Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NBC News

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A 3.9 is pretty weak, but yeah, there are dangers to fracking.

[muon2]

This is consistent with our knowledge that fracking per se is not associated with earthquakes, but injection wells are. Wastewater injection wells are used with other mining practices besides fracking so there should be a study of the whole business of injection wells and not the earthquakes from them. In any case it doesn't make a case against fracking. There are other wastewater disposal methods available for fracking, but many states are content putting it underground where there is no public exposure.

[Beet]

A 3.9 is pretty weak, but yeah, there are dangers to fracking.

It's not weak for Ohio. Have they ever had a natural 3.9 in the past 100 years?

[J. J.]

A 3.9 is pretty weak, but yeah, there are dangers to fracking.

It's not weak for Ohio. Have they ever had a natural 3.9 in the past 100 years?

There have been some historically, though not a 3.9.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/earthquakes/83to85/83to85/tabid/8366/Default.aspx

[J. J.]

I just checked; there was an earthquake of 5.2 about 25-30 miles north of there in 1998, north of Jamestown, PA in Mercer County.  There were actually several historically in that region.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_014601.pdf

Knowing the direction of the faults in the region, NE to SW, I'd suspect it is the same one.

[Joe Republic]

But Snow(guy?) said we shouldn't worry about a few people in the boonies being able to set their water on fire, or whatever irrelevance it is getting in the way of Progress^TM.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Who could've thought that repeatedly cracking the Earth open and sucking up water to blast it deep into the ground at hyper-speed could have any kind of consequences?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Nothing could possibly go wrong with injection mining. No, nothing at all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fracking has always been a terrible idea. Not surprising therefore that everybody supported it.

[opebo]

Fracking has always been a terrible idea. Not surprising therefore that everybody supported it.

Depends on one's point of view.  For those of us who think of the world as 'ending' for all practical purposes with our own death, posterity means little.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But Snow(guy?) said we shouldn't worry about a few people in the boonies being able to set their water on fire, or whatever irrelevance it is getting in the way of Progress^TM.

This has to do with injection wells for disposing of wastewater.  As somebody that has common sense concern for the environment, I'd support legislation that forced these companies to treat their waste water and dump it at the surface.

My support for fracking has been mainly on the high plains and in Texas where the land is almost unpopulated.

It's shortsighted to just assume that fracking will be completely safe and with no negative consequences.  But it's even more shortsighted to oppose it altogether. 

Because you wanna know what fracking is doing to the energy industry?  It's lessening demand on coal.  Coal is much dirtier.... and the extraction process for coal is FAR more disruptive than a few minor tremors or a few people lighting their water on fire.

Big picture, Joe. 

[barfbag]

The blue area covers my hometown in PA.

[afleitch]

Aww. I hope some pastors got the chance to blame the gays before the results came through

[bedstuy]

I don't really know anything about the engineering of this or whether there is any real danger from these earthquakes. 

But, why are we allowing private corporations to dispose of waste products like this.  As I understand it, the environmental laws have been amended to exempt fracking from regulations on pollution of ground water.  Why does that make any sense?   

It seems like pollution and safety hazards to ground water should be treated as seriously as hazards to surface water.  Certainly, I don't see why fracking deserves an exemption from regulation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But, why are we allowing private corporations to dispose of waste products like this. 

Because of corruption.

[barfbag]

We could blame Obama's environmental policies like Democrats blames Bush's environmental policies for Hurricane Katrina.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We could blame Obama's environmental policies like Democrats blames Bush's environmental policies for Hurricane Katrina.

Nice try.  We blamed Bush's incompetence for the terrible federal response to hurricane Katrina, and the countless government officials who ignored the need for much better flood protection in a city that is sinking further and further below sea level as the sediment underneath it compacts and is no longer replenished by large floods that cause sedimentation in the flood plain.

As for why they don't treat the water... they are injecting it so deep into the ground that we assume it won't pollute aquifers or endanger drinking water.

The answer should be action to regulate the waste water.  Make the companies pay to treat the water.  Hell, make 'em give the clean, treated water to the families whose water supply has been polluted by fracking.

Energy companies have to realize that an activity like hydraulic fracturing will necessarily be more costly in the more populated marcellus shale region than in the Bakken or Eagle Ford regions where it's nothing but empty land from horizon to horizon.

[bedstuy]

As for why they don't treat the water... they are injecting it so deep into the ground that we assume it won't pollute aquifers or endanger drinking water.

The answer should be action to regulate the waste water.  Make the companies pay to treat the water.  Hell, make 'em give the clean, treated water to the families whose water supply has been polluted by fracking.

Energy companies have to realize that an activity like hydraulic fracturing will necessarily be more costly in the more populated marcellus shale region than in the Bakken or Eagle Ford regions where it's nothing but empty land from horizon to horizon.

We can assume all we want.  But, if an oil refinery sends out emissions, it's regulated.  If a paper mill has effluent emissions, it's regulated.  If a gas station contaminates their groundwater with benzene, it's regulated.   Why on earth would be just give this one industry a free pass?  It makes no sense.  But, it seems like everyone here agrees on that. 

I think the solution may be to move on from this 1970s era idea that we want a 100% pristine environment.  If you look at 1970s regulation, the stated goal was no pollution of air or water anywhere in the US.  Perhaps that's too lofty of a goal and the more efficient solution is working towards overall lower pollution by allowing some areas to be somewhat polluted. 

[barfbag]

This is absurd. It has nothing to do with fracking or big oil companies. This is what Democrats want people to think so that voters rally to their side. If big oil companies are hurt, then Republicans will suffer too. Haven't you guys ever heard of politics?

[Sbane]

A 3.9 earthquake is nothing. Would they be able to create earthquakes more destructive than this? And let's not forget that this is a logarithmic scale we are talking about so even a 4.9 magnitude earthquake (also not a big deal but maybe a few shelves fall down) would release 10 times more energy than these earthquakes.

[Franknburger]

Oh, what a surprise! Geothermal drilling in Bale, Switzerland, in 2007 caused several earthquakes, leading to some 2.700 insurance claims at a total cost of around 7 million USD.

Another geothermal project in nearby Staufen resulted in prolonged ground elevation of up to 1 cm/month, causing severe damage to its historic old town (video-unfortunately in German, but the pictures speak for themselves)



But that hasn't to do anything with fracking! Well, it has, among others, to do with injecting water into Anhydrite (CaSO4), which leads that mineral to transform into gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), thereby gaining volume. Anhydrite is a sediment, formed by evaporation of shallow saline waters. Now, guess how oil and gas deposits have been formed - right, by sedimentation of organic material, especially algae and plankton, at the bottom of saline waters. Pressure and heat transform these deposits into oil and gas, which then migrate upwards through the covering sediments until they become trapped beneath an impermeable rock layer, the so-called seal rock. While there are several types of seal rocks, the most common one is a salt dome, created by evaporation of shallow saline waters and including - yes - anhydrite.
In other words - injecting water into anhydrite, which leads to volume gains and earth movement, is an inherent risk of fracking. Now, there may be oil-bearing geological formations that hardly contain anhydrite (and Western Texas, around Midland and Odessa, appears to be such a formation), but those are rather the exception than the rule.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As for why they don't treat the water... they are injecting it so deep into the ground that we assume it won't pollute aquifers or endanger drinking water.

The answer should be action to regulate the waste water.  Make the companies pay to treat the water.  Hell, make 'em give the clean, treated water to the families whose water supply has been polluted by fracking.

Energy companies have to realize that an activity like hydraulic fracturing will necessarily be more costly in the more populated marcellus shale region than in the Bakken or Eagle Ford regions where it's nothing but empty land from horizon to horizon.

We can assume all we want.  But, if an oil refinery sends out emissions, it's regulated.  If a paper mill has effluent emissions, it's regulated.  If a gas station contaminates their groundwater with benzene, it's regulated.   Why on earth would be just give this one industry a free pass?  It makes no sense.  But, it seems like everyone here agrees on that. 

I think the solution may be to move on from this 1970s era idea that we want a 100% pristine environment.  If you look at 1970s regulation, the stated goal was no pollution of air or water anywhere in the US.  Perhaps that's too lofty of a goal and the more efficient solution is working towards overall lower pollution by allowing some areas to be somewhat polluted. 

For what it's worth, I think that's one of the most intelligent things I've read in a while. 

There are places that can be kept pristine, and should be kept pristine.  There are places that need greater protection to keep sustainable ecosystems intact (like expanding the wilderness area around Yellowstone so that the ecosystem can be self contained and self sustainable).

There are areas that have been converted to human use that need oversight and good management so that they can still support a vibrant natural community while still serving their human purpose.

And there are areas that are and will be converted to intensive human use... be they cities, mines, drilling wells... a human environment.  One that must necessarily not be wild.

The obvious approach is going to be designating those areas and making them as compatible with each other as possible. 

We will never have billions of bison roaming the wide open plains again.  Not as long as humans are around.  But we can have thousands of them roaming wild wide open plains in areas that have not been converted to human use.

The absolute most important approach to the environment is this:

Progress, not perfection.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

But Snow(guy?) said we shouldn't worry about a few people in the boonies being able to set their water on fire, or whatever irrelevance it is getting in the way of Progress^TM.

This has to do with injection wells for disposing of wastewater.  As somebody that has common sense concern for the environment, I'd support legislation that forced these companies to treat their waste water and dump it at the surface.

My support for fracking has been mainly on the high plains and in Texas where the land is almost unpopulated.

It's shortsighted to just assume that fracking will be completely safe and with no negative consequences.  But it's even more shortsighted to oppose it altogether. 

Because you wanna know what fracking is doing to the energy industry?  It's lessening demand on coal.  Coal is much dirtier.... and the extraction process for coal is FAR more disruptive than a few minor tremors or a few people lighting their water on fire.

Big picture, Joe. 

Snowguy, how would you define "almost unpopulated?"  I for one would hate to be in one of those unlucky families who are forced to live in a polluted area, and you bet I'd be pissed if I had to put up with earthquakes and dirty water just because of my location.  If we're going to frack in those areas, we should at least reimburse those communities for any damages they endure.  Rural communities need to be protected as best they can.  They're on enough of a decline as it is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Fracking is breathing economic life into those areas for the first time in decades, Scott.  Youngstown, OH saw 1.7% growth in jobs in the past year.  For a community about 40% the size it once was with big, wide, empty streets and empty store fronts and empty lots all over, fracking is pumping revenues into local coffers and it's providing good paying jobs for people who had little hope before.

Fracking isn't going away... so railing against it with snotty one liners (like Joe Republic did when he left his home state of Ohio for better prospects in a desert that is running out of water but still finds time to be outraged at fracking) isn't going to help.

Make the companies treat their water so they can pour it into Lake Erie or the Ohio River.  The earthquakes have been linked to injection wells that store wastewater... and all the activity in that area was linked to one well that has since shut down.

But I understand the sentiment.  It's no different than the fundie Christians that become nihilistic because they're sure the rapture is coming tomorrow afternoon.

When you believe that burning natural gas is going to drown the coasts in your life time and ruin the entire planet... it's easy to start supporting measures that will reduce economic progress.  I just tend to believe that "NO FRACKING EVER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD" will only increase poverty, reduce standards of living, and put us in the same hopeless boat we were in back in 2004 when the talk was of nothing but peak oil.

So again:  progress, not perfection.  Nirvana is not reached by banning outright and demanding revolutionary changes overnight.

We identified a problem.  We identified the cause.  A solution was implemented.  Now we move on and keep improving the process to minimize environmental damage.

Knee jerk reactions don't help anybody.