A report to be presented next week at a meeting of
seismologists in San Diego says that increases in the number of earthquakes in
Arkansas and Oklahoma in the last few years are “almost certainly” related to
oil and gas extraction methods, especially hydraulic “fracking” for natural gas
production in which water and chemicals are injected into wells under pressure
to rupture the rock and unleash gas. A series of hundreds of small quakes have
arguably been the result of not only the fracking itself but also the disposal
of water and chemical waste into deeper isolated wells. The United States has
largely benefited from the increased production and extraction of natural gas
by providing cheaper energy, domestically. Our economy depends on these cheaper
forms of energy, and so the production and extraction of natural gas will push
forward regardless of accidental causes of earthquakes that may disrupt natural
habitats and rock structures. The challenges arise as scientists and engineers
work to discover forms of extraction that will have minimal adverse impacts on
the environment.
I feel there is
potential for significant complications and controversy with this new
realization that fracking almost certainly causes earthquake activity. As the industry continues to expand faster and
faster into further unknown territory, when will the breaching point be
reached? Perhaps a largely significant quake or environmental disruption occurs
as a result of the industry’s practices, who decides that that is the last
straw? In these types of situations the question becomes one of where to locate
the line that draws between acceptable industrial practices and unacceptable
practices. This resonates with our discussion in class about fuel needs vs. environmental
protection needs. We expect so much out of the earth to fuel our economy, but
when does it go too far? I think the industry makes significant effort to
minimize its environmental impact through constant innovation for best practice,
however, I worry for the long run consequences of excessive and
disproportionate consumption of energy in the U.S.
This is another example where society needs to slow down and consider the potential negative effects of energy extraction processes, instead of focusing on the economic gains to be made in a short time frame. Earthquakes pose a serious risk to society, and with all of the efforts to increase preparation for earthquakes and improve infrastructure to handle earthquake loads without collapsing, it is peculiar that the United States would permit fracking to continue. It will be interesting to learn how the United States reacts to the new study and what, if any, measures will be taken to protect the public's safety. I think it would be best for society to halt fracking entirely until all the potential dangers are fully understood. It would be unfortunate if it took a massive disaster to serve as a wake-up call for the energy industry. Despite the lucrative appeal of cheaper energy, fracking poses too great a threat to society and the environment that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.
ReplyDelete