Earthquakes Correlated With Texan Fracking Sites
eldavojohn writes "A recent peer reviewed paper and survey by Cliff Frohlich of the University of Texas' Institute for Geophysics reveals a correlation between an increase in earthquakes and the emergence of fracking sites in the Barnett Shale, Texas. To clarify, it is not the actual act of hydrofracking that induces earthquakes, but more likely the final process of injecting wastewater into the site, according to Oliver Boyd, a USGS seismologist. Boyd said, 'Most, if not all, geophysicists expect induced earthquakes to be more likely from wastewater injection rather than hydrofracking. This is because the wastewater injection tends to occur at greater depth, where earthquakes are more likely to nucleate. I also agree [with Frohlich] that induced earthquakes are likely to persist for some time (months to years) after wastewater injection has ceased.' Frohlich added, 'Faults are everywhere. A lot of them are stuck, but if you pump water in there, it reduces friction and the fault slips a little. I can't prove that that's what happened, but it's a plausible explanation.' In the U.S. alone this correlation has been noted several times."
Exactly. The amount of prostitution and drug use has risen dramatically where fracking sites are located.
Not to mention pollution, noise, water contamination, and bar fights.
Though in reality, the local population doesn't get to partake in the upswing in employment because the people running the sites are brought in from elsewhere.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
> What is rule #1 in statistics? "Correlation does not equal causality."
Yes, you do fail stats.
When a man-made event clearly proceeds some other event, then correlation does imply causation. This is the entire basis of experimental science.
Unless you can show that the earthquakes in the future are somehow causing fracking in the past, then it is causation. If that's the case, then I'm sure there are a couple of Nobel Prizes in it for your discovery of time-travel.
The other possible causes are faults.
You seem not to have read the last sentence of the abstract. Allow me: "Testing this hypothesis would require identifying geographic regions where there is interpreted subsurface structure information available to determine whether there are faults near seismically active and seismically quiescent injection wells. "
damaged by dogma
When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.
Seems like 5 to me.
A causes B
B causes A and B is cyclical (or we're time traveling)
B and A are both caused by C
B is caused by C and A is caused by D, C and D are unrelated
B and A self-contained events with no direct external cause and no relationship to each other