> Wastewater injection is a known issue. In certain areas, waste water injection can cause earthquakes. In other areas, waste water injection is fine. It's a ma

> Wastewater injection is a known issue. In certain areas, waste water injection can cause earthquakes. In other areas, waste water injection is fine. It's a matter of geological particulars, and a blanket ban doesn't make sense. Couldn't agree more. Oklahoma's problem was one exacerbated by negligence and cost cutting. Blanket ban would be inconsiderate to how these particulars can ideally be used. > The real issue at hand seems to be the expansion of oil wells into parts of the country that did not historically have that industry. Banning fracking may simply be the wrong approach. For example, as technology advances, non fracking methods may be discovered that would once again put oil wells in communities that don't want them. In addition, talking about fracked wells without comparing them against similar non fracked wells is sloppy science. Which parts of the country would you be referring to? North Dakota? Even Pennsylvania has regulatory enforcement issues (ex. orphaned wells). Nobody really tracks methane/non-spill emissions. That said, I agree that fracked wells are not unique but the sheer quantity of smaller unconventional ventures worries me. Companies can go bankrupt and the abandonment bonds required by states can be insufficient to properly abandon the wells.