Introduction

In this activity, students participate in a structured community debate on a proposed hydraulic fracturing project near the fictional town of Brambleton. By taking on the roles of community members, students explore the economic, environmental, health, and social dimensions of energy decision-making. The debate emphasizes evidence-based reasoning, respectful discourse, and the challenge of balancing local benefits with long-term risks. 

Student Objectives

Students will be able to

• Analyze multiple perspectives on hydraulic fracturing, including economic, environmental, health, and social impacts.
• Use evidence to construct and defend arguments in a structured debate.
• Evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence presented by others.
• Explain trade-offs involved in local energy development decisions.
• Reflect on ethical questions such as who benefits, who bears risks, and how communities can manage uncertainty.

Materials

• Student Handout
• Science journals or sheets of writing paper
• Hydraulic Fracturing video
• Access to research materials
  (textbooks, credible websites, or assigned readings/videos) 

Procedure:

1. Introduce the Scenario
   • Present the following Brambleton scenario to the class: “A regional energy company proposes drilling and hydraulically fracturing 12 wells on public land 8 km (5 miles) from the town of Brambleton. The company promises jobs, increased local tax revenue, and local energy supply. Residents worry about water use, potential groundwater contamination, increased traffic, and long-term environmental effects. The county council will vote, and your debate will help inform them.”
2. Assign Roles
   • Divide students into four groups and provide them with the appropriate section of the Student Handout.
     • Pro-Hydraulic Fracturing Team: Argue that permitting hydraulic fracturing will benefit the community (economic, energy, jobs) while managing risks via regulation and best practices. 
     • Anti-Hydraulic Fracturing Team: Argue that risks (environmental, health, social) outweigh benefits and advocate for alternatives or stricter limits.
     • 3 or 5 Town Council Members: Needs to be an odd number to vote on approval.
     • Moderators/Technical Experts: Optional: Enforce rules, ask each team a follow-up question, evaluate evidence quality.
3. Research and Preparation
   • Students research their assigned perspective using provided or approved sources. 
   • Teams will use the Student Handout to prepare:
     • Opening statement (1-2 min)2-3 strong, evidence-based arguments (1-2 minutes per argument)
     • Rebuttals (2-3 minutes)
     • Closing Statement (1 minute)
   • Town Council Members will prepare questions and criteria for decision-making.
   • Moderators will prepare instructions, rules and debate structure. 
4. Conduct the Debate
   • Moderators enforce time limits and respectful discussion. 
   • After closing statements are made, Town Council Members discuss the arguments privately or publicly.
   • Each councillor explains their vote and reasoning. 
   • The final decision (approve, reject, or approve with conditions) is announced. 
5. Debrief and Reflection
   • Use class discussion or written reflection to address:
     • Which evidence was most convincing and why? 
     • What compromises or regulations could realistically address both sides’ concerns? 
     • Who benefits and who bears the risks of hydraulic fracturing in this scenario?
6. Extension/Assessment Options
   • Persuasive Essay: Students write from their assigned role or personal viewpoint.
   • Policy Challenge: Students draft a county ordinance proposing regulations or compromise solutions.

Assessment Rubric