In the 2000s, Oklahoma averaged fewer than 50 earthquakes per year of magnitude 3.0 or greater.

Through June 15 of this year, the state has experienced 190 such earthquakes. Why? The wastewater disposal process for fracking wells, according to the July 4 issue of Science Magazine.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a relatively new technology that typically involves sending pressurized water, sand and other chemicals tens of thousands of feet underground to release oil and gas unobtainable by other means.

While fracking has catalyzed a boom in domestic oil and natural gas production, the process is not without significant environmental concerns.

Companies engaged in fracking have undergone sharp criticism for the toxic chemicals involved in the process, as well as for improper disposal of the contaminated wastewater. The same article in Science Magazine noted that many of the earthquakes can been linked to only four wastewater injection wells, which send 4 million barrels of wastewater underground each month.

While Robert Hatcher, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, said he supports fracking, he acknowledged a connection between the Oklahoma earthquakes and such activity.

Last summer, Hatcher was involved with a proposal for UT to lease its land in the Cumberland Forest for fracking research. The failed proposal would have provided revenue and discounted prices on natural gas for the university in exchange for a company to frack in the forest.

However, Hatcher maintains that fracking in Tennessee poses less environmental risk than in other states, as local geology limits the process to 3,000 to 4,000 feet underground.

Fracking in Oklahoma and other states experiencing these type of earthquakes see drilling at 10,000 to 15,000 feet underground.

The comparatively shallow depth in Tennessee allows the use of liquid nitrogen to break the rock apart, rather than other, more harmful chemicals.

Because Tennessee’s fracking method does not create wastewater in need of storage, there is no risk of earthquakes due to fracking. Therefore, the process poses less risk, said Hatcher.

Despite the decreased potential for water contamination, some environmentalists, such as David Hayes, senior in supply chain management minoring in sustainability, still oppose fracking on principle.

With green technology like solar power on the rise in the state, Hayes said there is no need to frack in Tennessee.

And while no water is used in the process, Hayes fears damage to aquifers and the release of methane – a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide – from potentially defective well casings.

“Any way you frack will be terrible for the environment,” Hayes said. “My biggest worry is that it’s going to keep going on and increase.”

However, both Hatcher and Hayes agreed that the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation is not doing enough to regulate fracking. Hatcher pointed out that the agency employs an insufficient number of regulators to inspect fracking wells in the state.

“It’s getting out there and seeing what’s going on,” Hatcher said, “and they just don’t have enough people to go out and do that.”