Slashdot Mirror


Earthquakes That May Be Related To Fracking Close Ohio Oil Well

Frosty P writes "State leaders have ordered that four fluid-injection wells ('fracking') in eastern Ohio will be indefinitely prohibited from opening in the aftermath of heightened seismic activity in the area, an official said. A 4.0-magnitude quake struck Saturday afternoon near several wells that use 'fracking' to release oil deposits. It was the 11th in a series of minor earthquakes in the area."

65 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. This seems... by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Informative

    .... fragile and precarious victory of common sense over big money. Fragile and precarious, yet a victory.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:This seems... by hoboroadie · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would modestly propose Nationalization of the Federal Reserve, as they seem to keep turning up at the various crime scenes.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    2. Re:This seems... by GregC63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about stopping some of the idiotic spending that we're doing? God forbid we show a little fiscal responsibility instead of being fleeced fro more money...

    3. Re:This seems... by wisty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, but can you prove that the small fraking-caused quakes didn't release stress that would have caused a much more dangerous larger magnitude quake?

    4. Re:This seems... by slasher999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I pay in the neighborhood of 27% of my salary each year in taxes. If I sell a few stocks that I made some money on, add to that the capital gains taxes and I'm closing in on 30%. I think I pay enough in taxes thank you very much.

    5. Re:This seems... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I call bullshit. Long term cap gains taxes are 15%.

    6. Re:This seems... by sco08y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but can you prove that the small fraking-caused quakes didn't release stress that would have caused a much more dangerous larger magnitude quake?

      This kind of nonsense is why people don't take environmentalists seriously.

      It's completely impossible to prove that we're not somehow influencing larger quakes because we can't possibly get a baseline for the typical magnitude of larger quakes. And even if we could somehow get that, they vary in intensity by orders of magnitude, and the big ones are decades apart.

      These types of arguments are intended to throw up one roadblock after another to extracting energy. The motivations of the originators of these arguments aren't care for the earth, but a loathing of humanity and prosperity.

    7. Re:This seems... by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      And umm. How are high taxes and high benefits working there in Europe?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    8. Re:This seems... by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the debt that was created to help irresponsible citizens and the made worse by saving irresponsible bankers. Who in turn gave that money to irresponsible politicians so that they can afford to be voted back in by irresponsible citizens.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re:This seems... by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do not give a shit if it is causing Magnitude 4 earthquakes.
      4s are nothing. If it was causing 5.5s or 6s I would worry, but 4s?
      I'll take 3 4s a day for cheaper gas.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:This seems... by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ohio is on many small faults, the largest of which is the New Madrid fault. There are a few dozen significant earthquakes each year, the vast majority of which cannot be felt.

      Despite what you "would think", data is easy to find.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:This seems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And umm. How are high taxes and high benefits working there in Europe?

      Awesome actually:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/its-not-about-welfare-states/
      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/no-its-not-the-welfare-state/

      The countries with some of the highest taxes and best benefits (Sweden, Finland, Denmark) have some of the best finances.

      And how have the low taxes and austerity helped Ireland and the UK? Are they bouncing back economically? (Ireland has a ~15% unemployment rate.) How has austerity helped the US "recover"?

      The problem is that US spending on "useless" things like wars. While it does help people and companies manufacturing bombs and bullets, the general population isn't helped. Building and repairing bridges, sewers, paving roads, etc., would all employee people domestically and provide infrastructure for economic future activity once the economy recovers.

      So yes, the books must be balanced (which is what Keynesians were saying from 2002-2006), but right now you want spending to kickstart the economy. The last stimulus package was too small (as Krugman for one predicted), and so the 'recovery' only was partial. If there was (say) another 2-3 quarters of stimulus spending we'd probably be in a much more cheery place.

    12. Re:This seems... by St.Creed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure which invasion you mean, unless you mean the one that was stopped in Austria a few centuries ago.

      For The Netherlands, which is not completely representative of Europe but still close, the number of immigrants from Muslim countries has declined by 60% since 2003. Most migration nowadays is from new EU countries such as Romania and Bulgaria.

      The banking cartels aren't destroying Germany, they're part of the state structure.

      What *is* happening is that social gains are under assault. But not due to any invasions, or banking troubles, but because the banking crisis is the symptom of a much bigger issue, which is a classic capitalist overinvestment crisis. The onliest way in which profit growth can be maintained is by squeezing the workers. So that will happen.

      Muslims provide easy scapegoats. However, Muslims are not the main issue at all. We are talking about pension funds that should hold billions of dollars. I fail to see how adding a few percentage points in population will bring down that system.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    13. Re:This seems... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Informative

      New Madrid is NOT a small fault. It's a huge fault.

      One of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded in North America occurred on that fault.

    14. Re:This seems... by PNutts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that US spending on "useless" things like wars.

      I wouldn't call them useless. The politicians and their corporate buddies turn a tidy profit.

    15. Re:This seems... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Can you prove that the small fracking quakes didn't focus the strain that would be spread over hundreds of miles such that there will now be a major quake that wouldn't have happened before?

    16. Re:This seems... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2

      Besides, the Muslims that work pay taxes like everybody else. The ones that don't work don't get pensions either. So what's the problem?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:This seems... by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but can you prove that the small fraking-caused quakes didn't release stress that would have caused a much more dangerous larger magnitude quake?

      That is a potentially valid response to someone who wants to use the cost of the quake damage as the absolute measure of liability.

      The other significant question is whether the small scale quakes are indicative of changes we are making to the Earth's crust which we do not fully understand. Six months ago there were a lot of scientists in the industry saying that fracking had no relationship with quakes. Then they said yes, but they're tiny, almost imperceptible, like under 3.0. Now it's 4.0, but maybe it's a good thing.

      It seems pretty apparent that the answers are not yet in, and there are a lot of industry scientists that have been arriving at estimates that are on the low side of subsequent data, which happens to be the same side the private profit motive.

      Just canaries in a coal mine, of course -- correlation does not imply causation any more than a dead canary implies toxic atmosphere.

    18. Re:This seems... by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Honestly? Because that $1,800 / year will never make it so far as to pay off the deficit. They'll institute the new tax, like they always do, then something else of political importance will capture the populace's attention, and a decision will be made to divert the funds to deal with this new problem. Some people will cry out, like they always do, that the funds are being diverted, that these funds are not being used for the stated purpose that they were collected, and other people will say that the immediate crisis outweighs the danger of a growing deficit.

      So, in this way, the deficit will never be paid off, yet taxes will continuously be increased, and the ever-present (and sometimes realized) threat of currency devaluation / government bankruptcy remains. The people's income will continuously be decreased, until they are returned to their natural habitat, as serfs, living off the land that their lords provide for them to work on. The trick, of course, is ensuring that people have an interest in keeping things going, as opposed to stopping them, even though they may be better off with stopping them.

      Look forward to a new tax, in 5-10 years time, to help pay off the deficit, if this one manages to pass. The same, sad caricatures will be trotted out again to shake down the populace for even more money, with more rhetoric that if the rich / wealthy / everyone would just contribute a little more, we could pay it off in 2 / 5 / 10 / 20 years.

      Just look at your phone bill, next time you receive it. Look at how much you pay in taxes, then look up the taxes themselves, when they were passed, and what that money was supposed to pay for. Wars that have long since ended, yet the tax for munitions for them still remain. And so on.

      Reminds me of the Ferengi saying (from ST:DS9) for when dealing with people -> "Once you have their money, never give it back!"

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    19. Re:This seems... by dupup · · Score: 2

      I think slasher999 was saying that his capital gains taxes add 3% to his marginal tax rate, figured on his gross revenue. For example, if he earned $100 in 2011, he asserts that he pays $27 in income tax and $3 in capital gains taxes (meaning 15% of a roughly $21 capital gain, e.g.). In other words, he made $100 in income and $21 in capital gains. His marginal tax rate (excluding other taxes for this exercise) is 30%.

    20. Re:This seems... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      How has austerity helped the US "recover"?

      What US had austerity? In the US of A, spending has gone up year-over-year for the last three years at least. And I believe that is true of UK as well. In practice, austerity means "a slowdown in the increase of spending." That's not really austerity by anyone's definition but a politician.

      krugman.blogs.........krugman.blogs...........(as Krugman for one predicted)

      Reading Krugman is fine, I do it, but you might want to diversify your economic information pool. Not every economist is Krguman, and not every economist agrees with him; in fact, sometimes he comes across as partisan rather than scientific. It can be helpful to read more than one source.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:This seems... by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      And in some US states (California for example), a family spends 20% of its income on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses [Source: "Family health care premiums exceed 20% of income", San Francisco Chronicle November 11, 2011]. Between 2003 and 2010, premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for employees has risen by 63% [Source:C. Schoen, A.-K. Fryer, S. R. Collins, and D. C. Radley, State Trends in Premiums and Deductibles, 2003–2010: The Need for Action to Address Rising Costs, The Commonwealth Fund, November 2011].

      Basically, we were on track (pre Obama-care) to spending 50% of our incomes on health care by 2025 or so. Given the cautious, incremental nature of Obama-care, it would be remarkable if it managed to cut that rate of cost growth in half, but even then it would be pointed to as a miserable failure. If it is stripped of its individual mandate, then Obama-care is likely to have no effect at all. The prospect for robust employment recovery in this situation is bleak, since the marginal cost of hiring an employee is high and riding.

      So basically, the health care cost crisis has us over a barrel, and Europe is spread-eagled by the sovereign debt crisis. We'll recover, but we aren't going to see the kind of economic growth we took for granted in the second half of the 20th C, because the solutions to our respective crises are politically unpopular.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:This seems... by phayes · · Score: 2

      Work or not, you'll still get government money in Europe. My wife teaches kids from neighborhoods where it has beeen 3 generations since anyone held a job. Sure, you'll be poor but the poor in Europe living off of government handouts still lord it over their cousins in N Africa when they go back to visit every summer. It makes trying to teach them the value of a work ethic difficult. The ones that have the ambition to work are great kids, but the system is not rewarding the right values.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    23. Re:This seems... by ravenshrike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, no. Completely excise defense spending, but leave the taxes from it in, and we are still running a deficit, especially with all the new spending instituted by Obama.

  2. Anti-fracking goal by gedankenhoren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And now the goals, for anti-fracking advocates, are:

    (1) to identify features in this area's geology that appear contributive to the earthquakes. To wit:
    "Dr. Won-Young Kim, one of the Columbia University experts asked by the state to examine possible connections between fracking and seismic activity, said that a problem could arise if fluid moves through the ground and affects 'a weak fault, waiting to be triggered.'"

    (2) start fear-mongering re "weak fault[s], waiting to be triggered" a la doomsday flicks, since obviously carcinogens leeching to the water supply aren't sufficiently frightening; maybe sudden catastrophe is more convincing than a slow wasting.

    1. Re:Anti-fracking goal by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Right, it's all a giant hoax. I bet this Columbia geologist only got his PhD because he knew that years later there would be fracking projects he could sabotage.

    2. Re:Anti-fracking goal by gedankenhoren · · Score: 2

      I think, nay I know, that you're misinterpreting; my apologizes for being unclear. Fear-mongering is definitely a positive behavior, in this context.

    3. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      "Dr. Won-Young Kim... said that a problem could arise if fluid moves through the ground and affects a weak fault, waiting to be triggered."

      An accurate quote from the article, good start.

      ...fear-mongering re "weak fault[s], waiting to be triggered" a la doomsday flicks

      A baseless assertion twisting an informed statement of fact into something it's not. Fail.

    4. Re:Anti-fracking goal by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The problem with your idea is that drilling appears to have caused earthquakes before, and the idea that it will happen again therefore has merit. They closed a drilling project near The Geysers here in northern California due to quake activity. And Calpine Geothermal has paid millions in claims to area residents as seismic activity has been tightly correlated to their pumping of semi-treated sewage into the ground.

      It's too bad you're a shill or a troll, because you could use this power for good.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Anti-fracking goal by arpad1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so much a hoax as an example of pandering to hysteria.

      The wells haven't been opened yet so unless the earth can be frightened into producing an earthquake at the prospect of a fluid injection well the wells could hardly have had anything to do with the earthquake.

      So yeah, it is a fragile and precarious victory since it's based fear-mongering. But then if you don't have the science on your side what are the alternatives to whipping up fear?

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    6. Re:Anti-fracking goal by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      They still drill in The Geysers because the resulting quakes are predictably minor and the geothermal energy harvested is much more economically important than cracked foundations, paying millions in claims or not.

      Actually, it isn't. The generation facility at The Geysers has never been profitable. It has always been under production and over budget. It must be seen as a failure on all levels. We don't even have reliable power in Middletown, for fuck's sake, let alone the rest of the county.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having an opinion doesn't make one a shill or a troll, especially when there's as much evidence supporting his opinion as your own. The problem is there's absurdly little research from both the pro- and anti-fracking camps. On the one hand, Ohio's seismic activity has increased lately. On the other hand, it has been very inactive since the 1930's, and still remains relatively stable today. Then, of course, there's the possibility (mentioned many times already in this discussion) that releasing pressure could reduce the risk of a larger earthquake.

      Comparing Ohio's seismic activity to California is ridiculous. In Ohio, the last big earthquake in 1937 toppled a few weak chimneys. In California, an equivalent earthquake (magnitude 5.4) happened in July of 2010. The faults in Ohio, even when active, pale in comparison to California's eternal fear of the next "big one".

      There's no consensus among relevant experts about fracking's effects, but there's plenty of people willing to protest vehemently one way or the other. GP is right to call this out as fear-mongering.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2

      Profitable enough, or they'd close it.

      Sadly, all the best geothermal potential is is places so desolate that anyone proposing developing it is virtually always blocked by the "you'll ruin the wilderness ambiance/desecrate the spirit/affect the traditional cattle range/startle the endangered jackrabbit subspecies" arguments. I've heard an environmentalist whine just because they couldn't block clean energy from being generated on military reservations closed to the public, as this might compete with their preferred conservation. Evidently people are supposed to conserve down to zero first.

    9. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Surt · · Score: 2

      You understand the concern is that the other wells, which did open, and ran their fluid into the ground, might have caused the earthquakes, right? That the concern is that using more wells to push even more fluid might make an area which doesn't normally get a lot of earthquakes, but which has gotten a lot of earthquakes since the fraking started, get even more/worse earthquakes?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:Anti-fracking goal by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      , especially when there's as much evidence supporting his opinion as your own.

      There's no consensus among relevant experts about fracking's effects,

      There's a problem with using this type of logic:
      The industry is spending plenty of money on studies that will concluding nothing but positive things about fracking.

      Everyone with an agenda has done their best to copy the Tobacco Industry model of manipulation, deceit, confusion, and obfuscation.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Ferzerp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fear mongering is never a positive behavior. Shame on you.

      You're just as bad as the people who do it all the time. You think if you scare people to agree with you, it's ok. That is an awful way to be.

    12. Re:Anti-fracking goal by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Profitable enough, or they'd close it.

      profitable enough with subsidies, and to halliburton, which makes the turbines! but on its own merits, the geothermal site at The Geysers is a failure. I can go on about it for ages. Superfund site, etc etc. There's nothing inherently "green" about geothermal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fracking debate currently has little to do with logic. There's precious little actual evidence of causing harm (or evidence of causing no harm), and the regulators know this. That's why they resist making regulations, even though it's pissing off the general public who just want to see anything happen. Meanwhile, the industry just continues operating as normal. So far, the vast majority of studies (from both sides) conclude nothing one way or the other. Those that do (again, in both directions) are deeply flawed, lacking silly things like control groups.

      By my understanding, it would be trivially simple for the energy industry to run a causative study, by testing the output of several wells near a fracking site before and after any fracking operation. The company knows where they're building their new well, and could spend a few hundred thousand dollars of their propaganda budget to drill a well and run some tests. Of course, they never will out of fear that something bad might be discovered, and even if there was no evidence of contamination, the study would never be believed by the anti-fracking protesters.

      Within the last month, the EPA announced that it found the first case of a water supply being contaminated by fracking, in a community near a shallow fracking well. The EPA itself has stated that the study needs still more review and reconsideration before it should be used as a basis for any regulations. Of course, both sides have already fired up their most imaginative writers, either condemning the study or overstating its significance.

      I can't tell if you intend to include environmentalists in your classification of "everyone with an agenda", but it would certainly be justified. There's enough propaganda from both sides of the science-free debate to disrupt honest attempts at science. It's sickening.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    14. Re:Anti-fracking goal by Abreu · · Score: 3

      You mean that your houses can't withstand a 5.0 magnitude quake? We don't even wake up here in Mexico City unless the quake is 6.5 or higher, and the last time we had a major quake (7.8), no one was injured and no buildings were damaged. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0124/p07s02-woam.html

      But you americans have this strange tendency to build your homes out of wood and cardboard, for some weird reason...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  3. Frack the Big One! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Won't be long now till someone discovers that fracking might help turning the Big One pending into several minor quakes, and starts selling this idea.

  4. Fracking vs Saltwater Disposal by phrostie · · Score: 4, Informative

    The media keeps mixing and confusing fracking with saltwater disposal wells. (remember how much they confuse hackers and crackers)

    Fracking is a one time process for increasing porosity of a formation immediately around the well at the time of completion.

    A saltwater disposal well is normally a well(oil or gas) that has played out and is used to return unwanted saltwater back where it came from.

    Fracking only affects an area within a few hundred feet of the well.

    1. Re:Fracking vs Saltwater Disposal by phrostie · · Score: 3, Informative

      you can't pump it into just any formation.

      formations that contain fresh water or may migrate to such a formation are deemed off limits.

      even drilling through a freshwater formation is strickly controlled and requires additional layers of surface casing(pipe within pipe and concrete).

    2. Re:Fracking vs Saltwater Disposal by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Can't you just dump salt water in the ocean?

      I just love the coastline along eastern Ohio!

      Patience, grasshopper.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. why is it by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that when dems stopped the drilling in the gulf due to a massive oil spill, that the dems were blamed for impeding progress and destroying America, but now that a republicans gets a few tremors in his state, he wants to stop it quickly? Likewise, here in Colorado, the cities that have republicans in control have put temp stops to fracking in THEIR areas, calling it prudent, yet want us to continue fracking all over, importing oils from places like Nigeria, Iran, Venezeula, etc. and absolutely are opposed to spending money on electric cars?

    And ppl do not understand why I WANT us to continue drilling all over USA. I figure that once Americans start to get earthquakes, polluted waters esp. in our aquifiers, and see the repercussions of this 'clean' source of jobs, then MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we will finally figure out that we need to change our policy. And I can not think of anything that would be better then to get the west off imported energy (other than to add that we quit importing bad goods and food from china).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:why is it by tgd · · Score: 2

      And ppl do not understand why I WANT us to continue drilling all over USA.

      I suspect its more likely that people don't care.

    2. Re:why is it by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And ppl do not understand why I WANT us to continue drilling all over USA. I figure that once Americans start to get earthquakes, polluted waters esp. in our aquifiers, and see the repercussions of this 'clean' source of jobs, then MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we will finally figure out that we need to change our policy. And I can not think of anything that would be better then to get the west off imported energy (other than to add that we quit importing bad goods and food from china).

      I can. It's the reason that every country with half a brain and a little foresight would want to import all oil:

      1. Import all oil, pay increasing prices (it's worth it)
      2. Use/maintain local refinement infrastructure
      3. Drain world of said oil (this is actually going to take a long time, long after everyone currently alive is dead)
      4. Tap local wells, sell oil to foreign entities at insane prices
      5. Hope alternative fuels haven't become viable
      In essence: use everyone else's before using your own.

      What the US public needs to do is revolve before #3 happens (nationalize resources) so that -they- can recoup the money they've spent on all the other oil.

  6. Maybe so, if you never had to take physics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Common sense" in your case, apparently means "hysteria over things I don't understand, but still don't like."

  7. Don't understand why this is a problem by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can understand not wanting carcinogens pumped into the water table, but the earthquake aspect seems like a non-issue to me as long as they're small. If small earthquakes are triggered, it means stresses in the fault lines were already present and are being relieved. Having a number of small earthquakes seems preferable to letting the stress build up until it triggers a large quake.

    1. Re:Don't understand why this is a problem by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      the earthquake aspect seems like a non-issue to me as long as they're small.

      Don't think of them as harmless reductions of existing stress. Think of them as tectonic canaries in a coal mine saying, "You're twiddling with the Earth's crust on a scale that we do not yet fully understand."

    2. Re:Don't understand why this is a problem by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      For one thing houses don't have magma currents under them

      That would be a kick-ass house. I'd put in a glass floor.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  8. Fracking Probably Had Nothing to Do With It by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article itself notes that earthquakes have occurred in that part of Ohio for nearly two centuries, and its size was well beyond the quite small theoretical maximum that could be induced by fracking. Extensive studies of fracking have shown no evidence of the contamination scare stories environmentalists have been pushing.

    The people opposing fracking are the same people opposed to all uses of oil and as power sources.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Fracking Probably Had Nothing to Do With It by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure about the effect of fracking on seismic activity, but I think correlation is all we will have to infer causation as we cannot directly monitor the changes in strain which lead to seismic conditions. I would expect that the USGS would have the data for the areas where wells have been drilled, and that a study could be done to determine the probabalistic model variation, but I have not heard of such a study.

      As for contamination, are the fracking fluids spiked with dye trace to be able to determine if suspected contamination occurs (and there always is some suspicion, even if there is no actual)? I don't know anything about the regulations on fracking, so I don't know if such a tracer is required. They are used quite frequently in groundwater migration applications.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Fracking Probably Had Nothing to Do With It by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, I should say that there is seismic activity everywhere in the US. The predictions for probable magnitudes shift slightly over time. They are contained in the NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for building design. The isolines just shifted a bit 6 years ago in southern Virginia, for example, putting several counties into a lower seismic hazard zone.

      The question is not, "is fracking causing seismic events" but rather, "is fracking causing a statistically significant increase in frequency or magnitude of events relative to the current baseline." That may seem nuanced, but it is the correct way to approach the issue.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Fracking Probably Had Nothing to Do With It by Goat+Nutrition · · Score: 2

      Work in the industry (not a shill, though) It's perfectly possible to put a lot of geophones (seismic monitors) in an area and work out exactly where the initial focus of a quake is, and also what type it is (opening fracture, strike-slip sideways movement, slip directions, etc.). Could take up the precautionary principle and prove exactly where these quakes are initiating, and if it's at all related to local fracking, before doing any more work in the area. I think everyone is fed up with subjective opinions on both sides of this. Don't think tracers are required by state law, but it's certainly possible to include a non-radioactive chemically detectable tracer which you could pick up later, although it would be a big stretch to detect something that had supposedly diffused from a frac through thousands of feet of other rock and then through an aquifer into someone's tapwater, that's several magnitudes of dilution. Completely agree that if you can, with solid data, point the finger at a certain well and certain company doing bad drilling, they should be slaughtered in the courts as a deterrent. Those of us who think we are doing good work are awfully fed up with the one or two cowboys.

  9. Alas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thus far the middle east and texas have failed spectacularly to fall into the sea.

    Alas.

  10. Man-made earthquakes: New energy source? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTFA:

    Then on Saturday, a magnitude 4.0 earthquake struck that released at least 40 times more energy than any of the previous 10 or more tremors that had rattled the region in 2011.

    So all we need to do is to learn how to turn earthquake energy into electric power. Pumping fracking juice into the earth to purposely cause earthquakes could solve all our energy problems.

    We've been doing it wrong all along: we've been pumping stuff out for energy, instead of pumping it in.

    It might kinda suck for folks who live along fault lines, but with energy, you always have a "not in my backyard" crowd to deal with.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  11. Fracking fracking! by JonathanF · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sorry, I know there's loads of serious comments that are worthier than this, but my inner Battlestar Galactica makes an entirely different subject out of that title. That's a fracking close Ohio oil well!

    Consider this post the steam vent for everyone else who needs to get it out of their system.

  12. Re:So what? by Hatta · · Score: 2

    The oil industry has been fracking for years, in areas that are geologically suitable. They are running out of those areas however, and are moving into less suitable areas.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Re:Global warming vs. number of pirates? by tgd · · Score: 2

    Anyone have that graph handy?

    Thankfully real scientists know theres no correlation between pirates and global warming, just as real scientists know the correlation here is plausable enough to warrant being careful.

  14. Re:It's the end! by pjabardo · · Score: 2

    The world is still here and it was *not* the first post.

  15. Youngstown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    To those saying that earthquakes here are common, I live in Youngstown, and we have never had a locally originated seismic event. But as of March, we've had 11 quakes with epicenters near the well that has been shut down.

  16. Re:Fiscal responsibility is tough. by Dishevel · · Score: 2

    The education system in California is highly funded.
    The per student spending is high. The problem is that we can not fire bad teachers and too much of the money is spent on "Administration".

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  17. That's what we call a "first world problem". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got caviar stuck in my braces!

    I really don't understand why someone like yourself - a person who lives in splendor undreamt of by most humans who ever lived - is unwilling to contribute to your community's well-being when that community is clearly in need.

    Now, if you said "I don't think I should pay more taxes than people with ten times my wealth" I'd totally agree with you. But that's not what you said.

    If you said "I don't want to pay for invading other countries and subsidizing rich bankster's lifestyles" I could understand that too. But you didn't say that either.

    As I see it, you're wealthy enough to own stock, but you don't want to pay for the system that makes your wealth possible. Somebody's got to pay for it, but you want it to be someone else. You have enormous wealth and enjoy many privileges, yet you honestly think you're being oppressed. You personify our economic problem; you're barely one step above a welfare queen.

  18. Re:Fracking is unsafe, and you are a PAID SHILL. by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

    We also know that fracking poisons the water by dumping 254 chemicals into the ground that find their way to the water table.

    Wow... That's a lot of chemicals. Can you name them all? :D

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  19. Re:Fracking is unsafe, and you are a PAID SHILL. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    You can sign up here. No guarantees you will always be schilling Slashdot, and the pay isn't really that great. Also, you'll apparently spend more of your time schilling if you sign up on this one. The barrier to entry is high for a non-Chinese native, though.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."