NorrinRadd 0 #1 August 20, 2013 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24069-fracking-operations-triggered-100-quakes-in-a-year.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UhLEKj_QtGAWhy drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #2 August 20, 2013 NorrinRaddhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24069-fracking-operations-triggered-100-quakes-in-a-year.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UhLEKj_QtGA Stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #3 August 20, 2013 dmcoco84***http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24069-fracking-operations-triggered-100-quakes-in-a-year.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UhLEKj_QtGA Stupid. I have to agree, that was a hugely incoherent article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorrinRadd 0 #4 August 20, 2013 champu******http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24069-fracking-operations-triggered-100-quakes-in-a-year.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UhLEKj_QtGA Stupid. I have to agree, that was a hugely incoherent article. It was very coherent.Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ibx 2 #5 August 20, 2013 Quote Stupid. I have to agree, that was a hugely incoherent article. This is the level of arguing you'll have to put with. You won't get any counter arguments or have your points debated. Your source will simply be dismissed as "stupid". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #6 August 20, 2013 NorrinRadd*********http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24069-fracking-operations-triggered-100-quakes-in-a-year.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UhLEKj_QtGA Stupid. I have to agree, that was a hugely incoherent article. It was very coherent. The article was about a man in England arrested for protesting a company that was drilling an oil well and that had applied to conduct fracking but was not allowed to (yet, anyway.) Interspersed is a story about how fracking caused 109 earthquakes in Ohio, one of which was a 3.9 (I'd be much more interested in the mean and variance. Max doesn't tell me much.) After that it clarifies that it's not actually the fracking that causes the earthquake it's the disposal of the waste water. And also, there's an argument about ground water contamination, and the people supporting fracking admit there's not a lot of research that's been done. And the company is acknowledging the protestor's concerns. The article was not coherently written, it wandered aimlessly around the concerns of fracking. Don't interpret this as a statement of my stance on fracking, but it's hard to even discuss the subject of fracking-induced earthquakes based on this article. It is very muddled and the article it links to that promises to actually talk about the topic is available only via subscription. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #7 August 20, 2013 Well, a 3.9 magnitude earthquake is so small many people fail to notice it, it causes no structural damage, at worse it might cause your wine glasses to tinkle a bit on their shelves. Plus that was the most severe incident, and it was associated with wastewater disposal, forcing too much water into too small a volume too fast. Plus, hundreds of thousands of earthquakes of that magnitude occur naturally every year, without causing damage. Typical "earthquakes" associated with fracking (actually fracturing the rock) are in the 1-2 magnitude range, far too small to be felt on the surface. If "earthquakes" is the worst fracking opponents can muster, I'm afraid they have no case. As far as I have been able to tell from reading actual studies of the issue, all the problems noted to date are associated with accidental contamination of ground water by leaking well casings or waste-water storage containers. Those are potentially serous local issues, but they can be dealt with by enforcing safety standards and testing. I also think monitoring wells for contamination is a reasonable measure. Many areas currently being explored or developed for fraking were drilled for conventional oil back in the 1940s or earlier, and the location of almost all those wells (exploratory as well as producing) has been lost, so it is theoretically possible for fraking fluids to move up into ground water through those old wells. Nevertheless, with appropriate attention to monitoring and containment of waste water, I believe fraking is something that can be done with minimal risk. Whether or not we should continue our dependence on fossil fuels is a policy matter, but using trivial issues (earthquakes that can't even be felt, let alone do damage) to argue the technology is too dangerous is bogus, IMHO. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 August 20, 2013 GeorgiaDonWell, a 3.9 magnitude earthquake is so small many people fail to notice it, it causes no structural damage, at worse it might cause your wine glasses to tinkle a bit on their shelves. Plus that was the most severe incident, and it was associated with wastewater disposal, forcing too much water into too small a volume too fast. Plus, hundreds of thousands of earthquakes of that magnitude occur naturally every year, without causing damage. It would seem minor, and localized. Infusing water seems unlikely to cause a significant fault action. That said, a 4.0 in places that aren't used to earthquakes may not be a joke. You guys stack shit up vertically in ways that we would generally not do in California. The majority of wine racks sold are ill advised here due to the prospect of a red sea on the ground. Quote As far as I have been able to tell from reading actual studies of the issue, all the problems noted to date are associated with accidental contamination of ground water by leaking well casings or waste-water storage containers. Those are potentially serous local issues, but they can be dealt with by enforcing safety standards and testing. I also think monitoring wells for contamination is a reasonable measure. This approach was a total failure for California when it started using MTBE in gasoline in the late 90s. Contamination was extensive enough that its use had to be eliminated, costing gas users a pretty penny both for the conversion to and then away from it as a pollution mitigator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 August 20, 2013 GeorgiaDonWell, a 3.9 magnitude earthquake is so small many people fail to notice it. Not necessarily true. Even very small earthquakes in areas that rarely have them have been known to cause buildings to collapse. It's specifically because they AREN'T in areas where modern earthquake building codes exist. In SoCal the locals may very well sleep through a 3.9, but if they are awake, they'll almost always notice something that large. Get over 3 and people notice. 3.9 is almost 10 times as strong. Not that buildings in SoCal would likely sustain much damage, but it's enough to loosen bricks in a fireplace depending on the soil conditions in the precise location. However, in some locations of the US where earthquakes are all but unheard of, 3.9 might be enough to send parts of the population into quite a bit of panic. And in some parts of the world with really shoddy construction, 3.9 could be deadly.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
