土地耕作:对石油和天然气开采产生的废物进行管理的一个有争议的领域

Brian P. Bloomfield, B. Doolin
{"title":"土地耕作:对石油和天然气开采产生的废物进行管理的一个有争议的领域","authors":"Brian P. Bloomfield, B. Doolin","doi":"10.1177/0308518X17730582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, particularly through hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), has generated both support and opposition in many countries around the globe. Along with arguments about economic benefits, decarbonisation, transition fuels and groundwater contamination, etc., the rapid expansion of this industry presents a pressing problem as regards the disposal of the resultant waste – including drilling and cutting material, oil and gas residues, various chemicals used in the process, salts and produced water. One putative solution – ‘landfarming’ – is a disposal process that involves spreading oil and gas waste on to land and mixing it with topsoil to allow bioremediation of the hydrocarbons. This paper examines the case of landfarming in New Zealand where the practice has proved controversial due to its association with fracking, fears about the contamination of agricultural land and potential danger to milk supplies. Drawing upon Gieryn’s notion of cultural cartography and boundary work as well as the literature on the politics of scale it analyses the struggles for epistemic authority regarding the safety of landfarming. The paper concludes that scalar practices were central to the production of knowledge (and ignorance) in these credibility struggles, and that the prevailing cultural cartography of knowledge remained the arbiter and basis for policy. The case has wider implications in terms of the management of waste from unconventional hydrocarbons as well as other environmental issues in which the politics of scale figure in contested knowledge claims.","PeriodicalId":11906,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning A","volume":"25 1","pages":"2457 - 2476"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction\",\"authors\":\"Brian P. Bloomfield, B. Doolin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0308518X17730582\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, particularly through hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), has generated both support and opposition in many countries around the globe. Along with arguments about economic benefits, decarbonisation, transition fuels and groundwater contamination, etc., the rapid expansion of this industry presents a pressing problem as regards the disposal of the resultant waste – including drilling and cutting material, oil and gas residues, various chemicals used in the process, salts and produced water. One putative solution – ‘landfarming’ – is a disposal process that involves spreading oil and gas waste on to land and mixing it with topsoil to allow bioremediation of the hydrocarbons. This paper examines the case of landfarming in New Zealand where the practice has proved controversial due to its association with fracking, fears about the contamination of agricultural land and potential danger to milk supplies. Drawing upon Gieryn’s notion of cultural cartography and boundary work as well as the literature on the politics of scale it analyses the struggles for epistemic authority regarding the safety of landfarming. The paper concludes that scalar practices were central to the production of knowledge (and ignorance) in these credibility struggles, and that the prevailing cultural cartography of knowledge remained the arbiter and basis for policy. The case has wider implications in terms of the management of waste from unconventional hydrocarbons as well as other environmental issues in which the politics of scale figure in contested knowledge claims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning A\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"2457 - 2476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning A\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17730582\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17730582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在全球许多国家,非常规碳氢化合物的开采,尤其是通过水力压裂法(fracking)进行的开采,既有支持,也有反对。伴随着关于经济效益、脱碳、过渡燃料和地下水污染等问题的争论,该行业的迅速扩张带来了一个紧迫的问题,即处理由此产生的废物——包括钻井和切割材料、石油和天然气残留物、过程中使用的各种化学品、盐和产出水。一种假定的解决方案——“土地耕作”——是一种处理过程,包括将石油和天然气废弃物撒到土地上,并将其与表土混合,以允许碳氢化合物的生物修复。本文考察了新西兰土地耕作的情况,由于与水力压裂有关,对农业用地污染的担忧以及对牛奶供应的潜在危险,这种做法已被证明是有争议的。借鉴吉林关于文化制图和边界工作的概念,以及关于规模政治的文献,它分析了关于土地耕作安全的认知权威的斗争。本文的结论是,在这些可信度斗争中,标量实践是知识(和无知)生产的核心,而知识的主流文化地图仍然是政策的仲裁者和基础。在非常规碳氢化合物废料的管理方面,以及在有争议的知识主张中涉及规模政治的其他环境问题上,此案具有更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction
The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, particularly through hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), has generated both support and opposition in many countries around the globe. Along with arguments about economic benefits, decarbonisation, transition fuels and groundwater contamination, etc., the rapid expansion of this industry presents a pressing problem as regards the disposal of the resultant waste – including drilling and cutting material, oil and gas residues, various chemicals used in the process, salts and produced water. One putative solution – ‘landfarming’ – is a disposal process that involves spreading oil and gas waste on to land and mixing it with topsoil to allow bioremediation of the hydrocarbons. This paper examines the case of landfarming in New Zealand where the practice has proved controversial due to its association with fracking, fears about the contamination of agricultural land and potential danger to milk supplies. Drawing upon Gieryn’s notion of cultural cartography and boundary work as well as the literature on the politics of scale it analyses the struggles for epistemic authority regarding the safety of landfarming. The paper concludes that scalar practices were central to the production of knowledge (and ignorance) in these credibility struggles, and that the prevailing cultural cartography of knowledge remained the arbiter and basis for policy. The case has wider implications in terms of the management of waste from unconventional hydrocarbons as well as other environmental issues in which the politics of scale figure in contested knowledge claims.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Racial capitalism, uneven development, and the abstractive powers of race and money Chasing land, chasing crisis: Interrogating speculative urban development through developers’ pursuit of land commodification in Mumbai Public land, value capture, and the rise of speculative urban governance in post-crisis London Embedding the land market: Polanyi, urban planning and regulation State capacity and the ‘value’ of sustainable finance: Understanding the state-mediated rent and value production through the Seychelles Blue Bonds
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1