Author: emmyue

by

Earthquakes in California tied to fracking

Page, S. (2016, February 05). New Study Ties Fracking Water Disposal To California

Earthquakes. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from https://thinkprogress.org/new-study-ties-fracking-water-disposal-to-california-earthquakes-8b2f8f81cd1#.q82sks6mw

 

A new study released on February 2, 2017, linked a set of earthquakes in Bakersfield from 2005 to fracking operations several kilometers away.  This is not the first time fracking has been connected to earthquakes; a number of studies have pointed to fracking as the cause of earthquakes in Oklahoma, where the situation has gotten so dangerous that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has asked companies to stop fracking in some areas.  Studies have proven that fracking can lead to earthquakes occurring years later and several miles away.  Given that more wastewater has been injected in California than in Oklahoma, there may be reason to believe there is serious risk of causing major seismic activity.

 

Earthquakes are not new to California given that it lies on the San Andreas fault.  Given California’s history with disastrous earthquakes and the numerous studies that link fracking to seismic activity, there is every reason to believe that fracking in California will lead to disaster.  When researchers are already concerned with the amount of seismic activity that is occurring, allowing fracking without strict regulation would be grossly irresponsible.

by

Monterey County blocks fracking

Cama, T. (2016, November 09). California county votes to ban fracking. Retrieved March 13,

2017, from http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/305198-california-county-

votes-to-ban-fracking

 

On November 8th, 2017, voters in Monterey County voted to pass a measure to ban hydraulic fracturing within the county.  This ballot passed despite millions of dollars spent in opposition by major oil companies like Chevron Corp.  Though the ballot is just one of several other fracking bans in California counties, Monterey County is a significant oil drilling area.  The oil industry sees the measure as a dangerous development in a systematic shutdown of fossil fuel use.

 

While fracking is a viable and relatively clean way for the US to get its energy, it must be done under the proper conditions to ensure safety; fracking in an area where oil spills could be disastrous and seismic activity could lead to natural disaster should be put to a stop.  In a location like Monterey, that thrives off its marine life, a ban on fracking is an obvious decision.  When the federal government cannot be counted on to protect areas where fracking could mean catastrophe, local government must follow suit of Monterey County.

by

California fights against offshore fracking

Cain, G. W. (2016, December 19). California sues to block offshore oil fracking. Retrieved

March 13, 2017, from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-738926-oil-

environmental.html

On December 19th, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed suit to ban hydraulic fracking off the coast of California.  Filed by the Harris office and the California Coastal Commission, the complaint challenges an assessment by the Federal Department of the Interior that failed to address many of the potential environmental risks that come with fracking.  Fracking is not new to California, but has been used on a limited basis in places like Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, and the Santa Barbara channel.  The complaint seeks to reimpose a ban placed on fracking on new leases off the coast of Southern California.  The suit comes as another attempt by Californian Democrats to strengthen environmental protection laws in preparation of Donald Trump’s presidency.

 

In comparison to petroleum and coal, fracking looks to be a cleaner solution to the US’ energy demands; however, given the health and geological risks that come with fracking, it would irresponsible not to pay attention to where fracking is happening.  It is hard not to call into question the safety of offshore fracking given the risk of a large scale oil spill or earthquake.  To allow offshore fracking in California without strict surveying of sites would be thoughtless, however an outright ban of fracking may be reactionary.

by

California’s need to tighten fracking restrictions

Board, M. N. (2017, January 06). Editorial: California must tighten fracking regulations.

Retrieved March 13, 2017, from http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/06/editorial-

california-must-tighten-fracking-regulations/

 

The EPA’s final report on fracking’s impact on water supplies reveals more danger than previously thought, but under the Trump administration, a tightening of restrictions on fracking is unlikely.  The report reassessed a previous statement refuting a systematic contamination of water supplies found by fracking, concluding that there is potential to pollute drinking water.  The report particularly warned against the use of groundwater for fracking in places where water supplies are low, much like California which has only just come out of severe drought.

 

Government must protect its citizens’ water sources.  Given how much of California’s economy is driven by agriculture, state government must protect its water at all costs.  Only just coming out of severe drought, California should be wary of the use of groundwater for fracking.  Since it is clear that the Trump administration will do nothing to protect California’s water sources, state legislation must work to place restrictions on fracking to ensure its citizens and industry will not be put at risk of losing their water.

by

Chevron and Aera Energy sue Monterey County over fracking ban

Buhl, L. (2017, March 08). Chevron, Aera Energy sue to block Monterey County, California’s

voter-approved ban on fracking. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from

http://www.nationofchange.org/2017/03/09/chevron-aera-energy-sue-block-monterey-

county-californias-voter-approved-ban-fracking/

 

In December, Aera Energy and Chevron, sued Monterey County to block the rolling out of the recently passed Measure Z.  Measure Z, passed in November, banned hydraulic fracturing as well as the opening of new oil and gas wells, making Monterey County the sixth in California to ban fracking.  The measure means a ban on fracking in San Ardo Fields, the 46th biggest oil fields in the country; as the two biggest companies drilling in the San Ardo Fields, Chevron and Aera undoubtedly have financial stakes in the measure.  In response to the lawsuits, the Monterey County Supreme Court issued a partial stay on Measure Z, allowing the opening of new wells despite the passing of the measure.  Proponents of Measure Z have claimed that it was necessary to ban fracking on a local level after Gov. Jerry Brown rejected a statewide ban on fracking.

Without any nationwide or statewide bans on fracking, Measure Z serves as Monterey County’s only form of protection against hydraulic fracturing.  Oil interests see the lawsuits as test cases for other bans involving oil extraction, making this case vital for opponents of fracking.  It seems clear that the EPA’s latest report on the dangers of fracking has had no effect on the Trump Administration’s plans so any bans on fracking must be done at a state or local level; if the Chevron and Aera’s lawsuits are able to stop the implementation of Measure Z, Monterey County will have to look to the state of California to ban fracking.

by

River on fire due to fracking?

Wahlquist, C. (2016, April 24). River on fire in Greens MP’s video is natural, not fracking, says CSIRO. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/24/river-on-fire-in-greens-mps-video-is-natural-not-fracking-says-csiro

An Australian Greens MP, Jeremy Buckingham, posted a video of himself lighting the surface of the Condamine River, starting a fire on the surface of the river.  Buckingham blamed the coal seam gas industry for the methane flow which was less than 1km away from an oil well and 5km away from a gas field.  However, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has stated that the methane seep was a result of coal beds being less than 100m from the surface, causing naturally occurring fissures in the rock.  The CSIRO has said that the coal beds don’t create natural connections and that the methane flow has no direct connection to the fracking in the area.

 

If fracking sites create gas flows in surrounding areas, it could mean major problems for climate change.  Introducing gas flows to ecosystems is dangerous and can damage the health of the environment.  However, according to the CSIRO, fracking was not the cause of the methane flow.  It would be wrong to ignore the possible link between the gas flow and the oil well, but at the moment, it seems like fracking is still a relatively safe procedure.

by

What ever happened with Europe’s fracking boom?

Osterath, B. (2016, July 20). What ever happened with Europe’s fracking boom? | Environment | DW.COM | 20.07.2015. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://www.dw.com/en/What-ever-happened-with-europes-fracking-boom/a-18589660

About 5 years ago, shale gas looked like it could become the major fossil fuel source for Europe.  Eastern European countries in particular looked at fracking as a way to make themselves energy-independent from Russia.  However the shale gas boom in Europe has died after countries have found it simply was not economically viable.  Test wells have not performed as expected and environmental protests have caused testing to become expensive and drawn out.  Poland and Romania have had foreign investors pull out from fracking sites and Sweden and Norway found that they could not take advantage of their shale gas resources.

 

A switch to shale gas could reduce to environmental footprint of European countries.  If fracking isn’t viable in most of Europe, it rules out shale gas as a possible major fossil fuel source.  While fracking is still allowed in certain parts of Europe, like the UK, it seems like most of the continent is reluctant to make the switch.  Ideally these countries should try to lower their environmental impact by using shale gas, but it simply may not be reasonable for these countries to start fracking.

by

The rise and fall of fracking in Europe.

Neslen, A. (2016, September 29). The rise and fall of fracking in Europe. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2016/sep/29/fracking-shale-gas-europe-opposition-ban

Three years ago, Europe looked poised to enter a shift towards the use of shale gas.  Fracking was a cheap process that resulted in reduced environmental impact.  However, in those three years, France, Germany, and Scotland have banned the practice of fracking.  The idea of a shale gas revolution seems to have disappeared, even though it seems like shale gas is the best option as a bridging fuel to a lower carbon future.  Europeans seem to be unclear as to whether shale gas would actually lower emissions and with oil at such low prices, it doesn’t seem like Europe will switch to shale gas anytime soon.

 

Shale gas has lower carbon emissions than other commonly used alternatives and seems like the best way to lower environmental impact.  Europe switching to shale gas could lower human’s’ impact on the environment a significant amount.  The same factors that cause Americans to call for the ban of fracking seems to hold Europeans back from practicing fracking.

by

Fracking Hysteria Spreads to Europe

Lynch, M. (2016, October 27). Fracking Hysteria Spreads To Europe: “Think Of The Whiskey!”Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2016/10/27/fracking-hysteria-spreads-to-europe-before-fracking-think-of-the-whiskey/#7964f6b71dec

Following Hillary Clinton’s calls for the regulation of hydraulic fracking, most Americans seem to have come to the conclusion that most “claims of catastrophe” are just meant to scare the public.  Unlike the US, Europe has far more opposition towards fracking and Lynch claims that the bans on fracking are a result of emotion driving the energy policy in Europe.  Lynch contests that fracking could easily operate with margins similar to those of the US, making it an inexpensive way for Europeans to get energy.  The author also points out that wells contaminated by fracking make up only a small portion of the total number of contaminated wells in the US.  Introduction of fracking in Europe would mean little for the whiskey distilleries that play a big part in Europe’s economy.

 

The introduction of fracking to Europe could prove to be an inexpensive way for countries to supply energy to its citizens.  Opponents of fracking claim that it can lead to contamination of waterways and health complications.  Though these claims have yet to be substantiated, widespread participation in fracking could mean problems with Europe’s water sources.  Of course, these claims about pollution and health issues could be the result of what Lynch calls “hysteria”.  The process is widespread in the US and is poised to become the major source of energy for the country.

by

In Canada, a Direct Link Between Fracking and Earthquakes

Fountain, H. (2016, November 17). In Canada, a Direct Link Between Fracking and

Earthquakes. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.co m/2016 /11/18/science/fracking -earthquakes-alberta-canada.html

Scientists at the University of Calgary have studied a number of earthquakes in Alberta that have occurred in the last 5 years.  They have come to the conclusion that these earthquakes were induced by fracking in two ways; fracking near a critically stressed fault creates enough pressure to start an earthquake, meanwhile left over fracking fluid creates constant pressure against fault lines that can cause more earthquakes over time.  The scientists noted that the situation of fracking in Alberta is geographically different than in the US, which explains why fracking induced earthquakes in the US are not common.

 

It seems hard to justify fracking when it can cause earthquakes in two different ways.  Continued fracking in areas that have fault lines with critical stress levels could cause major natural disasters.  However, it seems that fracking doesn’t necessarily mean earthquakes will follow; proper regulation and surveying prior to the opening of a fracking rig seems like the most viable option.