Effectiveness of Fracking Regulations

Effectiveness of Fracking Regulations Overview of Report This report has been prepared by The MSSD for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments. This report will be looking at the effectiveness of the regulatory framework of the fracking industry, it will assess the current framework, evaluating whether the framework is fit for purpose, and if not, propose alternatives considering that a lighter touch to regulation is the approach wanting to be taken. Because we are only at the exploratory phase of drilling in the UK, the main focus will be on pre-drilling regulations. What is Fracking? We will briefly look at what Fracking is and how it works, and looking at this will also allow us to be able to assess the most pressing environmental concerns and the controversies surrounding fracking. Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside.  Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.  The process can be carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer and can create new pathways to release gas or can be used to extend existing channels. The term fracking refers to how the rock is fractured apart by the high-pressure mixture.[1] In the UK, drilling is only at an exploratory phase, however, there are plans for this to intensify as shale gas reserves have been identified across the UK. Impacts and Concerns Having looked at what Fracking is, we will identify it’s impacts on the environment and its most pressing concerns. The extraction of shale gas is a topic that is highly controversial in the United Kingdom, this is mainly because of the environmental concerns it raises. One of the major concerns is the water usage in the extraction, the volume of water that is needed. Vast amounts of water are required for the process and this must be transported to the fracking sites[2]. The water tends to be transported to the sites, which has its own environmental impacts, though some sites could use the local water resources and the volume of water that is required could place a strain on local water resources. In addition to the amounts of water, the water is mixed with chemicals, this mixture could escape and could spill or contaminate groundwater in the surrounding areas. Another concern is that fracking could lead to small earthquakes. This was the case in the town of Blackpool, where two tremors struck, one registered a magnitude 2.3 and the other 1.3. Both tremors occurred near the local drilling site. This caused the operation to suspended, the site operators, Cuadrilla, commissioned a report, which found that â€Å"Most likely, the repeated seismicity was induced by direct injection of fluid into the fault zone†[3] The report goes on to question whether further earthquakes are to be expected from fracking, it says â€Å"the earthquakes occurred because of a rare combination of circumstances: the fault was already under stress, was brittle enough to fracture and had space for large amounts of water that could lubricate it†. The report says â€Å"this is unlikely to happen again at the Preese Hall site.†[4] To reduce the risk of earthquakes, it has been proposed that seismic activity monitoring is introduced around fracking sites. Advantages and Disadvantages of Fracking The main advantages of fracking include, an increase in the production of natural gas, some could argue that this would ease the burden on finite resources such as fossil fuels, fracking would thus diversify our energy supplies. A further advantage is that this is a relatively clean energy source, providing environmental benefit. The gas produced emits less carbon per calorie of energy produced than other fossil fuels. It is easy to inject and it can be transported directly, shale gas requires very little infrastructure investment before it can be injected into the national gas grid, thus proving to be an economical benefit. Fracking is also the most natural way to pump gas from the ground. An abundant supply of natural gas makes prices relatively cheap to producers and consumers. The disadvantages of fracking include, Risk of groundwater pollution, Risk of localised earthquakes (probably not a huge risk when well-regulated in the UK), Localised noise and traffic congestion, Loss of amenities, when fracking wells are sited in areas of natural beauty and national parks, A high water demand for the â€Å"process water† needed by the fracking technology used, potentially entailing additional stress on water supplies, Planning blight on local properties, and suffering by those unfortunate enough to live near a proposed site for a fracking well. [5] Environmental Policy Context Fracking also poses wider questions about current thinking on sustainability and the environment. [6] John Allen writes, â€Å"the shale revolution has the potential to provide the UK with local, low cost, clean sources of energy and potential for local energy independence† [7] from a sustainable development viewpoint, this makes for positive reading. If fracking is low cost and a cleaner source of energy, it enables sustainable development. However, looking at the intricacies of fracking, this may not seem the case. For the process to take place, a vast number of resources are needed, and here you look at whether fracking, as an industry, is sustainable. The shale gas industry consumes materials such as water, sand, chemical treatments, drilling fluids, all of which require transport by road and rail. Perhaps one of the biggest challenges is the use of water, the volume required is vast, and to sustain that, there must be an infrastructure in place and policies in place to ensure that whilst providing the water to sites, there is no inconvenience to the water flow in the local area and if being transported via tank to the site, this must be done in a way where the environment is put first. If we are looking at this from the standpoint â€Å"what is best for the environment†, surely the question would be, why does the policy not encourage the use of no oil and gas in the UK, because this would be the best policy for the environment. The answer to this would be several factors, mainly economical and convenience, the ecosystems we live with and in are so adept to using those resources, that to prohibiting use would mean that our systems would fail to exist. A middle ground has been established, whereby the environment is somewhat protected and that human needs are met, and this needs to be the case with fracking, whilst there are signs that there are benefits, economically the policy must promote sustainable development. â€Å"History shows us that whenever we can extract fossil fuels, short term gain, usually trumps long- term consequence. Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, of the US experience, but fracking has not found universal welcome. France, for instance, is in the process of banning it, and Poland is currently deciding whether to develop the industry, or concentrate on other forms of energy.† [8] John Allen If there is regulation and procedures in place to negate the downsides, surely a cleaner alternative is beneficial long term.      Regulation of Fracking Now we will be looking at the regulatory framework that is in place for the industry. This section will be split into three parts: 1) An overview of the regulatory framework, 2) Assess and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the frameworks, 3) Consider whether any improvements can be made to the framework, looking at different types of regulation.    Overview of Regulation The Environment Agency (EA) in England and Wales, and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) are the environmental regulators who monitor the environmental aspects of shale gas fracking. The key regulation that governs how shale gas fracking operators comply with environmental laws is the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.[9] Figure 2: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation The framework that surrounds fracking is one that is quite complex. Companies wanting to explore must have permission from a number of regulatory bodies before they can proceed. In order to explore and produce shale gas, operators must pass rigorous health and safety, environmental and planning permission processes.[10] The first stage is obtaining a Petroleum Exploration and Development License, (PEDL), these are issued by the Oil and Gas Authority. The Oil and Gas Authority work closely with other regulatory partners to ensure that the exploration and development is safe and sustainable. [11] A PEDL obligates companies to follow its terms. Key PEDL terms include: conferral of the right to get petroleum, payment of fees in return, parameters of the field licensed to the operator, obligation to obtain written consent prior to drilling, operator’s obligation to work the licensed area in accordance with ‘good oilfield practice’ and termination and surrender provisions. PEDLS are licenses which grant exclusivity to operators in the license area, they do not give immediate consent for drilling an exploration well or any other operation. Briefing paper After a PEDL has been granted, the operator of the proposed site must then obtain local planning permission from the Minerals Planning Authority, as shale gas operations involve the extraction of minerals. The MPA involves local authorities including representatives from districts and county councils.[12]   Planning applications require the submission of a standard application form, supported by plans and drawings, certificates of ownership relating to the application site and design and access statements. An operator must also negotiate access with landowners. A PEDL and planning permission alone do not give operators consent to conduct their operations, access must be secured by the operator, this tends to be through a license or a lease to be taken that are conditional on the grant of satisfactory planning consent. When a decision is made on a planning application, only planning matters called â€Å"material considerations† can be taken into account. There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes a material planning consideration, although there are some â€Å"principal issues† for consideration, shown in Figure 3 [13] MPA’s are screened to determine whether any proposals require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the Environment Protection Agency an EIA describe this as â€Å"the process by which the anticipated effects on the environment of a proposed development or project are measured.  If the likely effects are unacceptable, design measures or other relevant mitigation measures can be taken to reduce or avoid those effects.†[14] This, however, is a contentious issue, as it’s not clear whether operators are obliged to conduct and EIA and submit an environmental statement under the EU’s EIA Directive[15] to accompany their application. Under the EU law, all projects require an environmental statement, though those under Annex 2 require a case-by-case examination, and considering certain criteria, it is determined that such a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Even if an EIA is not required, environmental and health impacts can be addresses through the conditions of planning permission. Mineral Planning Authorities are responsible for ensuring operators comply with these conditions. The MPA, in determining an application, will consider the advice of a variety of statutory consultees with regards to the protection of the environment and the public. Local planning conditions can address the aesthetic impacts, as well as contributions to local noise, traffic and air pollution. The density of local population may be considered in the local planning permission process. There will also be conditions for when operations finish, the operator would be responsible for safe abandonment of the well and for restoring the well-site to its previous state or a suitable condition for re-use. The authority which granted permission would require suitable restoration as a condition of the planning permission. [16] The next part of the regulatory process is that operators will probably require a number of environmental permits issued by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations to conduct onshore activities.   The environment agency takes a risk-based approach to regulating, thus the regulation of each site is bespoke to that site, as the they take into account local site characteristics and site specific environmental risks.   The Environment Agency  ensures that any shale gas operations are conducted in a way that protects people and the environment. The Environment Agency’s environmental permitting regulations cover: protecting water resources, including groundwater (aquifers) as well as assessing and approving the use of chemicals which form part of the hydraulic fracturing fluid, appropriate treatment and disposal of mining waste produced during the borehole drilling and hydraulic fracturing process, suitable treatment and management of any naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and disposal of waste gases through flaring.[17]   With regards to water, if operators are wishing to abstract more than 20 cubic meters per day for operational purposes, they will need to obtain a water abstraction license under section 24/24A of the Water Resources Act 1991[18] The licenses are issues by the Environment Agency. A factor to bear in mind here is the Environment Agency make it clear that water availability at site is not â€Å"guaranteed†, this links back to the planning permission stage, as if the operators are unable to have a pipeline, they will have to transport the water to the site, which is expensive, but also, with regards to the environment, transporting tanks of water would be something they would have to consider. Another element to be considered is the element of â€Å"induced seismicity†. The MPAs should consult the British Geological Survey (BGS) to advise on induced seismicity and help to identify suitable locations for well, drawing on a national and site-specific understanding of geology. [19] Under s.23 of the Mining Industry Act 1926[20] â€Å"firm sinking boreholes greater than 100ft (30m) deep must give written notification to the Natural Environmental Research Council. Operators are under several other continuing obligations, such as keeping records of their operations and retain specimen cores. Once the above has been completed, the operator must notify the Health and Safety Executive at least of 21 days in advance of any drilling operations, The Borehile and Operations Regulations 1995[21] require this. A coordinated regulatory effort is required to ensure that shale gas wells are designed, constructed and operated to standards that protect both people and the environment, it must be noted that it only protects those in proximity of sites. HSE monitors shale gas operations from a well integrity and site safety perspective. We oversee that safe working practices are adopted by onshore operators as required under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, and regulations made under the Act. These specifically are: The Borehole Site and Operations Regulations 1995 (BSOR) applies to shale gas operations.   (These regulations are primarily concerned with the health and safety management of the site). The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc.) Regulations 1996 (DCR)[22] apply to all wells drilled with a view to the extraction of petroleum regardless of whether they are onshore or offshore. (These regulations are primarily concerned with well integrity). HSE works closely with the Environment Agency (EA) and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to share relevant information on such activities and to ensure that there are no material gaps between the safety, environmental protection and planning authorisation considerations, and that all material concerns are addressed. [23] Drilling operations must not be commenced unless a health and safety policy is prepared which demonstrates that adequate measure will be taken to safeguard the health and safety of the persons on the site. Once the HSE step is completed, we arrive at one of the final steps in the regulatory process. This is the Oil and Gas Authorities consent to drill. Operators are obliged to seek the OGAs written consent prior to the start of drilling operations. OGA consent is one of the final, and coordinating consents in the shale gas process. In considering whether to issue consent to drill, the OGA will have regard to the suite of regulatory controls discussed above, including ensuring that planning permission is in place, environmental permits and consents have been obtained, and that the HSE has received notice of intention to drill. Planning permission is one of the approvals required before any activity may start on a site. The planning authority decides whether the activity is acceptable at that particular location, after local communities and other interested people have had the opportunity to set out their view on the benefits and impacts of the proposal. On receipt of OGA’s consent to drill, and subject to the finalisation of a hydraulic fracturing plan and agreed method for monitoring induced seismicity (where fracking is going to be conducted), an operator has in place the requisite consents and may continue its operations. This concludes the pre-drilling regulatory framework, there is a duty in place whilst drilling takes place, and as mentioned, conditions are set out for after the drilling process has been completed. Strengths and Weaknesses One of the main strengths with the framework presented above, in my opinion, is that the process to start drilling is so rigorous. There are many steps an operator must take in order to start drilling, this has a lot of cost and time investment necessary, so these rigorous checks and procedures ensure that the operator is competent and ensuring the environmental protection necessary to offset any negative impacts of fracking in the main. Another strength with the framework is the fact that a condition of granting permission to drill, there must be plans in place on how the site will be restored to ensure that it becomes usable land again, showing that the regulation is offering a protection measure. However, it could be argued that there are more weaknesses with the regulation. One of the major ones that comes across with the regulation framework provided above, is one concerning Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). An operator may have to carry out an EIA, if the MPA deem necessary when screening the proposal presented, however, there is no obligation to do so, it only has to happen should the MPA feel it is a necessity in this case.   There isn’t a â€Å"one size all fits† approach here, it’s bespoke. Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has become best practice in non-shale gas industries[24], however like the EIA, an ERA is not mandatory, an ERA, unlike an EIA would assess not only the impacts of hazards, but also their likelihood. In their report, the Royal Society recommended[25], that to manage environmental risks, an Environmental Risk Assessment should be mandatory for all shale gas operations, involving the participation of local communities at the earliest possible opportunity. I would agree with this statement, an EIA and ERA should be a mandatory step, for all potential operators and cases of fracking, not just some, it should be a universal requirement when applying to drill for shale gas. In her Article, Emily Gosden writes that the Fracking Regulations may inadequate, with regards to climate change[26]. From the regulation mentioned above, it does not tackle issues such as climate change in much depth, whilst it looks at environmental factors, it seems that this isn’t the most pressing matter on the agenda. The article reports that Britain’s fracking regulations may be inadequate to prevent environmentally damaging methane leaks, and that the current regulatory regime fell short of the minimum necessary standards. [27] Prof Jim Skea, one of the report’s authors, said that the law instead gave â€Å"quite a lot of discretion† to the Environment Agency (EA) over what monitoring it would require of future shale gas production. Here, I would agree, the EA can often be quite vague when it comes to these matters, an example mentioned above would be the water abstraction licenses requirement, the EA are very vague when it comes to a definitive answer. This could be something that could be further considered. Another weakness in my opinion is that the current framework at present, isn’t very environment focused, and even if it is, a lot of the environmental factors aren’t factors that are mandatory for operators or regulators to take into account, as already mentioned, the EIA not being mandatory is one part. The regulation does not look at in enough detail issues such as climate change, air pollution, water pollution, and other means of contamination, these factors should be of more importance when coming to regulate the shale gas industry, yes, they may be considered, but even that at best is brief. Alternate Proposals The current framework that has been looked at in this report can be seen to be rigorous in the main, there are a number of steps an operator must take before being able to start the process. The current framework could be seen as being on the â€Å"heavier side† of regulation, and in the brief, a theory was posited that there be a lighter touch on regulation, in this section, we will look at whether this can be the case, and if so, how can it be the case.    With regards to regulation, there are two approaches that can be taken. There is Direct Regulation, which can often be referred to as â€Å"the command and control† regime, this is where standards are set, as are penalties for failing to meet them, there are often several ways of drafting direct regulation. [28] The other approach is Indirect Regulation. Whereas direct regulations focus on the polluting activity itself, indirect regulation tends to centre on economic instruments, the effect of which will be to impose higher burdens on higher polluters, there is also self-regulating, whereby you can apply methods such as voluntary environmental agreements and codes of conducts to regulate. These systems tend to have vague standards and are flexible and non-interventionist in their nature. We will look at whether we stay with a command and control approach adopted, or would a self-regulating approach be more effective in this situation. Before we start that, we will briefly look at whether the current framework we have looked at is effective in its purpose, however looking at the effectiveness of the framework is an area where one struggles as in the UK, we are not at the stages where there is mass production of shale gas, we are merely at the early exploratory stages of the process. The only real working example is the Cuadrilla site as mentioned at the start of this report. Though some regulation, such as the induced seismicity was introduced because of that site. Self-regulating such an industry seems impractical considering the disadvantages mentioned earlier in the report. Simon Sneddon writes that this method of regulation is more flexible than the traditional command and control methods, and this method is non-interventionist in nature and that these methods are criticised for having vague standards and for being unaccountable, and there is no realistic enforcement system. This, as a regulation method would not work with an industry such as fracking. An industry where there are many impacts both environmental and economic and as such a framework of command and control would be better suited, there is a set of rules, or steps put in place and there are penalties and fines for operators should they fail to abide. This is very similar to the current framework in place. The risks that fracking entails, it would be a uncertain approach to have a light touch to regulation. However, when there is more data to analyse once further fracking takes place, it may be the case that we could adopt a self-regulating framework or one that is lighter than the one in place, but until then, the current â€Å"command and control† framework is one that is effective and sufficient for use. Conclusion The regulation in place at present is several steps that an operator must take before they are able to drill for shale gas. The procedure is one that is described as rigorous and upon evaluation this seems to be the case, though as mentioned when looking at alternatives, there is no way of knowing how effective the regulation is in the UK, until there are more working examples of fracking. [i] [1] Bbccouk,  What is fracking and why is it controversial?   (BBC News,  16 December 2015)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [2] Bgs,  Potential environmental considerations associated with shale gas  (Bgsacuk,  0)  accessed 10 May 2017 [3] Michael Marshall,  How fracking caused earthquakes in the UK  (New Scientist,  2 November 2011)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [4] Ibid 3 [5] Steve Last,  The pros and cons of fracking in the UK and why you need to know about them  (Lowimpactorg,  14 October 2016)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [6] DrGareth Evans,  Fracking: Truly Sustainable?  (Sustainablebuildcouk,  16 Dec 2016)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [7] Allen John,  Fracking: believe the hype for a sustainable UK energy market  (The Guardian,  22 January 2014 )  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [8] Ibid 6 [9] Hsegovuk,  The regulation of onshore unconventional oil and gas exploration (shale gas)  (Hsegovuk,  0)  accessed 10 May 2017 [10] Govuk,  Guidance on Fracking: Developing shale gas in the UK  (Wwwgovuk,  13 January 2017)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [11] Govuk,  Guidance on Fracking: Developing shale gas in the UK  (Wwwgovuk,  13 January 2017)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [12] Society, T. (2012).  Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing. [13] Briefing Paper Number 6073 on Shale Gas and Fracking – House of Commons Library [14] Wwwepaie,  Environmental Impact Assessment   (Wwwepaie,  0)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [15] Directive 2011/92/EU [16] Department of Energy and Climate Change – Fracking UK Shale: Regulation and Monitoring – February 2014 [17] Govuk,  Guidance on Fracking: Developing shale gas in the UK  (Wwwgovuk,  13 January 2017)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 [18] Water Resources Act 1991 [19] Ibid 7 [20] Mining Industry Act 1926 [21] Borehile and Operations Regulations 1995 [22] The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Constructions, etc.) Regulations 1996 [23] Hsegovuk,  The regulation of onshore unconventional oil and gas exploration (shale gas)  (Hsegovuk,  0)  accessed 10 May 2017 [24] Contribution from Professor Simon Pollard, Head of Department, Environmental Science and Technology, Cranfield University [25] Society, T. (2012).  Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing. [26] E Gosden, ‘Fracking regulations inadequate’ The Telegraph (7 July 2016) accessed 10 May 2017 [27] ibid 20 [28] Simon Sneddon,  Environmental Law  (2ND edn,  Pearson  2015)  54-61 [i] Bibliography Websites http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401 http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/environmentalImpacts.html https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/ http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/unconventional-gas.htm https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/developing-shale-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk#regulation http://www.epa.ie/monitoringassessment/assessment/eia/ http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/unconventional-gas.htm Steve Last,  The pros and cons of fracking in the UK and why you need to know about them  (Lowimpactorg,  14 October 2016)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 DrGareth Evans,  Fracking: Truly Sustainable?  (Sustainablebuildcouk,  16 Dec 2016)  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 Allen John,  Fracking: believe the hype for a sustainable UK energy market  (The Guardian,  22 January 2014 )  Ã‚  accessed 10 May 2017 Directives Directive 2011/92/EU Reports Society, T. (2012).  Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing. Contribution from Professor Simon Pollard, Head of Department, Environmental Science and Technology, Cranfield University E Gosden, ‘Fracking regulations inadequate’ The Telegraph (7 July 2016) accessed 10 May 2017 Department of Energy and Climate Change – Fracking UK Shale: Regulation and Monitoring – February 2014 Briefing Paper Number 6073 on Shale Gas and Fracking – House of Commons Library Acts Water Resources Act 1991 Mining Industry Act 1926 Borehile and Operations Regulations 1995 The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Constructions, etc.) Regulations 1996 Books Simon Sneddon,  Environmental Law  (2ND edn,  Pearson  2015)  54-61 Misc. PowerPoints and Notes from Lectures.

Educational Philosophy Statement :: Education Teaching Progressivism Essays

Educational Philosophy Statement Education is everywhere. This is why teachers need to be the best they can be. Since all children and adolescents are required to attend school, they need teachers that care about them and their education. In order for a teacher to be able to do this, he/she needs to understand the nature of students and knowledge. These two things go together. A teacher also needs to know what the purpose of an education is because without knowing, a teacher does not really have a purpose. In my philosophy, I will discuss why I think my curricular area is important and how I will professionally develop myself to become the best teacher I can be. To begin, we need to understand the nature of students. The nature of students varies between individuals. The majority of students are well-behaved and come to school ready to learn. Part of this is due to the way they have been raised, but most students are basically good. There is a small percent of students whose nature, it seems, is to make everyone miserable. I do not know if this is because of a difficult childhood at home or because the student just likes to be the center of attention. Either way, there are always students that will give their teachers a hard time. I guess this is their nature. Every individual is different, therefore, the nature of the students I will teach some day will be different depending on their background and other various things that may happen to them as they grow up. For example, a student that has lost a sibling due to an illness or accident, may become very bitter throughout life. The nature of this student’s be havior which is being shaped by this may make this student a cold-hearted and mean student. These are the students that teachers need to spend extra time with and try to make them feel loved, no matter how hard this may be. I, as a future teacher, need to look at students and try to help them out no matter how difficult that may be.

J.S. Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 2, 2nd Movement Essay

The second movement of J. S. Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F major, BWV 1047 consists of sixty-five measures that take approximately four minutes to perform and is scored for solo flute (recorder), solo oboe, solo violin, cello, and harpsichord. The three high-pitched solo instruments generally use the middle and upper part of their registers. For example, the lowest pitch for the violin is the D just above middle C. This stratification, combined with certain melodic and rhythmic features, clearly differentiates the melodic and accompanimental voices. Melody The three solo instruments are the primary vehicles for the melodic material in this movement. The melodic line is very short (only two measures long) and is clearly stated for the first time by the violin in mm. 1-3. This melody contains several distinguishing features. It begins with an ascending step and then proceeds to descend by step. This descent is slightly interrupted by an ornament on beat 3 of m. 2. For instance, on beat 3 of m. 2, the primary note is G. This G forms part of the descent from Bb (beat 1), A (the second half of beat 2), continuing to F (beat 1 of m. 3), E (beat 2), and D (the second half of beat 2). The G is ornamented by the Bb and A that also form part of beat 3 of m. 2. The principle melody also features a trill on beat 1 of m. 3 and an accented passing tone on beat 2 of m. 3. Rhythmic characteristics of this melody include beginning with a quarter note anacrusis followed by a dotted quarter. The agogic accent on the highest note of the melody gives a stress to the first beat of each even-numbered bar. Though the rhythmic values of the continuation of the melody vary throughout the movement, the durations of the first two notes are constant. After its first appearance, this melody is then imitated by the oboe (m. 3) and the flute (m. 5), at the original pitch. Once all the voices have stated this melody, the melody continues to be used imitatively throughout the movement, with the exception of two passages, mm. 34-37 and mm. 46-57. In these two passages, the melodic material consists largely of step-wise motion that creates suspensions on beat 1 of every bar. This material is derived from the accompanimental material of the opening melody. When the violin has finished stating the primary melody and the oboe enters with this melody at the end of m. 3, the violin continues with material that is largely step-wise in motion and creates suspensions on beat 1 of every bar. The suspensions come in a variety of forms: 6-5 (m. 4), 2-1 (m. 6), and 7-8 (m. 7). While the solo instruments are charged with the melodic material, the cello and harpsichord play an accompanimental role. These voices play almost consistent eighth notes. The eighth-note motion is disrupted only five times throughout the movement. In mm. 14, 22, 32, and 42 the quarter notes on beat two and three slow down the surface rhythm and give a sense of expectation of closure. In fact, all of these measures feature dominant, or dominant-seventh, sonorities and are followed by a tonic harmony in the next bar. The eighth-note motion is also absent from the accompanimental voices in the last four measures of the piece. Harmony With the melody and the prevailing rhythmic motion of the movement being largely constant, it is left to the harmony to provide contrast. This movement is in d minor, but many other keys are touched upon. A minor is the first contrasting key to appear. The dominant of a minor is introduced quite early in the piece in m. 8, but a strong arrival on A is delayed until m. 15. In the intervening measures, Bach introduces a harmonic idea that will be used later in the piece. The harmony of m. 10 consists of the V7 chord of C major; however, this dominant resolves deceptively to a minor in m. 11. C major appears as a key area in. mm. 17-24. The modulation to C major is accomplished through the use of a pivot chord: the F major sonority on beat 1 of m. 17 functions as both the VI of a minor and the IV of C major. The cadence in C major in m. 23 is one of the strongest cadences in the entire movement. All voices sound an unembellished C major triad on beat one. Furthermore, beat 2 of this measure is the only time in the movement (aside from the first measure) where all melodic voices are silent. G minor is briefly tonicized in m 25. This key area is approached through a combination of a deceptive resolution and a pivot chord. In m. 24, a G dominant seventh chord appears. It does not resolve to C as expected, but rather deceptively to a minor. This a minor sonority functions simultaneously as vi of a minor and ii of g minor. This g minor section is very brief, as the progression V7-vi(ii) is sequenced in the following measure to tonicize d minor. With this tonicization of d minor comes a return of the opening melody at its original pitch (oboe, m. 27). The d minor triad of m. 29 functions as a pivot chord in the modulation to Bb major. There is a strong cadence in Bb major in m. 33, and the piece remains in this key until m. 39. This is in fact the largest period of harmonic stability that the listener has encountered so far. It is striking therefore that this is precisely the section where the primary melodic idea disappears for the first time. Whereas in the first 33 measures of the piece, the melody remained constant and the harmonic varied, in mm. 33-39, the harmony is stable and the melody is contrasting. G minor, which had previously been briefly tonicized, returns as a key area in m. 39. Bach hints at its return in m. 37 with the D major sonority (the dominant of G). In m. 39, the V7 sonority of Bb major is resolved deceptively to g minor, and this vi functions as a pivot chord (i of g minor). A strong cadence in g minor appears in m. 43. However, the movement does not remain in g minor for long, as this tonic triad is actually a pivot chord marking the return of d minor (i re-interpreted as iv). The remainder of the movement is in d minor, though a circle of fifths progression provides some contrasting harmonic motion. This circle of fifths progression is preceded by the two strong dominant-tonic motions in d minor of mm. 45-48. From here, Bach cycles through A major (m. 49), D major (m. 50), G major (m. 51), C major (m. 52), F major (m. 53), and Bb major (m. 54). The cycle is broken by the E diminished sonority of m. 55 (ii? of d minor) which functions as a pre-dominant, leading to the dominant of m. 56 and finally to the tonic in m. 57. Form and Phrase Structure While this movement does not follow a recognizable form such as ritornello or binary, it can be divided into smaller formal units when the harmonic motion is considered alongside features of the melody and the texture. As noted above, the accompanimental voices in mm. 14, 22, 32, and 42 contain quarter notes that contrast with the almost pervasive eighth note motion of these voices and thus stand out upon hearing. These measures also announce the arrival of significant key areas: a minor (m. 15), C major (m. 23), Bb major (m. 33), and g minor (m. 43). These measures mark significant structural moments in the movement. The sections delineated by these points of arrival can be further broken down into smaller formal units based on melodic and harmonic features. As noted above, the primary melody is two bars long, and each imitative entry follows directly once the previous voice has finished stating the melody. The entries of the voices are very easily heard as the texture throughout the piece is quite thin. These two bar units are combined into larger phrases. The section from mm. 1-15 can be divided into two phrases, mm. 1-7 and mm. 7-15, based on the cadence in d minor in m. 7. The first phrase consists of the presentation of the melody in each of the three solo voices. The second phrase, likewise, contains a presentation of the melody in all three voices, but this phrase is two bars longer than the first because of an additional entry in the flute (m. 13) and the modulation to a minor. The section from mm. 15-23 is one phrase. As with the first phrase of the movement, each solo instrument presents the melody at the same pitch level (this time starting on C). However, this phrase is two bars longer than the opening phrase because of the cadential material in mm. 22-23. The section from mm. 23-33 is divided into two units, mm. 23-27 and mm. 27-33. The first phrase contains the presentation of the melody in the violin, which is then sequenced up a fifth in the flute in m. 25. Measure 27, with the tonicization of d minor and the return of the opening melody at its original pitch, sounds like the beginning of a new phrase. Measures 33- 43 can likewise be divided into two phrases, mm. 33-37 and mm. 37-43. Measures 33-37 are distinguished by the absence of the original melody and the relative stability of Bb major as a key area. The primary melody returns in m. 37, and the phrase that begins in this measure contains a statement of the melody by all three solo instruments. The final section of the piece, mm. 43-65, can be heard as being divided into four sections: mm. 43-45, mm. 45-57, mm. 57-62, and mm. 62-65. The first of these sections is very brief and contains a single statement of the melody in the oboe. The second section, quite long, contains the circle of fifths progression with no statement of the primary melody. The third section contains a statement of the melody in the violin and the oboe. The flute begins its entrance, but the melody is truncated. In the final section, the eighth note motion of the continuo voices is gone, as is the primary melody. These measures consist entirely of cadential material. This material is noteworthy because of its chromaticism and its rhythmic treatment. At first, the cadence seems to be approached in a predictable manner. The tonic six-four chord of m. 62 is followed by a dominant seventh in root position at the end of this bar. Theoretically, a tonic triad could follow at the beginning of m. 63 to bring the movement to a close. However, Bach prolongs the dominant functioning harmony with a fully diminished seventh chord (in third inversion). This chord does not resolve as expected. One would expect the Bb in the bass to descend to an A, however it rises chromatically to a B natural. This B natural forms part of another fully diminished seventh chord (borrowed from the key of the dominant) and is in first inversion. This seventh chord finally leads to the dominant to prepare for the final appearance of the tonic (albeit with a piccardy third). The effect of this surprising harmonic motion is highlighted by the hemiola, as each of these sonorities gets a full two beats. One remarkable feature of all of the phrases in this movement is how they overlap with the preceding phrases. Several features combine to produce this characteristic. First, the accompanying voices begin on beat one of the first measure. The melodic entries, however, always begin on beat three. From the beginning then, there is a two-beat separation of the phrase structure of the melodic and accompanying voices. This separation is highlighted at cadences. In this movement, the resolution harmony always appears on beat 1 in the accompaniment. However, at this point, the melodic voices are still in the process of completing their descending line, which is only accomplished at the end of beat two. Furthermore, the point of arrival in the cadences serves not only as the end of one harmonic progression but also as the beginning of another progression. As all of the phrases are elided, this movement contains no significant moments of rest and stability. One never gets the sense that one idea has completely ended before something else begins. Conclusion In addition to the elision of phrases, other musical elements contribute to the sense that musical ideas never completely finish. For one, the wave-like quality produced by the entrance of the imitative voices is quite hypnotic and could, in theory, be continued indefinitely. Also, the harmonic motion is not goal-oriented. Bach does not set up the expectation for one significant contrasting key area to be explored in the movement. Rather, many different key areas are touched upon, but none (with the possible exception of the Bb area) are featured for a significant amount of time. Furthermore, the one key area which one expects to hear, namely F major (the relative major of d minor), is completely absent from this movement. Because this movement is not goal-oriented, the listener gets the sensation that it continues to open out. Indeed, it is not until the circle of fifths progression begins in m. 49 that the listener gets the sense that the end of the movement is approaching. The arrival at this turning point is quite unexpected and takes the listener by surprise. To speak colloquially, it is as if someone got in their car and started driving, with no destination in mind. Since there was no reason for the trip, the driver did not know when to turn around and come back home. Nevertheless, the driver finds himself on a familiar road near his house, and because he is almost there decides to just go home.

An Analysis of the Article, Two Cheers for Consumerism by...

The chosen article is Two Cheers for Consumerism by James Twitchell. In this article he talks about consumerism, commercialism, and materialism. He argues the stand point of consumers and the role they live by every day. In other hands the critics, Academy, gives the consumers and overview description to their consumers. Twitchell’s claim is the article is that materialism is highly judge by the consumer especially by the Academy. One of his questions is â€Å"The real interesting question may not be why we are so materialistic buy why are we unwilling to acknowledge and explore what seems the central characteristic of modern life?†(365 Twichell) It states his claim and the thesis of his argument in this brief question. He wants the reader to†¦show more content†¦Further in the reading Twitchell states personal opinion on commercialism. How it is wasteful and he would rather not have it. â€Å"It is heedless of the truly poor, who cannot gain access to the loo p of meaningful information that is carried through its ceaseless exchange.† (366 Twitchell) Twitchell shares that â€Å"Coke has bought the â€Å"pouring rights† in his school.† He is demonstrating that commercialism slowly takes rights from other marketers and society. Twitchell uses a combination of both debate and deliberation. He uses deliberation is his article states that â€Å"I realize that while you don’t have to like it, it doesn’t hurt to understand it and or part in it.† Here he is consideration every once stand views not only his. He is debating because he gives statement that come from secondary sources and not his own thoughts, while adding his opinion. Two example of this would be the following quotes: â€Å"Consumers with dollars in his pocket are not, by any stretch of the imagination, weak† (365 Twithell) and â€Å"To the contrary, they are the most merciless, meanest, toughest marketing disciplinarians I kn ow.† (365 Twitchell) By his choose of words one can say that his audience is well educated, perhaps with a political or philosophical background. People that would like to analyze the situation of commercialism and materialism. In conclusion