Slashdot Mirror


Minor Quakes In the UK Likely Caused By Fracking

Stirling Newberry writes "Non-conventional extraction of hydrocarbons is the next wave of production, including natural gas and oil – at least according to its advocates. One of the most controversial of the technologies being used is hydraulic fracture drilling, or 'fracking.' Energy companies have been gobbling up Google ad words to push the view that the technology is 'proven' and 'safe,' while stories about the damage continue to surface. Adding to the debate are two small tremors in the UK — below 3.0, so very small – that were quite likely the result of fracking there. Because the drilling cracks were shallow, this raises concerns that deeper cracks near more geologically active areas might lead to quakes that could cause serious damage."

318 comments

  1. British Porn by LoudMusic · · Score: 0

    I've seen British porn, and it was by no means earth moving.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:British Porn by digitig · · Score: 1

      That's because we consider sex a participant activity, not a spectator activity.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:British Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until you mix the two. BAZINGA!

  2. UK? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    "So, my love, did the Earth move for you as well?"
    "Frack yeah!"

    However, if fracking would have caused a minor quake anywhere, I would have thought it would have been in the US, because of the rampant obesity. Maybe it's all in the rhythm.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did. we had a quake in the dc/va/md area, that shook everything, caused houses to fall. it originally came from virginia, where they do a lot of fracking. no, we don't get earthquakes usually.

    2. Re:UK? by EdZ · · Score: 1

      Next time you watch a BBC report on Fracking, watch the reporters face closely at the end of the segment. I've yet to see anyone not look like they're about to break into a fit of giggles once the cameras turn off.

  3. It's perfectly safe by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you're rich enough to live far away from it. Frankly I don't see the problem.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's perfectly safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frakly I don't see the problem.

      Fixed to reflect the realities of the situation. Let's hope for the more gentle approach when deep drilling of the cracks commences.

    2. Re:It's perfectly safe by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      if you're rich enough to live far away from it. Frankly I don't see the problem.

      Sure. But what if your fine bungalow happens to be below a dam, which collapses because extraction of petroleum from beneath it changes the contour of the Earth, just enough to weaken the structure?

      Stuff happens to the rich, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:It's perfectly safe by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      If you're rich enough to matter, you don't live underneath a dam. If you do, you'll get advanced warning that fracking is going on nearby and move out. You'll have this warning because you'll have people looking out for you (personal assistants, a wife that stays at home and watches out for those things, etc).

      When your rich, I mean truly, truly rich... life is different. I don't mean 6, or even 7 figures. That's not what I mean by rich. The people pulling the strings on your life are way past that. They don't waste time living like kings. They're like Gods. Like the Pharaohs or old.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    4. Re:It's perfectly safe by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But what if your fine bungalow happens to be below a dam,

      Then it's your own stupid fault for buying a property beneath a dam. (Or to be more precise, in the predictable flood pattern of the dam.)

      There is a legal Latin phrase "caveat emptor" which translates as "if you don't do your homework before you buy X, then it's your own stupid fault for getting whatever you've got."

      (Actually, these days for buying a property in the UK, there has got to be a "home information pack" including a survey by a properly accredited surveyor, who should catch these things. So you probably do have a leg to stand on with your legalistic snivelling. But really, you should do your own fucking homework.)

      I grew up in a town where development spread out onto the flood plain of the river, where the river has regularly (half of the winters) flooded the plain beside the river. And people brought this property. And the river flooded. And they whinged and moaned, and got no fucking sympathy from anyone who could see that the town hadn't been built there for over a thousand years, for some good reason. [DOH!]

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Groundwater by vossman77 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not to mention its potential impact on local groundwater:

    http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

    1. Re:Groundwater by LehiNephi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's a difference between "potential" and "actual". IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there has yet to be a case where fracking has actually been shown to have impacted groundwater, despite the claims of the local population. This is likely because the oil/gas companies do lots of environmental studies before they even start drilling--they don't just start punching holes in the ground willy-nilly.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    2. Re:Groundwater by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA This isn't what I had in mind when I asked for 'firewater'

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    3. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/fracking-methane-flammable-drinking-water-study_n_859677.html

    4. Re:Groundwater by Azghoul · · Score: 2

      And you believe it's all because of natural gas drilling. Sucker.

    5. Re:Groundwater by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My brother in law works on a rig. Last month his crew got a hammerbit stuck in the hole. They pumped hundreds of barrels of "soap" and water into the hole to try to free it. This well was communicating with others which started to leak this fluid. So now you have gas wells that are 50 years old pumping lubricating fluid instead of gas. Since that is another company, they will likely get sued. Had it been a water well they homeowner might not have the resources to do that. They ended up using explosives to free the pipe but they lost the bit and a few collars. The rig started to sink due to the vast amount of fluid pumped into the ground. How much environmental study was involved in all that?

    6. Re:Groundwater by MikeyC01 · · Score: 1

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640843/

      But it happened on CSI so in the majority's view, of course it has happened! ;)

    7. Re:Groundwater by bunratty · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes have been happening for millions of years without fracking. Did the dinosaurs frak to create Earthquakes and tectonic plate movement back then? If not, then humans couldn't possibly be causing earthquakes due to fraking now. It's just simple logic! I guess the scientists involved in this research are just looking to get rich.

      Oops, this isn't about climate research, so my troll science post won't get modded up.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    8. Re:Groundwater by theronb · · Score: 1

      Oh, good - I see Halliburton is one of the big players. That just gives a warm, cozy feeling that we're in good hands!

    9. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, there are parts of the world where people routinely fire automatic weapons into the sky in celebration. Those bullets all have to land somewhere and there's a potential for that somewhere to be a kid's head. Does it actually happen often? I'll be honest, I don't know, it's not relevant to my point. The point I'm making is that, until one of those bullets falls into one of their own kids' skulls, the guys firing the guns don't care about the potential for it to happen, just like you don't seem to care about the potential damage we're doing to a required resource.

      Oh sure, they can angle their guns away from occupied areas, but that doesn't stop the winds hundreds of feet above from carrying the bullets back into the crowd. Likewise, a series of environmental studies can indicate that there is enough soft earth between the rock being fracked and the rock surrounding the water supply, but that doesn't stop the shockwave from fracking one rock from traveling through that soft earth, right to a weak spot or crack in those rocks acting as a barrier/container for the water supply. What happens then?

      Yes, everything can look solid from the surface; shallow digging can only show us the outer surface of the rock, sonogram, and x-ray can only give us a top-down view. There may be faults below the surface that can only be noticed from other angles, from which we can not observe; in fact, it is much more likely that we would miss a fault and it is that we would notice it, simply given the fact that there are many more angles from which we can NOT examine the subject than there are angles from which we can.

      If you still don't care about the potential damage, I've got a bridge to sell you. Don't worry, I'm only potentially scamming you, it hasn't been proven yet.

    10. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA

      This isn't what I had in mind when I asked for 'firewater'

      The movie Gas Land has been discredited and this particular water source had Nat gas in it BEFORE fracking began. They are called hissing wells; water wells that are also souces of nat gas. If anything Fracking will improve the water source since it is removing the nat gas. Peddle your propaganda elsewhere.

    11. Re:Groundwater by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's why I dont believe politicians nor those who become filthy rich on environmentalism.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    12. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything Fracking will improve the water source since it is removing the nat gas.

      While adding god knows how many toxic chemicals needed for fracking into the groundwater?

    13. Re:Groundwater by microbox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah right. Google for affirming gasland. I read through some of the arguments from each side, and it looks like a canonical example of astroturffing by well funding public relations firms.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    14. Re:Groundwater by microbox · · Score: 1

      You are the sucker for believing in the "truths" of a well funded public relations campaign.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    15. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the fluid would transfer to wells tapping the SAME reservoir. Reservoirs form because they trap the fluid inside an impermeable structure. Centuries of man hours have gone to studying how reservoirs work.

    16. Re:Groundwater by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      The rig started to sink. That means the fluid was coming back up and permeating the ground. Can you not read?

    17. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't be communicating stories like this. You're attacking the industry that feeds your brother in law.

    18. Re:Groundwater by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The movie Gas Land has been discredited

      Kinda like how people arguing for the existence of climate change, evolution, and the link between tobacco and cancer have been "discredited?"

    19. Re:Groundwater by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What has one got to do with the other?
      He sells his labor, if they have problems he will sell his labor to another buyer.

    20. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the other aspects like polluting the water table with unknown proprietary chemicals, some of which include diesel fuel (if memory serves me right from an NPR interview, 1 gallon of diesel fuel ruins 100,000 gallons of water). Also don't forget about the minor earthquakes. This whole fracking deal sounds like something a comic villain would come up with. I'm waiting on the super heroes to show up now.

    21. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with eventhing man does in regards to oil, there is no doubt proven or not that this can't be good.

    22. Re:Groundwater by khallow · · Score: 1

      Had it been a water well they homeowner might not have the resources to do that.

      And had it been an antimatter well, then there would be a huge smoking crater. Nobody gets their drinking water from a natural gas field just as nobody gets antimatter. And you have yet to indicate why the EPA or any other regulatory agency should get involved.

      Reading some of your other replies, I see that you think this lubrication fluid somehow found it's way into ground water despite no evidence to support that assertion (the ground sinking is merely due to the fact that the lubrication fluid is denser than the natural gas it displaced).

    23. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Notice that the flame is orange not blue. If it were natural gas the flame would be blue, orange indicates that it is either methane or acetylene, neither of which is found in gelogical formations. When found in ground water they are most likely cause by run off that leaches through highly decomosing organic soils.

    24. Re:Groundwater by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Natural gas is mostly methane.

    25. Re:Groundwater by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Well obviously the gas in the groundware is not from fracking.

      After all, leading experts selected by the Bush administration and paid by the fracking industry have determined that the gas in people's wells came from rotting plant material, so therefore it can't possibly be caused by fracking.

      Scientists and other godless atheists usually think that all natural gas was formed by rotting plant material laid down in the carboniferous era. These people believe in other dumb things too, like dinosaurs and homosexuality and stuff that's not in the Bible. You can safely ignore their "evidence" and "logic" because they are tools of the devil.

      In reality, it's easy to tell the pure, ideologically correct gas that comes from fracking apart from the biologically-derived natural gas that comes up in people's wells immediately after a fracking operation. See, the gas that comes from fracking is primarily composed of Jesus farts and burps, which is easily determined by the super-sensitive dowsing instruments our experts have in their labs.

    26. Re:Groundwater by operagost · · Score: 1

      Straw man much?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Groundwater by operagost · · Score: 2

      No, kinda like people arguing that we could never fly faster than sound were discredited.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    28. Re:Groundwater by ejtttje · · Score: 1

      Some people actually have ethics rather than only protecting their own selfish interests.

    29. Re:Groundwater by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The water was also leaking out around the rig. The rink sinking was due to all the water coming back up the hole. Through all those layers of earth that went through the aquifer.

    30. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huff Post has no credibility, zero.

    31. Re:Groundwater by operagost · · Score: 1

      So your point is that incompetence is dangerous, right? Maybe they shouldn't have pumped hundreds of barrels of soap into the hole.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    32. Re:Groundwater by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      It's hard to believe that fracking, taking place kilometres deep, should affect drinking water from tens of meters down. A much more likely explanation is that natural gas has always seeped into the water, but that people doesn't test the flammability of their water (I know I have newer tested the flammability of mine) until some company performs scary things in the neighbourhood. It seems the video you link to is a part of Gasland, where the most prominent case is due to natural causes, even though the movie indicates that it is linked to fracking. There is some processes where mining gas can lead to flammable drinking water, but none directly related to fracking.

    33. Re:Groundwater by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Yes, these falling bullets do kill people. Citation provided

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    34. Re:Groundwater by kick6 · · Score: 0

      Had it been a water well they homeowner might not have the resources to do that.

      Had it been a water well, it would have been the most expensive and useless water well known to the history of water wells as it would have been pumping salty, gassy water from a depth that would have cost $500k+ (US) to drill. Fresh water wells are normally drilled no deeper than 1000 feet. Natural Gas wells are dilled, sometimes, 20,000 feet. So if the soap they were injecting into one well was coming up at other natural gas wells it was doing so SO FAR BELOW the fresh water table that it essentially couldn't have been a water well.

    35. Re:Groundwater by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The rig was sinking, water was coming out around it. This means the water backed up all the way to the surface. 20,000 feet is below 1,000, meaning the water at some point crossed that 1,000 foot deep point on its way back up.

    36. Re:Groundwater by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      My point is that incompetence is the norm and the EPA does nothing.

    37. Re:Groundwater by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Gas in water wells does exist in some places, my mother tells stores of growing up in the 1940's and 50's in an area where the school kids would light the gas that built up in the school water fountains over the weekends.

    38. Re:Groundwater by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      everything you said there is flat wrong, except for your observation of the colour of a flame.

    39. Re:Groundwater by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      ACs have much credibility. especially when they give no citations (why should they? the bible doesn't give citations!).

    40. Re:Groundwater by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO, actually discredited.
      Hint: Gas came out of wells before fracking had ever been invented, and the water they show isn't actually anywhere near fracking. SO, scientifically discredited.

      That show is full of lies and logical fallacy. They took a premise they believe, only showed things that confirmed there bias, left out everything that didn't and also included things that where anywhere near fracking.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In sort of the same way cigarettes have been discredited for causing cancer....

    42. Re:Groundwater by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1
      And much of the gas wouldn't have entered the water naturally, from the article linked by parent post:

      To determine where the methane in the wells they tested came from, the researchers ran it through a molecular fingerprinting process called an isotopic analysis. Water samples furthest from gas drilling showed traces of biogenic methane - a type of methane that can naturally appear in water from biological decay. But samples taken closer to drilling had high concentrations of thermogenic methane, which comes from the same hydrocarbon layers where gas drilling is targeted. That - plus the proximity to the gas wells - told the researchers that the contamination was linked to the drilling processes.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    43. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Mythbusters do that episode and prove that "angling the gun" is the worst thing you could do since that maintains the ballistics and keeps the bullet capable of a fatal shot while firing straight up makes the bullet come back at terminal velocity which is non-fatal?

    44. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont have to discredit man made global warming because there is NO proof of it. And just because there is an earth quake does not mean it is caused by fracking. (It might be caused by fracking but it has yet to be proven)

    45. Re:Groundwater by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Does it actually happen often? I'll be honest, I don't know,

      Yes it does: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14616491

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:Groundwater by khallow · · Score: 1

      That would have been a nice thing to mention earlier.

    47. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to qualify the climate change comment: MANMADE climate change has been sufficiently discredited. Naturally occurring climate change on the otherhand has been shown to exist, but we still don't know to what extent and to what ends. ( _most_ theories haven't correlated with observations over the last 1.5 - 2 decades - some have)

    48. Re:Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm use your head. The rig can not sink due to pumping fluid into the ground. Consider this, you have a bag under your house that is impossible to break. You pump fluid into the bag. Is your house going to sink? Like I said before use your head... So often people jump on a band wagon without even thinking. Now it is possible to "sink" due to removing fluid from the ground.

      Just use some good old common sense that doesn't seem to be so common these days.

      (p.s. Before you decide you want to whine about this post and say well that is what happened... Use your head for yet a smidge amount more and think about the fact that there was well communication. You "sink" when you remove, their well communicated with other wells that been producing for 50 plus years. Oh, perhaps that is where the fluid went which if the rig did sink would make sense. Think before you speak (disclaimer I don't always either but when I don't someone corrects me as I, you) and don't just believe think because a friend of a friend knows a guy who learned about it first hand. You will come off less stupid because of it.)

      p.p.s. Auto correct sucks. It made typing this take way longer than it should have.

  5. Even with a major earthquake by koan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even with a major earthquake occurring because of "fracking" it's a non-issue compared to the damage done to the water table by the chemicals used in the process, toxic for centuries afterwards.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

      So, you're a global quaking denier?

    2. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with a major earthquake occurring because of "fracking" it's a non-issue compared to the damage done to the water table by the chemicals used in the process, toxic for centuries afterwards.

      Fracking occurs thousands of feet below the water table, just FYI

    3. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gas reserves are far below water tables in complete different strata...five thousand to 20,000 feet, far , far deeper than any aquifer.

      But you keep drinking that Kool Aid.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Even with a major earthquake by koan · · Score: 1

      EVEN WITH A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE OCCURING because of "fracking" it's a non-issue compared to the damage done to the water table by the chemicals used in the process, toxic for centuries afterwards.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    5. Re:Even with a major earthquake by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, 'cause you don't have to drill through that first, and there's no chance that raising the pressure below could force things just under the water table up into it.

      It might not be as bad as 'the sky is falling' folks claim, but it isn't good either.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Even with a major earthquake by koan · · Score: 1

      And you keep drinking the water, apparently back pressure and crack seepage are concepts lost on your "intellect".

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    7. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Jeng · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    8. Re:Even with a major earthquake by berashith · · Score: 1

      seriously.. it isnt like the oil under the gulf of mexico has ever polluted the water there . Differences in depth cannot be defeated by pressure.

    9. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh...

    10. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Readily available gas reserves DO exist close to the surface and DO permeate into water sources...but not because of fracking.

      Same with Radon and other gases.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, I seem to recall some news story about oil polluting the Gulf of Mexico...

    12. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      ALL wells use casing that prevent fluids in the well from leaking into the surrounding rock unless they specifically want it to. Otherwise all that very expensive fluid and gas would simply leak away.

      The Fracking process is largely horizontal in nature as the gas is trapped in a layered rock formation. Pressures used to fracture that rock are not enough to fracture many thousands of feet vertically.

      And when you remove gas from the reserve, pressure decreases.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    13. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and fluids under pressure never rise, right?

    14. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Funny how people didn't have a problem with their tap water being flammable before fracking.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    15. Re:Even with a major earthquake by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Gas reserves are far below water tables in complete different strata...five thousand to 20,000 feet, far , far deeper than any aquifer.

      But you keep drinking that Kool Aid.

      We keep being assured the water is safe, despite what our noses keep telling us.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    16. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The spill in the gulf was not a case of oil leaking up through cracks in the sea floor (although it does do that naturally in the Gulf).

      It leaked from a broken pipe ABOVE the sea floor.

      You need to rethink your analogy.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    17. Re:Even with a major earthquake by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      EVEN WITH A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE OCCURING because of "fracking" it's a non-issue compared to the damage done to the water table by the chemicals used in the process, toxic for centuries afterwards.

      Story of pit/strip mines around the world, too. Toxic waste containment, seepage into ground water, cleanup was never were never in the vocabulary for some of these.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    18. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Gas reserves are far below water tables in complete different strata...five thousand to 20,000 feet, far , far deeper than any aquifer.

      Please explain this, then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtgvwllNpg

    19. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Shompol · · Score: 1

      "Readily available gas reserves" DID NOT "permeate into water sources" for hundreds of years, but started doing so the year fracking started in the area?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA

      Have any other "theories"? How about "Aliens landed in the area to learn the art of fracking and seeped some rocked fuel?"

    20. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any sources to site for this? Serious question. Also is the hole used sleeved? If it isn't doesn't that mean the chemicals use can seep sideways via the frakking hole.

    21. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    22. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Take a soda bottle and shake it up.

      Hold it upside down and take off the cap. Did the pressurized fluids rise?
      Hold it horizontally and take off the cap. Did the pressurized fluids rise?

      It depends on the container doesn't it?

      If there is a non-permeable cap above the gas reservoir, then no, the pressurized fluids won't rise. They will move horizontally, as intended. And guess what? The gas is down that deep because there is a non-permeable cap above the reservoir.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    23. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I see your Youtube and raise you an actual study.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    24. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 2

      All wells are sleeved.

      Think about it, you spend all this money drilling a well thousands and thousands of feet to reach whatever you are after and you'd just let seep away into sand formations on the way up?

      Then there's the pesky thing about the hold collapsing on itself when you withdraw the drilling pipe.

      ALL wells use casing.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    25. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Read the whole thread...I did.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    26. Re:Even with a major earthquake by berashith · · Score: 1

      do i ? I think that a pipe of some sort will be needed to get the stuff that is way below the water table to above the water table. I am not going to argue chances and percentage risks, but to dismiss any possibility of problems based on distance between layers seems a bit too optimistic.

    27. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Then you have an problem with any product recovered from a well...oil, gas, etc. Because that's how they all get to the surface.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    28. Re:Even with a major earthquake by microbox · · Score: 1

      I asked Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, whose research for more than 30 years has involved structural mechanics, finite element methods, and fracture mechanics: "Can drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing liberate biogenic natural gas into a fresh water aquifer?"

      His reply: "Yes, definitely. The drilling process itself can induce migration of biogenic gas by disturbance of previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults, or by puncturing pressurized biogenic gas pockets and allowing migration through an as-yet un-cemented annulus, or though a faulty cement job. The hydraulic fracturing process is less likely to cause migration of biogenic gas; however, the cumulative effect of many, closely spaced, relatively shallow laterals, each fracked (and possibly re-fracked) numerous times, could very well create rock mass disturbances that could, as noted above, open previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults."

      You no better then that right? Because you heard something from a natural gas public relations firm that agrees with your political ideas.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    29. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    30. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After it drills through the water table, just FYI.

    31. Re:Even with a major earthquake by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      So the hypothesis would be that pumping toxins into natural gas reserves could not contaminate the water tables. How about we not test that hypothesis? We're already testing the hypothesis that we can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we like and it won't affect anything. I'd prefer that we only risk fucking up one natural resource at a time.

    32. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Do you drive this angrily also?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    33. Re:Even with a major earthquake by microbox · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the report? rotfl!

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    34. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you are saying he is a Republican because he's anti-science?

    35. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      "The basin is deepest near Denver, where it reaches a depth of approximately 13,000 ft (3900 m) below the surface."

      Go ahead and frack away...you'll end up drinking a lot more than just Kool Aid.

    36. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Admiral+Justin · · Score: 1

      The problem is with the above-ground storage not being proper and leaking down into the water table.

      Now do you want the Kool-Aid?

      --
      You will be baked, and there will be cake.
    37. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gas reserves WERE below the water tables.

      You can not definitively state that due to the very nature of fracing, it does not disrupt the 3-dimensional structure of the ground strata into the water table. It's nice to think that the lines of delineation between the strata will hold up to this type of drilling, but I err on the side of caution and prefer not to have our vast sources of potable water contaminated.

      I'm sure your the type who think allowing fraking near or around the reservoir feeding NYC will have no bad consequences ever, for the remainder of civilization in that area!

      Please. Tell me how I'm wrong, since the energy companies won't even release certain information on the chemicals they use in the frac process, and some of the known chemicals they use are toxic and carcinogenic.

    38. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another American Petroleum Institute astro-turfer at work.

    39. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of side effects besides earthquakes, I sure hope fracking near dormant volcanoes doesn't happen any time soon.

      I imagine this could actually accelerate a massive volcano like Yellowstone to erupt in my lifetime. I sure hope I'm just imagining things.

    40. Re:Even with a major earthquake by jbengt · · Score: 1

      And guess what? The gas is down that deep because there is a non-permeable cap above the reservoir.

      Not necessarily.
      The reason fakking is done is because the gas (and oil) is trapped inside the rock layer being fractured. Fracturing the rock layer containing the gas may very well be fracturing the containment itself (although the idea would be that the gas should flow to the well pipe drilled into the rock for that purpose rather than fighting its' way through solid rock layers above). In deposits like shale the methane may not be a gas at all, but may be dissolved in the shale and oil, only to turn to gas when the frakking and extraction reduces the pressure enough.

    41. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      "The environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable." The study addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing uid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring"

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    42. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Jeng · · Score: 1

      My reading comprehension must be pretty bad because from what I read from your link is that contamination is happening. And more to the point it says that more research has to be done to confirm whether or not fracking is responsible.

      There have been reported instances of methane gas mi-
      grating from drinking water wells into homes or seasonal
      camps resulting in explosions (Pittsburgh Geological
      Society, 2009; and Gough and Waite, 1990) including an
      occurrence near Dimock, Pa., that was related to Marcel-
      lus drilling activity (DEP, 2009). A recent study in north-
      eastern Pennsylvania also found increased concentrations
      of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater wells close
      to Marcellus gas well sites (Osborn et al., 2011). The
      incidence of pre-drilling background concentrations of
      dissolved methane from natural sources or historical gas
      drilling has not been intensively studied or documented
      throughout Pennsylvania prior to Marcellus natural gas
      drilling operations.

      Also this.

      For the samples collected during this project, all param-
      eters measured on Phase 1 water wells (Table 1) were also
      measured on Phase 2 water wells with the exception of
      methane, bromide and oil/grease. These three parameters
      were not included in Phase 2 primarily due to cost limita-
      tions and, in the case of methane, difficult sample collec-
      tion protocols for homeowners.

      Isn't it odd that they are not testing for the very chemicals that they think are contaminating the environment?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    43. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Shompol · · Score: 2
      The study you linked refers to drilling, not fracking specifically. It only covers 180 houses in a very narrow area, and does nothing to explain known incidents, nor does it even acknowledge them. Here's a "short" list of some known pollution issues:

      There are, however, documented incidents of contamination. In 2006 drilling fluids and methane were detected leaking from the ground near a gas well in Clark, Wyoming; 8 million cubic feet of methane were eventually released, and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated.[22] In the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them blew up), and the gas company, Cabot Oil & Gas, had to financially compensate residents and construct a pipeline to bring in clean water; the company continued to deny, however, that any "of the issues in Dimock have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing".[25][21] A Duke University study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011 examined methane in groundwater in Pennsylvania and New York states overlying the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale. It determined that groundwater tended to contain much higher concentrations of methane near fracking wells, with potential explosion hazard; the methane's isotopic signatures and other geochemical indicators were consistent with it originating in the fracked deep shale formations, rather than any other source.[26] Complaints from a few residents on water quality in a developed natural gas field prompted an EPA groundwater investigation in Wyoming. The EPA reported detections of methane and other chemicals such as phthalates in private water wells.[27] In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA discovered traces of methane and foaming agents in several water wells near a gas rig, though it suggested these chemicals might have come from cleaning products.[25] In DISH, Texas, elevated levels of disulphides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air, alongside numerous local complaints of headaches, diarrhoea, nosebleeds, dizziness, muscle spasms and other problems. Epidemiological studies that might confirm or rule out any connection between these complaints and fracking are virtually non-existent. Individuals "smell things that don't make them feel well, but we know nothing about cause-and-effect relationships in these cases."[28] In Garfield County, Colorado, another area with a high concentration of drilling rigs, volatile organic compound emissions increased 30% between 2004 and 2006; during the same period there was a rash of health complaints from local residents. The health effects of VOCs are largely unquantified, so any causal relationship is difficult to ascertain; however, some of these chemicals are suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins.[22] Investigators from the Colorado School of Public Health performed a study in Garfield regarding potential adverse health effects, and concluded that residents near gas wells might suffer chemical exposures, accidents from industry operations, and psychological impacts such as depression, anxiety and stress. This study (the only one of its kind to date) was never published, owing to disagreements between community members and the drilling company over the study's methods.[28] In 2010 the film Gasland premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. The filmmaker claims that chemicals including toxins, known carcinogens, and heavy metals polluted the ground water near well sites in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Colorado.[29]

    44. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Shompol · · Score: 1

      no evidence that this is occurring

      Please see the video in my post above for "some evidence".

      This study blames known instances of methane contamination on a small number of sub-standard operations, and encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.[30]

      My guess is that including gas fracking back into the "Clean Water and Air Act" will go a long way to "encourage the use of industry best practices", otherwise we are looking at another BP Gulf of Mexico type disaster, except this time in Pennsylvania.

    45. Re:Even with a major earthquake by operagost · · Score: 1

      He probably lives in Upper Darby.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    46. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Here is the very sentence after the one you quoted.

      There is, however, evidence
      of natural gas migration into freshwater zones
      in some areas, most likely as a result of sub-
      standard well completion practices by a few
      operators.

      Can you find at least one article that doesn't say the exact opposite of what you are claiming?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    47. Re:Even with a major earthquake by EdIII · · Score: 1

      It's highly unlikely that a frac thousands of feet below the water table would force anything up into it. Even under ideal conditions with an A+ plus frac, you normally don't get more than a couple thousand feet in any direction anyways. It will follow the weakest points too, which 3D seismic tells you. In short, you would have a pretty good idea beforehand where the fractures will go.

      Add to that the cement lining the pipe. You do know that they have to perforate before they frac right? How else do you think they can frak at just the right spots? They are putting the pressure in very specific places and a single well can be frac'd many times. Every layman out there brings up the fact you have to poke a whole through all the strata, but does not take into account that the hole itself is sealed and reinforced. It has to be for one, and two it is crucial to operations such as fraccing and efficient gas transfer to the surface.

      The earthquakes are ridiculous. That energy was stored in the Earth already. If fraccing could actually do that, it would be a tool to mitigate earthquakes. If you could identify the pressures and release them at 2-3 scale quakes before they go off at 7's, we would not be vilifying anything, but saying, "Oh that's cool". 3.0 quakes rarely damage anything, and are not felt at great distances. I sincerely doubt there is that much energy during a frac, and I have been at several "big ones" personally and experienced nothing but a slight vibration in the truck.

      What may cause earthquakes is geothermal energy sources. That is actually real and needs to be understood before widespread use of the technology is acceptable. Reno, NV does quite a bit of it and has had unusual seismic activity ever since.

      I don't trust companies right now to have our best interests at heart, but I have been exposed to these operations firsthand and spoken to engineers and I don't see how the quakes are involved, and poisoning water tables would have to involve a chain of events that include gross negligence, and in some cases, the laws of physics being broken.

      Until somebody with a degree and experience in that field explains to me how it is so easy to do that, I am going to go with that natural gas fraccing (responsibly) is not a major cause of water table pollution. That is from my experience and knowledge directly. I just don't see how it is possible given what I understand about it.

      So I am a dissenting voice here, but please, give me some actual data to change my mind other than propaganda (from either side) and emotional diatribes.

    48. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fracking decreases pressure in the subsurface. We inject a bunch of water, but take out far more in gas than gets left in. This is the same reason why climate change denialists are so annoying: amateurish "common sense" logic applied to systems few understand.

      Right, a 2.3 magnitude earthquake. We should clearly ban passing subway trains, because they regularly cause earthquakes worse than that.

    49. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open face coal mining suggests coal is closer to the surface, CSG fracking even using only water (no BTEX) is therefor just below the ground, sadly the issue is hyped a lot and there is propaganda on both sides, i've seen some trully naff PR work done for and against the whole process. I think the US Gov't has done this particular piece to shift attention away from HARP. /2c

    50. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't say the opposite. It points out that there are few issues with well completion...not fracking. Completely different thing.

      If you knew anything about drilling, you wouldn't be making such a fucking ass of yourself.

    51. Re:Even with a major earthquake by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      interesting to hear from the other side...

      the key word here is "responsibly" though.

      responsibly run nuke plants are safer than any other form of power (as the stats thrown around this and many other threads appear to show).

      only problem is when large amounts of money are involved, human error seems to increase.

    52. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, and water never moves around on the planet. You go girl. (oh, you were male before that weird chemical got into your water)?

    53. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "casing". Educate yourself.

    54. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Gidono · · Score: 1

      I work for one of the biggest oil field service companies in the world and I work as apart of the fracturing process. Most wells drilled in my area of the country don't get any where near the water table so we don't have any contamination issues. However I can see how shallow drilling can be something people would be alarmed about.

    55. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, it's not like water is liquid, making comparisons between the Gulf of Mexico and drinking water trapped in rock silly.

      If your point had been that oil/gas spills are possible on the surface, where the drilling operation is taking place, your point would have been valid. That was not what is being discussed, so your comment is little more than trolling.

    56. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Yes, funny how burning drinking water never existed before. I know I have never tested my drinking water for flammability (I would feel slightly silly trying to ignite water), is it possible that they always had flammable water but never tested it before?

    57. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the water has not always contained the same amount of methane? Any written accounts made before fracking began? If not, the most likely explanation is that fracking taking places kilometers down does not contaminate water wells tens of meters deep.

      And please don't use clips from Gasland as a source, the burning water there has been examined, the methane is from natural sources. It is a bad idea to drill your well into a natural gas deposit, and even worse to claim it is other peoples fault that you water is flammable afterwards. I am sure there are people who have gotten flammable drinking water as a result of oil or gas mining, why use an example where that is demonstrably not the case? It simply makes it far too easy to dismiss any reasonable complaints.

    58. Re:Even with a major earthquake by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      About a decade ago when I was living in Garfield County, CO, drilling for natural gas poisoned the wells of a bunch of people that lived in the hills nearby. I'm curious if you can explain that as I can't find any sources online that explain how it happened. And it wasn't a spill or negligence or anything, just chemicals from the drilling process leaking into the local water supplies..

      I'm not being confrontational or anything, I'm just legitimately curious because you seem to have some knowledge on the subject. And it's difficult for me to sort out the data and form my own opinion. I know environmentalists often overreact and simplify the arguments, but I've also worked for mines and drilling outfits and I know they pretty much always break as many regulatory rules as possible. And environmental regulation is pretty lax in a lot of ways even if they follow the rules.

      So what's the explanation for the instances of natural gas drilling poisoning local water supplies? Because it definitely does happen.

    59. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Shompol · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the water has not always contained the same amount of methane?

      Because the guy in the video says so. I am sorry, linked wrong one, here's the video I meant to link:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtgvwllNpg
      Maybe this is just one of a few episodes, but if true, then this is only the tip of the iceberg. What lies ahead is dead fish and dead forests. You can only rape the land once, and it is gone for many generations ahead. Someone needs to investigate these claims, and I don't mean by paying off the victims sizable lumps of money to shut up.

      Any written accounts made before fracking began?

      I suppose the gentleman has some inspection or construction papers that indicate that the water was usable. For obvious reasons I do not have access to those records, but if anyone conducts an official investigation they can surely dig them up.

      If not, the most likely explanation is that fracking taking places kilometers down does not contaminate water wells tens of meters deep.

      That would explain why the problem would not exist, but it does exist.

      And please don't use clips from Gasland as a source, the burning water there has been examined, the methane is from natural sources.

      I am sorry, don't know what Gasland is. Is the second video also from Gasland? Looks like a private individual to me. yes, the methane is from natural souces, the question is why did it end up in tap water.

      the burning water there has been examined

      Using your own words: any written accounts?

      It is a bad idea to drill your well into a natural gas deposit, and even worse to claim it is other peoples fault that you water is flammable afterwards.

      Earlier you said that gas deposits are "kilometers down" do "not contaminate water wells tens of meters deep"? Do you imply that the guy drilled his water well "kilometers down"?

      I am sure there are people who have gotten flammable drinking water as a result of oil or gas mining

      Thank you for finally agreeing.

      why use an example where that is demonstrably not the case?

      Any references that demonstrate that?

      It simply makes it far too easy to dismiss any reasonable complaints.

      And that's what you are trying to do.

    60. Re:Even with a major earthquake by EdIII · · Score: 1

      All of my experience is in deep wells in southern Texas.

      You say it was not a spill? These wells have fluid coming off them for years afterwards. The wells in Texas still require a service to come out every so often and take away the fluid. It is above ground in a steel container that is inspected regularly. Not related to fraccing alone, there have been instances in which pollution has occurred from retaining pools above ground.

      Other than that, the only two possible ways it can happen are if the fractures split upwards towards the surface and created a path for the gas to flow from the production zone into the water table, or the casing on the well was substandard and is now leaking gas and fluids into the water table. Same thing really.

      I just have a hard time understanding why a frac would occur so close to a water table in the first place. Not just laterally, but vertically. Vertically is okay. We were literally 10k feet below the water table. Casing is still intact, so there is no way we are leaking anything into the water table. The fracture would have been about 2 miles long. That's a huge amount of energy to do so. It would be a big deal too, since there is a preserve near these wells.

      The other thing to keep in mind... is that fraccing is not permanent. The pressure in the ground will close the fractures right back up and your permeability (how easy it is for gas to flow through the strata) is right back down to nothing.

      What makes a frac permanent is the proppant. It varies, but just think of it as sand. On the high end you have ceramic coated beads that can withstand immense heat and pressures, and the low end literally sand. When you have forced the fractures open you pump all the "sand" down and this is what now keeps the fracture open and allows the gas to flow through these man made channels more efficiently than the surrounding strata to the well bore.

      I bring that up because if the fractures went out much farther than what was anticipated, they still have a finite amount of proppant to pump. It can get expensive, let me tell you. A couple millions dollars per well of proppant is not unusual. If you put more proppant in then you were expecting, in a case like I outlined above, it would not go unnoticed.

      That's the part that just does not sit right with me. All the technology that is involved here would seem to preclude this from happening. There are geologists and paleontologists on staff just to figure out exactly where you are. They take samples from the "mud truck" looking for clues to where they are geologically speaking to confirm what they want to do exactly.

      In order for those wells to have been poisoned, it would have been a very shallow gas well, or very shoddy and careless practices during the drilling, casing, perforating, and fraccing. It is not in their best interests anyways. Why would they want all the oil & gas leaking into the water table instead of up their pipe and into the refineries? Environmental is a concern with them, but the bottom line is always what drives them. Both of these factor in here and would seemingly inhibit these kinds of outcomes.

      To be completely honest, if you are within 2,000 feet of a water table where you are trying to frac, that is just irresponsible. I have a hard time believing that all of petro engineers, geologists, etc. would go along with something so completely nuts. They more than anybody would know what could very well happen.

      That's my biggest problem with believing this... is that what is required to get there is just so stupid. They would have to be "aiming" for the water table. Why????

    61. Re:Even with a major earthquake by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Leaking from retaining pools probably makes the most sense, but I can't remember the specifics. There was definitely a lot of complaints about frakking but I can't tell just from memory how legitimate that was, or even if it was every resolved conclusively. I wish I could find the damn articles online, so I could give you a more specific answer. It was a pretty big deal locally and Encana ended up paying out some small settlements.

      Thanks for the in depth response though.

      Another just general sort of comment, is that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that just because it isn't in the oil companies best interest to have shoddy practices and lax standards doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know in my small town whenever the gas industry was booming they would be laying down new wells as fast as they possibly could, and some of the folks they hired were slightly less than competent, educated individuals. And it's pretty easy for subcontractors to do poor work and still stay in business, at least during the boom years. A lot of terrible stuff gets overlooked because everybody's working 70+ hour weeks to get new wells up and running.

    62. Re:Even with a major earthquake by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I think the most constructive thing here is if I cut to the chase:

      It is my oppinion the there are serious problems with oil and gas drilling, and some of them leads to flammable drinking water, but none of them have anything in particular to do with fracking. They might crop up at places where fracking is used, but focusing of fracking is just going to remove the focus from other types of petrochemical drilling, which have just as much of a chance of giving problems.

    63. Re:Even with a major earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you are not too familiar with what fracking is. I guess it is possible that you are stating an opinion that is based on absolutely zero knowledge on the subject at all. Which does seem to be the case here.

      A little lesson ( a quick one mind you as I really have no patience for weak minded people ). Fracking is the process of Fracturing the earth to allow for more oil, gas or even water to come into a well. Does this process always have to use chemicals? No. Why does this process not always involve chemicals? Oh, well it could be the fact that the easiest way to fracture a formation is to exert more pressure than the formation can contain. Very similar to popping a balloon by filling it with too much air. Does it take chemicals to do that? Nope. In lots of cases all that needs to be done is add a couple thousand psi (and by a couple thousand I really mean anywhere from 10psi to 10,000 psi) of surface pressure and you instantly have a fractured formation. ( Wow that seems like rocket science instead of common sense)

      How can fracking effect surface water. Hmm, well if you do it at or near the depth of the surface water. (which is not as deep as you think as it is SURFACE water)

      As far as drilling through it first... Here is another point that you do not understand. Yes you drill through it (possibly) but then you set surface casing and cement it off so that you don't loose the oil, gas or water that you are looking for. You don't want to loose it into the water system or into someone else's well. That is not good for business. So you have this surface casing that is cemented off ( meaning there is cement from the bottom of the casing to surface on the outside of the casing. (casing is pipe) This keeps it isolated so you can actually make your money and keep it. Now in Canada as with other areas of the world (not sure on the US rules) if you are unsure of how much surface pressure the formation at the end of your surface casing can hold you have to do a leak off test with water to find out. This entails pumping 5 liters per minute of water down the hole until the formation fractures and you loose pressure or it holds enough pressure for what you need to do even further down the hole. If this number is too low then just like that the rigs job is over because you can't keep drilling this well.

      So drilling through it first... Answer is it is completely isolated. Now as for raising the pressure below could force things just under the water table up into it. Again, since the surface casing is below the water table by a large amount and then completely isolated, yes there is no chance of this happening.

      People tend to not understand how limited you are on the amount of pressure that you can exert on surface down a hole. The common perception seems to be that you have to exert a massive amount of pressure on surface to fracture a well. I have seen formation leak off tests fail at 230 meters (roughly 754 Feet) with less than 1000 psi surface pressure.

    64. Re:Even with a major earthquake by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      So, your saying the shit you're trying to get at in the first place is inert as well? You don't want natural gasses and such in the water. That's the problem, not what you put in.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  6. Interesting idea: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What about doing something like fracking, except using non-toxic chemicals, for the purpose of intentionally causing minor earthquakes to release the stress that would otherwise lead to a big one? I bet many Pacific Rim countries would be interested in gradually defusing major earthquakes...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Interesting idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, just shut up. I blushed after reading this post. I shouldn't be in the same forum as retard like you.

    2. Re:Interesting idea: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Then by all means, leave ^_^

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Interesting idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if you had some social skills you could have a girlfriend right now.

    4. Re:Interesting idea: by tunabomber · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. I think the main problem with this would be the legal issues. Unlike a controlled burn or avalanche control work, it would be very hard to predict the duration, magnitude and scale of the quakes being released. Just releasing the earthquake in the first place would be hard, and if you finally score and manage to release a lot of tectonic pressure, you wouldn't want to be the one that everyone could point to as the source of the resulting damage.

      Project Stormfury ran into the same issues: difficult to predict whether it works, but assuming it does work, you're an easy blame target for things that are most likely Mother Nature's mistakes rather than your own.

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    5. Re:Interesting idea: by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Whilst those earthquakes were relatively small in a global sense, they aren't that small for a country that is not straddling any major fault lines. If I was living somewhere near the San Andreas fault, I probably wouldn't want someone fracking anywhere near by. A small earthquake there, would probably be a few orders of magnitude larger than the largest earth quakes we can get here in the UK.

    6. Re:Interesting idea: by koan · · Score: 0

      Yeah maybe the only thing worse than a bad idea (which I'm not so sure it was bad) is someone that squashes without a moments consideration of said idea.

      "Galileo Galilei: I think the Sun is the center not the Earth"
      "Religious Right: Please, just shut up. I blushed after reading this manuscript. I shouldn't be in the same World as retard like you"

      See what I mean?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    7. Re:Interesting idea: by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I think the problem with this is that earthquakes are normally caused by sudden movement of plates. Fracking doesn't do anything to relieve that pressure. All it will do is create more minor earthquakes.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Interesting idea: by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      It's been theorized and even tried. (Although that's really an entirely different process. Fracking causes earthquakes by shifting the ground. What you are talking about is trying to let the ground shift in a more controlled manner.)

      The problem is you are just making it easier for the stress to be released. That doesn't guarantee smaller earthquakes as a result...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    9. Re:Interesting idea: by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Do not give the trolls breeding advice.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    10. Re:Interesting idea: by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The parent is called a troll. What you're doing is called feeding the trolls.

      It is usually advised to not feed the trolls.

    11. Re:Interesting idea: by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Well, yes it does. For the quake to occur naturally, more energy will need to be applied in order to overcome the static friction. If you lower the static friction threshold, the plates act without adding the additional energy that more time and tectonic activity would build on behind it.

      The problem is that the energy already there to be released might already be bad news. It's still better news than waiting, though.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:Interesting idea: by koan · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I'm a weak man, and besides I put the tainted meat on the end of a stick before I shoved it in the cage, so no injury to my hands.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    13. Re:Interesting idea: by koan · · Score: 1

      Actually the comment wasn't directed at the "parent" it was directed to the squasher.
      I can't can't say that gradual dissipation of tectonic pressures using a fracking like method is a bad idea, I really can't because it has *some* merit.

      Or did you get that and I'm up to early again?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    14. Re:Interesting idea: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If the advice is 'don't be a troll' there isn't much harm. Either they'll ignore it or be unable to follow it, in which case it won't do any harm, or they will follow it and we're down one troll...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Interesting idea: by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The point is that the AC saying it was a bad idea is a troll, hence deserves no answers.

      I was up early myself, and I may be up too late.

    16. Re:Interesting idea: by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I'm a weak man, and besides I put the tainted meat on the end of a stick before I shoved it in the cage, so no injury to my hands.

      Oh, I see. But it's not so much a matter of risking injuries, but rather a matter of trying to starve the troll to have him die a slow death. Then he'll be silent at long last.

      Granted, the species is not at risk of disappearing anytime soon, as the daily scene of slashdot posting clearly demonstrate.

    17. Re:Interesting idea: by koan · · Score: 1

      You did see the "tainted" part correct? I would imagine this will reduce troll population just as it would coyote populations.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    18. Re:Interesting idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it were possible, there's some math working against you. Take the San Andreas, with a potential for a 8.0. The scale is logarithmic. I don't think people would want 100 6.0 quakes. 1000 5.0 quakes might be tolerable. That's a strong quake every day for almost 3 years. Screw up just once, and you've moved up the date of the "big one".

    19. Re:Interesting idea: by Reziac · · Score: 1

      OT, but has there ever been an experiment with doing something like dropping an airburst bomb into a tornado to attempt to disrupt it??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    20. Re:Interesting idea: by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Ah! If only...

    21. Re:Interesting idea: by nigelo · · Score: 1

      True, if the model of static friction is the whole story.

      What if the fracturing of rock layers changes the way tectonic plates interact that allows pressure relief in unexpected directions and magnitudes?

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    22. Re:Interesting idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water is toxic in the right concentrations.

  7. Quake in DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is this also caused the quake earlier this year in Washington DC.

    1. Re:Quake in DC by Azghoul · · Score: 2

      Your guess is based on ignorance and fear. Thanks for remaining anonymous so no one would goof on your unscientific beliefs.

    2. Re:Quake in DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      First off, it wasn't a DC quake, it was a Mineral, VA quake that was felt in DC. Second, there is a history of earthquakes in the area dating back to colonial times. Third, there was no fracking going on in the area.

    3. Re:Quake in DC by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      But, aside from that, he was right?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Quake in DC by nedwidek · · Score: 1

      Do we even care if he was right? As noted in other comments the fault would have already been under strain. If it was left up to its own devices, it would continue to build up until it let loose on its own. More stress released means bigger earthquake.

      From Scientific American, there are parts of the San Andreas fault that seem to just move along slowly instead of building up to a big quake.
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=auto-lube-keeps-parts-of-san-andrea-10-06-25

      This might be the start of a good research project into figuring out how to get faults to trigger in a series of small, non-damaging quakes instead of one big one.

      --
      Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
  8. Releasing pent up energy by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    The energy for the earthquake is already there, so if anything, fracking *prevents* large earthquakes.

    However, if you're killed by a 5.x quake that wouldn't have released a 9.x until 100 years after your normal lifespan, Do you care?

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Releasing pent up energy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I never thought of England as an earthquake zone. Also my understanding is that fracking causes earthquakes by collapse of underground layers whereas normal earthquakes as caused by sudden movements of tectonic plates. Not exactly the same thing.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Releasing pent up energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're on the right track. To quote the article: In the case of the Cuadrilla site, the report stated, this occurred near an already-stressed fault. The fluid spread over a period of 10 hours after injection and caused the quakes.

      It's just that those that are against fracking are gonna use this a scare tactic.

      The same concerns over tainted water tables, etc. have been raised when oil drilling was beginning in the mid 1800s.

      Each environment is different and requires a case by case study to determine if fracking is indeed "bad" to the environment, but at the same time, to know all of this we need to continue to frack the trapped gas/oil.

    3. Re:Releasing pent up energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no guarantee that the energy released by fracking would have been released by a later earthquake. That's like saying the only way to disassemble an automobile is by crashing it into a wall and 200 mph.

    4. Re:Releasing pent up energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't talk crap.

    5. Re:Releasing pent up energy by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      However, if you're killed by a 5.x quake that wouldn't have released a 9.x until 100 years after your normal lifespan, Do you care?

      How could you care? You're dead!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Releasing pent up energy by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I'm clueless in these matters but trying to read up on it mostly lands me on activist sites that extoll the evils that is inherent to fracking and sources that don't really go into detail as to what causes the earthquakes, etc.

      So my basic question would be, in relationship to your statement, whether fracking condenses the release of that potential energy.

      I.e. if the energy is in the shale, does it actually build up to one big quake, or does it continually get released in a multitude of earthquakes of magnitudes that are barely worth registering - and fracking simply causes those multitudes of earthquakes to happen 'at once' thus resulting less frequent earthquakes of larger magnitude?

    7. Re:Releasing pent up energy by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

      Not quite getting the analogy. Are you saying that an earthquake is like crashing a car into a wall at 200 mph whereas fracking is like carefully disassembling a car piece by piece? Why wouldn't you want to do it the careful less damaging way (excluding other factors like contamination, which is outside the bounds of the analogy)?

    8. Re:Releasing pent up energy by phayes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sigh, yet another "The SKY IS FALLING" story from the clueless.

      The micro-fractures plus the injection of water, sand & detergents used by fracking are making small stress relieving adjustments (earthquakes) possible.

      It's just what we would need to eliminate major earthquakes. Unfortunately the geology of earthquake zones & that where fracking can be useful to recover recover otherwise unavailable gas do not overlap so it will never happen as a beneficial side effect of commercial fracking.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    9. Re:Releasing pent up energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subsidance is not the same as an earthquake.

    10. Re:Releasing pent up energy by digitig · · Score: 1

      However, if you're killed by a 5.x quake that wouldn't have released a 9.x until 100 years after your normal lifespan, Do you care?

      Not any more.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re:Releasing pent up energy by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Why wouldn't you want to do it the careful less damaging way (excluding other factors like contamination, which is outside the bounds of the analogy)?

      Because it makes money for EVIL OIL COMPANIES!

    12. Re:Releasing pent up energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are crushing or liquifying rocks. Mud causes buildings, tectonic plates and such or move easier.

      Wait until a major earthquake hits the unprepared NYC/Washington DC area. DC had a small earthquake and it caused some damage. I would bet it is due to all the fracking in the neighboring states.

      This has been seen with oil drilling as well in some places.

    13. Re:Releasing pent up energy by trout007 · · Score: 2

      You are right. The headline should say it triggered an earthquake not caused.

      I've suggested lubricating fault lines as a means to eliminate earthquakes. I am a mechanical engineer and earthquakes are a variation of a type of movement known as stick slip. It happens where you have seals like pistons. You have a static coefficient of friction much higher than the dynamic. So force and energy is stored up in your system trying to overcome the static friction. Once it starts moving the system lurches rapidly releasing the energy. They key to getting rid of it is reducing the friction. Better seals like Teflon can help as can lubrication in some applications.

      If you pumped a slurry mixture into a fault line and keep pressure on it it will cause it to slip. We can't prevent the stress from building but we can control the release. The only trouble is the first time you release the energy you have no idea how it will behave. This should be studied in remote places like Alaska where there are plenty of fault lines and not much population that would be affected.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    14. Re:Releasing pent up energy by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      While that happens (subsidence), this is not what we are thinking of. Consider the fluid being injected to be WD-40. You've got a sticky joint that won't move without adding a lot more pressure.

      You can add more pressure (leave it be and let it release when it would without interference) or you can lube it up and release the tension that's in it now.

      Both might suck, but you can argue that the latter sucks less than the former (overall) even though the other might not apply within a geologically significant amount of time.

      Now, what you're thinking of (subsidence) wouldn't directly apply, it's POSSIBLE that the movement could "loosen" an impediment that is keeping the static friction threshold too high for the current energy to overcome, and by removing that impediment you could trigger a release... though I think that would be even rarer an occurrence than what I outlined above.

      Disclaimer: I am not a geologist or anything approaching one.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Releasing pent up energy by koan · · Score: 1

      I'm stealing your sig....

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    16. Re:Releasing pent up energy by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      This is in England, not an earthquake zone, not a volcanic zone, we have one of the most stable tectonic areas on the planet ...

      the area in question has now had 2 quakes in a month, the UK as a whole gets only 30 a year in total, and all lower in magnitude then these ...

      The earthquakes were caused by fracking and nothing else ..

         

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    17. Re:Releasing pent up energy by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You are right. The headline should say it triggered an earthquake not caused.

      I've suggested lubricating fault lines as a means to eliminate earthquakes. I am a mechanical engineer and earthquakes are a variation of a type of movement known as stick slip. It happens where you have seals like pistons. You have a static coefficient of friction much higher than the dynamic. So force and energy is stored up in your system trying to overcome the static friction. Once it starts moving the system lurches rapidly releasing the energy. They key to getting rid of it is reducing the friction. Better seals like Teflon can help as can lubrication in some applications.

      It seems to me that lubricating the fault could make the energy release much more quickly - instead of a "slow" grind between plates, you have a lubrication assisted quick slide, and perhaps even a greater energy release than if the plates have been allowed to slide naturally since there's less friction resisting the movement.

      So this may change the dynamic of the quake in such a way to make it much worse since the energy would be released over a shorter period of time making the quake more intense.

      Testing in Alaska only proves that faults like those in Alaska work - since every fault is different, what works in Alaska may trigger a huge quake in Pennsylvania.

    18. Re:Releasing pent up energy by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
      For a parallel to this situation one should look no further than the forestry service. They often set small brush fires so that the flammable plant wastes don't build up on the forest floor to the point of causing a catastrophic forest fire. Its a controlled burn. Its the forest fire that never happened that nobody thinks about, so many people don't even know its going on.

      If you just had just a periodic rumble under foot, on a planned and pre-announced schedule, then earthquakes would not be so big of a deal, and tsunamis would be non-existent. Even volcanoes could be put to sleep if we had enough data to plan the proper fault stress relief. The real technological problem is knowing where those stresses are building up and finding ways to alleviate those stresses before nature decides to do it for us. If we could detect and visualize the build up of these stresses we could then build models and find ways to make these problems go away via micro-fracturing a bed of rubble between the fault lines to prevent massive tectonic plates from binding and preventing the future catastrophic release of that pent up energy.

      We should not blame these engineers for "causing" earthquakes, because the one that resulted was a whole lot smaller than the one that would have happened otherwise. In fact we should be thanking them.

    19. Re:Releasing pent up energy by phayes · · Score: 1

      Woosh...

      There are always some latent stresses but generally the rock will not fracture to relieve them. What the minor earthquakes show is that fracking creates a non-destructive means of relieving stresses at low levels. Given that the quakes were small enough to pass unnoticed unless you were actually looking for them, there's no real reason to scream FRACKING CAUSES EARTHQUAKES. Try working on your reading comprehension, nothing i said implied that fracking was not the reason for the quakes.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    20. Re:Releasing pent up energy by trout007 · · Score: 1

      You are correct. The problem is in triggering a fault that has built up stress for a long time. You may have to wait until after a quake when the stress it at a lower value to try it.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    21. Re:Releasing pent up energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that argument is that a 5.x quake in an earthquake-hardened city like SF or tokyo is a joke. If we can cause 5.x earthquakes in these areas and thereby prevent 9.x earthquakes from forming, I'm all for it.
      That said, I'm not familiar with the subject so I'm not sure that earthquakes caused by fracking would even have a passing effect on the larger buildups of energy that cause the 9.x quakes.

  9. Re:Happy November from the Golden Girls! by tangelogee · · Score: 0

    Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    I believe the word you are looking for there is confidant...

  10. Not Even Peer Reviewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Really Slashdot? You could not wait until at least peer review?

    "The report is now entering peer review. "We want it to subjected to maximum scrutiny; it's not in Cuadrilla's interest to discover a problem down the road," Smith says."

    1. Re:Not Even Peer Reviewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really Slashdot? You could not wait until at least peer review?

      Why wait for peer review when Slashdot can collect lots of emotion-fueled clicks for ad revenue!

  11. Quakes are going to happen. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    It is not a question of 'if' there will be quakes.. it is only a question of 'when' there will be quakes. Energy is continually building up in the ground and every once in awhile the stresses are too great. The potential increases over time.

    We manage potential in other areas, such as lighting forest fires and burning off brush before the potential problem grows too great.

    Couldn't it be said that fracking will, at worst, cause an impending quake to happen sooner and thus it will have less potential?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Quakes are going to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to change your signature. Now that Steve is dead we're trying to get him beatified. We don't need reminders of things like that.

    2. Re:Quakes are going to happen. by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 1

      You need to change your signature. Now that Steve is dead we're trying to get him beatified. We don't need reminders of things like that.

      His sig clearly supports beatification. Steve was complimenting the competition. How much more saintly can you get?

      --
      The cake is a lie.
    3. Re:Quakes are going to happen. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far.

      Remember that this was the year that Microsoft dumped a ton of money on Apple to keep them from going bankrupt. Apple was in serious trouble that year with yearly expenses greater than their revenue + cash reserves. The key announcement at that Macworld (1997) was that Apple wont be going out of business... that was just prior to Jobs introducing Bill Gates himself who gave a live speech over a satellite feed while the audience boo'd and heckled the man that was saving the company.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  12. Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oy. Both the EPA and GWPC have said that there is no proven link between fracking and contaminated groundwater. 99% of what is sent into the earth is plain, non-potable water. The other 1% is made up of various chemicals of varying toxicity, the most toxic two chemicals making up about 0.1% of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid sent down.

    The case correlating fracking to groundwater contamination is as strong as Jenny McCarthy's claims correlating vaccines to autism. /Geologist who works for a major oil company.

    1. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      /Geologist who works for a major oil company.

      So you're obviously a non-biased source.

    2. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You remind me of a Birther.

    3. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by slater.jay · · Score: 1

      Yeah! It's terrible how nobody who works for an oil company can ever honestly be concerned about the impact of his work! This guy is such a paid shill!

    4. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no proven link between smoking and lung cancer. /Doctor who works for a major tobacco company.

    5. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      the most toxic two chemicals making up about 0.1% of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid sent down.

      So, what you're actually telling us is that these companies are injecting thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into the earth and the ground water. That's not so reassuring...

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    6. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What's terrible is that your statement is more accurate when read without a tone of irony. Oil company employees have a practically faultless record of being paid shills. Though mainly only people willing to be paid shills take that kind of work.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Pointing out bias is not the same thing as calling someone a liar. If he works for a major oil company, it is a non-debatable fact that he has a bias.

    8. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're an Anonymous Coward. Sign your name and the oil corp and we'll believe that you are who you say. BTW, it's more like hundreds of millions of gallons of fracking fluids. That's millions of gallons of toxic chemicals, even if your percentages are true. An actual geologist working for a major oil corp who isn't lying would have said millions.

      But even so, what does it matter that the EPA and the GWPC have been bribed and bullied by oil corps to lie to us about fracking safety?

      Oil corps have earned only distrust and hatred. Anything they say should be treated as a lie unless conclusively proven to be true. Fracking is just the latest round of lies and abuse.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OP here. So the Environmental Protection Agency and Ground Water Protection Council are biased in favor of big oil? My comments are based on THEIR studies, not my own, not my employer's.

      Please, explain your brilliant reasoning or is it just a big government conspiracy?

      Amazing that the most ignorant comments get modded up. Group-think at its finest.

    10. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What are these two most toxic chemicals?
      I ask because if they something like cadmium then 0.1% of 100,000 gallons would be 100 gallons more than enough to poison a great many people. I am not suggesting it is cadmium only that even such small quantities can be enough to poison thousands or millions of people if the substance is toxic enough.

      The EPA and GWPC are little more than mouth pieces for industry. If we at least made the ingredients of these fluids public knowledge I would be a lot more comfortable.

    11. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      No conspiracy, but normal regulatory capture. Happens with near every other government regulatory agency/

    12. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So the Environmental Protection Agency

      Which is so unconcerned about fracking that they just released this month their plan to conduct an in-depth study of the effect of fracking on groundwater.

      Ground Water Protection Council

      Which is so unconcerned about fracking that they created a database to track chemicals used in hydrofracking at the individual well level.

      Amazing that the most ignorant comments get modded up. Group-think at its finest.

      "You should believe this because these groups believe it, and if you don't then you're just stuck in group-think!"

      And someone who thinks the sole question concerning hydrofracking's effect on groundwater is what you're pumping into the ground really needs to brush up on their geochemistry.

      See Osborn SG, et al. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(20):8172–8176 (2011); doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108.

    13. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you off-handedly disbelieve two independent groups' studies historically known to be unfriendly to big-oil, what is my identity or that of my employer going to prove to you? Also, I don't have an account here, I've posted as an AC for years.

      Are you proud to publicly admit that you share the same position on the EPA as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh? You're a scary individual. Ignorant and not afraid to let everyone know.

    14. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I was talking to a PhD candidate (coincidentally, a hydrogeologist working on groundwater issues) who was about to defend her dissertation about the job market for her field; I asked if she was willing to work for an oil company and the sheer revulsion that passed over this girl's face was actually a little surprising in its vehemence.

    15. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by microbox · · Score: 1

      If fracking is so safe, why did the industry lobby for exemption from drinking water regulation? Because it's so safe we that we have nothing to worry about? And besides, the EPA head himself did the lobbying. Talk about regulatory capture.

      Some of your former teachers -- your former professors at universities -- are stating that they have concerns over fracking. I guess that is just a minor detail. Just believe what you want to believe so that you can think of yourself as a good person.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    16. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by jovius · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting way to put it, because the 1% mixes with the rest how plain it ever was. You make it seem like a perfectly closed system. Besides EPA has found traces of fracking chemicals in ground water at various sites.

    17. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Those two groups aren't "unfriendly to Big Oil", they're two groups that should be but instead allow Big Oil to pollute and destroy with only minor extra costs of doing business. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do not share that opinion.

      You're not a geologist. You don't work for any oil corp. You're a liar. An anonymous liar. Your claims to a long history of it don't make it any more credible.

      Goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I've done a lot in my career, including working for big hedge funds and other banks. But I refused to work for any oil or nuke corp, even though I was asked more than once. My conscience is worth more than they will pay. I wish the US assigned costs and values to work and consequences better, so the brain drain would steal talent from oil corps to sustainable development instead of the reverse. Not everyone has the variety of opportunities I've had to work elsewhere.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    19. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He may be biased, but being that most of those compounds are secret, he probably know more about them than any of the activists.
      Besides, what makes an activist so unbiased. It's all about money. Activists are our usually out to make money by suing, whereas the gas companies are out to make money by selling a product.

    20. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Activists are our usually out to make money by suing,

      That is just ridiculous and you are completely unable to substantiate that claim. The overwhelming majority of activists never sue anyone. When activists DO sue people, they usually ask for injunctive relief, which means even if they win they get zero money.

    21. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's also an authoritative source, as opposed to the lying shitbags on fox news.

    22. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by toastar · · Score: 2

      /Geologist who works for a major oil company.
      So you're obviously a non-biased source.</quote>

      So who am I to believe, The guy who spent 10 years getting his masters, or the guy who just spent 2 hours watching a movie?

      It really is basic Geology, Ask someone from the USGS if you really want an unbias source. Seriously give them a call.

      For example, The Marcellus Shale, ranges from a depth of 3000-7000 feet. The thing is Freshwater usually only goes down a few hundred feet. According to the DNCR the brine freshwater contact ranges from 200-1000 feet. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/education/es3.pdf.

      So You would at the very least need a 2000ft fault, But in more realistic cases you'd have to have a migration path of about 4000-5000ft.

      What's scary is more along the lines of the drilling company fucking up and not casing the well right or something and the gas traveling up the well bore and into the water table. Of course this would be a major fuck up(Think Macondo).

    23. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking to you is like talking to a Sarah Palin -- No matter what facts are presented, you dismiss them out of hand because it opposes your world view. "Those evil government agencies are working against the people!"

      And yes, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh share your position that the EPA is a corrupt organization. Does that make you feel warm and tingly inside. Your level of cognitive dissonance is on par with that pair.

      So long, lightweight.

    24. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EPA hasn't even finished the study Mr Geologist:

      http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

      Status of Hydraulic Fracturing Study Research (11/1/11):

      Initial research results are expected by the end of 2012. A final report will be released in 2014.

    25. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My geology professor disagrees with you, good sir.

    26. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oy. Environmental engineer for a major environmental remediation consultancy here. We're doing litigation support for cases like this, on both sides of the aisle. He's right.

      There are a lot of cases of groundwater contamination out there, most of them caused by bad engineering of well casings or bad survey practice. EPA has noted that while fracking itself is safe the industry needs to focus on doing things right so that shit doesn't happen.

      What is obvious is that people no longer trust anyone in the gas industry, and the gas industry doesn't help themselves either by being arrogant and pooh-poohing people's concerns.

    27. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the most toxic two chemicals making up about 0.1% of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid sent down.

      So that makes hundreds of gallons of toxic liquid, no?

    28. Re:Ignorance out in full force again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> /Geologist who works for a major oil company.

      > So you're obviously a non-biased source.

      That doesn't mean he's wrong.

      More to the point, working for a company doesn't automatically mean you're willing to lie, cheat and steal for your employer. Seriously, how many of you would "go to bat" for your employer? The same employer who's been reducing benefits, freezing wages, and demanding that you do the work of three people (since they laid off the other two).

      How many of you really give a shit what people think of your employer?

  13. Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large ones? by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

    If I understand correctly, quakes are the result of releasing pressure that builds up along fault lines. Wouldn't releasing this pressure in small increments prevent it from being released all at once? Otherwise a quake is going to happen sooner or later anyway. Better to be 10 small quakes than 1 large quake, right?

  14. Sea ponies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call upon the Sea Ponies when you're in distress
    Helpful as can be ponies - simply signal SOS
    If you find you're past the drift and haven't got an oar (oar)
    Count upon the Sea Ponies - they'll see you to shore
    Shoop-bee-doo-shoop-shoop-bee-doo

  15. Atleast... by smackeroo · · Score: 1

    At least it was shallow fracking, and not deep fracking. Think of the effects double fracking could cause!! o_o

  16. Re:Happy November from the Golden Girls! by Denogh · · Score: 0

    Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    I believe the word you are looking for there is confidant...

    I disagree.

  17. Earthquakes by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Let's point out that the earthquakes were so small they can not be felt by man, are barely detectable, and these size quakes happen all the time naturally too.

    As for groundwater pollution- this has happened, albeit doesn't usually- and there are non-toxic equivalents to the toxic chemicals that are *sometimes* used. Fracking need not use toxic chemical.

    Natural Gas, whereas it is no "solar" or "wind farm", is overall much cleaner than oil or coal. (or at least can be if they regulate the chemicals used when fracking).

    Anything which gets us away from coal (which is extremely destructive and polluting) is a good thing. Yes, we want renewables- but natural gas works today and is cost effective today. Trying to stop people collecting natural gas is not doing the environment any favours- because people will turn from gas to coal, which is much worse.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Earthquakes by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The British government would rather than people freeze in the dark -- or send a ton of money to the Russians to buy their gas -- than risk some slight tremors that no-one but a few scientists will notice.

    2. Re:Earthquakes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Yes, people die every day. So what's some more optional killing among friends?

      NYC has a nuke plant just up the Hudson which has all kinds of unregulated underground pipe leaks already. It's on a fault line that official geologists said would max quake at something like 1% of the actual max quake geologists now have; the low number was the basis for the quake protections installed there. These faults are unstable anyway, but within a range. Extra quakes from fracking will add to the probability of a quake large enough to dump the nukes into the Hudson. Downstream is something like 15 million people, just within the first few hours. If you thought a couple of big office buildings collapsing downtown on 9/11/2001 busted up the NYC/USA/global economy, wait until you see tens of millions of people panicking as they fail to evacuate the NYC area during "the next Fukushima".

      And then there's all the other damage to groundwater and from escaping gas and fracking fluids. The "little" quakes are if nothing else signs of severe damage being done to underground systems that we barely even know about, let alone understand.

      Instead of fracking, we should do big engineering and drilling for geothermal. It's much cheaper to build, doesn't destroy the ground like fracking, and produces energy for a much longer period after. It's truly sustainable. Fracking is just another desperate grab for petrofuel profits that dump the costs beyond the horizon on everyone else.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Earthquakes by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Are they fracking anywhere near the nuclear power plant? If not- I wouldn't worry. If they are- there may be cause to not frack near sensitive sites- even though any quakes likely to be caused are expected to be extremely minor and not even noticable by mankind (except by hyper-sensitive equipment designed to detect them).

      Groundwater is usually not affected- and there are non-toxic technologies available that we should concentrate on.

      Geothermal's great. I'm all for geothermal energy. Realistically though- private entities are going to go where the profits are- and that is in fossils NOT renewables yet. Until we get our renewable situation sorted out- we shouldn't be cutting off the natural gas.

      It is not clean- but it is much cleaner than the alternatives. We use more coal than anything else- and coal is about as bad as you can get.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Earthquakes by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Are they fracking anywhere near the nuclear power plant? If not- I wouldn't worry. If they are- there may be cause to not frack near sensitive sites- even though any quakes likely to be caused are expected to be extremely minor and not even noticable by mankind (except by hyper-sensitive equipment designed to detect them).

      I think that most people would consider their home to be a "sensitive site" that they don't want any man-made earthquakes happening close to. If a Nuclear Plant that's supposedly hardened against earthquakes can't handle a quake, is my daughter's school any safer?

    5. Re:Earthquakes by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't care less if they were fracking near me. I don't think most people would either.

      Man-made earthquakes can not be felt by man. Big deal- there are microscopic quakes that no-one can feel. I understand the Nuclear Plant concerns just-in-case- even though fracking is unlikely to cause any issues there.

      We're not talking about structure damaging quakes- we're not even talking about quakes you can feel. We're talking about quakes you need mega-money equipment to even detect.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re:Earthquakes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      1. You don't know anything about the tectonics of this area.
      2. You don't know the truth about whether groundwater is "usually" affected. And the fracking that has gotten underway (at least procedurally, which is the only thing standing in its way), including in NY State is not using non-toxic technologies.

      You are talking like you are qualified to make recommendations, but you're not. Further, nobody's talking about "cutting off the natural gas" - except you. There's lots of natgas being produced without fracking.

      Yes, coal is the worst. The fracking industry is the same as the coal industry. Fracking is not lessening coal, even if it's replacing some new coal with also-dirty fracking. The profits in fracking are simply because the frackers are exempted from the costs of their damage. What we must do, like with all these dead-end energy techs, is make sure that those costs are assigned properly, which will stop it. And which will then make the actually more profitable sources, like geothermal, the targets for development and financing by private for-profit efforts. When we stop this corporate socialism, actual economics will give us the sustainable energy we need. Because the actual economics make sustainable energy more profitable.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Earthquakes by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The fracking industry is the same as the coal industry

      It is not even close.

      Most fracking sites don't pollute ground water- and gasses released are very minimal. If you stop fracking- the sources for energy will go elsewhere- most likely coal or oil. There are exceptions. If they're using toxic chemicals in New York- hey, I'm against that- especially when there are non-toxic equivalents. Even though toxic chemicals released in even the worst scenario have been extremely limited. I'm not familiar with what is going on in New York- but fracking in general need not be especially harmfull to the environment (compared to other fossil fuels).

      You're not going to encourage more renewables by stopping fracking- you will just cause more coal to be mined instead. I'm in full agreement we need to move to renewables long term- but by cancelling out fracking, private enterprise will just go to more damaging technology instead.

      Maybe they will just move away from your neck of the woods and start dismantling entire mountains in West Virginia. I'm sure that's OK for you- environmentalism only matters for some when it is their neighbourhood.

      I'm all for mankind moving off the fast-track to global destruction- but this is a global issue. It's also an issue you have to be sensible about and take steps towards that people can follow.

      Bannishing one of the cleanest forms of energy production that we currently are mass using (but yes, mid to long term should be moving away from) is not going to help. Private enterprise looks for profits- right now- if you take fracking away they'll go back to coal... but hey, that's West Virginia's problem not New York so that's OK.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:Earthquakes by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't care less if they were fracking near me. I don't think most people would either.

      Man-made earthquakes can not be felt by man. Big deal- there are microscopic quakes that no-one can feel. I understand the Nuclear Plant concerns just-in-case- even though fracking is unlikely to cause any issues there.

      We're not talking about structure damaging quakes- we're not even talking about quakes you can feel. We're talking about quakes you need mega-money equipment to even detect.

      A microquake is anything below a 2.0, but quakes above that level can be felt without any special equipment. I've felt more than one sub 3.0 quake, most recently, a 2.5 (I happened to be very close to that one and I definitely felt it).

      So maybe *you* are talking about microquakes that can't be felt, but the UK firm causing the quakes says that think it's unlikely that they'd create any quake over 3.0. But quakes at the 2.5 - 3.0 level are definitely felt.

      But in any case, you seem a little inconsistent.... you're so sure that fracking won't cause a quake that you'd have them frack under my house (which is not specifically designed to withstand any size earthquake), but you're not so sure that you'd have them frack near a power plant (which is (usually) specifically designed to withstand an earthquake).

    9. Re:Earthquakes by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The kind of quakes we are talking about happen every day naturally- all across the country- even in areas not on fault lines.

      Worst case scenario here, a 3.0, is not going to cause any damage. So yeah, big deal. That said, absolutely, I can see the case not to frack near a nuclear power plant *just in case*- even though the chances of any problem are absolutely minute.

      There is a big difference between the risk associated with a vase falling off a shelf and a nuclear disaster. Chances that it would cause a problem at a nuclear plant are very very minor- but I think it's reasonable to say that, yes, we would go to more trouble to ensure it would never happen than we would go to the trouble of preventing a vase falling off your shelf.

      Vase falls off your shelf- you pay $30. Nuclear disaster would cost lives and billions of $. There is a huge difference.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re:Earthquakes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      On what basis are you assuring me that fracking is safe? As I pointed out, you were reassuring me of other safety without even knowing the facts about it. Now you're reassuring me that fracking overall is safe. On what basis?

      I also said that coal is bad, so your comment about my not caring about WV mountaintop removal is unwarranted.

      It takes only a few years to get a geothermal plant running. That's shorter than even fracking, where the correct bureaucratic procedures make it slow because its risk is so high and largely unknown. Geothermal doesn't have to be a long term solution - it's at least as short term as fracking. Redirecting from fracking into geothermal is the right decision for all but the petrocorps that prefer to buy their way past the regulations. We shouldn't help them do that.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Earthquakes by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know- how about a little entity known as the EPA and general scientific consensus.

      It is not a perfect technology, it does cause some problems- and certainly there are some bad practices in place- but it needn't be. Regulate it- don't kill it. It can be done safely without much harm to the environment or it can be done poorly.

      If geothermal is so profitable and easy to get running- Those with the means should go ahead and start a geothermal power plant then. Get a co-op of like minded people together- raise the funds, start a business. I'll whole-heartedly aplaud them.

      I'm not against geothermal- I'm all for it. However, I'm pretty sure, if it were profitable and easier to set up than fracking we'd see it used a lot more than it is. The energy companies arn't evil people who want to destroy the environment... they're just money-motivated people looking for the cheapest option. I'm all for government subsidizing renewables- geothermal can't be used everywhere to the same effect though.
      Whilst fossils are cheaper for them though- fossils is what will be used even if certain methods are banned.

      Like it or not- we're decades away from getting rid of fossil fuels- so I'd rather we eliminate the worst polluters first. The public is not going to go for some draconian measure- we need to take down the worst first.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    12. Re:Earthquakes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The EPA we have now is the one Bush/Cheney built for fracking. There is no "general scientific consensus", except perhaps among the geologists employed by fracking corps. The Wikipedia article has plenty of footnoted examples of holes in the "fracking is not toxic" story. We might like to believe that fracking can be done in a way that isn't harmful to the environment, but we don't have what we need to believe it. Big actions on largely unknown systems like what's underground deliver surprises, like earthquakes. The industry has a solid record of ignoring unknowns and risks, and there's no reason to believe this time will be different.

      I can tell you, having dealt with execs and lawyers in big oil corps, that their culture is indeed evil and values damaging the environment when they can get away with it as something of a trophy. Having dealt with other resource extraction corporadoes I can tell you that it's a fairly common machismo, the flipside of deriding "tree huggers". The money is of course what they're after, but the collateral damage is the scenic view. Of course it's necessary for most people whose profit seeking will necessarily damage the place to turn that necessity into a virtue, or at least tell themselves that to keep the guilt at bay.

      Geothermal produces electricity, which is a different industry than natgas production. All of these industries are subsidized in highly structured ways, and just switching to geothermal development isn't how US energy industries operate, even if the direct economics favors it. Yet geothermal has begun real development, even though its subsidies aren't anywhere near as rich as for oil/gas production, or competitive with $120 oil barrels. These industries have lots of momentum, and Boone Pickens spent over a decade firing up fracking. Nobody nearly as connected is championing geothermal. Yet it is ramping up.

      Preventing fracking from starting up isn't some "draconian measure". It's the fracking that's draconian.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  18. Who cares by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

    we gota get that oil!!!!! mo money mo problems...

  19. They're used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The quakes they are seeing from fracking are less noticeable than the shaking caused by coal mining.

  20. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by c · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't releasing this pressure in small increments prevent it from being released all at once? Otherwise a quake is going to happen sooner or later anyway. Better to be 10 small quakes than 1 large quake, right?

    Probably. The trick is that we'd need to know the right places to set off our small quakes, and how big we'd need to make them. I like to think that if we actually had the kind of knowledge to do that stuff safely, we'd already be using it right now to accurately predict earthquakes.

    Uninformed geo-engineering is basically the equivalent of a surgeon slicing off chunks of your organs because they might develop cancer and kill you.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  21. Re:Happy November from the Golden Girls! by Chrisq · · Score: 0

    Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    I believe the word you are looking for there is confidant...

    Is that you Yuri? I disagree.

  22. Just the First Confession by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    It's surprising that this petrofuel corp is admitting anything at all. The truth will turn out to be even worse, as these energy corps always hide and lie as long as physically possible. They use the same PR corps that kept tobacco's death and destruction officially secret and off the liability lists for generations.

    Soon enough we'll hear about even more damage the drill babies know they're doing. And then eventually, if we don't stop this destructive profit extraction, we'll hear about all the other damage they insisted on ignoring. But of course then it will be too late to matter. Which is always the drill babies' main strategy.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Just the First Confession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both the EPA and Ground Water Protection Council have performed studies showing no unexpected effects from fracking. What are you basing your comments on, willful ignorance or simply being uniformed by basing your views based on a 100 word Slashdot description?

    2. Re:Just the First Confession by esocid · · Score: 1

      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-documents-7.html#document/p1/a27935
      A 1987 EPA study in WV. "the residual fracturing fluid migrated into (the resident's) water well."
      "A spokesperson for the EPA would not directly address the apparent contradiction but said in an email that the agency is now reviewing the 1987 report and that 'the agency has identified several circumstances where contamination of wells is alleged to have occurred and is reviewing those cases in depth.'"

      That 2004 EPA "study" was done with negotiations with gas companies. " fluids migrated unpredictably -- through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought -- in as many as half the cases studied in the United States."

      I have very little faith in the EPA after Bush/Cheney gutted it to be their personal sockpuppet.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    3. Re:Just the First Confession by microbox · · Score: 1

      But of course then it will be too late to matter. Which is always the drill babies' main strategy.

      Indeed, the power brokers will have walked away with the money, and we will be left to clean up the mess they made of our lives. It is a timeless formula.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    4. Re:Just the First Confession by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      You're a liar, as the other posts citing research showing fracking damage amply demonstrate. Here you're using the weasel words "no unexpected effects" from fracking. So now it's safe to assume that oil corps expected the damage.

      I'm certainly not going to base my views on your 44 word Anonymous Coward Slashdot shallow denial. Except my view that you're a liar.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Just the First Confession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, that’s the was to scientific progress. Assume the worst, and don't do any experimentation because something might go wrong. good thing the guys are Cern don't think your way, even though a black hole *might* be created and destroy the world. If you know of a better way to gather data about fracking and how it works without doing any fracking, I am sure the scientific community would love to know it. Same goes with the Cern experiments.

    6. Re:Just the First Confession by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This is not simply a case of "something might go wrong". This is a case of fracking actually going wrong, and finally having a fracker admitting it. Which, as we always see (hello, Gulf of BP), gradually finds the energy corp admitting more and more of the truth.

      CERN's black hole experiments were first analyzed by highly competent scientists who determined from other experiments and detailed theories proven in other experiments that the risk of a black hole was negligible.

      Fracking is being done by unaccountable energy corps who have always demonstrated their reckless behavior by actually damaging us and leaving the public with the bill.

      There is no worthwhile comparison between the two. Which is why you're posting as an Anonymous Coward: you're all about making reckless statements without accountability. Hello, BP.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Just the First Confession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an engineer for a hydraulic fracturing service company. As far as chemicals we have been rushing to get our chemicals as close to food grade without the certification. The chemical we use the most, which usually is less than .5% of the fluid we put down, is a mixture of endosperm of guar bean (or deshelled guar bean) and mineral oil. I will admit when I started there were several chemicals that were diesel base. The idea being that it came out of the ground it will not harm the formation to put it back in. But when people realized the heavy metals that were being mixed in and the public outrage we quickly started changing our chemical line. I would have a hard time even finding a diesel based chemical with any service company. I am not saying that it still doesn't happen time to time, but every company I've talked to is working hard to get so called green alternatives. As far as earth quakes the original question. As far as I'm aware there has been no correlation to frac'ing up till now. Production of oil, or the extraction of oil from underground, on the other had has a long history of correlation to earth quakes. The idea that frac'ing is new is also not true. It has been around for over half a century. The only new thing in hydraulic fracturing is the expansion of the chemical line and the use on shale formations.

  23. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you trust humans to be knowledgeable and trustworthy enough about geo-engineering to be able to produce smaller earthquakes to prevent larger earthquakes?

    Have you seen how inept they are in the realm of developing software that's bug free and repairing roads and bridges? Things which are trivially easy.

  24. RTFA? Not unless you pay by tepples · · Score: 2

    Really Slashdot? You could not wait until at least peer review?

    By the time an article gets peer-reviewed, it's often put under a paywall.

  25. pondering the issue... by v1 · · Score: 1

    First off I can't believe that drilling causes earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by slippage during the course of tectonic plate movements. So saying that drilling "causes" earthquakes is silly.

    What I can believe is that it causes quakes to come earlier and smaller, by slightly lowering the stiction between the plates. Looked at this way, it would seem to be a benefit rather than an evil disaster-maker? I think most places would much prefer to have a handful of 4.0's instead of the occasional 6.5.

    Afaik, the only manmade earthquakes involve using very large explosives (h bombs) or conventional explosives on bedrock. (there are numerous examples of explosives being set off near bedrock and breaking windows for miles as a result of transmission of the blast through the bedrock - neither is a true earthquake but with somewhat similar effect)

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:pondering the issue... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      First off I can't believe that drilling causes earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by slippage during the course of tectonic plate movements. So saying that drilling "causes" earthquakes is silly.

      It's conceivable that pumping millions of gallons of high-pressure water underground can cause stresses that weren't there before, thereby being a direct cause of a quake that wouldn't otherwise have occurred due to natural stresses.

    2. Re:pondering the issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be a lot more than a handful of 4.5s. In fact, it would probably come out to several hundred, not "a handful".

      My geology professor once showed the class how many 7.0 earthquakes it would take to release the same amount of pressure as single 8.0. It was a huge number.

    3. Re:pondering the issue... by v1 · · Score: 1

      hmmm, I last recall reading that magnitude numbers are log10, and that an 8.0 is ten times as powerful as a 7.0? or maybe that referred to the apparent effect at ground level, not to the actual energy, which I'll admit I have no idea if they are very different orders.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  26. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    No, there's no science concluding that small quakes overall reduce large quakes, rather than add to stresses that make large quakes larger and/or more likely. Some science suggests maybe, but even there only on some fault systems, not necessarily on others.

    We are messing with major consequences that we don't understand. For short term gain, gambling against long term losses - that will be paid by someone who didn't make the short term profits. As usual.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  27. If Fracking is dangerous I don't want to be safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My father is a small time oil man in OK and I've seen fracking done. It's not black magic, and it's not dangerous. It's almost always done at deep levels that simply cannot pollute water tables absent some serious messed up concrete jobs on wells. They require wells to have concrete around the casing down a few hundred feet precisely to protect the water table from communicating with lower geological strata. The chemicals they use are in such low concentrations and small amounts that even if they did get into the water table you'd have a heck of a time detecting them. Gasland and all the other enviromentalist spew about fracking being some huge dangerous activity ignores the fact that it's been done in oil & gas fields for decades. As far as the quakes go, all oil & ng exploration has been known to upset faults and cause quakes. But most people won't even notice a 3.0 if they aren't near something that makes noise when it happens, and I have never heard of a oil/ng exploration process causing a quake that actually mattered.

  28. So then by AdamJS · · Score: 1

    Who is Italy going to press charges against for this one?

  29. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

    Aren't fault lines the equivalent of tumors already?

  30. Of Course Fracking is safe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fine people of Pennsylvania have easy uninterrupted access to hot and cold exploding water.

    How dare you suggest otherwise!

  31. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

    I don't see how they could make it worse purely on the grounds of seismic activity. Sure the contamination might be enough to nix the whole idea, but I have a hard time seeing how "deflating" the fault line can possibly be worse in any way than waiting for it to "pop".

  32. Re:I, for one... by swanzilla · · Score: 1

    welcome our new tremor overlords

    Underlords?

  33. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine anyone who has a deep enough understanding of tumors and fault lines to accurately say yes actually saying yes.

  34. so in other words... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    the UK is fracked.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  35. I bet... by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 2

    Millions of BSG fans are laughing at this headline :D

    1. Re:I bet... by aztrailerpunk · · Score: 1

      You see what happens when two English people perform coitus. This kids is how Earth was destroyed, not by the Cylons. Don't believe the propoganda.

      --
      Foot placed squarely in mouth since 1983.
    2. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I was beginning to think I was the only one. :P

    3. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking for this comment to see if I was the only one :D

    4. Re:I bet... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      You see what happens when two English people perform coitus. This kids is how Earth was destroyed, not by the Cylons. Don't believe the propoganda.

      I thought it is more like one person performing coitus, while the other is lying back and thinking of Kobol.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed I was expecting a more controversial article ;)

    6. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of BSG fans are laughing at this headline :D

      Ones of BSG fans are laughing at this headline :D

    7. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about her, but _I_ felt the earth move...

    8. Re:I bet... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      Have a cookie sir. I miss BSG so much... too bad it had to end.

    9. Re:I bet... by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      Same, it was one of the best shows on TV.

    10. Re:I bet... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Edward James Olmos was so badass he was in the same class as Patrick Stewart.

    11. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also surprised at the lack of a Doctor Who mention.

      Don't worry it's just the lizard-people under the Earth coming to reclaim the surface.

    12. Re:I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish Quake 3.1 had caused fracking here. Still a virgin. :(

  36. Re:Happy November from the Golden Girls! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    I believe the word you are looking for there is confidant...

    Is that you Yuri?

    I disagree.

    Iz glorious day in People's Republic!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  37. Insurance? by pev · · Score: 1

    In the UK, if you're a driver, you're compelled to have third party insurance in case you cause damage. If you're a professional you generally want to have professional indemnity for similar reasons. Shouldn't companies engaging in risky practices such as these be forced to have appropriate cover in case they cause a massive earthquake as a pre-requisite for doing so?

    1. Re:Insurance? by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Why would they buy insurance? "There is no evidence" that fracking caused any of that.

  38. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    Good thing Obama and the Democrats fixed that while they were in control. Oh wait, they didn't. News flash, your Democratic buddies don't care either.

  39. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I've never understood why we are so damn eager to extract more substances from the Earth, while poisoning Suface, Ground Water and Air - when we should be punishing those who waste resources. I commute and see an absolutely insane number of BIG vehicles on the road, every day - some I have seen for months or years - big pickups or SUVs, some with those horribly inefficient (for road use) oversize wheels. They are in competition with every other vehicle owner for gas/petrol, that they choose to put $100 into their tank every few days where they could by putting in $30 (or less), they also are keeping demand high, which keeps prices high. Fools.

    When someone buys a luxury vehicle in California they pay a luxury tax, when someone buys a guzzler car in California they pay a guzzler tax, but when they take an ordinary utilitarian vehicle and turn it into some expression of their ego (or to compensate for poor self image) they pay no extra tax. I'd certainly like to see that change - some of these mods make the vehicles far less safe, not only for occupants but others on the road.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  40. Re:If Fracking is dangerous I don't want to be saf by Jeng · · Score: 1

    The argument isn't about it being done right, it is about it being done wrong.

    It is when fracking is done wrong that water tables are being contaminated, not with the fracking chemicals, but by the natural gas.

    When you got natural gas in the local water table after fracking when there was no issue with natural gas before, then there is a problem.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  41. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Of course, if they had fixed it, then you'd be complaining about the federal government interfering in states' issues...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  42. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Informative

    News flash, the Senate Republictards decided that the filibuster would be a great way to subvert democracy.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  43. Non-conventional extraction ? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Non-conventional extraction of hydrocarbons is the next wave of production, including natural gas and oil – at least according to its advocates. One of the most controversial of the technologies being used is hydraulic fracture drilling,

    The entire post is nonsense. Fracturing has been used extensively for over sixty years. It's hardly new or "non-conventional". It only became controversial when the AlGore fanboys realized how much natural gas is available in this country.

    Water wells that are contaminated with natural gas are easy to find in many parts of the country, especially where coal is found close to the surface. I had an uncle in eastern Ohio who tried to drill a water well on his farm but hit gas instead; he capped it and used the gas to heat his house.

  44. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've never understood why we are so damn eager to extract more substances from the Earth.

    It's because capitalism is a one way process; it's not a system.(*)

    It takes a finite resource (such as oil reserves, or coal, or iron) which belongs to all of us (we all share one planet) and assigns it to an owner (generally via opaque means rooted in corruption, even in the US). This owner then exploits it to produce a profit. Some of which might come back to us but most of which is shared out amongst an elite as part of their ongoing petty powergames. This is the same elite who have shaped our society for several hundred years now to believe that making profit is an unquestionable good and that growth is something that can happen infinitely.

    The damn eagerness is just the effect of long-term greed; and while profit is king this process will continue until all the natural resources are depleted, and the human population falls or otherwise adapts to the level which renewable supplies can accommodate.

    But I doubt if many come here for a lecture on Marxism.

    (*) Economics, on the other hand, IS a system.
    - Capitalism is the dominant processes that currently operates in the economic system. Without a counterprocess to resupply it, however, it will inevitably run down as it's resources run out.

    --
    "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
  45. What a mess by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    What a mess fracturing causes. Its another way companies found to exploit the environment and people. Nasty

    --
    [($)]
  46. Fracking, Not All It's Cracked Up To Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, if it was all so eco-friendly why so much secrecy and 'special exemptions?'
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html

    A great resource of information about Fracking and its problems can be found here:
    http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking

  47. So how do we get energy? by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0

    So we can't drill for oil, natural gas. Can't use coal or nuclear power plants. How the fuck do we get new energy?

    Oh that's right we syphon the heat from the earth to power our energy plants. Have we not learned anything? No matter what we do, if we do it on a large enough scale, then we will fuck something up.

    I live in Arkansas, and they use fracking to get natural gas and we have had a number of earthquakes over the last few years, stop the fracking, and the earthquakes mostly stopped.

    I wish someone would just go on and develop a cold fusion reactor that can't possibly fuck up anything up.

  48. Getting more small quakes where you need them by Walt+Sellers · · Score: 1

    I am new in California, but I'm told that its better to have lots of small quakes than to save up for one big one.

    Maybe fracking is a way to make sure you get small quakes to let off the pressure.

  49. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    I've never understood why we are so damn eager to extract more substances from the Earth, while....

    I'll break it down for you: Money.

  50. Re:If Fracking is dangerous I don't want to be saf by Shompol · · Score: 1

    fracking ... it's been done ... for decades.

    You mean "for decades starting 2005 when Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act famously exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.. I cannot find any publicly available fracking statistics, probably because it is a "private trade secret", but if you can find something to substantiate your claim, please do.

    It's almost always done at deep levels that simply cannot pollute water tables absent some serious messed up concrete jobs on wells.

    So fracking is safe ONLY when "done at deep levels" AND "absent some serious messed up concrete jobs on wells." So what goverment agency makes sure that the above requirements are observed?
    Looks like none:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtgvwllNpg

    Why would they? It is exempt from clean water act anyways.

  51. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by eof · · Score: 1

    This. We'll never know the extent of the D's intransigence in the 111th Congress, because they never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the R's exercised the filibuster a record-breaking number of times during this Congress' tenure.

  52. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But I doubt if many come here for a lecture on Marxism.

    Not sure if you're joking or not; but you do realize that those who espouse Marxism are really just economic actors. Instead of exploiting resources like the capitalists you describe, they exploit the workers by alleging to offer them something better. They have a really slick marketing campaign with music, marches, etc. Lately they've updated their logo to include a black outline of Che Guevera on a red background. Che clothing and accessories bring them $millions.

    When the marketing campaign succeeds and they get enough young idiots to sign up for the Communist Groupon, then the real fun begins. They leverage their human capital to obtain resources left behind by the previous company. They generally do this the really old fashioned way: They steal it. Since this business model isn't as profitable as the old one, the general level of prosperity is lower. There's still plenty left for the elites though.

  53. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Money, jobs, cheap energy for the nation, reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  54. Quick, call Lex Luthor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His plan for driving up the price of worthless desert just became easier!

    1. Re:Quick, call Lex Luthor... by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      His plan for driving up the price of worthless desert just became easier!

      obThat's terrible.

  55. FRACKING AUSTRALIA: Max Igan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it up dummy

  56. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by TheLink · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is due to the politicians no longer being required to actually talk for ages in order to filibuster.

    --
  57. Except natural gas is odorless by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    If you're smelling something, it may well be the fracking chems. The natural gas itself, as I understand it, is odorless. The "smell" you associate with gas from your stove or grill is another gas with which they 'dope' natural gas, so that you can smell the leak, otherwise you'd never know you had a leak.

    1. Re:Except natural gas is odorless by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Pure natural gas is odorless, it doesn't come out of the ground that way. Much like a fart might be methane, but it still stinks.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Except natural gas is odorless by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Alright, fair enough. I think my main point may still stand however - the water might be polluted, but just from your nose, it's hard to tell what it's polluted *with* or where it came from.

  58. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, anything to stop those large earthquakes that plague England.

  59. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because capitalism is a one way process; it's not a system.(*)

    It takes a finite resource (such as oil reserves, or coal, or iron) which belongs to all of us (we all share one planet) and assigns it to an owner (generally via opaque means rooted in corruption, even in the US). This owner then exploits it to produce a profit. Some of which might come back to us but most of which is shared out amongst an elite as part of their ongoing petty powergames. This is the same elite who have shaped our society for several hundred years now to believe that making profit is an unquestionable good and that growth is something that can happen infinitely.

    The damn eagerness is just the effect of long-term greed; and while profit is king this process will continue until all the natural resources are depleted, and the human population falls or otherwise adapts to the level which renewable supplies can accommodate.

    So how *is* life down at Zucotti?

  60. God, this thread... by Toonol · · Score: 1

    To sum up:

    This issue hasn't been studied enough for anybody to say with confidence that Fracking is poisoning our water supply or not, and certainly not enough to say that fracking is causing earthquakes.

    Regardless, most people have already made up their minds one way or the other, and are now emotionally invested in proving their prejudice correct.

    This will probably taint or bias all future studies, and neither side will trust any evidence that the 'enemy' produces. This will continue until we (1) eventually realize that we've been fracking for generations and are still doing ok or (2) die, poisoned, in a massive earthquake.

  61. Dint even part his hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  62. Fracing process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a major oil field company that does frac jobs. I am not on the frac crew but I am apart of the whole frac job who monitors what goes on during the whole process. Most fracking done right now in my area of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are what's called horizontal fracking. Instead of drilling vertically, they are now going back in some old wells and drilling horizontally by curving around certain zones with new bits. But that process comes before the fracking. The drillers seal off the casing that will carry the frac fluid with multiple layers of cement and mud. Most of the wells I have worked on are at a minimum of 10,000 ft deep. From about 8,000 to 10,000 feet deep is where the fracking takes place and where the fluids are pumped. Very far away from the water tables which normally sit anywhere from 100 feet to 400 feet in our part of the country.

  63. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by bogjobber · · Score: 1

    Socialism is generally much better for the common people than unregulated capitalism. Even in the US we accept this with public schools, roads, medicare, etc. We just don't like to call it socialism because that's a naughty word.

    That's not to say that pure communism isn't as bad as pure capitalism. I think we as a species need to understand that *any* ideology when followed to the extreme will result in an oligarchy. What works best is a system rooted in diversity and democracy, where government ensures that people have their basic rights protected and basic necessities like food, education, housing, and medical care provided (at least to a certain extent) and then steps out of the way.

  64. Re:Doesn't inducing small quakes prevent large one by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    What fault line is the UK on, and how often have they had quakes measuring 3.0?

  65. Personally by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    I think it's a fracking nuisance

  66. Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's fracking unbelievable!

  67. "Clean" Energy Commercials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you noticed the number of gas company commercials on TV that are advertising natural gas as a "clean" energy source? The truth is that the fracking process is anything but clean, and it puts our water supply at risk.

    On June 30, 2011, France became the first country to ban fracking.

  68. Fracking Investigation Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Americans should see this 18min fracking video http://video.pbs.org/video/1581461555/

    This video is pretty scary, and makes me question if I'm really living in a democracy.

  69. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    You mean just like the Democrats did when Republicans controlled the Whitehouse and Congress? That's what typically happens when one party starts ramming through new legislation aka spending bills, Health Care, reform, etc. Not saying what I agree with/don't agree with, just saying that it isn't just "those rascally Republicans." Both parties pull the same stunts and show a general disregard for the population. If you don't see that, then you are just a political hack.

  70. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

    Yes, I would have. That is beside the point though, my point was that this isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. He pointed the finger at Republicans but the finger should have been pointed at politicians in general. I wasn't commenting on whether or not the finger should have been pointed.

  71. Re:I hope UK Regulates better than TX and USA by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    You mean just like the Democrats did when Republicans controlled the Whitehouse and Congress?

    Not even close. For each of the last two congressional sessions, the Republicans have used the filibuster over twice as as many times as the last time that the Dems were the minority. From where I stand, it looks like those rascally Republicans are very much about subverting democracy.

    Call me a hack if you want, I'm just looking at the raw numbers and calling it as I see it.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  72. Earthquakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fracking that causes small earthquakes may be a good thing. I could see it being used much like the way avalanches are purposefully triggered on snowy peaks or controlled burns are performed on forrest areas.