Slashdot Mirror
Seismological Society of America Claims Fracking Reactivated Ohio Fault
eldavojohn writes There have been suspicions that fracking has caused minor earthquakes in Ohio but last year seismic data recorded by the Earthscope Transportable Array was analyzed by the Seismological Society of America using template matching and has resulted in a new publication and press release making the statement that Hilcorp Energy's fracking in Poland Township in March of 2014 "did not create a new fault, rather it activated one that we didn't know about prior to the seismic activity." The earthquakes occurred in the Precambrian basement and lead the researchers to posit that further unknown faults may be activated by fracking. The press release ends with urging for "close cooperation among government, industry and the scientific community as hydraulic fracturing operations expand in areas where there's the potential for unknown pre-existing faults."
Despite there being no published science about its safety, and despite evidence that it is actually polluting wells and ground water ... it will keep happening.
Because government officials are all paid heavily by the oil and gas industry to make damned sure they can do anything they want to, right up to tearing up private property because they want to.
These short sighted clowns only care about profits, and don't give a damn about anything else.
I can't imagine government is going to start reigning in corporations any time soon ... which means all laws and policy will continue to be so skewed in favor of corporations as to be laughable.
America is nothing but an oligarchy these days.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I told the Precambrian family not to install a basement. But did they listen? Noooooo.
Don't the mini quakes release energy from the faults more safely?
what if causing a number of small earthquakes prolongs the release of a large one. Less energy is being pent up so the slippage should do less damage
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
We seem to have done a piss poor job of explaining the benefits of clean air and clean water to our fellow citizens.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
At worst, it can release stress that is already there. So they can "cause" an earthquake. But it's the big motions of the ground that we have no influence over that really puts stress in the ground.
Isn't it true that stress that builds up over time would get released anyway, SOMETIME? (Unless the forces that caused the stress in the first place reversed so as to release it....)
I mean, the release of chemicals, water pollution and consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions are all reasonable charges to make against fracking, but as far as earthquakes, weren't they inevitable anyway?
Also, wouldn't triggering an earthquake cause a quake of less magnitude than would occur if allowed to build up and release naturally?
--PeterM
In other words, anywhere they want to say so.
Everyone knows fracking is perfectly safe.
It's on the internet so it must be true.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
As a society, we need to know the true costs of using our technology. This means we need to know under what conditions, if any, hydrolic fracturing causes earthquakes.
Fracking also provides many benefits. First and foremost it's given us energy near-independence decades sooner than other methods would have. This has potential spillover effects in foreign policy, particularly when it comes to dealing with other oil-rich nations. For example, if there had been a revolution in Saudi Arabia that threatened the oil supply in the 1990s, America would've probably jumped into the war. If it happens in the 2020s, America may be able to say "meh" without taking any hit at the gas pump.
Once we know what the true costs of fracking are, we may very well decide that it's worth the cost.
We've faced the same "we didn't know that the true costs were high, but now that we do, we still use our tech" decisions in the past. Using narcotics as pain relievers. Check. Using whale oil. Check. Using fossil fuels. Check. We aren't nearly as cavalier about using narcotics or fossil fuels as we once were, and for all practical purposes we stopped using whale oil ages ago. As for fracking, once we learn more we can make a more informed decision as to whether "it's worth it" or not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Could fracking prevent catastrophic earthquakes by triggering many smaller and less energetic quakes?
From what my layman's knowledge says, earthquakes happen when the stresses in a fault overcome the strength in the rock. If the rock is very strong, the energy required to overcome it would be huge. As the result, this produces infrequent but very energetic (and destructive) quakes. What if fracking was used to trigger a multitude of small quakes, dissipating the built-up stress in a manageable way? Could that prevent the "big one" from happening?
By fracking, I don't mean resource extraction, I mean intentional fracking in earthquake-prone zones with the goal of managing the local geology.
For somebody claiming existence of evidence, you are citing remarkably little of it... (No, I will not do the googling for you — you make the claim, you provide citations.)
While the taxpayer-funded scientists would never attempt to inflate their own importance to direct more grant-monies in their direction... Especially now that the hysteria of "global warming" is settling down — and a new boogeyman, which, conveniently, can be neither measured nor confirmed nor denied with any certainty, is needed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Despite there being no published science about its safety
At this point there is enough evidence to know it's generally safe. Even in the case of this unknown fault, the worst earthquake was 3.0 - and it was only one well corresponding to activation of the fault, the other nearby wells were fine (read the link).
despite evidence that it is actually polluting wells and ground water
What "evidence"? To date all claims have been proved false.
I can't imagine government is going to start reigning in corporations any time soon
People like jobs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Given that the price of oil is now around threepence ha'penny a barrel, isn't this all rather academic? Surely fracking is no longer economically viable?
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
They get taxes from the product, votes from people working for them, then executive non jobs when their government job expires.
Funny how convenient the timing is. This from a society where ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company ( http://www.seismosoc.org/insid... ) is a corporate member. Not that I endorse fracking, but my internal conspiracy theorist is making loud noises in my head.
Which are FAR FAR FAR more money.
Why go for the piddling change of millions when there's trillions in the subsidies for fracking, oil, coal, gas and nuclear?
Break up solid rocks deep in the ground, suck out the oil, and then fill the hole with a water slurry. What could go wrong?
I was under the impression there is a relationship between supply and demand; now you say maintaining supply in the face of falling demand has no effect on price?
Or are you simply playing with words? "Set the price" being a function of "set the supply," I think even that argument fails.
What if it merely causes more earthquakes, and doesn't make "the big one" less likely at all? After all, if we release tension and increase the movement of the continents, they'll move quicker. Lubricating surfaces tend to do that. Therefore you'd get "the big one" anyway, since there's really no limit to the amount of earth movement possible: the pacific is thousands of miles across.
While the taxpayer-funded scientists would never attempt to inflate their own importance to direct more grant-monies in their direction... Especially now that the hysteria of "global warming" is settling down — and a new boogeyman, which, conveniently, can be neither measured nor confirmed nor denied with any certainty, is needed.
One makes the laws that allow them to be bribed during campaign years without anyone knowing where or who that money came from and accept positions at the very companies they benefit after they "retire." And the other, well the other publishes peer reviewed research that is open for everyone. They then host a forum for the community to comment on it. And I should mention that the SSA is a an international community and a non-profit organization. But, go ahead and attack the scientists or whatever Murdoch/Rove/Beck drivel you've been trained to parrot.
The bottom line is that you exemplify one of the biggest problems America faces today by giving a free pass to the obviously corrupt while attacking those who simply want to disseminate information that can be reanalyzed and refuted if it is wrong.
Privatize the natural gas but socialize the earthquake.
because as soon as fracking triggers the yellowstone caldera we are all done.
There's a relationship, but like all commodities it's more complicated than that. But the futures markets and all sorts of stuff completely unrelated to supply and demand also are huge factors.
It is long past the point where these things happen in isolation.
I seriously doubt even this comes close to explaining it:
I'm not playing with words at all. I'm saying that modern economics is FAR more complex than "when demand goes up price goes up". Modern economics is full of vagaries, speculation, collusion, and other bullshit.
Despite claims to the contrary, economists don't know much more about how the economy works than you or I ... because economics is at least 50% ideology.
You look for, and see, the outcomes you believe in.
What economics is not, is an objective natural law. It's a series of observations which may or may not extend as far as people who use it claims, and whose premises may or may not be reliable.
Economics is NOT a real science. There's a lot more voodoo in it that people admit.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If fracking causes seismic activity, then North Dakota should be shaking like there is no tomorrow..... it's not...
Thanks for a more complete discussion.
We seem to have reached agreement.
I submit that seismic activity -- while not disavowing the (deeply!) underlying role of plate tectonics by any means -- is the result of steam explosions.
So injecting water into the earth at seismic depths -- a mile or two (recall what you've read about the depth of the epicenter of the earthquakes you've read about -- should be EXPECTED to produce seismic activity.
When will Hollywood wake up and give us a movie featuring an imminent earthquake cause by fraking and a team of brave scientists that buck the public denials and create a fantastic plan to stop if and save our planet!!
It sounds like these seismologists are relying almost entirely on template matching, which is nothing more than a pattern recognition algorithm. These kinds of algorithms are no substitute for intelligent analysis, especially in the absence of reliable statistics. They can be used and abused like any other engineering tool if they aren't properly understood.
Yeah. Fracking does not cause earthquakes or water contamination, just like the tobaco industry says smoking is not bad for you and does not cause cancer.
which is exactly why Ludwig Von Mises was correct.... Human Action is the unpredictable factor that makes economics unpredictable.
What was the damage caused by the earthquakes? Zero. What is the value of fracking to the Ohio economy. $billions. Therefore, the leftists oppose fracking.
Fracking needs to be investigated to ensure that NO water supply is contaminated now or way into the future. Because if and when water is contaminated someone is going to have to spend $$$$$ to filter it, pipe or truck in water for the residents, farms, wild life, both animal and plant of the area. The EPA should be looking into this, but the congresspeople that run this country told the EPA hands off, because the money from the frackers paid them off. Right now write you congressperson and demand someone (EPA) ensure that NO water is contaminated, and if and when (because you know it will) it is contaminated the person, company, agency, entity responsible MUST pay the bill not the local residents. Environmental Protections is MANDATORY!
How many gallons of water are needed to track? Is there any process where we can recover this water?
Maybe the Seismological society didn't know about it, but I find it hard to believe that the drilling company didn't. Wife works as exec assistant to head geologist at an oil/gas company. They spend hours pouring over seismic data, logs, 3d maps etc of the underground structure before anything else ever happens. And this is at a small company (100-200 emp). I'd love to see the data the company in Ohio has and if this unknown fault is clearly seen in it.
There's a relationship, but like all commodities it's more complicated than that. But the futures markets and all sorts of stuff completely unrelated to supply and demand also are huge factors.
Isn't the futures market just a set of predictions on future supply/demand? So it's not completely unrelated, but perhaps prone to large errors. (since predicting the future is a risky business)
This is basic high school physics.
Hey, let's see what the experts with more than a high school physics education have to say, which might be more informative than J. Random Dillhole on Slashdot. Hmm, just like the magic 8-Ball, my sources say you're full of shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fracking gives us geological discoveries. Frack for Science!
Tree huggar's want to take my Hummer!
We had small rolling ground rumbles from time to time as oil bearing areas subside from the changes in pressure. The fact is in Canada fracking is far from new. The forst well here was fracked .60 years ago. There are 300,000 wells that have been fracked in Alberta and B.C. There has not been a single well polluted by the process. It is a propaganda ploy by those opposed to cheaper supplies of energy for assorted reasons. I am not associated in any way with energy sector. I am however cognizant of its technology amd live amongst wells and the careful.maintemamce of them by companies. They do a good job in truth.
Get ready for the big one. If we have an earthquake because of this, it could measure, 3.0, 3.5, maybe even 4.0 on the moment magnitude scale. People up to several miles away from the epicenter might be able to *feel* the quake, if they are sitting quietly in unpadded chairs at the time and concentrating on paying attention to tiny vibrations.
(I exaggerate. Slightly. I believe we actually had a 6.something once, back in the eighties, and people up to eighty or ninety miles from the epicenter claimed afterward that they felt it.)
Ohio is only seismically active in the technical sense. You generally need an actual seismograph to detect said activity. I'm sure it's fascinating, but it has little practical significance.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.