`Synthèse` -- CORRECTION

‘Synthèse’ -- CORRECTION
FR
! EN
• 
Le gas de schiste ! !shale gas
• 
Un graphique
! a graph_
• 
Une protestation
! a protest_ movement
• 
Un scientifique
! a scientist
• 
3 documents extraits de la presse britannique
• 
Le gas de schiste pourrait bénéficier aux entreprises ! !shale gas may benefit_ !companies
• 
Produire des énergies renouvellables
! produce !renewables
• 
Les Etats-Unis
! the U.S.
• 
Les Etats-Unis ont de vastes réserves
! the U.S. has !vast gas reserves
• 
Leurs réserves sont énormes
! its reserves are huge
! 3 documents (taken) from the British press
‘Synthèse’ -- CORRECTION
- Five documents released in 2012 in British (=Guardian/Economist/Observer) and American (NYT) press.
- All focus on what is called the ‘shale gas revolution’, either siding with (NYT/Economist) or opposing (Guardian/Observer) it.
1.  Explaining what fracking is & where it stands:
1.1. WHAT IS IT?
- NYT/Economist ! mention creator G. P. Mitchell
- Guardian/Economist ! explain the process of hydraulic fracturing
1.2. CURRENT STATUS?
- Economist (IEA report & graph) ! fracking will keep spreading (China, Australia, Europe)
= places which incidentally have the world’s largest shale gas reserves
2.  Downsides of fracking:
2.2. WHO? public protest, activism, environmentalists =concerns for the future
- Guardian ! ‘popular resistance’ to the energy trust, crisis context, Occupy Wall Street movement
- Observer ! young boy, Camp Frack, Blackpool, Britain, Sep. 2011
- Economist ! ‘anti-frackers’ / France & Bulgaria have banned fracking
2.1. SAYING WHAT? environmental risks:
- Economist ! contamination of aquifers
- Guardian/Economist ! toxic chemicals pollute groundwater (esp. in Ohio)
- Guardian/Economist ! extraction may cause earthquakes (e.g. Marcellus Shale + northern England 2011)
3.
Upsides of fracking:
3.1. ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING
- NYT/Economist ! no concrete evidence it is harmful in any way
! an environmental trade-off, waiting for non-fossil future to mature
3.2 ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING
- NYT/Economist ! an economic revolution, job creation & savings passed on to consumers (=cheap gas)
- NYT/Guardian ! energy independence /security, ‘a relief’
‘Synthèse’ -- CORRECTION
[ TITLE ]
[ LINE OF
REASONING]
[ PRESENTING
DOCUMENTS ]
[ PART 1 ]
! Current
status &
Future
perspectives
Shale gas: an environmental trade-off ?
As environmental concerns grow over fossil fuels, and renewables aren’t
readily available yet or profitable enough, shale gas –a possible trade-off half-way
between dirty coal-fired power plants and costly wind turbines– has gotten much of
the attention lately. Is it really the best of both worlds its advocates claim it is?
Five documents released in the year 2012 in both British (The Guardian,
Economist and Observer) and American press (The New York Times) all focus on
the so-called ‘shale gas revolution’, either siding with (The NYT and Economist) or
opposing it (both Guardian and Observer).
Based on the set of documents, this paper will first provide some facts and
figures as to where shale gas stands, before turning to its perceived up and
downsides.
On with a definition, first. Shale gas is natural gas found trapped within shale
formations and obtained through what is commonly referred to as ‘fracking’ –a
process of hydraulic fracturing pioneered by Texan businessman G. P. Mitchell, who
both The NYT and Economist mention.
As to where shale gas stands worldwide, there’s little doubt the U.S. has had
a clear headstart. But is soon to be caught up by both Europe and emerging
countries like China, Argentina or Russia –which incidentally happen to possess the
world’s largest shale gas reserves– an IEA graph and report analyzed by The
Economist suggest.
LEXICON BOX
A trade-off = a
compromise
Non-fossil fuels =
renewables = green
energies
The best of both
worlds = the lesser
of two evils = the
ultimate
compromise
To side with s/o = to
support s/o
As to
= concerning
(FR: quant à)
To have a headstart
= have a lead
(FR: une longueur
d’avance)
To catch up with s/o
= to make up for lost
ground
(FR: rattraper qqun)
‘Synthèse’ -- CORRECTION
[ PART 2 ]
! Downsides
of shale gas
[ PART 3 ]
! Upsides
of shale gas
[ WORD COUNT ]
But the ‘fracking revolution’ hasn’t gone unopposed, either. Anti-frackers
include nations like France or Bulgaria which have banned shale gas extraction, or
can be as young as this boy holding a sign at a 2011 British anti-fracking protest
movement photographed for The Observer. Public concern intensifies in tough
economic times, The Guardian adds, citing the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Little
wonder then if distrust in multinational gas companies is on the rise.
Environmentalists have three main concerns, both Guardian and Economist
explain: contamination of aquifers, groundwater pollution (with Ohio a case in point,
here) and fracking-induced earthquakes (as happened in both the U.S. Marcellus
Shale and northern England).
On the upside, however, shale gas supporters say two things. They downplay
the environmental risks mentioned above, both NYT and Economist report, saying
little concrete evidence exists to prove or disprove its alleged harm. In the
meantime, shale gas stands for a nice, temporary trade-off until greener non-fossil
fuels take over. Basically, more shale gas means less coal, which on balance
means fewer carbon emissions –a ‘lesser-of-two-evils’ line of reasoning.
Economically speaking, also, shale gas is worth the effort, both articles
explain, boosting domestic investments, creating new jobs, and allowing for
cheaper gas at the pump.
Icing on the cake, shale gas makes countries less energy dependent, both
NYT and Guardian point out.
440 words.
To go unopposed /
unnoticed /
unmentioned = not to be
opposed, noticed or
mentioned
No wonder = little
wonder then if…
(FR: peu surprenant
donc si…)
To be on the rise = to
increase = to go up
(FR: être en hausse)
main = major
(FR: principal)
A concern = a
preoccupation
(FR: une inquiétude)
On the upside (+) or on
the downside (-) =
looking at pros (+) or
cons (-)
To downplay = to
minimize
To take over s/th = to
start replacing it
(FR: prendre le relais)
On balance = all told
(FR: l’un dans l’autre)
Icing on the cake
(FR: cerise sur le
gâteau)