Smarthinking Tutor Response Form

Your tutor has written overview comments about your essay in the form below. Your tutor has also
embedded comments [in bold and in brackets] within your essay. Thank you for choosing
Smarthinking to help you improve your writing!

Hello, Angelo! My name is Angela B. I look forward to working with you on this Essay Center
Review to improve your writing today. Let's get started!

*Writing Strength:
Your introduction contains a great insight on the area being focused on:

The Wind River Formation is the principal source of domestic, municipal, and stock (ranch,
agricultural) water in the area of Pavillion and meets the Agency's definition of an
Underground Source of Drinking Water.

This allows your readers to understand the source and area being pertained to in this paper. Good job,
Angelo!

*Angelo 9558067 has requested that you respond to the Content Development:
I’ve noticed that some of your sentences are lifted from an outside source without being credited
properly. This is a problem because content from other sources must be properly attributed to its
authors in order to avoid being charged with plagiarism. This is a serious offense, especially in the
academic setting.

Not long after, Dominic DiGiulio, the main researcher of that draft EPA study, retired from the
agency and became a visiting scholar at Stanford so he could complete that work. He’s the
lead author of the new paper.

The excerpt above is directly lifted from an outside source which seems to be from Populist.com,
Angelo. Since this is an outside source of information, this source needs to be cited. You may read
more about this in the MLA Style portion of your Writer’s Handbook. Please check your draft for similar
errors.

Organization
To revise the organization of your essay, consider focusing first on developing a thesis that will let
your readers know about the contents of your essay.

Your draft will benefit from a thesis statement that states what the paper will be about. What is
paper about? It seems like your assignment description tells you to support a clear thesis
statement regarding the contamination of groundwater in Wyoming. However, your exact
focus and purpose is not clear. The lack of a thesis that specifies the focus of your essay will cause
the organization of your essay to lack basis. A similar essay regarding robotic procedures would
be:

Robotic surgery is an emerging technology that is proving to be highly beneficial to the

medical field and is making a huge impact on society as a whole, but it does not come
without its fair share of both medical and ethical concerns.

You may use this example to aid you in the creation of a thesis statement that will, in turn, dictate
the organization of your essay. Also, you may read more about Developing a Thesis in your
Smarthinking Writer’s Handbook.
*Angelo 9558067 has requested that you respond to the Sentence Structure:
Some of your subjects do not agree with their verbs. This is a problem because it causes your readers
to wonder about what you really intend to pertain to. I’ll be quoting an excerpt from your draft:

. . .surface casing of gas production wells do not extend below the maximum depth of
domestic wells in the area of investigation.

Remember, plural subjects take plural verbs. Likewise, singular subjects take singular verbs. For
example:
CORRECT: The student who was caught driving under the influence was not able to come to
school today.

INCORRECT: The student who was caught driving under the influence were not able to
come to school today.

You may use this example to aid you in the revision process. Also, you may read the lesson on
Subject-Verb Agreement in your Writer’s Handbook.

Summary of Next Steps:

 Develop more original content for your essay.

 Create a concise thesis that will guide the organization of your essay.

 Make sure that your subjects agree with their verbs.

Thank you for submitting your essay for a review. I enjoyed helping you with this step in the revision
process. Have a good day, Angelo! – Angela B.

You can find more information about writing, grammar, and usage in the Smarthinking Writer's
Handbook.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Please look for comments [in bold and in brackets] in your essay below.
Thank you for submitting your work to Smarthinking! We hope to see you again soon.

Angelo L. Martir Irizarry

Prof. Vicki Brown

ENGL 1301: Essay 4 Draf

In response to complaints by domestic well owners regarding objectionable taste and odor problems in
well water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated a ground water investigation near the
town of Pavillion, Wyoming under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act. The Wind River Formation is the principal source of domestic,
municipal, and stock (ranch, agricultural) water in the area of Pavillion and meets the Agency's definition
of an Underground Source of Drinking Water. Domestic wells in the area of investigation overlie the
Pavillion gas field which consists of 169 production wells which extract gas from the lower Wind River
Formation and underlying Fort Union Formation. Hydraulic fracturing in gas production wells occurred
as shallow as 372 meters below ground surface with associated surface casing as shallow as 110 meters
below ground surface. With the exception of two production wells, surface casing of gas production
wells do not extend below the maximum depth of domestic wells in the area of investigation. At least 33
surface pits previously used for the storage/disposal of drilling wastes and produced and flowback
waters are present in the area. The objective of the Agency's investigation was to determine the
presence, not extent, of ground water contamination in the formation and if possible to differentiate
pits, septic systems, agricultural and domestic practices from gas production wells. [What are the
specific topics that will be discussed in the paper? The focus of this paper is not clear. Remember to
outline the specific topics of the paper in order to complete your thesis and better guide your
readers!]

The new research shows that gas wells were not adequately cemented to prevent contaminants from
flowing into the aquifer. It also shows that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing and acid stimulation of gas
wells took place at depths similar to private drinking water wells, which is not illegal and is more likely to
happen in the West because the formations that hold the gas are closer to the surface. The scientists
also document that there is no barrier underground such as a layer of impermeable rock to prevent the
gas from moving through the aquifer. In other regions of the country, fracking takes place thousands of
feet below drinking water wells and impermeable layers of rock block chemicals from moving upwards
over time.

The authors’ conclusions conflict with a 2015 draf report from the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality which found that hydraulic fracturing fluids had a “negligible likelihood” of
reaching shallower zones used for drinking water.

The Canadian company that produces gas near Pavillion, Encana, criticized the Stanford study. “I would
call this speculation or theory,” said Doug Hock, a spokesman for Encana. “Afer numerous rounds of
testing by both the state of Wyoming and EPA, there is no evidence that the water quality in domestic
wells in the Pavillion field has changed as a result of oil and gas operations.”

Not long afer, Dominic DiGiulio, the main researcher of that draf EPA study, retired from the agency and
became a visiting scholar at Stanford so he could complete that work. He’s the lead author of the new
paper.

“We looked at everything we could get our hands on,” DiGiulio said in an interview with HCN, including
getting data on methanol levels from the EPA through a Freedom of Information Act request. This data
helped the scientists show that contaminants from fracking are moving upwards in the aquifer towards
where people are getting drinking water. [ What is your personal analysis on this information,
Angelo? This paragraph seems to be directly lifted from HCN.org; details like these should be cited and
should serve as mere supporting details only. Consider citing your sources and explaining this in your
own words.]
Under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The industry is the only one allowed to inject toxic chemicals into underground formations that may be
used for public drinking water. [ What are some examples of these toxic chemicals? Why would they
inject these into underground formations? Clarify this for your readers.] Companies have long
contended that they don’t contaminate drinking water.

He and Jackson say states or federal government should set limits for how shallow companies can use
hydraulic fracturing. No such limits exist. DiGiulio also hopes that the paper will rebut some of the
criticisms of his 2011 draf study.

Elevated levels of dissolved methane in domestic wells generally increase in those wells in proximity to
gas production wells. Near surface concentrations of methane appear highest in the area encompassing
MW01. Ground water is saturated with methane at MW01 which is screened at a depth (239 meters
below ground surface) typical of deeper domestic wells in the area. A blowout occurred during drilling
of a domestic well at a depth of only 159 meters below ground surface close to MW01. A mud-gas log
conducted in 1980 (prior to intensive gas production well installation) located only 300 m from the
location of the blowout does not indicate a gas show (distinctive peaks on a gas chromatograph) within
300 meters of the surface.

Works Cited Page

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf

http://www.hcn.org/articles/new-research-links-fracking-contamination-groundwater-pavillion-wyoming