PrepTest 43, Section 4, Question 1
The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells' potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.
When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry's concern for the purity of the wells' oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil-contaminated water.
The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth's surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.
Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well's location was based on a poor understanding of the area's subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area's groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.
The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells' potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.
When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry's concern for the purity of the wells' oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil-contaminated water.
The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth's surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.
Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well's location was based on a poor understanding of the area's subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area's groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.
The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells' potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.
When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry's concern for the purity of the wells' oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil-contaminated water.
The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth's surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.
Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well's location was based on a poor understanding of the area's subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area's groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.
The accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding the environmental impact of oil well drilling in North America has tended to lag behind the actual drilling of oil wells. Most attempts to regulate the industry have relied on hindsight: the need for regulation becomes apparent only after undesirable events occur. The problems associated with oil wells' potential contamination of groundwater—fresh water within the earth that supplies wells and springs—provide a case in point.
When commercial drilling for oil began in North America in the mid-nineteenth century, regulations reflected the industry's concern for the purity of the wells' oil. In 1893, for example, regulations were enacted specifying well construction requirements to protect oil and gas reserves from contamination by fresh water. Thousands of wells were drilled in such a way as to protect the oil, but no thought was given to the possibility that the groundwater itself might need protection until many drinking-water wells near the oil well sites began to produce unpotable, oil-contaminated water.
The reason for this contamination was that groundwater is usually found in porous and permeable geologic formations near the earth's surface, whereas petroleum and unpotable saline water reservoirs are generally found in similar formations but at greater depths. Drilling a well creates a conduit connecting all the formations that it has penetrated. Consequently, without appropriate safeguards, wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations inevitably contaminate the groundwater. Initial attempts to prevent this contamination consisted of sealing off the groundwater formations with some form of protective barrier to prevent the oil flowing up the well from entering or mixing with the natural groundwater reservoir. This method, which is still in use today, initially involved using hollow trees to seal off the groundwater formations; now, however, large metal pipe casings, set in place with cement, are used.
Regulations currently govern the kinds of casing and cement that can be used in these practices; however, the hazards of insufficient knowledge persist. For example, the long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown. The protective barrier may fail due to corrosion of the casing by certain fluids flowing up the well, or because of dissolution of the cement by these fluids. The effects of groundwater bacteria, traffic vibrations, and changing groundwater chemistry are likewise unassessed. Further, there is no guarantee that wells drilled in compliance with existing regulations will not expose a need for research in additional areas: on the west coast of North America, a major disaster recently occurred because a well's location was based on a poor understanding of the area's subsurface geology. Because the well was drilled in a channel accessing the ocean, not only was the area's groundwater completely contaminated, but widespread coastal contamination also occurred, prompting international concern over oil exploration and initiating further attempts to refine regulations.
Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?
Although now recognized as undesirable, occasional groundwater contamination by oil and unpotable saline water is considered to be inevitable wherever drilling for oil occurs.
Widespread coastal contamination caused by oil well drilling in North America has prompted international concern over oil exploration.
Hindsight has been the only reliable means available to regulation writers responsible for devising adequate safeguard regulations to prevent environmental contamination associated with oil well drilling.
The risk of environmental contamination associated with oil well drilling continues to exist because safeguard regulations are often based on hindsight and less-than-sufficient scientific information.
Groundwater contamination associated with oil well drilling is due in part to regulations designed to protect the oil from contamination by groundwater and not the groundwater from contamination by oil.
Explanations
If you aren't already, you need to start predicting the main point as soon as you're done reading the passage. It will help you answer every question, not just this one.
Here's mine: Despite best efforts to regulate the industry based on hindsight, contamination from oil drilling will continue and new, unanticipated challenges may arise.
Let's go find it.
No way. This may be loosely supported by the passage, but it's simply not the point of the passage. The point was to convey that challenges will drilling will persist because we can't seem to regulate the process effectively.
No again. We aren't even told if the catastrophes quoted in the passage led to this kind of response. They may well have, but if we didn't read it, we can't pick it.
Nah. If anything, the author's generally criticizing hindsight as a bandaid-solution-maker. In other words, the author wouldn't say that hindsight is leading to adequate protections.
Solid. This is the answer. We continue to have problems because we're really only looking backward when thinking about industry challenges.
Nope. This is accurate to something we learned in the passage, but it's not even close to the reason why the author sat down to write this piece.
0 Comments