is for the environment.

A quality source we have provided is environmentamerica.org. This is a document that provides graphs and numbers proving how harmful fracking is. While the opposing group may argue that there is not enough research on fracking, the graph below provides an easy to understand example of just some of the harmful impacts that fracking causes on the environment, and people.  

Along with their claim that “there still isn’t a lot of scientific evidence that proves fracking is bad for the environment and impacts health”, the pro-fracking group talks about how anti-fracking groups do not have a plan to reduce our reliance foreign oil markets. The fact of the matter is that is not the problem we are trying to discuss here. Our platform is not based on the United State’s foreign oil dependency, it is based on the environmental effects of fracking, and how citizens are affected by it.  They are trying to pivot the argument from facts of how bad fracking is for the environment to how are we going to get oil in the future, which is not our concern.

The other “argument” the pro-fracking group uses against us is that “the Buffs against Fracking are railing into their supporters trying to get them on board with policy changes while very few of these people are educated in that subject.” We understand that there is a lack of knowledge about fracking, and that it is not an issue that concerns many except for those who are directly experiencing it. The opposing group also claims that we are “failing to hit on their own point of educating the people first.” Through our extensive research, blog, and twitter posts we have provided many reputable sources intended to help educate those who read them, including live video evidence of some of the direct and dangerous impacts of fracking.

TeamProFracking made a claim that “the general public really does not know much about the policies that go behind fracking.” They went on to misleadingly say that Gallup found 13% of respondents were “undecided” on fracking, when in reality they had “no opinion.” Also, a year prior, they found that 19% of respondents had “no opinion” on fracking, which suggests people are becoming more educated on the issue. If 87% of the population has an opinion about fracking, in which 51% are opposed to it, then most of general public is informed on the issue. The other side failed to acknowledge that support for fracking went down 4% from last year, and opposition to fracking went up 11%. The public is beginning to become informed on fracking, and not only Democrats are opposed to it. TeamProFracking suggested that Democrats were the only party against fracking, but the same Gallup Poll shows that only a third of Independents support fracking, and half of independents oppose it. Only 55% of Republicans are now in favor of fracking in 2016, which is a 11% drop from 2015. They also completely ignored the Pew Research Group Poll showing 51% of the general public opposing fracking. Not only is the TeamProFracking group criticizing the entire general public as being ignorant on fracking issues, but they are distorting the numbers to portray a false picture of fracking in America. If TeamProFracking is going to mock the anti-fracking coalition and call us “uneducated” for opposing fracking, they are also mocking the 51% of Americans who are with us.

As an anti-fracking group we ultimately believe that fracking should be banned altogether, but we also believe there needs to be higher regulation on fracking sites and these huge companies that have no concern for human rights to safe clean air and safe drinking water. We agree that there should be more money dedicated to further research into fracking, however, we urge our opposition, to acknowledge the extreme safety hazards that are known to accompany fracking, in an attempt to keep people safe.

Attack Against Pro-Fracking Group:

A response to “Team Pro-Fracking”

Group Twitter: https://twitter.com/TeamProFracking

Group Blog: http://teamprofracking6.blogspot.com

Key points made by opponent:

-Fracking creates jobs

-Lower cost of natural gas

-Fracking=$

-Pro-Libertarian and Republican

-Associates Fracking with lower CO2 levels

-“fracking has lowered CO2 levels”

-“Fracking Didn't Cause Oklahoma Earthquake”

Response:

As an anti-fracking group, we find that the pro-fracking group TeamProFracking has many faulty and misleading arguments regarding hydraulic fracturing. Our opponents are more interested in short-term monetary profit than long-term rewards for protecting our environment. For example, the pro-fracking group praises the fracking boom in the Midwest because it has created millions of jobs. However, these jobs created by the fracking industry are not stable, and many people get laid off when companies move to different oil wells. As a result, many of those employed by fracking don’t last long in the business. It has been shown by Economists who do a cost-benefit analysis of short-term job growth and environmental damage that externality costs of fracking in fact does more harm in the long-run. Thus, it would be more beneficial to invest in alternative forms of energy, which in return, reduce carbon emissions and protect our environment. According to a IRENA report, more than 8.1 million jobs were created globally from renewable energy, which is a 5% increase from 2015. This shows that while we might be dependent on job creation, there is not a need to be dependent on the jobs created by fracking. We don’t need fracking when we can get energy in a more clean and efficient way through renewable energy sources.

The pro-fracking group also tweeted a claim that “fracking didn’t cause Oklahoma earthquakes,” which is a flat-out lie. Many pro-fracking interest groups like “Protect Colorado” and others are associating the increase in Oklahoma earthquakes with natural earthquake patterns. However, many scientists are coming out claiming these earthquakes are “man-made” and are triggered by fracking activity. Prior to fracking activity in Oklahoma, earthquakes above a 3.0 magnitude were rare; only 20 earthquakes were recorded in 2009 above a 3.0 magnitude, and 890 in 2015. Only two months ago, the US Geological Survey recorded the largest earthquake in Oklahoma history, a 5.6 magnitude earthquake. It was thought that earthquakes like these were impossible in the Midwest, but these “induced earthquakes” are triggered by the ongoing activity of fracking. CNN reported, that the state of Oklahoma ordered to shut down 37 oil wells as a result of the increase in man-made earthquake activity caused by local fracking. The clear trend suggests that fracking caused many of the earthquakes recorded in Oklahoma, and the pro-fracking group is failing to acknowledge the real dangers it poses to the 7 million people who live within that fracking region.

Another myth that is often claimed by the pro-fracking coalition is that “fracking has lowered CO2 levels” in the atmosphere. However, it is to be noted, that the rise in fracking has no correlation with the decrease in CO2 levels. The recent decline in CO2 levels is instead caused by the decline in coal mines across the country that have proven to be very harmful for the environment.

TeamProFracking states in their latest blog post that the Libertarian Party supports Fracking because they consider it a grey area in our country. They go on to state that the consequences of fracking have yet to been fully researched, essentially giving the ok for it to be done on our soil because we are ignorant to its effects and that it will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Although it could potentially reduce that dependence, they state themselves that more research needs to be done on the effects that fracking has on our home state. TeamProFracking also goes on to state that the Libertarian Party roots its belief in facts, even though there are simply not enough facts to prove that fracking is safe to have in the United States. This in itself, shows that using the Libertarian Party as legitimate evidence when defending fracking is a stretch at best.  

Another example of the pro-fracking team using misleading arguments is in their SWOT analysis. They specifically talk about how the fracking air quality myth is faulty and not understood. This however is a proven fact that people closer to fracking sites have worse air pollution and are in huge danger of health risks. Instead of them admitting they have weaknesses they are covering up it by saying there hasn’t been enough research done. They also state that methane “leaking into your glass” of water is completely normal.

The truth is, fracking is terrible for the environment and is a risk for many citizens who are close to fracking site. Another example of this is in the team's ‘threats’ section. Instead of pointing out the huge effect fracking has on the environment they bring up the point of that the media is biased and advocate for these groups way more than they should. In our opinion, we don’t believe the media talks about fracking much at all especially during the time of this critical election. With that said, we do feel it should be brought up more to people’s attention. The fact that the Pro-fracking group thinks this issue is due to media biased leads us to think they haven’t had much success in finding sources to back up their claims. When we as a group had to talk about our threats and weaknesses we actually addressed the upside of fracking and how there can be benefits to the fracking industry. To understand a topic clearly, you must be able to address the opposite opinion of yours, our opponents have yet to show that.

After reading our opponents arguments we are now more than willing to say the pro-fracking groups blog is misleading with faulty statements. We as anti-frackers are looking out for the common good of all people. The pro-fracking group is looking out for big corporations invested in the use of fracking. We need to think about the consequences of fracking for not only the good of the people but also for the environment.

Video proof of the Oklahoma earthquakes, 5.6 Magnitude, September 3rd, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMO14yoGcuI

Letter to Elected Member:

To the Anti-Fracking Community:

Please help promote our cause by signing and sending the letter shown below to Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Buffs Against Fracking wants to show this committee that fracking is not an issue that they can brush under the carpet, but one that they must take a strong stance on by acknowledging the dangers at hand.

Dear Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,

I am sending you this letter as an anti-fracking activist, urging you to protect the citizens of our state. We, as in the anti-fracking community, want more members of congress, specifically in your committee to acknowledge the environmental harms that fracking has and continues to cause such as, earthquakes, contaminated water and land, and release of harmful chemicals.

Along with recognizing the environmental harms, we also want to encourage you to prioritize anti-fracking legislation, which would eventually lead to an overall ban of fracking in the United States. Studies have found that there is a strong correlation between poverty, and fracking, specifically in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania (Bienkowski, 2015). This region also affects parts of West Virginia and Ohio.

Fracking occurs in people’s backyards all across the nation, and you, the committee, must stand up to big oil and natural gas companies and put an end to this practice. This connection between poverty and fracking is not fair. These citizens have less access to information, so they may not know the harms of fracking. They also may not be able to afford to rebuild their homes if they are hit by an earthquake, or pay for medical assistance that may be needed due to the exposure to chemicals that fracking emits into the air. A ban on fracking is necessary, and the environmental injustice that these citizens are experiencing needs to be solved.

We also feel as though anti-fracking legislation needs to be pushed on more party platforms and ballots. It was not included in the Democratic Party Platform, and an anti-fracking bill did not make it on the ballot in our home state of Colorado. We need your help to advance the anti-fracking agenda in the Democratic Party.

Overall, we feel what is going on to prevent fracking in Colorado is not effective. We need to push for more regulation on our cause and more laws to prevent this from happening. The impact is already hurting our families and communities and needs to be stopped. With your help, we can put an end to hydraulic fracking in our backyards.

University of Colorado Students

Fracking Demographics

Gallup Polls have shown that Democrats are more likely to be against fracking than Independents and Republicans. In March 2016, only 25% of Democrats and 34% of Independents showed support for fracking, while 55% of Republicans favor the practice. In the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, exit polls showed that 65% of Democrats oppose domestic hydraulic fracturing, while only 27% favor it. Despite fracking being a common practice in Pennsylvania, the exit polls suggest that more progressive voters oppose the use of fracking. Bernie Sanders advocates a ban on fracking, while Hillary Clinton supports strict regulations, and the exit poll results indicate that 72% of Sanders supporters oppose fracking, while only 60% of Clinton supporters oppose the practice. We can infer that the anti-fracking groups would appeal most to the progressive demographics within the Democratic Party.  

Both above images from NBC NEWS

A Gallup Poll from 2015 found that adults 65+ were most likely to favor fracking practices with 52% of support, while young adults age 18-29 were the least likely to favor fracking with just 32% of support. Adults age 30-49 opposed fracking the most, with 45% opposing it. Additionally, 24% of young adults had no opinion on fracking, while 16% of 65+ adults expressed no opinion, suggesting older individuals are more likely to have an opinion on fracking than younger individuals.

The poll also found that those who actively participate in the environmental

movement were more likely to oppose fracking (53% of adults), while those who expressed neutral/unsympathetic feelings for the environmental movement favored fracking at 57%. An individual's feelings about the environmental movement is a better indicator of fracking preferences based on the large discrepancy between the two groups, and we can infer that the anti-fracking groups are demographically more active/sympathetic to the environment in general.

Chart taken from a Gallup Poll

Source: Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center conducted a survey on the increase use of fracking, and important demographics like gender, race, age, and region were all noted in the study. By a difference of 9 percentage points, they found that women were more likely than men to oppose fracking (55% to 46%). 46% of men favor increased use of fracking, while only 33% of women favored the practice, which is a difference of 13 percentage points. Interestingly, there wasn’t a strong differentiation between white and black Americans and their support for fracking. 48% of both groups oppose the practice, while blacks slightly favor the practice more than whites. However, Hispanics were the most likely demographic to oppose fracking in this study, with 60% opposition to it, and only 32% favorable. When it came to regional support for fracking, the South was most likely to favor the practice, while the Northeast and West were the most likely to oppose it. The Midwest tends to support fracking, but not as much as the South. The Pew Research Center also concluded that there was no significant correlation between level of education and opposition to fracking.

As a result of our findings, liberal progressives tend to be our demographic’s most popular constituents. Specifically, demographic groups like women, Hispanics, Northeastern and Western Americans, and 18-29 year olds are most likely to be anti-fracking. It will be easiest to motivate these demographics since they are the ones in the most opposition to fracking. Based on the demographic results, it will be very difficult to motivate older conservative men who identify more frequently as Republican. I would focus our energy away from the South and Midwest, where fracking is the most popular, and it will be crucial to promote our anti-fracking agenda in the West and Northeast. We want to reach out to younger individuals who know less about fracking, but we also want older supporters who will be more active in the political process.

When it comes to our outreach and promoting our interest we also want to reach out to people who are in fracking zones. The people that are most negatively affected by fracking are the people closer to the drilling area. According to a new study by Inside Climate News, people closer to a fracking zone in Wyoming have much more toxic chemicals in their air compared to places farther from the fracking site. They found that carcinogen benzene was the biggest chemical in the air and at rates that were at risk for citizens breathing in that air.  There already have been many groups formed to unite against fracking and many of the people who are directly affected by it. Along with this there are still people who aren’t affected by fracking, but care about banning fracking. Many of these people have common interest of looking out for the environment. I feel that if we can outreach to these people we can further outreach to the rest of the democratic party and in turn get a common interest of banning fracking.

Sources:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition-fracking-mounts.aspx

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/live-blog-exit-poll-analysis-tuesday-s-primaries-n562541

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182075/americans-split-support-fracking-oil-natural-gas.aspx

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-2-climate-change-and-energy-issues/

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22062016/study-finds-toxic-oil-and-gas-chemicals-benzene-near-pavillion-wyoming-air-water-pollution-fracking

Which Party Best Supports Fracking

Although a proposed ban on fracking was rejected from the Democratic party platform in March, the ideals of the Democratic party are more likely to support the anti-fracking agenda. As fracking has become a more prominent topic in politics, polls have shown that while some Democrats support fracking, most still oppose it (Gallup). When President Obama was elected in 2008, the United States was in economic turmoil, and with the bailout of General Motors, the administration began favoring environmentally friendly alternatives to energy usage (Mother Jones). Along with those alternatives, President Obama was apprehensive about domestic oil production, the dependency of oil in the United States (White House). Unfortunately, those tables have turned. President Obama has opened up on the idea of fracking. Praising the increase in domestic oil production, jobs, and overall economic benefits (White House).

Although President Obama has loosened his grip on fracking, the Democratic party as a whole has not. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in the state in 2014, and a Gallup poll taken in March of 2016 showed only 25% of Democrats were in favor of fracking. While the DNC party platform does not mention fracking, it does mention achieving environmental justice, and preserving public land and water. These policy points could potentially be affected due to the dangers of fracking, particularly contaminating water, spreading toxins, and earthquakes. The platform also states that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, should not take place in states and communities that oppose it. In an effort to build a clean energy economy, we hope that the Democratic party will acknowledge the cons of fracking, and see that their platform goals will not be achieved if fracking continues without stronger awareness and opposition support.

In response to influencing the democratic party to adapt our issue of banning fracking, I would make our main point about how bad fracking is for the environment. One of the key issues that democrats focus on is our environment and how they are the party of today that has stepped up to protect our earth. Democrats are also a party of more government and in turn more regulation. Fracking is one of the most unregulated oil drilling procedures we have in the U.S. today. Most of the problems that come from fracking are due to the lack of regulations set by our government. I feel that a democratic government of any sort would be for putting in more government control into this idea of fracking. If the democrats could install improved fracking regulations and limit the distress it has on our environment, they would get the benefits of both sides. The way fracking is being performed right now is terrible for our environment, especially residents who are closer to fracking sites. These people risk drinking contaminated water daily along with the fear of not breathing clean air. Government is supposed to protect our simple needs of life and two of our major ones our being interfered by fracking. I believe it would be easy to get the democratic party on board to fight fracking and protect the simple needs of life.

Our anti-fracking group can influence the outcome of the next party platform, and we can get behind progressive candidates that advocate banning fracking in their states. There is great potential in changing the perception of fracking in the Democratic Party, and many Democrats have the ability to elect state and local candidates that share pro-environmental ideals. The first move in influencing the Democratic Party directly would be to find alternative green energy interest groups that will support candidates with an anti-fracking agenda. Alternative energy is popular within the Democratic Party, and firms will begin to put pressure on Democrats to oppose pro-fracking legislation. This will incentivize candidates to break with the status quo and form a progressive anti-fracking coalition within the Democratic Party. Only the most extreme/progressive candidates will support these measures, but if enough members of Congress adopt anti-fracking legislation, they will be the median members of the party and will put pressure on the moderate Democrats.

For More information, please reference some of the following sources that we used:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition-fracking-mounts.aspx

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/27/headlines/dnc_platform_committee_rejects_proposals_against_fracking_tpp_israeli_occupation

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-sleeper-issue-the-2016-democratic-primary

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/how-obama-became-oil-president-gas-fracking-drill

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/30/remarks-president-americas-energy-security

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/06/25/safe-and-responsible-oil-and-gas-production-part-president-obama-s-all-above-energy-

SWOT analysis: Anti-Fracking vs. Pro-Fracking

SWOT analysis

Anti-Fracking

Strengths: Fracking has lead to harmful effects on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and can even cause man-made earthquakes. The fracking procedure can also leak methane gas (a harmful greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, which is worse than burning coal. Private companies have no incentive to protect the environment and surrounding areas that they operate on; there have been incidents of tap water being contaminated from nearby fracking wells that have high levels of methane. Many of the chemicals used to frack are poisonous and could be catastrophic if they were leaked in a water supply. More than 15 million Americans have lived within a mile of a fracking operation and thus may experience negative effects of it.

Weaknesses: Since there are not many scientific studies of the long-term effects of fracking, it’s harder to make a strong scientific case against it. Our side must resort to anecdotal evidence of fracking gone wrong in some states. Also, wanting to outlaw fracking is an extreme position to start with, and the movement may be too polarizing to some individuals who’d be somewhere in the middle (wanting more regulation, but no ban). Fracking has been proven to create jobs in states that allow the procedure, and it’s hard to make the case for alternative energy when fracking is a new, advanced technology that is putting coal out of business.

Opportunities: In the month of September, Oklahoma has seen a rise in “man-made earthquakes” that have been triggered by oil well drilling activity. The state experienced its largest recorded earthquake, and scientists believe that the increase in these small earthquakes is strongly correlated with oil drilling from fracking locations. We now have evidence to show that the seismic activity in Oklahoma is having a direct impact because of fracking. Not only has it affected seismic activity around the country, but there have also been links to many health concerns among workers and those close to water sources that may be contaminated. These concerns have led towns to consider banning fracking to protect its citizens from these conditions. There is also opportunity this November with ballot initiatives across the nation that want to put restrictions on fracking. There is potential for the anti-fracking movement to gain support.

Threats: States are competing for natural gas and have strong incentives to frack. Fracking has expanded to many states in the midwest, west, and east. Also, Colorado’s ballot initiative was revoked due to a signature fraud scandal. If the initiatives to ban/regulate fracking fail in this country, it will be a negative sign that Americans are in favor of the use of fracking.

Pro-Fracking

Strengths:  Many people view fracking as a great way to boost our economy. They believe that our reliance on foreign countries for oil is too dangerous. Right now, we rely on Saudi Arabia and Nigeria for almost all of our oil, with that said they are very unstable countries. Pro frackers want our country to be energy independent and not have to rely on unstable regions for oil. The last strength fracking poses is the many jobs it will create in our country. Fracking takes a lot of time and labor and for states that are using fracking now they have found their unemployment rates have lowered over time. This in turn relates to major economic growth, Fracking in 2011 made close to 36 billion dollars which in turn produces more money into our economy. Also, fracking is putting coal mining companies out of business and is replacing coal with natural gas, which is better for the environment and the air that we breathe.

Weaknesses: Fracking is a new industry with little known long-term effects of its damage to the environment. Man-made earthquakes have potential to do great harm, and fracking has lead to the pollution of bodies of water nearby oil wells. Another environmental impact is runoff into bodies of water, and land from fracking operations. Some of the procedures are complicated and are often unrecorded, so it’s hard to be transparent with the public.

Opportunities: One of the largest opportunities of fracking is the growth in jobs that it has the potential to create. Especially in an election year, where the economy and creation of jobs is not only a hot topic but also a hot commodity, the idea of a growing industry does strike interest. Because of this, politicians might be more willing to support fracking opportunities, especially with the incentive to create jobs. Just this past month in Colorado, anti-fracking measures failed  to be put on the ballot, one of which included a proposal which would allow state governments the power to restrict fracking.  This by default has the opportunity to open new doors for the pro-fracking community especially in a state like Colorado.

Threats: The problems going on in Oklahoma are alarming to the fracking community and may push away supporters. Fracking is a new technology, and a lot is unknown about its long-term effects on the environment. As more research continues to be published about fracking, there is always the chance that negative information will surface. Any findings that do  reveal something negative about fracking has the ability to create doubt and skepticism within the electorate. This tied with the loud voice of the anti-fracking sector could prove to be a threat in the future.

To learn more about some of the pros and cons of the fracking industry check out the following resources:

http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issu

Breaking News:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/04/492600714/oklahoma-shuts-down-energy-companies-disposal-wells-in-area-of-strong-quake

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039d4cw (an interesting podcast on fracking in the UK)

Sources:

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/

http://youngpetro.org/2013/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

Pro-Fracking and Anti-Fracking Twitter Accounts:

Pro-Fracking Twitter Accounts

1. @ProtectCO (Protect Colorado)
2. @MarcellusGas (Marcellus Shale)
3. @NobleColorado (Noble Energy)
4. @YouthRightWing (NJ Conservative)
5. @rightcuban (Cuban Conservative)
6. @ProFrackingNI (Pro-Fracking NI)
7. @FrackingPro (Pro Fracking)
8. @ProFracker (It’s Fracking Great)
9. @Chesapeake (Chesapeake Energy)
10. @JoshJordaan (Josh Jordaan)

These Pro-Fracking Groups all share the same goals and ideals, which is to protect the rights of fracking and improve the economy by producing natural gas. Groups like Protect Colorado, Marcellus Shale, Noble Energy, and Chesapeake Energy are large groups/organizations that benefit from fracking and are more professional in their information and presentation than some of the other groups we followed. These Twitter accounts are both reputable sources and have strong incentives to fight for their cause. As a result, they will have biases to justify fracking. However, they may be lacking when it comes to environmental issues outside of fracking. NJ Conservative and Cuban Conservative are groups that identify with the specific ideology of conservatism, and thus support the practice of fracking. The other groups that we followed don’t appear to be as professional or reputable, however, they all favor the use of fracking. These accounts do not necessarily belong to an established organization with workers monitoring their pages; instead, they are most likely run by individuals with a passion for fracking.

Anti-Fracking Twitter Accounts

1. @AntiFrackingSCO (No Fracking Way)
2. @FrackFreeFood (Frack Free Food)
3. @stopfrackattack (Stop The Frack Attack)
4. @FrackNo (Catskill Citizens)
5. @NYAgainstFrack (NY Against Fracking)
6. @FrackAction (Frack Action)
7. @Frack_Off (Frack Off)
8. @GreenPeaceUSA (Greenpeace USA)
9. @EcoWatch (EcoWatch)
10. @EarthJustice (Earthjustice)

These anti-fracking accounts vary from interest groups/organizations (GreenPeaceUSA), to news sites (EcoWatch). Their main goals are to spread awareness about the negative aspects of fracking, report on the latest fracking stories, and communicate with both pro, and anti-fracking groups. More generalized accounts like GreenPeaceUSA, EcoWatch, and EarthJustice, report on more than just fracking, which can be beneficial because they are informative about a variety of things going on in the environment, but it may be a little hard to track down a tweet specific to fracking. Accounts like AntiFrackingSCO, StopFrackAttack, Frack_Off, and FrackNo post and share different stories from a large range of accounts, which can help for researching different stories, and gaining a broader insight into what anti-fracking groups’ goals are. Another group we followed was @FrackFreeFood. They, like the groups listed above, also oppose fracking and are specifically concerned with how fresh food can be contaminated by the process. This accounts’ strengths include good visuals of fresh food that could be harmed by fracking. One weakness that this page has is the lack of posts they have made in the past few years. @NYAgainstFrack is a page that is specifically directed towards anti-frackers in New York. New York has some of the most fracking going on its state which widely affects its huge population. A major strength of this account is that it endures a large fan base, allowing it to spread awareness throughout the city.