Arkansas Earthquakes Could Be Man-Made

oxide7 writes "The small earthquakes that struck north central Arkansas could be from a combination of natural and man-made activity. Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events."

Comments

Re:A plot

[HungryHobo]

Similar claims have been made about drilling for geothermal.

Oh Gasland

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think?

Re:Oh Gasland

[PouletFou]

Mod parent up, informative.

Re:Oh Gasland

[jackpot777]

...and as the rebuttal, you post a link from a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations specifically set up for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by a representative from Colorado to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids? A group funded by the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association? A website registered by the PR firm Dittus Communications (now known as FD Americas Public Affairs) which boasts on its website that "energy clients have formed the backbone of FD Americas Public Affairs’ clientele for more than a decade."? With clients such as Alabama Power, American Energy Alliance, Center for Clean Air Policy, Consumer Energy Alliance, FutureGen, Georgia Power, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Institute for Energy Research?

And the phone number they have, (202) 346-8825, is the same phone number as the number for the previously mentioned Institute for Energy Research, an organization whose President (Robert L. Bradley) was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron and a former speechwriter for their old CEO Kenneth Lay... you mean THAT website?

I wonder why you posted anonymously...

Re:Oh Gasland

[longfalcon]

how about addressing the substance of the rebuttal, instead of dismissing it via guilt-by-association?

Re:Oh Gasland

[cayenne8]

Who cares?

Since it appears we may have some problems in the middle east for some time to come, I think it is time we stop worry about trying to regulate things to hell, and start pumping our own oil pronto!!!

For one thing....let's lift the fucking ban on drilling in the Gulf.

Re:Oh Gasland

[yeshuawatso]

The US doesn't have enough oil to supply itself for our demand. Furthermore, we import most our oil from Canada.

Re:Oh Gasland

[sumdumass]

Because it's easier to attack the messenger and not the message.

Now don't bother us with details, he's guilty, just look at the way he's dressed.

Re:Oh Gasland

[ReedYoung]

Because anybody who believes that " the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association" form front groups in order to tell the whole truth, is incapable of critically examining competing claims, a brainwashed Kochsucker incapable of reasoning at all.

Re:Oh Gasland

[ReedYoung]

And so after we drill all of "our own oil" then what do you propose we do the next week?

That's OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, this is a small price to pay to help make us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels. Every bit of hydrocarbon we can extract from American soil is one less dollar going to fund terrorism in hostile countries, one less dollar that ultimately will be used to purchase guns and explosives that will be used against us. At some point, we need to stop sending these third world shitholes both our cash and food aid. Pay for the oil with food, save the cash for ourselves.

Re:That's OK.

[JonnyDomestik]

Right. I mean, it's only Arkansas...

Re:That's OK.

[Sonny Yatsen]

If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Magnitude 4 seismic events are of relatively little concern, in the scheme of things; but the water pollution that has resulted is more serious.

There is a more serious governance/philosophical issue at work, though. These sorts of energy extraction operations, whether they be hydrofracking gas, doing the assorted horrid things required to get tar sands and oil shales flowing, or mountaintop removal, all involve the extraction company imposing (often quite significant, sometimes fatal) externalities on the people in a broad swath around them. Generally, these externalities are not compensated. That's how pollution goes.

When a price needs to be paid, two things matter: "How big is it?" and "How will it be allocated?". At present, while the jury may still be out on the size of the bill, the method of allocation appears, at first approximation, to be "Suck it, peasants, costs will be imposed as is most profitable for your betters!".

Such a cost allocation scheme really ought to have no friends anywhere on the political spectrum. The reasons for liberal opposition should be so obvious as to no need mention. For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.

We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...

Re:That's OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like what happened in Christchurch.

Re:That's OK.

[drinkypoo]

For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.

There are two problems. One is that people in the aggregate is easily led, this hardly bears further discussion in the context of this conversation. The other is that the real voters, the people with money, are the ones who are imposing the externalities. It's all gravy to them. So long as the ability to make decisions is concentrated in these individuals the decisions can only be selfish.

Re:That's OK.

[operagost]

the water pollution that has resulted is more serious.

We're not polluting the water; the water comes out of the ground as brine and is already "polluted". We're pumping it back in.

Re:That's OK.

[royallthefourth]

We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...

Think that over: it was the United States and her European tagalongs who created and supported many of those oil despots to begin with.

It's unreasonable to expect the current government to do anything very different than what it has been doing for decades.

Re:That's OK.

[Hangmn]

If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?

Dependency on countries and regimes openly declaring the US as an enemy..everytime you fuel your car ..you are funding terrorism. Thats the BIG PRICE

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Your analysis of why things turn out as they do is spot on.

I'm mostly just reacting to my frustration that "unlimited freedom to impose externalities on others" has been adopted as a so called "libertarian" position(conveniently, mostly by people who make money doing high-pollution things), when it is, in fact, about as "libertarian" as eliminating the regulations against burglary or assault.

Re:That's OK.

[SubtleGuest]

Bill O'Reilly, is that you?

Re:That's OK.

[wholestrawpenny]

And let's not forget the bigger picture. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available. Our local university and bus company perpetually brag about how out public transportation is driven by clean burning natural gas, yet, they fail to mention where it comes from. Pulling it from the ground is undoubtedly the most energy efficient way to obtain NG, rather than some processes for hydrocarbon conversion. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available. Until Mr. Fusion hits the big time, we'll have to make do with what we have.

Re:That's OK.

[Mr. Slippery]

People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements.

Well, it certainly is polite of the pollution and other damages to limit themselves to the property of people who have signed lease agreements. The physics of an earthquake affecting only land owned by folks receiving royalty payments much be very interesting.

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

My knowledge of our skill in crafting ghastly little banana republics is, in part, why I really don't want to see that first hand...

Re:That's OK.

[metallurge]

We're not polluting the water; the water comes out of the ground as brine and is already "polluted". We're pumping it back in.

In the sort of hydraulic fracturing which is being done in the Fayetteville Shale play in Arkansas, my understanding is that the water which is injected is fresh water, not salt water. If the injected water is made saline by chloride additives, it would be potassium chloride (KCl), rather than sodium chloride (NaCl).

But the grandparent's point involved migration of the frac fluids beyond the intended formation, into the fresh water table. Typically, there are several thousand feet of separation between the two, and typically there is an extra layer of cement/casing protecting the ground water, but unintended things can happen.

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Dear resident, your neighbors have kindly signed an extraction agreement with us. Your property values will be in the toilet in 6 months, and your well will no longer be drinkable. Plus, the gas under your property will flow under theirs once the pressure differential gets high enough... How about accepting our reasonable offer of compensation?"

Re:That's OK.

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, it is totally fair. If you refuse to sign the agreement, they pull some eminent domain garbage on you and then take your land legally.

Re:That's OK.

[metallurge]

People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements. Unlike some foreign nations where the natural resources belong to the government, ours still belong to the people (for now, at least). Nobody is forced to sign a gas/mineral lease.

That could be, and frequently is, inaccurate. For one thing, the people who own the mineral rights to a piece of property (and derive the benefits of extraction) can be entirely different people from the people who own the surface land. it could well be the case that owners of the surface are going to be reimbursed for actual damages caused by mineral development, but otherwise not be compensated for the development. Somewhat unintuitively, the owners of the mineral rights have the superior right under law. In other words, they get to do what they want/need to on the surface to develop the subsurface minerals, subject to ordinary government regulation.

I am not a lawyer.

Re:That's OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

According the the Department of State, the Following are the list of State Sponsored Terrorism Countries: (CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN, SYRIA). According to the US Energy Information Administration, the Following are the list of Top Countries the United States Imports Oil From In Order from Top Provider and the Rough % of US Import they account for: (CANADA ~22%, MEXICO ~12%, SAUDI ARABIA ~10%, NIGERIA ~10%, VENEZUELA ~8%, IRAQ ~3%, ANGOLA ~3%, BRAZIL ~3%, ALGERIA ~3%, COLOMBIA ~2%, ECUADOR ~2%, RUSSIA ~1.5%, KUWAIT ~1%, UNITED KINGDOM ~1%, ARGENTINA ~1%). This accounts for over 80% of our Oil Import and I don't see CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN or SYRIA on there. Ok, I'll Give you VENEZUELA, the government there hates the U.S. but they aren't on the State Sponsored Terrorism List "yet".

Re:That's OK.

[pixelpusher220]

. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.

Then why are conservatives so against renewable sources and anything that helps to promote them (including cap and trade)? You don't get Mr. Fusion without trying and FUNDING something *new*.

Most of the argument against conservatives is that they see oil/coal/natural gas/nuclear as the *only* options available. You won't ever get the new technology if you don't spend money *now* to invest. Couple that with the fact that, at least for oil, we simply don't have anywhere near enough to even make a dent in our current needs.

Now take into account that even if we have lots of natural gas, Cheney and company completely exempted those companies from having to disclose what it is they are actually pumping into the ground to push out the gas. We literally have no idea what they are pumping into the ground to break up the rock formations that are near peoples wells. Funny how cracked rock tends to allow stuff to seep through. The videos of flaming faucets are hard to assume as just a freak coincidence.

Conservatives have a long long history of supporting the big established companies and taking those companies word for it when they say its 'safe'. Are Democrats somewhat accountable on these issues? Sure, but one party has clearly been the leader in terms of saying the energy companies know best so just let them do what they want.

Re:That's OK.

[Rob the Bold]

. . . At some point, we need to stop sending these third world shitholes both our cash and food aid. Pay for the oil with food, save the cash for ourselves.

I'm not certain the Saudis, for example, would find that such an attractive proposition. Or the Canadians, or British, or Kuwaitis.

Re:That's OK.

[darthdavid]

Saudi Arabia. I don't care what lists it is or isn't on, it's where Bin Laden's from, it's where most of the 9/11 hijackers are from, it's a theocratic monarchy that keeps it's citizens in line with a combination of the threat of violence and a welfare state built on everything that's left over of the oil money after they've taken their share. They have numerous ties to terrorism, numerous human rights abuses and are not someone we should be supporting.

Re:That's OK.

[locallyunscene]

This is not a jibe, but honest curiosity.

What notable libertarians have espoused the philosophy you describe? That statement seems more aligned with an Adam Smith/neo-Keynesian approach of "liberalism" rather than the Laissez-faire/neo-Classical arguments that Libertarianism and modern "conservatism" makes.

Re:That's OK.

[Gilmoure]

And there's that country that supplies them with military equipment and assistance.

Re:That's OK.

[Sigmon]

No offense, pixelpusher220, but I don't know how to say this other than: You, and others like you, are ignorant. With you, things are always the fault of somebody else... the evil conservatives... or whomever happens to disagree with your politics. There are basic laws of economics involved with energy production. Laws. Like gravity... Congress could pass legislation all day long changing the law of gravitation, but you will note that it is a particularly stubborn physical law.

The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means. Economics! You can subsidize other means of production until the cows come home and it's not going to make any difference in the long run. Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.

Do you have some philosophical belief that people should use a particular 'kind' of energy? Fine! I'm happy for you! It's your job to convince them, not force them. Go into the freaking lab yourself! Invent something that makes more economic sense than pumping free, usable, natural, made-by-the-Earth, just-sitting-there-waiting-for-us-to-use-it stuff out of the ground and you will have my complete attention. Until then, leave me the hell alone! Don't think that because you have some philosophical belief that you have the right to forcibly take my money, and others, and use it to invent your invention... or force us to abide by your belief! Use your own damn money or convince investors to invest!... But let people do it of their own free will!

And, get off my lawn!

Re:That's OK.

[Lehk228]

a disappointing quarterly report

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

Uh, that "philosophy" is not something anyone espouses. It is something people DO, while saying something different. Libertarians reject government regulations, such as environmental regulations. Yet they claim to want government to protect their person and property, as that is the only fitting role for government, providing police and an army. Well, how do you protect people's health and property from negative externalities like pollution without environmental regulations? Do you see, libertarians CLAIM they want government to protect people from assault, but they don't. Pollution is assault. It harms health and property, yet libertarians do not want government to protect you from THAT kind of assault. They want to be free to assault you in any possible way, without interference. When libertarians claim government has a monopoly on violence, what they really means is, "I wish I could use violence to get my way."

Re:That's OK.

[Red Flayer]

I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.

Well then, you think wrong.

People who own rights to deposits of expensive, non-environmentally-friendly sources of high-density portable energy do not wish to find cheap, environmentally-friendly alternatives... until they've extracted their profit. Many of those people (and organizations) are conservative.

Until Mr. Fusion hits the big time, we'll have to make do with what we have.

Poppycock. We can choose to make do with some subset of what we have, under conditions we establish as most beneficial/least harmful. You don't have to drive a used Pinto just because you don't have a Lamborghini.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

I think "invest in renewable energy source" is the other idea. I don't think anyone, especially those reading Slashdot, want to live in the dark, or are in any way anti-progress. You see, poisoning others so that we may have light and heat is not "progress," it is just trading one misery for another. The net motion certainly isn't forward.

Re:That's OK.

[element-o.p.]

In other words, you'll just call anyone who disagrees with you names rather than posting an insightful/informative mod explaining what they got wrong? You may very well be right that they don't know what they are talking about and that they are just being sensationalist, but since you didn't deign to rebut anything they said, I'll never know for sure.

IMHO, you did not only lower yourself to their level but dropped even lower by being condescending without contributing anything useful to the discussion.

Re:That's OK.

[countertrolling]

So you're in denial that the effects of these wells extend beyond the property line. Sounds like industry PR or a simple troll to me.

Re:That's OK.

[locallyunscene]

You've misconstrued my intentions for asking my question. I don't blame you for it because I didn't provide much context, but I was hoping the "this is not a jibe" would be sufficient.

The Libertarian philosophy summarized is that the worst aggression and rights abuses stem from gov't actions and that as little power as possible should be given to the gov't to avoid worst case scenarios. The idea that markets can externalize costs that need to be regulated is not a new one, but it is absent from the rhetoric of the libertarian "heroes" I see currently quoted. To restate my question, are there any notable libertarians who want a fair market rather than an absolutely free one.

Re:That's OK.

[CorSci81]

Looking at the distribution of wealth and income inequality in the US I'd say we're already well on our way to being one. Wealth and power in the US is becoming increasingly concentrated at the top and the results are beginning to show.

Re:That's OK.

[element-o.p.]

Ummm....sort of.

There is a big difference between the laws of economics and the physical laws like gravity. Congress cannot affect physical laws. As you said, no matter what laws Congress passes, the law of gravity will never, ever change. However, Congress certainly can pass laws that impose additional costs on the free market, and that will most certainly affect economic decisions, albeit not always in the way they intended (for example, Prohibition).

Yes, economics is a major player in keeping petroleum the top energy source for the U.S. right now. Oil companies and motor companies have a huge investment in that infrastructure, so changing to solar/wind/Mr. Fusion overnight would be prohibitively expensive. However, if you think that business is not lobbying to keep their investments profitable, you are delusional. Even the agriculture business has (successfully) lobbied Congress to create a economic and political climate to produce energy from energy sources that would be inefficient in a truly free market, i.e., ethanol from corn -- which takes more petroleum to produce than it replaces(!).

Re:That's OK.

[CorSci81]

You do realize fossil fuels in the US are heavily subsidized? That is part of the difficulty in other sources being competitive. Of course we also heavily subsidize other braindead ideas like corn ethanol.

The point that is being made that you are ignoring is fossil fuels are inexpensive because of faulty accounting. If fossil fuel companies had to bear the full burden of the externalities they impose on the rest of us fossil fuels would not be cheap. Add to that the existing subsidies and it's no wonder nothing else can compete in the "free" market.

Re:That's OK.

[slick7]

If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?

What ever it is...it's not for you.
Fracking will be rubber-stamped by the bought dog EPA just as GMO sugar beets was rubber-stamped by the FDA. Where's the upside of that? Definitley not for the consumers. Monsanto now has XE (Blackwater) in their back pocket as public relations, just like Halliburton had them in Iraq.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

That depends on what you mean by "libertarian." You see, libertarians are just anarchists. In America, they are what is known as "individualist anarchists," as opposed to "social anarchists." In the rest of the world, "libertarian" is just a synonym for "anarchist," and so you can find European libertarians espousing everything from unbridled lassez faire capitalism to pure communism. In America, "libertarianism" is merely a front group for a collection of powerful, wealthy interests who do not want anything like real anarchism. Anarchism means "no hierarchy" rather than "no government," and the moneyed interests behind American libertarianism absolutely desire a hierarchy, with them on top. So, to make a long explanation short, if by "libertarian" you mean "American libertarian," then no, you will not find any American libertarians who want a fair market rather than one where they are free to dominate.

Re:That's OK.

[slick7]

Looking at the distribution of wealth and income inequality in the US I'd say we're already well on our way to being one. Wealth and power in the US is becoming increasingly concentrated at the top and the results are beginning to show.

Thus a populous backlash.
These are the same people that caused the present economic debacle. My question is why these people aren't getting their asses pounded in some maximum security prison?

Re:That's OK.

[pixelpusher220]

Sadly you didn't refute any of my assertions.

Established industries are always 'cheap' compared to emerging technologies because of scale. No one is disputing that. The problem is when that established industry is doing things that either cause harm right now, or will likely cause harm in the future. How you do account for that cost?

The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means.

One reason they are cheap is because of politics. (see Cheney's exempting of natural gas drilling from *any* environmental oversight) That makes it significantly cheaper than if they had to account for their methods. There are massive tax breaks for existing energy companies, 10s of billions of dollars to oil companies making 10s of billions in profit. That's not exactly a level playing field now is it?

Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.

Sort like the 'free' market 'won' during 2008 stock market collapse? Unfettered capitalism isn't pretty. It means child and slave labor; you're in favor of child labor? I didn't think so. So you agree that *some* restrictions on a free market are acceptable. Now we're just talking about what is the best way to restrict the market so that we balance risks and gains.

Use your own damn money or convince investors to invest!

Who funded the interstate system or the national power grid? It wasn't private industry, it was good old fashioned government investment. Nuclear doesn't happen without government loan guarantees either.

Don't think that because you have some philosophical belief that you have the right to forcibly take my money

But you can forcibly make me suffer the consequences of rampant environmental destruction?

But let people do it of their own free will!

It's called 'democracy', trust me you won't like the available alternatives.

Re:That's OK.

[slick7]

People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements. Unlike some foreign nations where the natural resources belong to the government, ours still belong to the people (for now, at least). Nobody is forced to sign a gas/mineral lease.

Go back to your "Two and a half men", leave the towing the party line to the corporate sycophants, it's truly unbecoming of you.

Re:That's OK.

[element-o.p.]

We can't put every business on the chopping block at the first cry of foul play. We should also be careful to differentiate between hype, hysteria, and the facts. And there is a difference between negligence and honest mistakes - these businesses stand to suffer a great deal for any of their mistakes. It just so happens that a lot rides on these types of businesses, unlike one that simply makes toys. Of course they will be ridiculed if something goes wrong, and we would be remissed if we didn't demand they do better. But, they do constantly improve. The gas companies know very well what the media and gov't will do to them if someone or something gets hurt, and I think you know that factors into their operations decisions.

For the most part, I agree with you. The bottom line is that, unless western society as a whole is willing to take a huge step back into the Dark Ages or we suddenly discover some miraculous new energy source, we will need oil for the foreseeable future. I also agree that a lot of media hype/hysteria about the big, bad oil companies is exactly that: sensationalist hype feeding hysteria to sell news stories. However, experience has shown that companies in general -- and oil companies are no exception -- are often willing to take unreasonable risks to cut costs, sometimes with disastrous consequences. If you don't believe that, then I have two words for you: Deepwater Horizon.

Sometimes industries are crucified in the media because they well and truly deserve it.

Re:That's OK.

[pixelpusher220]

We just know that when some truly great technology comes around, it is usually because of some inventor in his basement

And that basement will never be able to compete against entrenched established industry. If anything, they just buy out the inventor and put the 'invention' on a shelf. See the auto industry for legion examples like seat belts that were *forced* on them by the government. The market certainly wasn't clamoring for them.

as if they should be ashamed for trying to make a buck

the ones that *don't* sell out usually are trying to help the people. The ones that do it only for the money, you never hear much about because they are bought off.

The fist one to finds something that, to the end consumer costs 50% less to go a mile, will win

You mean like the first *private* industry that discovered nuclear energy production? oh yeah that was the federal government.

We know exactly what is in hydrofracking fluid. And, before any drilling company moved into our area, we were informed that it would be best if we had our water tested by a 3rd party (our choice). They do this not because they think something will happen, but because people's water supplies already have contaminants, and they don't want them coming with a pack of lawyers later on to blame them.

Do you see your straw man argument here? If we *knew* what was in the fluid we wouldn't be able to claim that something wasn't in the fluid is now contaminating my water. The legal argument is fair and probably a standard issue, but it also admits they know that fracking is capable of causing just such types of contamination. this seems to indicate fluid contents are *not* known. Haliburton fights disclosing it's fracking fluid contents

we've vilified nuclear energy as Chernobyl waiting to happen when it is in reality a very clean alternative to coal (save for waste disposal, which presents other issues but doesn't have to be a problem if stored properly - we will eventually find a way for conversion to something safer).

You are one of the rare few nuclear proponents that acknowledge the waste issue. Nuclear is as clean CO2 wise as coal is nuclear radiation wise. Each has outputs that have to be dealt with and that has a cost.

You claim that conservatives have only been *painted* in a bad light on environmental issues and renewable energy. Except you don't provide a single example showing what they are in favor of except 'letting the markets' and big business decide.

We can't put every business on the chopping block at the first cry of foul play. We should also be careful to differentiate between hype, hysteria, and the facts. And there is a difference between negligence and honest mistakes - these businesses stand to suffer a great deal for any of their mistakes. It just so happens that a lot rides on these types of businesses

That was exactly the PR spin BP used in the Gulf, while claiming that the flow rate was a measly few thousand barrels a day. Except they knew it was above 50 thousand barrels an hour. Or the faulty blowout preventor they *knew* had problems. Or replacing the drilling mud with water against the engineers advice. Or their 'cleanup' plan to protect the WALRUSES in the Gulf. How many 'honest' mistakes before we decide the industry isn't exactly working in our best interests? BP is a great example. HUNDREDS of violations compared with 10s of violations for the other major companies combined in just a few years.

Re:That's OK.

[ThatsMyNick]

And not to forget, if you are from that country, dont pay taxes. Remember when you pay taxes, you are funding terrorism.

Re:That's OK.

[davester666]

Only in the US, in a city people actually have heard of before.

Re:That's OK.

[hawguy]

>

Dependency on countries and regimes openly declaring the US as an enemy..everytime you fuel your car ..you are funding terrorism. Thats the BIG PRICE

Wouldn't it be better to just not get in your car than to support environmentally hazardous fuel extraction? Are people really supposed to feel better about themselves knowing that our fossil fuel dependency is "only" causing earthquakes in Arkansas, and "only" contaminating water in Pennsyvania and "only" leaving millions of barrels of oil at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico?

Granted, there's no way to eliminate all oil use in our lifetimes, but there's a *lot* that can be done to reduce transportation fuel use by moving to more fuel efficient cars.

You may say that you have no choice but to use your car, but you do have a choice, you could live in a city or large suburb with effective public transportation, and good bikability and walkability. You just chose to make a car an integral part of your lifestyle - many people in big cities live without any car.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

Ah, yes, the old "I've been personally hurt by liberals, but I won't say how," trick. How ingenious. Did you come up with that one yourself?

Re:That's OK.

[AK Marc]

It doesn't matter where the oil comes from. If they export oil to anyone, and we buy oil from anyone, then we might as well be buying oil from them. That's how market forces work with a fungible commodity. We are increasing the funds to *all* oil exporting countries when we buy from Canada or Mexico. The only reason we choose those two for the top two is because they are close so the transport costs are a little lower. But the effect is the same.

Re:That's OK.

[Agripa]

Only the government can use eminent domain for land reallocation. Now, who wants more state-sponsored enterprises! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Re:That's OK.

[AK Marc]

Are you asserting that libertarians don't espouse the philosophy that all rights come from land ownership? All I hear are statements of "I should be able to do whatever I want on my land" and such. Given the libertarian philosophy where people shouldn't be restricted without harm to others (the infamous fist/nose example), this leads to the logical conclusion that someone should be able to buy land, dump toxic material on that land, and no one could do anything until it was bad enough that people could prove in a court of law that the toxic waste left that property.

If you know of any notable libertarians who would ban pollution that didn't actually harm anyone, please let me know. From where I sit, they all live by the fist/nose example, and until your toxins leave your land, your nose hasn't hit someone's nose.

And I haven't seen any notable libertarians who believe in zero-emission policies. That is, if you take in oxygen from the air, process it, and then expel CO2 which then does actually make it to me and enter my nose, libertarians still believe that I shouldn't be able to sue to get your "polluting" to prevent carbon release. That's a direct violation of the nose/fist rule which is chosen in a manner to encourage ignoring externalities.

So if you think those statements are wrong, please enlighten me.

Re:That's OK.

[AK Marc]

Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.

Except there is not now, and never has been, a "free market" in the economic sense. As such, all your conclusions based on that assumption are false as well.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

How are you helping anyone? What are you doing to make the world a better place, and don't say "paying taxes" because you pay taxes for YOUR benefit. You are buying a place in a society you want to be a part of, it is a commercial transaction between you and the society, and if you don't like it, you are free to leave.

Who asked you to sacrifice, and what? What did people do to you in school, and why? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:That's OK.

[Sigmon]

Allow me to retort in reverse order of your points.

It's called a 'republic', trust me you wouldn't like the alternative democracy (what the majority says, goes) because if I wanted to I could probably convince a majority of the people that we need to shoot you in the head just because you are ugly, and it would be entertaining for the rest of us.

I don't see you suffering any negative consequences for me living my life the way I see fit... and when I look out the window the environment still appears to be there and it appears to be in generally good shape.

I'm not sure what Interstate highways have to do with energy production... and I PROMISE you... a nuclear power plant could indeed be built by private entities with no need for government backed loans... if the government didn't make it so it were impossible to do it otherwise.

I do NOT agree that some government restrictions on free trade are necessary. 'Child labor', as you call it is not inherently evil. What if a family is poor and they need extra money? Is it evil for a farmer's children to work in the field?

On the subject of corporate welfare (tax breaks to oil companies and such) I agree with you... Government has little or no business ensuring one industry succeeds over another. Blaming Cheney for that is sophistry... as your messiah, Obama, has had more power than Cheney ever had for a few years now.... and nothing much has changed.

How do I account for evil corporations that cause damage?... Simple. If I don't like what a company is doing or what it stands for or what it sells I don't buy what they sell. If I feel passionately enough about it I convince others to do the same. Eventually... the evil corporation will cease to exist. Problem solved.

Re:That's OK.

[AK Marc]

They aren't, they've just been categorized that way.

They are. They don't like new things. That's why they are conservative. For the US, it's because they don't own and control what doesn't exist yet, so they legislate it away. That's American Conservativism. I've not seen a group called "Conservatives for Solar Power" or such. Go ahead and find one supported by a conservative organization. I'll wait.

Re:That's OK.

[pixelpusher220]

It's called a 'republic', trust me you wouldn't like the alternative democracy (what the majority says, goes) because if I wanted to I could probably convince a majority of the people that we need to shoot you in the head just because you are ugly, and it would be entertaining for the rest of us.

Ah nice, threats of violence. always the hallmark of the high minded and righteous. Republic vs democracy, fine get word smarmy if you like. You know what I meant which is representative governance. The majority does rule, but within certain limits everybody agrees too.

I do NOT agree that some government restrictions on free trade are necessary. 'Child labor', as you call it is not inherently evil. What if a family is poor and they need extra money? Is it evil for a farmer's children to work in the field?

And here the discussion ends. If child labor is ok by you, I don't need to do anything else to shoot your creditability to hell.

Re:That's OK.

[sumdumass]

Nah.. Clinton lives in New york now so his wife wouldn't be a carpet bagger.

Re:That's OK.

[sumdumass]

I'm not making any claims of certainty, but isn't it possible that some state on the one list wouldn't be there if they were on the other list? Therefore, they may simply be keeping some states off the list for the reason being they are on the other list.

I mean it wouldn't make sense economically to label a supplier of something you need for your economy as a group that makes it impossible to get that need from them.

Re:That's OK.

[BCGlorfindel]

Saudi Arabia. I don't care what lists it is or isn't on, it's where Bin Laden's from, it's where most of the 9/11 hijackers are from, it's a theocratic monarchy that keeps it's citizens in line with a combination of the threat of violence and a welfare state built on everything that's left over of the oil money after they've taken their share. They have numerous ties to terrorism, numerous human rights abuses and are not someone we should be supporting.

More over, it's where most of the money to support extremists in the tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan is coming from too. I'm hopeful the Saudi royals will be going the way of Saddam and Mubarak soon enough. It's the dictators America does NOT support who look to have a longer run ahead of them in places like Syria and Iran.

As a dictator, the benefit of not taking American money is that you don't need to worry what the American public thinks of your repressive measures in the longer run of things. That fees up the kind of brutal measures necessary to maintain 'order'.

Re:That's OK.

[sumdumass]

You are under the incorrect assumption that people are motivated by their feelings.

The earth quake in Arkansas, not my problem. The contaminated water in Pennsylvania, not my problem, the millions of barrels of oil at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, again, not my problem. So why would I feel anything over them. I do have some concern that if could happen closer to me and become my problem. And if it does, I will look at how all these other places deal with it and decide which is the cheapest and most effective route to fix the problem.

If it's naturally cheaper to buy a different car, I'll go there. If it's cheaper just to clean it up later, I'll be happier with that. If the water can be filtered verses something else, and boom another option.

But what you don't understand if that I will live my life free and remain free enough to do as I want. I'm not going to be charged more to be free or told I can't be free because you have some vision of how everything would be better if we were forced to do things your way. I'm not going to be told I have to move to a city or take a job I don't like because you think cars are evil. I'm not going to put low flow shower heads in my bathrooms (the shower should be able to flow at the same rate as filling the tub up would) or water saver toilets in that take 5 flushed to empty the bowl instead of the one before. I'm not going out and spending tons of extra money on a new car because the EPA mandate some fuel efficiency or something when my old car works perfectly fine. In short, I just don't care about the same things that you do so don't be jealous because I can and will do things you want to do but somehow guilted yourself into thinking it's bad or something..

Re:That's OK.

[sumdumass]

lol.. More like he's saying So?

The first problem is, no one knows for sure of the quakes are caused by this process. Secondly, theoretically, smaller quakes over decades is probably more preferable then one large quake lasting 2 days. Third, these externalizations are already paid for in the form of lower costs to the consumer so it really doesn't matter unless it's killing people.

You see, you can regulate natural gas to the point it costs 10 times more then it does now and people will still have to buy it. You can put the entire industry out of business and people will suffer. More likely then not, they will go back to burning trees for heat and light which is probably worse then burning natural gas. Or you can make it relatively safe and pass some things on to the population at large who pay for it by enjoying cheaper utilities.

Re:That's OK.

[drinkypoo]

You are buying a place in a society you want to be a part of, it is a commercial transaction between you and the society, and if you don't like it, you are free to leave.

You're free to leave so long as you can afford to migrate to another country. You can't renounce your citizenship and continue to live here except as a documented resident alien, for which you're going to need sponsorship et cetera. And finally, it is in practice essentially illegal to be homeless and poor, although there are some extremely marginal modes of existence which may be legal so long as you do not have dependents.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

Just as with any commercial transaction, you must be able to pay for what you want, nobody is in the business of catering to you for free. However, you can simply withdraw from society altogether. There are plenty of people in America living close to the land and not paying any taxes. It may be essentially illegal, but it is not in practice, as no one will really come looking for you. Extremely marginal? Yes, of course. You get what you pay for.

What makes you think anyone should be able to demand of others, "You must let me live amongst you, but I won't follow your rules, and I won't help pay for things?"

Re:That's OK.

[drinkypoo]

What makes you think anyone should be able to demand of others, "You must let me live amongst you, but I won't follow your rules, and I won't help pay for things?"

It works for the rich. They do help pay for things but they get disproportionate value for their taxes and they pay taxes on less of their income.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

But it isn't okay. In fact, it's pretty damn far from okay.

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not sure that I understand your distinction between a "fair market" rather than a "absolutely free one". My understanding of libertarianism, as a theory, is that the state's (usually only) legitimate function is to protect its citizens and their property from violence. Arguably, a Libertarian state would want a "fair market", because it would want its people free to trade with on another, according to their percieved advantage, without force(or according to many theorists, fraud). Fewer, though not zero, are interested in the economist's abstraction of "free market" which implies additional assumptions. Beyond that, the state has no legitimate scope.

My complaint with today's American "Libertarians" is that they seem to have responded to the (quite questionable, in some cases) growth of the state by taking the "state bad, less state better" heuristic and taking it as an end in itself. (A further layer of sheer cynicism is added by the fact that it is much easier to get funded by hating on the EPA than on the DEA...) Because of how money drives political viability, Libertarians generally end up either being largely marginalized, or co-opted into a sort of regulatory booty call. Nobody wants to hear from them until some inconvenient regulation needs repealing, at which time they are allowed out.

My argument is that, a legal environment that does not protect citizens, and their property, from the ravages of involuntarily inflicted externalities is a government that is failing at its core libertarian responsibilities, no matter how many programs it is also undertaking that libertarians might like to cut.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, I find the theoretical literature of libertarianism a touch weak when it comes to handling externalities(especially if there is touchy stuff like statistical epidemiology and population toxicology complicating the matter). Simple "Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" tests are easy. So is "my right begins where your nose ends" type situations.

With externalities, though, you run into hairy situations where either you would have the state fail to protect its citizens and their property from being despoiled, or you, in protecting them, make it so that nobody can do anything that is detectable beyond the bounds of their property.(there is some empirical and experimental behavioral economics work that, unfortunately, suggests that you cannot contract your way out of this, even if transaction costs are zero. When N people have veto power over a project worth M, in absence of collusion, they almost always request well more than M/N each, and well more than M overall...)

I used to be a libertarian; but I eventually found that there were no terribly impressive answers with regards to externalities, and that most of real society consists of a bloody thicket of the things, positive and negative. That disenchanted me on theoretical grounds.

The fact that, over the past 5-10 years, as the southern-fried fundamentalists and overt police-statists have taken over the Republican party, it has been disheartening to see that the increase in "Libertarian" ranks has largely been plain old right wingers who don't love jesus enough to want to be "Republican"; but are basically not interested in freedom, except insofar as it means low taxes for them, and lax regulations for whatever business they are in.

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think that we should cut anon some slack. His experience(both that school is a march through hell, and that kindly, well-meaning authority figures are at best useless) sounds a lot like mine going through school with a dash of ye olde autism-spectrum disorder(yes. diagnosed by actual doctors. No, you don't want it).

The feel-gooders were totally feckless in the face of people as genuinely ruthless as bullies are. They "suck it up, pussy" set just didn't care. Only violence, strategically applied, made a difference. Ugly business.

Ultimately worse(making the admittedly risky assumption that Anon's experience is similar to mine), is that the help you want isn't easy to give, and it really really isn't easy to find.

I could be off base, in which case this is just Fuzzyfuzzyfungus' slightly inebriated TMA for the evening. However, Anon sounds strikingly like me in some of my darker moods. Unfortunately for him, if my experience is anything to go by, there does not exist an economic arrangement that will make you happier(barring, obviously, utter squalor or the freedom to never have to do anything again if you don't want to)... Rather, it is a difficult matter of the interpersonal.

Re:That's OK.

[Sigmon]

That was not a threat of violence, dork... merely illustrating the absurdity of true democracy.

On the child labor issue... Before you throw around your pompous attitude, you might consider broadening your horizons and expanding your mind a little bit. The world is a bit bigger than your (likely) urban/suburban city life experience. Your idea of child labor, I'm guessing, is a pretty narrowly defined concept - where tiny children are forced to work in sweat shops essentially as slaves to make the expensive shoes and what-not Americans buy.

I find the slave-like exploitation of children deplorable - as I'm sure you do. But I know of lots and can imagine many more scenarios in which something we both might call 'child labor' is simply a way for a family to survive where they live. Keep in mind, also, the historical perspective. Both my parents worked on their respective family farms growing up... does that make my grandparents evil child-slave drivers? Absolutely not!

There are also ALL KINDS of scenarios in which I think it would be VERY BAD and immoral for a parent to have a child laboring to help support his or her family... The difference between you and me is: I know I am not smart enough to decide for every situation if it's good or bad. You think you are. I think things like this should be left up to the child's parents. You think you are smarter than the child's parents and should make the decision for them in all situations.

What I said was 'child labor' - that is, a child working for a wage or other form of compensation, given the consent and/or guidance of his or her suitable and responsible parent(s) is not INHERENTLY evil or immoral. It may very well be, but it is not necessarily so... and I don't think we need laws to restrict it. Why?

If you found out, say, your favorite beverage was made by slave-like child labor, would you buy it anymore? No! Neither would I... and I think most other people in our nation today would do the same.... the beverage company goes out of business, problem solved.

Re:That's OK.

[locallyunscene]

I requested something very general and you've made it very specific. But since we're having this discussion I'll break it into three separate requests of varying difficulty:
1.) A notable libertarian that proclaims controlling widely accepted market externalities (your fist in my face) is necessary to functioning libertarian governance.(this should be easy I think)
2.) A notable libertarian that proclaims maximized competition is achieved through a regulated market rather than a laissez-faire market.(maybe oil and water, this one)
3.) A notable libertarian that proclaims global climate change has a non-trivial chance of breaking the fist/face rule for a large number of people according to scientific study, and therefore CO2 emissions should be curbed, or investment should be made into more carbon neutral technologies.(if libertarians actually follow the fist/face rule then this should be findable as well)

Personally, I think David Brin would fit the last one if he didn't have such a penchant for praising Democrat policies.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

Ah, perhaps I was too harsh.

Re:That's OK.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In terms of argument, I think Anon is suffering from some category errors, so calling him on those is legitimate (ie. Any state, even a libertarian one, basically treats you as a piggy bank with some rights under law and potentially some entitlements to certain services, public rights-of-way, etc. There are very legitimate arguments about how much of the piggy bank a state may legimately access, and what those rights and/or entitlements are, and why; but expecting empathy from a state is erronious.)

That said, though, Anon sounds like he has had a rough time of it, in a way that sounds very similar to some things that I've had experience with, so I'm inclined to be sympathetic. For some people(definitely me, possibly him) it is very easy to measure slights, exactions, and cruelties, and enough of those exist; but very hard to see and feel their positive inverses, even when they do exist. In such a situation(particularly with the school background, presumably public, which is a fertile ground for good-hearted but somewhat feckless liberals) I can see why he would be angry.

That said, if he is anything like me, I think that (in a rather unfortunate irony) libertarianism is simultaneously highly attractive, with its precise and elegant calculus of rule-based interactions between rational agents; but likely to be really unhelpful hedonically.

As he says, he was wronged beyond the pail, and nobody helped. That was in an environment that(on paper), likely had a fairly strict regulatory apparatus to prevent such outcomes. Useless. Law can shape, and must punish crimes against, a just social order; but I'd be shocked to see the day when it could address Anon's case in a satisfactory way. Ah, well, I think that I may just be rambling at this point, it's a little hard to know.

Re:That's OK.

[ReedYoung]

Yes, that's about it. It's just about being selfish, and imagining that others envy him.

In short, I just don't care about the same things that you do so don't be jealous ...

Nobody is jealous of you, dum-ass. Nobody. (not you, AC, the gp, sumdumass) We all know what personal defect motivates you to pretend that anybody is jealous of you, in order to feel better about yourself. Most people just pity you too much to say it. I don't have time for pity nor for the likes of you. Global warming is a proven fact and it has nothing to do with the size or performance of your, ahem, "vehicle" nor with the mode of transportation you choose to compensate for your many personal deficiencies. And I don't care that you don't care about the Earth or your own grandchildren if you have any. You're part of a community whether you like it or not and you will curtail your consumption and pollution.

Re:That's OK.

[spiralx]

The view is that the state's role is just to protect from force or fraud, not just force. Which boils down to contract law AFAICT.

Re:That's OK.

[countertrolling]

It's not just the quakes, they will subside when the work stops. The much bigger issue is the contamination. It spreads far and wide. And I don't care about the "industry". Somebody else will quickly fill the void left by those who shut down. Like you said, we still need the resource. The next guy that takes over production will be a bit more circumspect and respectful, or he too, will be put out.

Or you can make it relatively safe and pass some things on to the population at large who pay for it by enjoying cheaper utilities.

Authoritarian socialist doctrine. Easy to say from a thousand miles distance. "The needs of the many..." "The greater good.." Despicable rationalizations that are responsible for so much human suffering. You're assuming "zero sum"... That no longer applies in today's world. All of our resource problems, the pollution, the "shortages", all of it can be traced back to bad/corrupt management, bureaucratic turf wars, etc. (Perfect example? India. They bury themselves in paperwork which all ends up in the trash with a simple bribe, making half the country look like a land fill) Nature no longer presents a serious challenge. We can all live like kings without having to wreck the place.

Re:That's OK.

[sumdumass]

It's not just the quakes, they will subside when the work stops. The much bigger issue is the contamination. It spreads far and wide. And I don't care about the "industry". Somebody else will quickly fill the void left by those who shut down. Like you said, we still need the resource. The next guy that takes over production will be a bit more circumspect and respectful, or he too, will be put out.

Well, that's true until you create a situation where only the rich can afford something and the rich are now poor. Eventually, it will cost so much for anything needing those resources that no one will have it.

You might say, well they will have enough sense to not let it get that bad. But as the industries improve and get better, so does the mark in which we gauge them at. It's happened twice in the last 40 years that I can remember. It simply won't stop until it's not being used.

Authoritarian socialist doctrine. Easy to say from a thousand miles distance. "The needs of the many..." "The greater good.." Despicable rationalizations that are responsible for so much human suffering. You're assuming "zero sum"... That no longer applies in today's world. All of our resource problems, the pollution, the "shortages", all of it can be traced back to bad/corrupt management, bureaucratic turf wars, etc. (Perfect example? India. They bury themselves in paperwork which all ends up in the trash with a simple bribe, making half the country look like a land fill) Nature no longer presents a serious challenge. We can all live like kings without having to wreck the place.

I'm not sure why it went to Authoritarian socialist doctrine. Anyways.. I'm not assuming a zero sum gain, I'm acknowledging the reality that free people want things outside their reach and often settle for what's inside it. People that have things don't want to give them up typically without getting something in return. The reality is, when people can't afford something, they either steal it, asked for help getting it, or make do with what they got. A lot of times it ends up going to making do. And that means reverting back to whatever was the last best thing or inventing something new.

The corruption issue and major pollution and all can be addressed. But I do not think it will allow people to live like kings. Well, not without forcing others to do things they don't want to do.

Re:That's OK.

[spun]

Nah, my fault. I was rude. It's just, you know, leftists aren't Superman, we can't right every wrong, and not all teachers are leftists. Getting bullied sucks. But it does generally get better after high school, and those bullies are the ones who are going to have problems later on.

Re:That's OK.

[countertrolling]

But I do not think it will allow people to live like kings. Well, not without forcing others to do things they don't want to do.

That's precisely what zero sum is. You're saying that for someone to gain, it must be at another's expense. The only people that would conceivably suffer would be those who feel inferior unless they're dominating over someone. The tech is waiting for us to discover and use. The only thing missing is the will.

Re:A plot

[piripiri]

Yep, in Switzerland, for example. Links: article, analysis

Re:A plot

[drinkypoo]

Calpine is actually paying people who live near The Geysers because it was decided in court that they are responsible for increased seismic activity in the area; it increased markedly and proportionally when they started pumping semi-treated sewage into the ground. They left off a special drilling project here after they caused a massive earthquake doing the same thing elsewhere.

Wow...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The theory that fracturing the local geology by pumping in a lubricant under extremely high pressure might cause some sub-surface movement certainly sounds preposterous to me...

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

The theory that fracturing the local geology by pumping in a lubricant under extremely high pressure might cause some sub-surface movement certainly sounds preposterous to me...

But... but... but... the Earth is so BIIIIG and we are so SMAAAALL. How can we possibly have an effect on it!

It's a liberal conspiracy! They're just trying to get research grants! Alex Jones told me so!

Re:Wow...

[jbengt]

Typical low information content article.

TFS quotes "Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events." but leaves out the next sentence from TFA "But the area hasn't been studied enough, they say, to know for sure."

Then, TFA gets it wrong by claiming "The scale is logarithmic, meaning a magnitude 5 earthquake is 10 times as powerful as a magnitude 4" when in reality the amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake is 10 times larger than a magnitude 4, and the energy released is roughly proportional to the amplitude raised to the 3/2 power, so a magnitude 5 earthquake will cause more than 31 times the destruction than a magnitude 4 earthquake, 9depending a little on how long each lasts), The earthquakes observed were not out of line with past experience in the area and were too small to be of concern by themselves.

Pumping high pressure water into active fault lines might not be such a good idea, but you are unlikely to find gas or oil in a fault, since the cracks in the rocks give a path for the fluids to escape and rise.

It's an important enough concern to pay attention to and study, but maginitude 3 and 4 earthquakes should not cause panic, they happen tens of thousands of times per year all over the world and don't cause significant damage.

Re:Wow...

[pyrr]

In Colorado in the 1960s, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal used a ~12,000 ft. deep dry well to inject toxic waste related to chemical weapons the army was manufacturing. There was a bizarre spike in activity and magnitude starting not long after the well was put in service, which continued for about a decade after they stopped injecting the waste, and actually started pumping some back out. There were a few magnitude 5+ quakes, which caused structural damage in the Denver-Boulder metro area.

It could be mere coincidence that seismic activity spiked right about the time the well was put in service, but how likely is that, really? I know, correlation and causation and all, but it was serious enough that folks who lived around here back then still talk about the tremors, and there haven't been any events like that in recent decades. Some of those who remember tend to freak-out at any mention of starting injection recovery in the gas fields north of Denver.

Maybe any gas companies who want to do the hydraulic extraction should pay for any and all damage that appears to correlate to their activity? Arkansas would be a good choice for a study, they'd just have to hire a fleet of trucks to tow the mobile homes back to their pads when they done get shook off and roll down into the holler.

Re:Wow...

[trollertron3000]

So Alex Jones is now a conservative and on the side of corporations who want to drill using fracking?

Ohhhkay..

Re:Wow...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Amusingly, human activity - mainly water and oil pumping - causes several times more movement annually in the Los Angeles/Anaheim area than actual seismic activity most of the time.

Re:Wow...

[kenj0418]

Well, at least the sign at the Missouri-Arkansas border that said 'If this state's a rockin' don't come a knockin' " makes more sense now.

Re:Wow...

[SniperJoe]

A toxic waste earthquake? That sounds like something out of a bad Sci-Fi movie. I can see it now, "coming up next... Toxic Waste Quake vs. Acid Volcano!"

Re:Wow...

[weepinganus]

As I understand it, this sort of activity doesn't cause earthquakes per se. Rather it catalyzes the release of existing pent-up geological stress. Assuming that's the case, isn't this actually a good thing? The energy stored in the stressed tectonic plates is bound to be released eventually, and isn't a series of small earthquakes far less destructive than a single big quake?

Re:Wow...

[geekoid]

"t could be mere coincidence that seismic activity spiked right about the time the well was put in service, but how likely is that, really?"
over that time span, it's fairly likely.

"but it was serious enough that folks who lived around here back then still talk about the tremors, "
That just shows that the tremors were notable, not in indicator of the cause.

"Some of those who remember tend to freak-out at any mention of starting injection recovery in the gas fields north of Denver."

Yes, and some people think the the contrails left by gets is a secret experiment by the government to spread chemicals, so what?

And then closed with an Ad Hom attack.

Is it plausible the injections cause a release in pressure? yes. But there is no evidences in your post. Was it even near a fault line that could cause 5.0?

The good news is, it means pressure was released in small bursts.

Re:Wow...

[pyrr]

"t could be mere coincidence that seismic activity spiked right about the time the well was put in service, but how likely is that, really?"

over that time span, it's fairly likely.

Well, not really. That there were multiple magnitude 5+ quakes, primarily over a decade beginning with the Army mucking with a deep dry well, and very little seismic activity of that sort documented prior to or since that event, AND that the seismic activity was centered mostly around north Denver, I'm mostly of the mind that, while nothing can be conclusively proven based on our current understanding of those events, that there are far too many coincidences to simply dismiss as coincidence. OTOH, if the quakes didn't stick out from the baseline of seismic activity and were spread all around the region, there would be no reason to believe the events were related to the well.

I should've looked-up a citation, here's a good writeup: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php Synopsis: there are generally sporadic, low-magnitude quakes in this region. During the decade of the 60s, right after the well was drilled, there were thousands of measurable quakes, some of them being uncharacteristically high magnitude ones, and they seem to have been focused on an area within 40 miles of Rocky Mountain Arsenal, with much of the damage focused at the Arsenal itself.

That makes a really compelling case overall. In fact, when observing natural phenomena that we don't really understand throroughly, it honestly doesn't get more compelling than that. This is an even stronger case for causation than even I understood based on the talk that I've heard my entire life regarding the quakes.

Re:Wow...

[pyrr]

A profanity-laced comment that's such dramatic hyperbole that it might be considered idiotic, posted as an AC? Oh gee, how likely is THAT?!!!

"fracking"

[sydneywilbur]

"fracking" is a sign of desperation by gas companies... nat. gas follows a cliff, not a bell curve like peak-oil... of course it's safe.

Re:"fracking"

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny as it might be, americans really need to get informed about what fracking actually is and how harmful it is to the themselves and the environment. There's a few documentaries out there to raise awareness already, but they seem to gather very little attention.
If oil & gas companies went around destroying private water wells (lol, you can actually light the well water on fire) and poisoning the soil (the liquids used in the fracking process are EXTREMELY poisonous to nature and man) here in west/central euroland, I'd expect there to be huge uproar.

The whole point of the fracking process is to release more gas from the soil. This is achieved by pumping water and chemicals into the ground under high pressure to mess with the soil layers (which disturbs the gas distributed across several layers of soil & releases it). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this does to ground water, soil stability and so on...

Re:"fracking"

[jbengt]

On the contrary, there is a large over-abundance of natural gas in the USA and depressed prices. What I've heard from an executive of a natural gas exploration company is that they are going after deposits where gas and oil can both be extracted by fracking, since the gas alone is not valuable enough to make it worthwhile,

Re:"fracking"

[deapbluesea]

there's a few documentaries out there to raise awareness already, but they seem to gather very little attention.

Gasland is already under question for many of its "facts". Instead of documentaries we could look at studies by the EPA that say there is no impact. Of course, that study was questioned by a whistleblower, so maybe it isn't reliable either.

In short, I've read at least 50 comments in this thread stating with great certainty that ground water pollution is occurring from fracking, TFA says earthquakes are likely caused by fracking, yet there aren't any studies to support any claims for or against those statements. How 'bout we all wait for the EPA lifecycle study to do its thing and then we can have an informed discussion instead of a /. discussion?

Re:"fracking"

[element-o.p.]

The problem is that when everyone is trying to "prove" their side of a debate, and the truth be damned, it gets a little hard to separate the truth from the fluff.

Is Gasland accurate, or is it sensationalist hype to sell one side of the argument? Is the EPA really unbiased, or has lobbying put pressure on Congress to approve the fracking, and has Congress in turn put pressure on the EPA to minimize the potential danger? Who is funding the studies, and what pressure were the researchers under to prove one side of the argument?

I took a statistics course in the '90s in college, and my stats instructor had served as an "expert witness" in a number of court cases. As he explained it, he would be hired by one of the parties in a lawsuit, and they would invariably ask, "What do the statistics say about <some phenomenon>" and he would frankly reply, "What do you want them to say?" The point he was making is that by selecting your sample set appropriately, you can "prove" whatever point you want to prove.

Re:"fracking"

[element-o.p.]

You don't have to drink ground water that catches on fire, you know.

I am fortunate enough to live in an area where there is more than enough pristine drinking water nearby, and perhaps you are too. However, in many parts of the country, well water is the only source of water there is. If that well water is contaminated by oil development nearby, from where do you propose the residents get their drinking water? It doesn't just magically appear at the tap, you know...

Here's my take. Ground water contamination (and soil stability) is a minor, local problem. Our civilization becoming crippled because some envirofreaks want to halt progress, is a serious, global problem.

Yeah...unless it's your ground water and your soil stability that you are worried about, then it's a major local problem. My house, and the land it's on cost me something like five to six years of my annual salary. If some oil company starting pumping chemicals into the ground that caused my well water to be undrinkable, and the soil that my house is built upon to become unstable, it would financially ruin me. You might be okay with that happening to me, but I seriously doubt you'd be so flippant with it if it was your house and property that suddenly became worthless. That kind of short-sighted attitude is callous, unjust and, quite frankly, idiotic. While the EPA is far from perfect -- I sometimes roll my eyes at excessive regulation and government interference, and at others wonder if they are in the pockets of the businesses they are supposed to be watching -- there is no doubt in my mind that we are far better off for having at least some semblance of environmental restraint upon pure free market capitalism.

Re:"fracking"

[khallow]

I am fortunate enough to live in an area where there is more than enough pristine drinking water nearby, and perhaps you are too. However, in many parts of the country, well water is the only source of water there is. If that well water is contaminated by oil development nearby, from where do you propose the residents get their drinking water? It doesn't just magically appear at the tap, you know...

No one has a right to a particular life style. If these businesses really are messing up ground water (rather than merely being blamed for such) the people harmed by the action can sue for recourse. If that isn't the case, then the residents can always move or treat their water.

at others wonder if they are in the pockets of the businesses they are supposed to be watching

They have to be lenient to businesses else we would have a lot less businesses and a lot more unemployment. The regulations are garbage and unenforceable. Until that fundamental problem gets fixed, I'm not inclined to damage the US further.

there is no doubt in my mind that we are far better off for having at least some semblance of environmental restraint upon pure free market capitalism.

So... we have a "semblance of environmental restraint". Problem solved.

Re:"fracking"

[element-o.p.]

I am fortunate enough to live in an area where there is more than enough pristine drinking water nearby, and perhaps you are too. However, in many parts of the country, well water is the only source of water there is. If that well water is contaminated by oil development nearby, from where do you propose the residents get their drinking water? It doesn't just magically appear at the tap, you know...

No one has a right to a particular life style. If these businesses really are messing up ground water (rather than merely being blamed for such) the people harmed by the action can sue for recourse. If that isn't the case, then the residents can always move or treat their water.

"No business has the right to a particular income stream. If the business really isn't messing up the ground water (rather than merely claiming such), then they can sue for recourse. If that isn't the case, then the business can always move." Do you still feel the same way about the issue now, or are you just a hypocrite? Furthermore: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." If your business operation is poisoning my well water and thereby depriving me of my "unalienable Rights" then I daresay you are quite mistaken.

at others wonder if they are in the pockets of the businesses they are supposed to be watching

They have to be lenient to businesses else we would have a lot less businesses and a lot more unemployment. The regulations are garbage and unenforceable. Until that fundamental problem gets fixed, I'm not inclined to damage the US further.

Which is why I explicitly stated that sometimes the EPA seems to be way too extreme on one side, but at other times, way too extreme the other. I'm not a radical greenie who wants every square inch of the U.S. turned into a wildlife sanctuary. I happen to rather like driving my truck, riding my motorcycle and working with computers, all of which are products of mining and all of which depend (to varying extents) upon the petrochemical industry. However, I also think that businesses have to recognize that they don't exist in a vacuum. Their operations have an impact upon the surrounding communities, and if they want to continue to operate in those communities, they MUST exercise responsible development. You would think that common sense would dictate that 1) if you want to have consumers to buy your product, you'd better make sure you aren't killing them off while you produce the product in the first place, and 2) if you want to enjoy the wealth that your business has created, you'd better make sure you aren't killing yourself, either. Unfortunately, people often tend to be greedy and short-sighted, and as a result, there is a need for the EPA. Yes, many of the regs may be "garbage" and "unenforceable", but I'd rather have an imperfect EPA than unfettered oil barons trashing the planet one neighborhood at a time. And while I often disagree with many of the environmental groups -- they tend to be just as one-sided and biased as the corporations they target, IMHO -- I think they fill a necessary role, too. If all you ever hear is one side of the argument, how do you find the balanced, middle ground?

Re:"fracking"

[khallow]

"No business has the right to a particular income stream. If the business really isn't messing up the ground water (rather than merely claiming such), then they can sue for recourse.

There's no need for recourse in that case. The business just continues doing what it is doing. I quite agree with your claim that no business has a right to a particular income stream. But people forget that while a business doesn't have an explicit right to even exist, all of society benefits from the existence of the business.

Furthermore: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." If your business operation is poisoning my well water and thereby depriving me of my "unalienable Rights" then I daresay you are quite mistaken.

I already mentioned the legal recourse for such a situation.

However, I also think that businesses have to recognize that they don't exist in a vacuum.

Don't forget that the documentaries aren't presenting a fair picture either.

I'd rather have an imperfect EPA than unfettered oil barons trashing the planet one neighborhood at a time.

What makes you think that's even an issue here? My view is that we have a deeply flawed and lethal regulatory scheme that gets worse as people rediscover old problems and more ineffective regulation gets piled on existing ineffective regulation.

My view is that if the EPA rigorously applied existing law, most businesses would be gone. They have to look the other way in order for society to continue functioning. And once they start doing that, then all sorts of bad problems can slip by.

I see a minimal strictly enforced law being far more effective at the task of environmental regulation than a rat's nest of confusing and onerous rules that almost no one can really comply with. It's easier to comply with and easier to enforce.

To be blunt, I see things the current complaints about groundwater contamination from operations inspected by the EPA as a consequence of bad law. Sure, I grant pollution would probably be worse if there were no regulation at all. But I bet the deep problems were ignored by the inspectors because it'd cause too much trouble otherwise.

Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake

[G3ckoG33k]

Dams do this do, e.g. the Hoover Dam and the recent quake in China. Read more at "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake": http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/

Re:Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake

[MrNemesis]

For an even more impressive example, read about the Vajont Dam in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

An engineering marvel for its time, the dam was built based on shoddy geology - there was a faultline running up one side of the adjacent mountain. In a nutshell, filling up the dam forced water into the fault, which eventually caused half the mountain to fall into the dam. The dam was well built enough to not break - but the water spilled out over the top and killed about 2000 people.

However, the hand-wringing of the article is a bit unwarranted. It's well known that pumping stuff in and out of rock is bound to cause seismic instabilities. Magnitude 4-5 stuff (assuming they mean moment magnitude? They don't say) is generally considered small fry.

Re:Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake

[ColoradoAuthor]

As mentioned in the parent post, a very similar swarm of earthquakes was triggered at Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, when "they" tried disposing of chemical weapon waste by pumping it underground.

Well...

[Kupfernigk]

People have been saying that the Earth moved for them after a lubricant pumping episode for a long time now.

Sorry, it's a very boring day debugging someone else's application.

Re:Well...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hey, just be sure you don't end up with somebody else's bugs on your application after a lubricant pumping session....

I live 4 miles from the general epicenter...

[Stradenko]

The 4.7 and 4.3 were kind of freaky (4.7 especially, as evidenced by some ridiculous 911 calls from the neighboring city of Conway, ~13 miles south). Everything under 4 or so is just noise.

I just hope science proves it's these injection wells, so I have someone to sue when my house comes crashing down and I'm out the 10% deductible in my earthquake rider.

All that said, local opinion seems to be that tornadoes are scarier than earthquakes.

Re:I live 4 miles from the general epicenter...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The people who are making huge profits from these activities will be long gone by that time. All the private funds, private equity, Koch brothers would have pocketed all the profits and sold the "investments that have the proven track record of profitability" to pension funds, mutual funds and general stock market. But what people actually buy are "past performance is not a predictor of future performance" along with all the past liabilities. So the tax payers will ultimately bail out the unfortunate pension funds and stock investors

This is the best blend of Capitalism and Socialism America has created. Privatize all profits and nationalize all loss and all liabilities.

Re:I live 4 miles from the general epicenter...

[drpimp]

Here is So Cal. anything under 6 is typically just noise. Although the fact the quakes were shallow probably made them felt slightly stronger with you being that close. And I agree, I would much rather be shaken up, then blown around.

Re:I live 4 miles from the general epicenter...

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, and where my wife comes from anything under 8 is just noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Valdivia_earthquake

Re:I live 4 miles from the general epicenter...

[penguinchris]

I lived in So Cal for two years, while going to grad school - for geology. I'm from Western New York originally; we've only had two notable earthquakes in the area since I was born 24 years ago, both in the 3-4 range (first one I didn't feel as I was in a moving vehicle, second one was just recently while I was in California).

While at grad school, I - again - rather unluckily was out of the state both times there was a relatively large earthquake (including the recent big stuff in Mexico), but I did experience several smaller ones, ranging from ~2s that most people don't notice to ~4s.

Now, I know people from So Cal like to say things like "anything under 6 is typically just noise". However, almost everyone I regularly was in contact with (including almost a hundred students a semester that I taught classes to, almost all of whom were native to the area, professors and other students in the geology department, and other people I knew from the area that didn't even know I was studying geology) would keep talking about it for days whenever there was something bigger than a 3 or so (assuming it was close enough to feel it). Even just the small jolt you get from one of those is quite exciting, apparently even to those who were quite used to them.

Yes, no one's actually worried about these small earthquakes causing any harm, but when they happen they remind you that you never know when the next "big one" will happen. Those that knew I was studying geology would always ask me about that when a small earthquake happened - "will the small ones release pressure so the big ones are smaller?" etc.. The ones that weren't at all concerned were those who didn't realize that the next "big one" will almost certainly happen in the next 30 years or so, and could come at any time.

tl;dr: Southern California residents like to exaggerate how they feel about small earthquakes!

Quakes aren't new in AR...

[goofyspouse]

I didn't bother reading the article, so please tell me these people are well aware that Arkansas has been home to some of the largest seismic events in North America. It isn't a very active fault, but it has produced some whoppers over the centuries.

Re:Quakes aren't new in AR...

[GlennC]

...please tell me these people are well aware that Arkansas has been home to some of the largest seismic events in North America.

Ummm....okay....

Of course, it's common knowledge about the fault line running through Arkansas. I mean, hasn't EVERYONE heard the joke about the state falling off the continent?

There...feel better now?

Re:Quakes aren't new in AR...

[night_flyer]

just because you are ignorant of the subject doesn't mean it isn't true... look up the New Madrid Seismic zone and try to learn something...

Re:Quakes aren't new in AR...

[Sigmon]

Actually, the earthquakes we are currently discussing have NOTHING to do with the New Madrid seismic zone... It is an entirely different set of known faults in central Arkansas - over a hundred miles away from the general edge of the New Madrid zone.

These same faults have been active before... in the early 1980s and again around 2001. The magnitude 4.7 we had the other day was the largest we've had in the state since something like 1969... and the largest recorded quake this particular fault system has ever produced. I didn't even know the fault was there until the 2001 activity.

I live about 20 miles away from the epicenter of of the 4.7. It gave me quite a jolt the other night as I was browsing slashdot. Sounded like a gigantic bomb had exploded miles away then a fraction of a second later the shock-wave hit. It's a strange sensation to have the supposedly solid ground move underneath your feet.

I, myself, have a very difficult time believing the drilling activities have anything to do with these earthquakes.... as the faults were active LONG before any drilling activity took place here, therefore it will be difficult to prove a causation relationship.

Re:I knew we would tie this to "fracking" .....

[Sonny Yatsen]

It's natural gas. There aren't any "drops" of it, at least not straight out of the ground.

They tried this before ...

[jbeaupre]

Have Christopher Walken or Grace Jones been seen in the area? They are trying to create a monopoly on ... on ... ? What does Arkansas produce again?

Re:They tried this before ...

[starglider29a]

Politicians.

Re:They tried this before ...

[rubycodez]

family trees with loops instead of forks

Re:They tried this before ...

[OverlordQ]

What does Arkansas produce again?

Tyson
Walmart
JB Hunt.

Re:They tried this before ...

[DocSavage64109]

There you have it. They're trying to get a monopoly on chicken!

Re:They tried this before ...

[fireslack]

Off the top of my head, I would add:

Riceland
Alltel (which Verizon paid $28B to acquire)

Re:They tried this before ...

[OverlordQ]

Eh, all I could remember was what was in NWA, might as well throw in Dillards as well then.

Re:They tried this before ...

[BobNET]

Zorin Farms genetically engineered chicken?

Re:They tried this before ...

[grep -v '.*' *]

What does Arkansas produce again?

Besides earthquakes??

Wal-Mart was the largest company on the [Fortune 500] list in 2007 and 2008. [They] once again regained the top spot in 2010.

And of course there's the official tourism blurb.

Re:They tried this before ...

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe they should produce more cowbell. That would attract Mr. Zorin...

Re:They tried this before ...

[Red Flayer]

Tyson
Walmart
JB Hunt.

Tyson: legitimate answer. Arkansas produces chickens.
Walmart: Not a legitimate answer. Walmart does not produce anything of merit in Arkansas. Walmart is a company that makes profit based on global labor and material arbitrage.
JB Hunt: Since when is transport a product?

Re:They tried this before ...

[ColdWetDog]

family trees with loops instead of forks

I'm trying to work this out with the Clinton's as a test case, but the math is really beyond me.

} Got a car analogy?

Re:They tried this before ...

[Shadow Wrought]

} Got a car analogy?

G. M.

Re:They tried this before ...

[Howitzer86]

Fish bait, thoroughbreds, rocks, chicken, milk, and Walmarts.

Altell was based here, though that is now called Verizon they kept the office space. We also have Dillards, Tyson Foods, Colman Dairy, and Acxiom.

Arkansas's Gross State Product is roughly on par with the GDP of Tunisia and Sudan. [source]

From my ongoing personal experience, it's not a bad place to live, but don't expect to do anything big or amazing here.

I'm kinda surprised to see this earthquake situation come about here. I've heard that fracking could cause earthquakes, and I thought that was pretty interesting, but I never considered the possiblity of being affected by it personally. Two nights ago many people in my city reported that they felt the largest one, which was a 4.7 Magnitude quake centered in Greenbrier about 30 miles north. I didn't feel it, but a lot of people did. I would like to think the mining would stop if it became clear that they were causing it, but I fear the level of damage that would have to happen before they are convinced.

Re:test

[f1vlad]

Doubt it'll be way up but you can try :) testing some new functionality. Thanks for participating.

Re:The following sentence

[drinkypoo]

Another story to gin up a way to stop energy production. I really hate this "do as I say - not as I do" attitude of the people who want to stop *United States* energy production.

Yes, you mean, big energy. The incumbent powers fear new energy producers and they get the citizenry whipped into a froth whenever they are threatened. However, the idea that the pumping should continue (or even begin) before studies can be commenced is ridiculous. Also, the end result of any kind of ground pumping seems to be increased seismic activity, and it would be strange if that were not the case. Hey, and how about that underground CO2 storage, eh? That's working out GREAT, too.

Of course the quakes are man-made.

[Seumas]

Everyone knows that the government has developed several variations on Tesla's earthquake machines (HAARP, etc) and has been using them all over the world (Haiti, anyone?) to cause "natural" disasters. Sheesh!

Re:Of course the quakes are man-made.

[drinkypoo]

So if I'm going to poop on HAARP I need numbers. In a documentary (in quotes?) on the subject it is asserted that palpable physical vibrations are produced by typical remote sensing techniques at relatively low power levels, much lower than HAARP's actual avowed output. Part of the concept of HAARP is the ability to get more energy out of the ionosphere than is put in (by HAARP). Is there any particular physics-based reason HAARP can not produce seismic activity?

Re:Of course the quakes are man-made.

[rubycodez]

Yes, its power output is way too low, less than half a megawatt. There is a new system with 3.6 MW output being built, but even that is much less than shortwave transmitters for global voice/music broadcasts of other countries. To be blunt about it, a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorist utterly ignorant of basic physics make up all kinds of nonsense about HAARP, but the truth is that it is for ionosphere research, and works by exciting a small portion of it (other hf and HAM radio operator do this every day, no big deal)

Re:The following sentence

[moonbender]

In Cuba/China/Venezuala, I'd assume. They're not doing any hydraulic fracturing, though, as far as I know.

Re:I knew we would tie this to "fracking" .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your conservative robo-bias is clear. Government spending is "nonsense" and every dollar saved somehow helps the economy (especially when it gets sent to china to pay for a big screen TV)... Whereas any attempt to make energy safe to extract and consume is seen as "unaffordable". Crank up the radio, Rush is on!

Re:Canada and Europe are hostile?

[trollertron3000]

I think he meant the middle east. You know, the world's largest fossil fuel producers. It's a logical assumption.

Re:Countdown to Kookery

[radl33t]

"(and who are oblivious to the fact that solar and wind power are a fucking joke and a pipe-dream that will never replace even a significant fraction of our energy needs)"

I'll take that wager. What would you define as significant, 5%? 10%? 30%? Is nuclear power a joke or pipe dream? What size of industry will no longer be classified as a joke or a pipe dream 10 billion/yr? 100 billion/yr? If 40% of new US generation is wind, how long until it is no longer a fucking joke or pipe dream?

Let's do this. I want to take your money.

Re:Countdown to Kookery

[trollertron3000]

I was referring to people taht think HAARP is an earthquake weapon. Search Google for earthquake weapon Haiti and you'll see the true tragedy. People need a bogeyman I guess.

Not questioning fracking's relationship to earthquakes, I have no clue honestly. It seem logical that it would disturb the ground, but I'm not a geologist.

Re:Gah!

[rubycodez]

because it could never have been caused by something as stupid and absurd as using pumps and levees to allow building below sea level, next to the sea, for a century!

No

[Kupfernigk]

Every bit of hydrocarbon we can extract from American soil is one less dollar going to fund terrorism in hostile countries, one less dollar that ultimately will be used to purchase guns and explosives that will be used against us

but I think this guy did, which is why I responded to his post. I don't suffer from paranoia.

Its happened in OK...

[Rooked_One]

Mother earth is getting mighty pissed at us, me thinks...

Re:Its happened in OK...

[rubycodez]

how about instead of a fictitious "mother earth", accepting faults in MO and AK have been shaking OK for a very long time. Amazing how people with no knowledge whatsoever of even recent history react to every natural event as if it's some new thing and a result of punishment for man's actions. It's getting so that even a find of a few hundred dead birds over a few square miles makes headlines, when all throughout history thousands of birds at once have been killed in storms. Seasonal shellfish dyings do to asian monsoon season all of a sudden harped upon by "doomer" sites.

Re:Its happened in OK...

[element-o.p.]

how about instead of a fictitious "mother earth", accepting faults in MO and AK have been shaking OK for a very long time

Seriously? Faults in Alaska have been shaking Oklahoma?!?! Oh...you meant AR. Never mind.

Re:Its happened in OK...

[secretcurse]

How have fault lines in Alaska (AK) been shaking Oklahoma (OK)? I'd figure a quake from Alaska strong enough to shake Oklahoma would level most the western parts of the US and Canada...

Arkansas is abbreviated (AR)

no sh*t

[hesaigo999ca]

In other news, china detonated a nuclear bomb to test its arsenal in secret, but the surprise of their lives when a big tsunami went and crashed into sri lanka, killing hundreds of thousands....details at 11....

From the area

[aardwolf64]

As someone from the area, I think there's more going on than that. I was visiting my grandmother (who lives in West Memphis, AR) a couple of weeks ago, and I heard several loud explosions. They actually created shock waves that we could feel. When asked about it, she told me that the local authorities have said that there is some kind of classified stuff going on for the department of homeland security. They supposedly have a whole area that looks like an Iraqi town for training purposes.

As to the explosions, it's anyone's guess what it could be. Maybe they're testing ways to generate earthquakes, or maybe it's totally unrelated. If it's true, I wish they would stay away from the New Madrid Fault.

Re:From the area

[dragonhunter21]

Bombing range, maybe? I know my local bombing range (Smoky Hill ANG Range) has an urban training area for troops, and lord knows they drop enough ordinance from aircraft. Maybe they were practicing with live bombs?

Re:From the area

[CompMD]

Whoa. I've been to Smoky Hill. Its really creepy going through the "urban training area"; the containers arranged into buildings, the bombed out vehicles, the shot-up helicopter...its quite a sight. Don't even get me started on the weird feeling of being the guy in a polo shirt and cargo pants in the midst of fully equipped soldiers and soldiers dressed in Iraqi attire.

Re:From the area

[dragonhunter21]

I live over in Salina, so I make it a point to go down there every other year for the airshow. I've never seen the urban area, but you can see shot-up vehicles within 50 feet of the main road. Those guys certainly know how to build atmosphere.

Re:They tried Diamondsthis before ...

[colinrichardday]

Arkansas is the only US state with diamond mines.

Re:Countdown to Kookery

[pixelpusher220]

Seriously, there's more energy in solar and wind than all the energy in all the coal and oil that has ever existed.

The part that will blow your mind is that solar energy *created* all that coal and oil. The problem is not the use of fossil fuels but in the volume we use in a short duration. Dumping millions of years of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple hundred years is going to have effects and likely not good ones.

Conversely to your statement, if we want to sustain our current energy needs, we *have* to go to renewable sources. The part that environmentalists got wrong a few decades ago was that burning wood was bad. It does require quite a bit of land, but in terms of global warming gases it effectively has zero effect. Particulates might be an issue but filters can handle that piece.

Re:I knew we would tie this to "fracking" .....

[pixelpusher220]

No we don't disagree. The point being is that we're not increasing the cost simply to increase the cost. There are real and documented costs that will come to fruition if we *don't* get off of fossil fuels.

Those costs will dwarf any minor increase in energy prices today.

You can continue to pay subsidized (cheap) energy prices today and then in the future pay high prices because the fuel is running out (oil) AND pay through the nose for mass conversion of the energy economy in a short period.
OR
you can pay slightly higher prices now and amortize the cost of these changes over time.

Most people don't buy a house outright. They get a mortgage and spread out the cost over time. This the same thing.

Fracking and Ark Earth Quakes are good

[Tennessee Bear]

Lets hear it for deregulation... This is a Win Win for everyone. The Gas companies get the land for cheap lease rates, Little or no regulation or enforcement of the existing regulations. The practice is generating jobs for home repairs, increased insurance rates and payouts, This all is a business driven economic stimulus plan to create jobs and get cash flowing in a normally economically depressed state. The water pollution drives the need for water filtering systems, filters and treatment, all job generators. The people that have houses that can not be repaired are most likely eyesores anyway, so they can be torn down, more jobs. Whats the down side?

Re:Fracking and Ark Earth Quakes are good

[Red Flayer]

The water pollution drives the need for water filtering systems, filters and treatment, all job generators.

Broken window fallacy. You haz it.

Re:Fracking and Ark Earth Quakes are good

[geek2k5]

The down side might be that there are people who will believe you and consider it to be a true win-win situation, especially if they can buy eyesore type property for depressed prices.

Re:Fracking and Ark Earth Quakes are good

[Tennessee Bear]

And build new homes to sell, more employment.....

Re:Fracking and Ark Earth Quakes are good

[geek2k5]

And don't forget the number of lawyers that will then get involved because the wells for the eyesore properties are polluted. The people selling the properties can get sued, as opposed to the gas companies that polluted the water.

Not a Joke, and coming to your neighborhood soon..

[SunSpot505]

Suspicions surrounds seismic activity generated by geothermal drilling is not new. There was a pilot plant shut down in Switzerland after the number of localized earthquakes sky-rocketed. This is potentially scary stuff for the people that live there. This might be long term. More here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-drilling-earthquakes

Re:The following sentence

[pixelpusher220]

This *particular* area still needs study but the presence of fracking or other pumping into the ground under pressure AND resulting earthquakes doesn't raise *any* red flags for you? It's been documented in numerous other places that there is a relation between the two events.

here's proof

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the threats aren't real.

Someone doesn't want people reading that comment

[spun]

Troll mod? Seriously, going that far defeats the purpose. If you want to bury something, mark it overrated. Personally, I find the comment informative, as it rebuts Hangmn's obvious political spin.

Re:Canada and Europe are hostile?

[spun]

That is the best you've got, "Did you forget to take your meds today?" Seriously, you are slipping. Try something like, "Operaghost, have you stopped raping dogs yet?" it's super effective.

Seriously, though, how do you think that comes across to other people? Obviously, I know how you want it to come across, other people read it and think to themselves, "hah, hah Kupfernigk is crazy, he has to take psychological medications, and today he forgot, and now he is saying CRAZY things in public!" But do you really think that is what people reading your comment think? Personally, I believe most people reading your comment will think something along the lines of "That Operaghost is an asshole, he can't argue, so he insults people instead."

Honestly, that kind of poisoning the well fallacy is so hackneyed that it comes across as an insult to your readers, as well. People will think, "Really? Operaghost thinks I'm so stupid that I will be swayed by THAT?!? What a jerk."

Perhaps you just don't get the reference. The war of 1812 represents the last time something happened in America. Do you know what that is?

earthquakes are not necessarily bad

[jrvz]

The notion that pumping water underground causes earthquakes has been around quite a while. What bothers me is the knee-jerk reaction that this is necessarily a bad thing. The choice is not between an earthquake or no earthquake. Rather, it's between an earthquake now, or a bigger earthquake later. Remember that the energy of the earthquake comes from strain in the rocks, which in general is continually building (due to shifting tectonic plates, moving magma, etc.). If it's not released now, then the strain will just build until it's released later - and you get a bigger earthquake.

I will grant there might be a few cases where I'd rather reduce the chances of an earthquake in the short term, even if it made the eventual earthquake worse (say, if I just discovered a weakness in a dam, and will be spending the next two years madly strengthening it). But in general I would rather have more, smaller earthquakes.

PBS had that covered

[macraig]

PBS did a piece in February (Frontline, Need To Know?) about this very issue, frakking, and the potential for earthquakes was mentioned although their focus was on the illegal use of diesel and other compounds in the frakking fluids.

You lose.

[spun]

By making claims, and then not presenting any sort of evidence, you lose. When people argue against your points, and all you can do is take your ball and go home, you lose. By insulting others instead of debating, you lose. You have a long climb UPWARDS to reach the level of fuzzyfuzzyfungus.

Re:You lose.

[spun]

I don't want to win. I just want to help you get your point across. That is pure selfishness on my part, you see, I'm sick and tired of debating with people who only know how to insult. I'm like that guy in the Monty Python sketch (it used to be my sig here, for almost a decade), you know, I want an argument, but this is just abuse. Therefore, I selfishly try to make people better debaters, so they can better entertain me.

Re:They tried Diamondsthis before ...

[Red Flayer]

You used the plural. Arkansas has a diamond mine. And that mine is a fee-to-dig park, not a commercial mine.

Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, and a couple other states have geology and sites under consideration for commercial diamond mining.

The last commercial diamond mine in the US closed in 2002, I think it was in Colorado.

Re:Countdown to Kookery

[angel'o'sphere]

Lol I posted that anonymous, nevertheless my moderations got undone ... what a shame ;D
And no, I did not moderate you as a troll, as it was not deserved I perhaps had set an underrated on you.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Canada and Europe are hostile?

[budgenator]

Did you forget to take your meds today?

No he's taking the same stuff as Charlie Sheen, or was that Charlie Harper, or is there a difference anymore?

No compensation?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I'm no expert on Arkansas gas extraction, but there are oil wells all over western Kentucky and southern Illinois. In those states, the landowner has mineral rights over the ground beneath their land, and the oil companies pay them a percentage of the profits gained from that particular well. In exchange, the landowner lets the oil company place their semi-noisy oil well on their property (much less noisy than living in a city, mind you). A single well doesn't pay a whole lot, maybe only a few hundred dollars a year (these things aren't industrial-scale well operations), but if you're a farmer with a lot of land, it adds up.

I'm not sure how Arkansas works, but if it's like KY or IL, I doubt that there's some evil gas company out there raping the lands. Probably there are gas companies there that initially didn't think that fracking would induce earthquakes -- it doesn't everywhere; not every man-made ground disruption causes earthquakes, only some of them. The gas companies probably knock on people's doors and give them a deal, where the person will take home part of the profits of their particular gas well, and in exchange, the gas company can build a well on their property.

At least, that's how it works in other states.

Also in North Texas

[kybred]

Similar quakes have been felt in the North Texas area. The drilling is for natural gas from the Barnett Shale. From a local TV station report:

Researching a 100-mile radius around Fort Worth, the U.S. Geological Survey recorded 11 minor earthquakes from 1973 to 2006, the period the government database spans.

But, in the last seven months, 15 more minor quakes have happened, including the four most recently in Cleburne. Still, most occurred along the Dallas and Tarrant County line.

Re:Countdown to Kookery

[elrous0]

n germany on windy / clear sky summer day, far over 60% of the energy production comes from sun and wind.

According to wikipedia, only about 16% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources, and less than half of that comes from wind and solar. And even that cost them billions of Euros to construct. And even if it is 60% on a windy day, I bet it's closer to 0% on a calm day (one of the big drawbacks of wind power, aside from the incredible startup and maintenance costs).

No, oil is not sustainable forever. But replacing one unsustainable system with another unrealistic one is not the answer.

Re:Canada and Europe are hostile?

[cayenne8]

No he's taking the same stuff as Charlie Sheen, or was that Charlie Harper, or is there a difference anymore?

Yeah, but who has more of their real teeth left intact?

Pumping Water into the Ground for GEO-Thermal Heat

[dila813]

Yes, it does call micro quake swarms. We need to stamp out this form of green energy, it isn't safe.

Hydraulic cracking

[Vrallis]

I've usually seen this method referred to as hydraulic cracking or breaking, and mainly because of oil or gas trapped in large thin layers of shale. This has really only started becoming popular since oil prices are high enough now to make it worth the additional cost.

This is done all over Texas these days, and haven't heard of any seismic issues from it (at least not in south Texas, other posters above say it has happened in north Texas). I would imagine the area in Arkansas has to be pretty unstable to begin with. Despite what the article says, I thought Arkansas was part of the New Madrid fault system?

Greenbrier Quakes

[Dee Arsmith]

This cluster of quakes was going on for a couple of weeks before the 4.7. Check it out on Google Earth with recent quakes enabled

Any one else notice that the Greenbrier area is only 100 kilometres or so from the New Madrid Quake fault zone?

Re:Greenbrier Quakes

[RockDoctor]

Any one else notice that the Greenbrier area is only 100 kilometres or so from the New Madrid Quake fault zone?

That is about the only question that I had on the topic, and it's neatly answered, thank you.

The other stuff I've heard of ... small farmers and small towns being gang-sodomised by the oil industry and then being told to pay for the lubricant to stop the oil company's corporate cock getting sore? That is normal practise in that most capitalist of industries, oil. Gas is no different, because it is the same industry run by the same people. And none of this is news.

Re:Greenbrier Quakes

[babywhiz]

It appears it IS man-made: http://www.4029tv.com/news/27056686/detail.html

Re:Greenbrier Quakes

[RockDoctor]

It appears it IS man-made: http://www.4029tv.com/news/27056686/detail.html

That is a correlation, but insufficient (to my strictly limited amount of caring) to demonstrate a causal relationship.

I'm not disputing whether the the earthquake cluster is really associated with the water injector wells. However, the evidence you present is inadequate to demonstrate causality. At the minimum [SELF : dons his IAmAGeologist hat] you'd need to demonstrate a reasonably close temporal relationship between the quantity of water injected and the occurrence of earthquakes (there might be a a delay between onset of injection and onset of quakes). The quake data you should be able to get (if you care enough) from the USGS website. Where to get water injection data ... I dunno - your problem.

Better, much better, would be to demonstrate that the quakes lay along fault lines (if unknown faults, then localising them to narrow planar or simply curved spaces would probably suffice for most observers). Good luck getting sub-surface fault mapping from the oil/gas companies ...

Best would be to demonstrate that the earthquakes have a simple temporal relationship, along reasonably closely constrained fault planes, with the injection of water.

Proving things "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal court, here) is a lot harder than proving things "on the balance of probabilities" (civil court, here), which is harder than simply demonstrating a correlation.

Oh come on we know the real cause of these...

[Erie Ed]

Come on now it's Arkansas........everyone knows that these are earthquakes caused by god because gays are allowed to get married. Remember after this is a state full of people who don't believe in evolution.

Silicon Valley!

[ChromeBallz]

Or.... Wait.

Did no one else think of A View To A Kill when they read this?

Dude, better learn to read

[Paul1969]

Who cares?

Since it appears we may have some problems in the middle east for some time to come, I think it is time we stop worry about trying to regulate things to hell, and start pumping our own oil pronto!!!

For one thing....let's lift the fucking ban on drilling in the Gulf.

In the first place, hydrofracking produces natural gas, not oil.
In the second place, hydrofracking destroys the water supply. Of the things we need more than cheap energy that exacerbates global warming, Number One is WATER.

Re:Countdown to Kookery

[radl33t]

We will wager whether or not the US will reach 25% net generated electricity from wind and solar. Iowa 1% to 15% in less than a decade! Back to the point, at net present generation we need about 250 GW total. For reference about 230GW are installed globally as of 2010. Further reference, Germany has about 8% wind+solar and has legislated 35% by 2030. They have slightly worse wind resource than US and worse solar resource than any state except Alaska. We are presently at ~27 GW (annualized, nameplate is larger) or slightly over 2%. Thankfully 35 states have legislated about ~14% (~140GW discounting hydro,biomass) into existence between 2013 - 2025. A federal mandate will hasten this, but is unlikely before 2013. Global production of wind is ~40 GW and solar is ~15 GW, increasing by 7-10 GW/yr each. This is looking really good. How would you like to do this? Can we chose an escrow service? You want over/under on the % or the year? email me shuperoy at gmail.com