To Frack–Or NOT to Frack

The question is almost Shakespearian: We would hate to give up fracking, since it’s making us energy independent. But if this process of injecting water into shale in order to extract natural gas is setting off earthquakes, we have to face this fact. For instance, fracking has been linked to a 5.7 earthquake in 2011 in Oklahoma.

In fracking, water, sand and chemicals are injected into the ground in order to extract trapped natural gas.

There have been other possible fracking-related quakes–all of which took place in the first weeks or months after the water was injected underground, but geologists think they can occur years afterwards (they’re just not as likely to be linked to fracking when they do).

In BBC News, Jason Palmer quotes geologist Geoffrey Abers as saying, "There’s something important about getting unexpectedly large earthquakes out of small systems that we have discovered here, The risk of humans inducing large earthquakes from even small injection activities is probably higher" than had been believed.

But more and more counties are embracing the technique, in order to free themselves from the vise of Middle Eastern oil. The latest of these is Russia, which may become a "Saudi (ex)Soviet" country. In the April 1st edition of the Financial Times, Guy Chazan writes: "Russia is gering up for an oil boom on the same scale as the US, as the techniques that sparked the shale revolution are applied to Siberia’s deposits."

Since Anne and Whitley come from quake-ridden California, William Henry decided to invite Graham Hancock (NOTE: Subscribers can still listen to this show)–who comes from the quake-free UK–to the Nashville Symposium in beautiful, quake-free, musical Nashville. If you want to join us, act quickly–seats are selling out fast! You’ll be well-fed too: Your ticket price includes breakfast Saturday and Sunday and lunch on Saturday.