Slashdot Mirror
USGS Suggests Connection Between Seismic Activity and Fracking
First time accepted submitter samazon writes "According to a recently proposed abstract by the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing, or more specifically the disposal of fracking wastewater, may be directly correlated to the increase in seismic activity in the midwest. Results of the paper will be presented on April 18th, but the language of the abstract seems to imply that there is a connection. After years of controversy regarding hydrofracking including ground water contamination and disclosure of chemical solutions, the results of the study, if conclusive, could influence the cost of natural gas due to increased regulations on wastewater disposal." The actual language of the abstract leaves a fair amount of wiggle room: "While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production."
Another reason for some people to reinforce their belief that science is anti-business and that scientists should be dismissed, if not stopped.
That would obviously be quite a breakthrough if it could be made repeatable.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
They attributed quakes to Zeus and Hera fracking.
In Oklahoma, the rate of M >= 3 events abruptly increased in 2009 from 1.2/year in the previous half-century to over 25/year. This rate increase is exclusive of the November 2011 M 5.6 earthquake and its aftershocks.
A twenty-five-fold increase, that excludes the largest outlying event, in the number of earthquakes would seem to be statistically significant of something.
I got a catholic block.
Increase our budget so that we may study this more.
Got Code?
... but can't yet prove causation. Still, the correlation is significant enough to justify significant caution in the continued use of fracking, and to merit further study on causation. As others have noted, this has the potential to be useful geoengineering, but like many discoveries, it has the potential to be very dangerous. A healthy dose of caution is warranted.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Hydralic fracturing has been applied in many setting since hte late 1940s. Much research, by USGS, BLM et al. in the 1970s established induced seismic activity associated with drilling-mining hydralic fracting activities.
The trouble with the current "enlightned" study is a lack of knowledge of how to search bookstacks, those in a Library, to find the printed USGS bullitens, circulars and research papers since they have not been scanned, parsed and made searchabel by electronic database search technologies.
Thus the Lost Discoveries of Hydralic Fracturing awaite re-discovery by our fearless intrepid internaughts.
Seriously, unless these earthquakes are causing damage, what's the issue with fracking causing earthquakes? It's interesting science I guess, but to suggest that it should impact energy policy? This study is for earthquakes M>3, when damage in the US isn't likely until M>5.
The earthquakes are all minor but groundwater being poisoned in areas without back up supplies is serious. They keep talking about how there's a layer of rock protecting the groundwater but the fracking shatters that layer of protective rock. It's hard to argue with tap water being flammable. Great we get 10 to 30 years of natural gas and the residents get to shower with bottled water for the next few hundred years. Some of the chemicals used are cancer causing so guess who gets stuck with that bill? Not the gas companies. If it's safe prove it's safe before you frack half the country. This got rammed through with zero oversight. Everyone can say who cares about the midwest but guess what that's where much of your food is grown. Also one of the hottest ares for potentially fracking is the very place New York City gets much of it's water from. Cheap gas may end up as very expensive water. This is about the rich getting richer, period. They were already getting plenty of gas out of the fields this is about getting 3X to 4X as much thus increasing profits. Who gets stuck with the environmental costs in the end? The tax payers. Which do we need more, water or natural gas? Well you can't raise corn and wheat or drink natural gas so I have to come down on the side of water. The gas companies don't care about groundwater because they make their money off gas and not groundwater. If they could charge a $100 a barrel for groundwater it'd be a very different story.
IIRC, two thirds of those quakes were within a half mile of drilling sites. Seems significant to me, anyway.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
How exactly is a relatively small amount of water being pumped into the ground supposed to destabilize TECTONIC PLATES...
Except no one has ever claimed that it will destabilize plates, since earthquakes can occur for thousands of other reasons that don't directly involve plates. There are still earth quakes in the central continent caused by the lack of glacial pressure, there are earth quakes caused by hot spots, there are earth quakes caused by compression pressures, there are... you get the point. There are areas of the continent completely peppered with faults, far from the nearest plate boundary, this includes vast swaths of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, this is due to compression and expansion, this causes the "basin and range" effect that defines their geography. There are huge amounts of faults in the middle of the old continental core caused by glaciation, and the easing of pressure. Areas are dying lakes generally have tons of faults, for the same reasons. If you Googled a fault map of the US, you'd noticed that we're pretty much completely covered in them, everywhere.
Fracking in increasing the local pressure, which can jar, or lubricate existent faults. This can lead to localized disturbances.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
...five more reports claiming that fracking has nothing at all to do with seismic events which will serve as the justification for the upcoming change of leadership of the USGS.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Every rigorous study funded by whom? Remember when every rigorous study of smoking showed that it was perfectly safe?
You seem immediately ready to disregard THIS particular study that might go against what are most likely industry funded studies that show that fracking is safe.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Absurd maybe, but true. I have first hand knowledge i'm afraid. i live right on the west coast of the UK, and this time last year, about 10 miles down south of my house they were fracking (and they plan to again) within 2 days a seismic event occurred, measured at the University about 6 miles inland. IT HAPPENED HERE and no words spoken, typed or any intellectual arguments entered into change the recorded facts.
Many thousands of local inhabitants would strongly disagree about the safety of fracking,Just because you dont see it on the news doesn't mean its not happening. Unfortunately, peoples need for power sources continues unabated, and is unstoppable, indeed it is increasing, and thus the planet is now in turmoil, thousands, maybe millions dead, as certain global interests go and selfishly plunder resources from other countries, This is Global Imperialism. You may not like it, or accept it,it may not fit in your world view, I certainly dont like it, but that doesn't alter the facts i have mentioned. Perhaps if your house shook while the cartels were busy fracking, you may think differently..
message ends
/
How exactly is a relatively small amount of water being pumped into the ground supposed to destabilize TECTONIC PLATES...
You mean like when a feather (small), lightly brushed across the skin, affects a person (large)?
Sometimes, small things have huge consequences. We don't fully understand the Earth's geology, there are many people with an agenda on both sides of the fracking debate. A ton of money has been invested, and of course: everyone is an expert! This is not a good mix for producing facts.
Peace,
Andy.
Every rigorous study of fracking has found it to be safe.
And honestly the notion of fracking causing earth quakes is absurd. Just think of the mass we're talking about here. How exactly is a relatively small amount of water being pumped into the ground supposed to destabilize TECTONIC PLATES...
Ever heard of Hydraulic fluid? You can lift some very heavy objects using just a few ounces of fluid. Tell me, how many hundreds of thousands of gallons of fluid does it take to frak a drill?
After years of controversy regarding hydrofracking including ground water contamination and disclosure of chemical solutions, the results of the study, if conclusive, could influence the cost of natural gas due to increased regulations on wastewater disposal.
- all this stuff is BS. There is no contamination of groundwater with chemicals, the chemicals are sent through when the casing is built already, there is no groundwater at the depths at which the chemicals are released either.
OK, so this was one way gov't increased production prices and got its bribes, what now?
According to a recently proposed abstract by the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing, or more specifically the disposal of fracking wastewater, may be directly correlated to the increase in seismic activity in the midwest.
- aha, so releasing gas from under the ground and replacing it with some liquid causes seismic activity? Well, I don't know, it sounds wrong, but I do not know.
However I do know that natural gas is a relatively cheap form of energy, production of which in fact does decrease prices for gas in US, because it's very hard to move gas from the continent to another one to sell (possible, but difficult, it's not oil, it has to be compressed - liquefied first).
I suggest that what USGS is after is a way to get some bribe money, first from government for this study, then from the industry. After all, that's how many of the professional scientists were funded during the time of anti-smoking movement.
You can't handle the truth.
"We don't actually know which of these two oil and gas extraction related reasons it is..."
There, fixed that for you.
You mean like when a feather (small), lightly brushed across the skin, affects a person (large)?
OH MY GOD WE'RE TICKLING THE EARTH!
bollox
Thinking that your poor knowledge is any sort of argument is absurd. I started writing more, but it's probably a waste of time.
and I can confirm this
Human activities (except for nuclear ones) cannot cause serious earthquakes unless there is already sufficient tectonic tension (probably not the right term, I am not a geologist) in the region. I believe that fracking can cause an earthquake but only as a trigger. Just like a firecracker can trigger an avalanche, provided the right conditions for avalanche are already there. In that sense, those earthquakes are "benign" because those regions earthquake-prone anyways; the longer the period of building tension, the worse is the inevitable earthquake that releases it.
That's true for almost anyone. So by your argument we're not allowed to have opinions on these matters.
Right?
You're wielding a doubled edged sword there, pal. Unless you want to claim elitism you'll find it destroys your position as it destroys mine. And the elitism claim comes with other problems you probably aren't fully aware of...
I'm not an expert in everything. But don't make the mistake of thinking I'm stupid.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The greens were all over natural gas until just a few years ago, until suddenly natural gas is the new enemy.
We've been fracking since 1947 and NOW it's a big deal?
Oh yeah, since natural gas prices have dropped and it's sustainable until the rest of my lifetime, now it's the new evil. Seriously?
(my home runs on natural gas, which WAS clean? no? My provider dropped by prices by 1.5% in Nov and again by 5% in Oct)
Seriously, I think they just want us to burn down forests and use wood for heat.
If it's going on a very long way below where the groundwater is then that is a LOT of protective rock instead of the idea of a wafer thin and fragile layer of protective rock.
Hopefully since it's far easier to do horizontal and other directional drilling than it used to be we'll be able to put the fracking discussion in the past anyway.
IIRC, two thirds of those quakes were within a half mile of drilling sites. Seems significant to me, anyway.
I know "correlation is not causation" and all that, but... I dunno, can this be an exception to the rule?
I think we can safely say that fracking is *somehow* involved in the increase. Even if it's just in this small area, it shows that it is possible and it warrants more investigation.
Why do I have the bad feeling that in the next 10-20 years we're gonna have something like Deepwater Horizon, but it's gonna be on land? Some poor little podunk town that never has earthquakes is gonna be shaken to bits because of fracking.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
We've been fracking since 1947... it's not something new. So were all other earthquakes caused by it?
And this is really old news. It has been believed that fracking and seismic activity were related for a while now. I could have told you that anyways. Hadn't had earthquakes in my area for decades (probably close to the century mark, but I am too lazy to look it up for sure, and then it was only like one every few decades), but since they started drilling here a couple of years ago, we seem to get one every few months - or rather, one that is measurable. I think the number of really small quakes is actually considerably higher, just too small to register. We have a suspended projector at the chruch. Have for years. Never had any issues at all until they started pumping gas out of our area. Now, about once every couple of weeks, you will see the image on the screen just start shaking very slightly. First I thought it may be because we had the speakers too loud, but this sometimes happens before and after service, or in times of silence during the service. With a projected image 10 feet tall from a projector suspended from an arm attached to the roof of the building, this is probably the only reason I notice them at all - I mean, you really don't see lights shake or anything like that. Figured out that the shaking seems to coincide with the times that they are actually fracking in the area. So, yeah, I think that it actually causes probably more seismic activity than is actually being reported, its just that its on scales too small for most people to even notice.
http://www.timetravel-britain.com/articles/towns/northwich.shtml
Salt mining caused houses to collapse sometimes 30 miles from the mines, and even then only after 10 years. It was unimaginably hard on the householders - not much welfare back in those days, and the mine owners similarly wanted proof before doing anything about it. The connection has been fully established now, but the horse bolted that entirely-man made disaster a long time ago.
By seismic event I guess you mean they picked up something on the scales? Or you read about it on the news, not something you actually experienced? (and note fraking has been going on since 1947, so sure it's not something you've cared about in your lifetime until now that it is a news item)
You're still talking about an absurd amount of mass that is supposedly being moved by a relatively tiny amount of water. It would be like saying you could destabilize a boulder with a child's water pistol. Only even then the ratio is wrong. The masses we're talking about are vastly larger in ratio then that.
I mean lets just do a simple mas relationship. How many megatons is all the earth involved in one of these supposed quakes? Okay, and how many tons of water is pumped into the ground during one of these operations.
I'd be shocked if it were within ten million to ONE.
I'm not a geologist. I just don't see how such a relatively tiny amount of mass can effect a relatively huge mass unless the huge mass ALREADY unstable. And if it's already unstable then the fracking isn't causing the quake so much as triggering something now that would have happened later.
Furthermore, what sort of damage have we suffered so far from fracking related quakes? Any cities leveled? Seriously, can we show any damage what so ever from it? Or are people saying that it shook their house for a couple seconds once when the pump across the street turned on. Because I can believe that. Of course, a large truck driving by will have a similar effect.
Look, the people bitching about fracking are looking for a problem. They want a problem. They don't care if there is a problem in fact, they just don't like fracking because this has gotten political. The Michael Moore people got all hot and bothered about it and now swarms of idiots are attacking it despite the fact that it's doing great things for the US energy market.
Right now natural gas prices are dirt cheap because of fracking. People are heating their homes and paying their utilities less because of fracking. Fracking is killing the coal industry because natural gas is now cheaper then coal. And do you know how much natural gas we have? So much that we can keep burning it without moderation for hundreds if not thousands of years.
So if you have an argument against fracking... make it good. Because it needs to be REALLY good to matter at all.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And we've been fracking since 1947... So 2009 (once it became a public icon) is some new thing?
And this is to much true. When'd you hear about fraking? 2 years ago? It's been going on since 1947.. Natural gas is now getting cheap and we now have an abundance of it. So the solar+wind+whatever crowd is now making a new item to bitch about (and they were all for natgas before). This is NOT new, we've been doing it for decades.
Correlation (if it is real), does imply causation, it just doesn't tell you the source or direction of the cause.
Hi, I'm posting from the soviet republic of France, guided by the Great and Beloved Leader Nicolas Sarkozy, friend of your former socialist président George Bush. Here, we are fighting against fracking for a couple of years. Of course, we rely on brave american activists for our information, cause your still ahead of us in terms of pollution and destructing environment, but it's even better when scientists bring their share.
nt
It's not your lack of knowledge that's unacceptable (that would be elitism), but that you see nothing wrong with calling things absurd despite having little intuition or knowledge for things like pressure x area, lubrication and earthquakes. I'm no expert in these areas, but I know enough to see right through your arrogance. I'll give you an example that is similar to what you've called "absurd": one person can set off an avalanche weighing thousands of tonnes.
Please note that I am not focusing on your lack on knowledge (and hence implying stupidity), rather how you've behaved despite it. Why do you do it? These aren't matters of emotion, where opinion is all you've got to go on.
Areas differ geologically. What happens in one area won't necessarily happen in another. Some areas are amenable to the disposal of fracking fluid through deep well injection and others are not. It seems a reasonable assumption that this activity could cause different reactions in different areas.
It's not really a problem until the Koch family says it's a problem. Besides, if Oklahoma gets turned into a giant sinkhole would anyone really care?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
don't frack with earth.
It's not about fracking, presto-chango, it's about brine injection wells. If they can't be trusted on that minor detail, why should we trust them on anything else?
You seem to bei neither. Because you willfully ignore that any attempt to prove that climate scientists committed fraud resulted into nothing. Not a single instance of fraud! Despite lots of accusations and investigations, still no evidence of fraud. Instead every project so far to independently gather the data, analyze them and then prove the climate theories wrong (as a scientist would do it), resulted in the same predictions the climate scientists already made.
But instead of being a scientist and accepting the facts and thus thinking that the climate science might under certain circumstances have some valid claims, you continue to spread baseless claims of fraud.
So, whatever you are, you are not a scientist.
A you need "scientific study" for this ? By definition cracking rock under the stress is a seismic activity.
JAM
Correlation (if it is real), does imply causation, it just doesn't tell you the source or direction of the cause.
Actually it does not imply causation. Two unrelated series may be completely unrelated but correlated. Google the (mythical) hemline index.
I notice that the earth moves whenever I frack.
I got to watch a very interesting lecture on this a month ago, so I'll chime in. Oh, you should cite something for your first claim, otherwise you're playing the "no true Scotsman" game.
For one, what was known as "fracking" up to very recently was done using straight wells, as in drilled straight down. Part of the reason these natural gas deposits haven't been exploited is that most shale (where the gas is locked in) is in very thin, very wide (ranging over hundreds to thousands of miles) formations. A vertical well only works if the shale is deep, which is a lot less common. Today's fracking is done by drilling down into a thin shale formation, then twisting the bit 90 degrees and drilling sideways a great distance. You then inject a fluid (mostly water and extremely finely ground silica, from northern glacial sand deposits) which, as I understood it, uses a combination of friction and pressure to cause micro-fracturing (fracking) all along the hole. Methane trapped in the shale flows via these fractures into the well, which at that point you just need to cap off and begin to process. Its incredible technology.
Anyway, back to your arguments (and those of a couple others). A large horizontal hole in the upper crust, purposefully cracked along its length, extracting large amounts of gas from the surrounding stone is absolutely changing the balance of crustal forces in that region. "But its only a little hole, and rock is big and heavy!" Its a system in close to perfect equilibrium, and we are altering it. A single shovelfull of earth can cause a mudslide, if the system is in balance. I see how it can be confusing, but fracking is probably causing some earthquakes.
And for those saying "who cares about Oklahoma," you should know that the largest shale region in the United States forms roughly a triangle with New Jersey, Pensylvaina (or was it Ohio... grab a geologic map if you care), and the Carolinas as the points. There are also good spots in other parts of the South. But my focus here is that New York is on top of this shale, as are many other major east-coast cities. The numbers for how great natural gas can be (because the US potentially has so much of it) are assuming the exploitation of the East-coast reserves. They might start in Oklahoma and the Dakotas, but it will come to your door very soon.
All that said, it still might not be dangerous. If you can find some way to reasonably quantify the damage from small earthquakes and have it paid for via a small tax on the producers (property devaluation would be trickier...) it could still be exploitable. What worries me more is that the fluid being used almost certainly has small amounts of something unpleasant in it, as if it didn't the fight over keeping the formula secret wouldn't be nearly this vicious. Also, methane leaking into the aquifer thats above the shale is a real concern. In theory, fracking is perfectly safe because you can seal the hole with a liner and cap, essentially re-plugging it and isolating the aquifer again (which the rock formation itself has done for eons, else there wouldn't be a lot of gas down there). But what happens when you increase the number of earthquakes in the region by over an order of magnitude? Do those caps stay in place? If no, then there is a real issue that needs to be resolved here.
What's the amount of fracking? What's the amount of attention being paid to the effects of fracking?
One person pissing in a stream, no big deal. One hundred...bigger. One thousand. Way big.
Then somebody downstream starts looking at the water he's getting in a microscope, and notices a bunch of contaminants.
He says he refuses to believe fracking can cause earthquakes, because there's "absolutely no evidence" for it - yet the man is also an unapologetic fundamentalist christian... talk about a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
Listen - Fracking is causing it. There's no uncertainty about it. It's unregulated and hurting people.
On the radio, a state senator stated that they don't even know how many sites or their location (sadly,
his ultimate message was that the money was still green, so why move fast on something like that).
This is serious business. People should be very alarmed.
The chemicals pushed into the water table to perform the fracking are dangerous - don't be fooled that
it's "mostly water". It takes a small amount of a dangerous substance to make a lot of water toxic.
It's a future Love Canal for someone...
You seem to bei neither. Because you willfully ignore that any attempt to prove that climate scientists committed fraud resulted into nothing. Not a single instance of fraud! Despite lots of accusations and investigations, still no evidence of fraud. Instead every project so far to independently gather the data, analyze them and then prove the climate theories wrong (as a scientist would do it), resulted in the same predictions the climate scientists already made.
Same thing happens when they investigate bankers. Fraud is a strong word with legal implications.....there were definitely instances found where science was performed poorly.
The thing the 'climategate' emails showed definitively, is that a lot of the scientists are not impartial observers. They have a very real interest in pushing their own viewpoint. They are strongly pushing their own viewpoints, and thus can't be trusted to be impartial observers. Because they are not.
So if you have an argument against fracking... make it good. Because it needs to be REALLY good to matter at all.
I don't. I don't know enough right now to actually form a decent opinion on it. We need more science, like this study, to actually come up with a cohesive argument either way.
I'm just saying, as a person with a vague interest in geology, that it wouldn't be terribly surprising if there was an effect. If a fault has a large amount of energy stored up in it, a small trigger could let it lose. This isn't news, nor very surprising. I would be actually shocked if there was no potential for fracking to cause at least some quakes. This, wouldn't necessarily be an argument against it (depending on the magnitude of the effect). It, would, on the other hand, be an interesting bit of science. If there is found to be a decent sized effect, we, the public, have to weigh the potential benefits against the potential risks.
They don't care if there is a problem in fact, they just don't like fracking because this has gotten political. The Michael Moore people got all hot and bothered about it and now swarms of idiots are attacking it despite the fact that it's doing great things for the US energy market.
You're getting a bit trolly there. I don't know enough science to form an opinion (which is mostly true for everyone, those for it, and those against) on its safety, but having some concerns is fine, it is much healthier than just being a cheerleader. Personally I'm more concerned about ground water issues, and industrial safety (I don't trust the petroleum industry in the slightest). Not enough to fully oppose it (again, need more data), but enough to be skeptical. If I was in charge of policy, I'd let them roll it out in a limited basis, and areas where there is limited risk, until we can fully weigh the evidence, and then roll it out on a large scale, or try to mitigate whichever proven risks that are found.
Having concerns is normal. It isn't some "Michael Moore idiot blah blah blah" thing. Being concerned and being anti-whatnot are very different things. For example, I generally am an advocate for nuclear power, but I also have a fair amount of concerns about various issues about it. My philosophy is proceed with caution until we fully know the risks and limitations.
And if it's already unstable then the fracking isn't causing the quake so much as triggering something now that would have happened later.
Perhaps. Again, need more science. Though a lot of quakes relieve small amounts of pressure, so it is conceivable that something could trigger an unnatural massive release of energy. Is this possible? Is this probable? This is why we need more science. You saying you think it isn't, and me saying I think it is, is completely meaningless, nature doesn't care what our opinion is. You are standing on the same shaky empirical ground as the people who say it IS a risk. Without evidence, both of you are just making mouth noises based on various subjective political ideals.
Furthermore, what sort of damage have we suffered so far from fracking related quakes? Any cities leveled? Seriously, can we show any damage what so ever from it? Or are people saying that it shook their house for a couple seconds once when the pump across the street turned on. Because I can believe that. Of course, a large truck driving by will have a similar effect.
Because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't, or can't, happen. Hence the need for objective science.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
There exists many studies from the 70's hidden in the archives of the oil industry stating that earthquakes in California can be directly linked to injecting water and chemicals into wells to surface Petroleum.
No, they aren't. But that's not the problem. Every single scientist has its own viewpoint. Most of them like to see their viewpoint spread. There are animosities, and there are personal feuds. There are people writing mails while being angry or in a generally bad mood. There is the pressure to get tenure and research grants. There is the attraction of conference travel and wellpaid positions in the industry. And there is just human error. Experiments and calculations can be faulty, are error prone and scientists can just be confused about details and not discover their own mistakes.
But there are two things that overcome this problems:
a) replication of experiments.
Results that can't be replicated are worthless, and papers based on those results can at most be considered scientific curiosities.
This weeds out most bad science and fraud and helps to overcome errors and mistakes.
b) postulations and predictions ;) ).
A theory worth to consider does not only explain hitherto known facts, it allows to postulate facts which are not known yet. Any theory worth its salt is reducing possibilities. Any theory worth its salt can be formulated as a negation: "It is impossible that..." And that are those famous falsificable predictions. A theory predicts the impossibility of certain events. If those events happen anyway, then the theory failed (or the measurement was faulty
Bad science is not so much about betrayal, it is more like a badly designed and written program. Sooner or later, we discover most of the bugs, and if the bugs don't get fixed or the program doesn't do anything we need, we will stop using the program. And if the need for which the program was installed in the first place persists, we will look for a new program to use. Bad science will either be fixed or thrown out. And if the scientific question still exists, it will be answered by new science.
The reason is that Coal has multiple methods of being converted to methane (natural gas). Right now, it can not compete with NG being so low. However, if it goes up, then Coal->CH4 becomes very profitable. More importantly, it is good to have competition between methods. Now, what is needed is increased demand. Basically, we need to pass NAT GAS act. Sadly, the neo-cons are fighting it. They scream for markets and national security, but then fight both, unless it helps their elections and lines their pockets.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Google the (mythical) hemline index.
That sounds like a website where they categorize pictures of women in miniskirts and rate them.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
'hydraulic fracturing, or more specifically the disposal of fracking wastewater' Generally speaking there is no difference between normal water and the water that comes out of a well after a hydraulic fracturing operation. It's water. Water doesn't compress under pressure, so it's a cheap way of fracturing a formation so oil and gas can come to the surface to be used by people who don't like to cut wood to heat their homes or ride horses to work. I work in the CBM industry. I send 10's of thousands of barrels of water per day down three disposal wells. It is my happy duty to report a complete absence of perceivable earthquakes in the Salt Creek area of Wyoming. Let's go ahead and say that injecting water into a formation does produce a little earthquake now and then, and who is really injured? Ladies and gentlemen, put your wallets away. There is no consequential threat to anyone in spite of what the 'scare the living shit out of people for money' industry is saying. This is just about money. Environmentalism is a high dollar industry that feeds off the gullible nature of people who have come to have ignorant contempt for the very industries that cloth them, feed then and keep them warm. How much did this inconclusive report by the USGS (based on data that reaches way back in geological time to the 1970s) cost the taxpayer? The only thing you can be sure of is there will be a communal request to greatly increase funding to study this 'crisis' by the good people of the USGS. (an any other parasitic branch of government that can take advantage of the situation)
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Scientifically, something has to happen for there to be evidence. It's called empericism of which science is an outgrowth.
So yes, we need an earthquake. And not some sissy "a large truck just passed my house" earth quake within 1000 feet of the drill site.
Remember an earthquake can vary from something so minor not even dogs can detect it to being something so big huge rips form in the earth and cities fall.
It's the difference between a ripple in the water and a tidal wave. And the term "earthquake" is way too vague to be relevant here. We need to have some manitude projections here for it to be useful. If fracking causes rippples... no one cares because no one will even notice. Your dog MIGHT notice... but who cares. If cities will fall over, THEN we'll care.
By all means, continue the science... just keep it scientific. If I see a bunch of documentarians following around from New York with a history having an axe to grind that will be indicative of what is really going on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Jesus christ ya shill the fracking that was being done in the 40's is completely different than the modern fracking being done in the Marcellus shale, Barnett Shale and the Bakken formation. This isn't the straight forward vertical fracking done in the 40's, its horizontal. Horizontal fracking wasn't even introduced 70/80s A COMPLETELY different process. How about you educate yourself a tad
As long as geology and the petrol industry in particular, ignores Thomas Gold's ideas and insist that earthquakes are caused by plates getting jiggly, the fracking case will always remain a mystery, just as earthquakes will remain impossible to forecast.
What is absolutely certain is that the companies like to keep their patent fracking ingredients secret because it is a well known fact that they know exactly what to put down for the best results and has absolutely nothing to do with bio-hazards and getting paid to get rid of agents orange and hydrazine etc.
And there will be absolutely no nicotinamides put in when they ban that too neither.
Absolute gospel that is.
As for pig shit and spent orthophosphates from sheep dip and all the other stuff nobody has ever accused them of using, they never use that too, neither.
What they do use but won't tell anyone, so they can get more money out of the wells only they have access to and not their competitors who (as everybody knows) sneak in at night and steal all their profits when nobody is looking, is that they condense baby tears and puppy breath to put down there along with angel kisses and all their love.
You seem to have annoyed somebody by asking questions. So here are some more. I just love negative karma.
When did disposing of factory farming waste become a major problem?
When --- were stopped pouring agent orange down the mountainsides of Colorado, did they have any left?
How do scientists compare data without knowing exactly what fluids are used and where?
How has the health of people drinking water affected by the fracking processes turned out?
Are they allowed to pour chrome 6 hexides or whatever that Erin Brockovich stuff is called down those holes?
Yes the system is in equilibrium... but there are different types of equilibrium.
Take a pea and put it on a plate. Does the pea roll to the left or the right? Neither. It's in equilibrium in that spot. The amount of energy required to move the pea is roughly equivalent to the energy released by the pea moving.
Take a pea in the middle of a bowl. The pea is still in equilibrium. To move the pea to the left or the right takes MORE energy then the amount of energy released by the pea moving because the edges of the bowl tend to push the pea back to the middle. And it takes a continuous exertion of force to keep the pea from being in the center.
Take a pea on TOP of an upside down bowl. The pea is still in equilibrium. This is the one situation where it takes LESS energy to move the pea then is released by the pea moving. Because once it starts moving in any direction gravity will pull it in that direction away from the middle.
So... in nature which of the above is the most common type of equilibrium? The second situation is most common and the third is the least common. Equilibrium in nature tends to occupy some stable valley where it takes significantly more energy to change the situation then is released. And further, if left alone nature tends to push things back to the old equilibrium point. Why is this? Time. Over time, things happen. And that means the pea rolls all over the place until it finds a little rut and then the pea stays in that rut. It's very hard to get the pea out of that rut and if you move it... it tends to just roll right back into it.
I regards to earthquakes... yes, the earth's crust is in equilibrium. But I suspect that it will take either equal or greater force upon it to generate an equal or LESSER response. Equilibrium in this case should act AGAINST change. It is extremely unlikely that a small action will cause a big reaction. You get that when you have a room full of explosive gas and someone lights a match. The earth's crust is unlikely to be like that. It is far more likely to be like the pea on the flat plate or the pea inside the bowl where equilibrium either respond proportionately or disportionately with a less powerful response.
I'm not a geologist but what understanding I have of science and geology leads me to believe the earth is very stable and that injecting a relatively small amount of water into the crust is unlikely to generate a disproportionately large response.
If you injected an amount of water into the earth with force equal to the your doomsday earthquake prediction then I'd agree it is a problem. However, the pressures involved in fracking while extreme to the local rock formations are irrelevant when compared to the megatons of rock in all directions.
The math argue against a big earthquake unless the volume and pressures of the water are comparable to the volume and pressures of the whole rock formation.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I hear what you're saying about one person setting off an avalanche. However, the avalanche is poised to collapse at any time. The person that set it off was the feather on the camel's back. That ONE LAST THING that just started a big reaction.
The problem with this notion and why I think your view is naive and possibly ignorant (no offense) is that the earth by and large is not so unstable. If it were then little things would be setting it off all the time.
For your comment to make any sense, the earth would have to be like the room full of explosive vapor with fracking being someone lighting a match.
How likely is that? Look past your opinion of me and rather look at the earth itself. Exactly how likely is it that the earth is so unstable that a relatively tiny force upon it would release a huge amount of energy?
Just about f'ing nil.
I'm open to the science. But I'm contemptuous of anyone that says we should do nothing until it's proven to NOT be dangerous. That's not how science works. Provide empirical evidence that we have a problem sufficient to stop the fracking or all complaints will be filed in the circular filing cabinet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I agree with everything you said there, only we are using new technology and methods to extract it. The abundance of natural gas is now well beyond what it was in the past due to this technology.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Get your tyke-sized rocketships ready, preppers!
Ah, but this isn't showing it's hugely unstable. These are pretty small earthquakes. And the earth is strained all over the place, that's why there are faults almost everywhere. Now the huge earthquakes are around plate edges where the both the magnitude and rate of strain are high, but smaller earthquakes occur everywhere.
There is empirical evidence that when this fracking extraction started, the rate of earthquakes shot up. The burden of causal proof should be on the people doing potentially harmful things. Saying it's OK to come and engage in your contentious activity until definitely proven guilty is just fucking irresponsible. That's not how science works either; actually it really has nothing to do with science. Science is a method. You are saying "err on the side of making money, until *proven* dangerous" and I am saying "err on the side of status quo until it's likey not to be dangerous".
From TFA:
"Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established. (Nicholson, Craig and Wesson, R.L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, 74 p.)"
Or it could be due to the fact that the Earth is still ringing from the Japan quake and that constructive interference patterns in the waves just happen to peak in the midwest. It's truly sad that what counts for science these days is choosing a conclusion first and then seeking data that backs it up while conveniently ignoring data that doesn't.
Nothing we do comes without an element of risk and if you got rid of all modern technology it would be even riskier. Even our poor wouldn't consider living in the squalor of the rich kings and queens in old Europe. True they were rich and had an expected life span about half of ours.
I worked in science at various levels and several fields most of my life and it's not just the right. Working in CS I had to deal with people on both sides that were just as bad.
No, the burden is on the people that want it stopped. You can't just make a claim and then shut everything down. You first have to have compelling evidence.
Disagree? Sue them. Ultimately you're just going to have to sue them to stop it. So have your day in court and we'll see what happens.
Try more monkey business with the EPA and that whole branch of the government could get clipped. It's already on thin ice as it is and has recently started loosing major court cases that render many of it's actions illegal.
This will only continue. You can't use environmental policy as a means to shut down all grown and industrial production. That is not why these organizations were set up and such motivations run contrary to the interests of society. It will not be tolerated.
It is critical that we adopt moderate policies that respect valid environmental concerns while also respecting the need to carry out necessary industrial activities.
The causal link between significant earthquakes and fracking remains threadbare at best. By all means, continue the science. No one is suggesting any of this not be studied. However, unless we have an extremely compelling reason to stop... it's going to happen. We're talking about trillions of dollars at stake. The treasure of empires. You're not stopping the extraction on "maybes."
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
The fluid injected into the rock is typically a slurry of water, proppants, and chemical additives. Additionally, gels, foams, and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air can be injected. There are more than 50 types of fluids that can potentially be used as fracturing fluids, following are the fracturing fluids used at more than 95% of Fracturing jobs world wide:-
Conventional linear gels
These gels are Cellulose derivatives (CMC,HEC,CMHEC, HPCMHEC) , Guar or its derivatives (HPG,CMHPG) based, with other chemicals providing the necessary chemistry for the desired results.
Borate-crosslinked fluids
These are guar based fluids cross-linked with Boron ions (from aqueous borax/boric acid solution). These gels have higher viscosity at pH 9 onwards and are used to carry proppants. After the fracturing job the pH is reduced to (3 - 4) so that the cross-links are broken and the gel is less viscous and is therefore pumped out.
Organometallic-crosslinked fluids
Zirconium, Chromium, Antimony, Titatanium Salts are known to cross-link the guar based gels. The cross-linking mechanism is not reversible. So once the proppant is pumped down along with the cross-linked gel and the fracturing part is done. The gels are broken down with appropriate breakers.[3] .
Aluminium phosphate-ester oil gels
Aluminium phosphate and ester oils are slurried to form cross-linked gel. These are one of first known gelling systems. They are very limited in used currently, because of formation damage and the difficulty in clean-up.
Chemical concentrations run at about 2% per unit, enough to render otherwise potable water toxic.
You're either lying, ignorant or both.
Ur trolling hypocrite bs caught up 2U -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2772023&cid=39612033 and what a damned hypocrite u r too, troll. Unbelievable. Pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it, lol!
Ur trolling hypocrite bs caught up 2U -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2772023&cid=39612033 and what a damned hypocrite u r too, troll. Unbelievable: Pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it, lol!