PDA

View Full Version : "Fracking Earthquakes Cause Oklahoma To Beat California Earthquake Numbers"



Humanist
06-30-2014, 07:44 AM
"Fracking Earthquakes Cause Oklahoma To Beat California Earthquake Numbers (http://www.inquisitr.com/1323234/fracking-earthquakes-cause-oklahoma-to-beat-california-earthquake-numbers/)"


In 2014, the number of California earthquakes with a magnitude 3.0 or higher were recorded at 88 while Oklahoma has been hit by 174 earthquakes so far. It’s believed that the number of earthquakes may have been influenced by the amount of fracking doubling in Oklahoma from 2009 to 2012. Previously, Oklahoma earthquakes averaged only one per year.

----------------------------------

"Earthquake hits in Oklahoma while TV station is live on the air [Jun 16, 2014]"


http://youtu.be/geXcRQpvOmE


"Oklahoma Earthquake March 10, 2014"


http://youtu.be/q0Hz8SuFKHI

rms2
06-30-2014, 02:13 PM
Let's just say I have my doubts. The source links for that article all seem to go back to Aljazeera.

Mehrdad
06-30-2014, 02:50 PM
Very interesting, it'll be curious to see if other States where there's a lot of fracking are also experiencing the same phenomenon.

rms2
06-30-2014, 03:02 PM
Very interesting, it'll be curious to see if other States where there's a lot of fracking are also experiencing the same phenomenon.

Frankly, I doubt it. Fracking is big in the Dakotas, and I haven't heard anything about earthquakes there.

Everything is political these days. One has to keep his eyes open for motives and agendas behind even supposedly "scientific" reports.

Humanist
06-30-2014, 05:05 PM
Let's just say I have my doubts. The source links for that article all seem to go back to Aljazeera.

CBS News

What's behind Oklahoma's surge in earthquakes? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/increase-in-oklahoma-earthquakes-raises-concerns-over-fracking-and-wastewater-injections/)


Since January, there have been nearly as many earthquakes in Oklahoma than all of last year. With the sudden spike, residents in Oklahoma are questioning whether fracking is behind the change, reports CBS News' Manuel Bojorquez.

Humanist
06-30-2014, 05:15 PM
Frankly, I doubt it. Fracking is big in the Dakotas, and I haven't heard anything about earthquakes there.

Everything is political these days. One has to keep his eyes open for motives and agendas behind even supposedly "scientific" reports.

I don't care for politics much these days. I do care about the science. If it is genuine.

DMXX
06-30-2014, 05:38 PM
Let's just say I have my doubts. The source links for that article all seem to go back to Aljazeera.

Other media outlets have their own articles on fracking that are completely unaffiliated with Al Jazeera. I first learned of the process via BBC News. A couple examples from them:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27529175
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27312796
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23320540
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25424687
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27480950

Although I share my own grievances regarding the apparent politicisation of this crude oil and gas alternative with rms2, this is the Natural Sciences section; discussion of fracking should revolve around the purported physical impact of the practice.

A quick PubMed search reveals there are some health concerns regarding intensive fracking practices. Here's one very recent communication by a Professor M Hill via Lancet (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24954684):

Shale gas regulation in the UK and health implications of fracking.
Hill M. Lancet. 2014 Jun 19. pii: S0140-6736(14)60888-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60888-6. [Epub ahead of print]



Fracking has already happened in the UK and is due to resume later this year (four wells in Roseacre and four in Little Plumpton on the Fylde coast) in close proximity to large urban populations. This approach will use about 22 million L of fracking fluid per well and will leave underground (free to migrate) about 88 million L of fracking waste containing lead, arsenic, cadmium, and other materials at much higher concentrations than those found in drinking water.8 This is the case even when no chemicals are added at the surface. The effects of truck movements, flaring, fracking waste treatment, compressors, noise pollution, generators, wireline logging, drilling, etc, should not be ignored.


[Direct Link (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60888-6/fulltext)]

rms2
06-30-2014, 09:22 PM
I don't care for politics much these days. I do care about the science. If it is genuine.

That's where I have my doubts. I also am not sure I am a competent judge of the science when it comes to fracking.

alan
07-01-2014, 10:33 PM
There is a lot of talk of bringing it to Britain and Ireland. So, I would like to know more about it. Personally I kind of hope we can move on from fossil fuels altogether in the next decade.

Petrol/Diesel is very expensive in Europe which is why we tend to have smaller cars. Its a serious monthly outlay and many people I know try to drive as little as they can and limit driving to what is necessary. So we in Europe have a much bigger incentive to find a substitute than oil rich countries. The hybrid part diesel and part electric car is vastly cheaper to run and is taking off and a lot of city public transport is moving to hybrid or electrical.

I can see fully electric cars taking off in the not too distant future. They cost extremely little to recharge and will suit the vast majority of people who dont drive large distances in a single day - they can do 100 miles without recharging. This may not sound a lot but it is in a small country. There is a small element of Topgear 'petrol heads' whose cars and speed etc are a big part of their self image but most folks in a small country who dont have jobs based on significant driving around would find electric cars limitations only an issue a few times a year. If they can increase the battery somehow so it can go 200 miles I think many will switch over and if it can go to 300 miles then I think they will completely take over the market for all but a small few as very few people will drive more than that in a day except on very very rare occasions.

Mehrdad
07-02-2014, 01:25 AM
I am totally for electric cars and I hope to purchase one in the near future, I'm also in the process of installing solar panels so that my energy usage is through renewable energy. However I think the prices for electric cars are still artificially high due to government subsidies and hopefully through more demand we will see a movement of lower prices as the market finds an equilibrium.

alan
07-02-2014, 04:47 PM
Yes I would like one too although I think that technology is changing so fast it would probably be in a couple of years. They are still very expensive, as are replacement batteries - although they should last 7 years or so. The Dutch have just made a solar powered saloon which looks like something out of starwars. A combination of solar and electric could be the future.

I am chewing over the solar panel idea too. They also are a bit pricey and I think the deals will improve a lot with competition soon. Its an astounding waste of very cheap green energy that most houses in the country dont have these on their roof. The only problem is upfront costs or being tied into unfavourable deals. The big thing in the UK currently being developed is wave power which is not surprising given that Britain including its largest islands has about 20000 miles of coast similar to the US although for a far smaller country.


I am totally for electric cars and I hope to purchase one in the near future, I'm also in the process of installing solar panels so that my energy usage is through renewable energy. However I think the prices for electric cars are still artificially high due to government subsidies and hopefully through more demand we will see a movement of lower prices as the market finds an equilibrium.

GailT
07-03-2014, 12:51 AM
Here is the RMA info from wikipedia. Usually the undergroung injection quakes are fairly small, but I think they had one around magnitude 5 at RMA in 1966 and stopped injections very quickly after that.


RMA contained a deep injection well that was constructed in 1961.[4] It was drilled to a depth of 12,045 feet (3671 m). The well was cased and sealed to a depth of 11,975 feet (3650 m), with the remaining 70 feet (21 m) left as an open hole for the injection of Basin F liquids. For testing purposes, the well was injected with approximately 568,000 US gallons (2150 m) of city water prior to injecting any waste. The injected fluids had very little potential for reaching the surface or usable groundwater supply since the injection point had 11,900 feet (3630 m) of rock above it and was sealed at the opening. The Army discontinued use of the well in February 1966 because the fluid injection triggered a series of earthquakes in the area.

leonardo
07-03-2014, 10:36 AM
Here is the RMA info from wikipedia. Usually the undergroung injection quakes are fairly small, but I think they had one around magnitude 5 at RMA in 1966 and stopped injections very quickly after that.

My view is there are always risks associated with any industry such as this. In truth, if the last major occurrence was in 1966, then I would think this is a relatively safe process. We have to energy, and until a more reliable, reasonable method is found, when it comes to fossil fuels, gas has the smallest carbon footprint.

DMXX
07-04-2014, 10:37 PM
[Off-topic regarding media bias can be found here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2805-Mainsteam-media-reporting-biases)]

Given this thread is regarding fracking in the context of natural sciences, the topic should ideally be oriented around this theme.

Companies advocating fracking are arguing that the issue regarding heavy metal poisoning of groundwater sources is insignificant if the shale is located in far deeper layers.

One BBC report showed that, in Britain, groundwater and shale areas overlapped greatly. However, there were pockets of shale which were isolated from any groundwater sources. I suppose there isn't a reasonable objection to those sites receiving some localised extraction.

I personally have no objection to localised fracking in those isolated areas, but it's clearly a finite resource (like other fossilised fuels). It would serve as a short term means of reducing a nation's reliance on foreign fuel, but the current push in the West towards "green" energy shouldn't be usurped for this quick fix measure in my opinion.

AJL
07-04-2014, 11:18 PM
A recent report on shale gas extraction/fracking commissioned by the Canadian government urges cautious study of potential effects in various ecosystems and on human health:

http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx

It remains quite controversial in Canada, with even the enterprise-friendly Financial Post appearing a little conflicted over fracking:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/18/fracking-fears-rise-in-newfoundland-as-junior-explorers-hunt-for-shale-oil/

alan
07-05-2014, 01:41 PM
I vaguely recall that there is to be some promise of some of the money made by fracking being kept local i.e with the people who are taking the risk. I dont know the details but that seems only fair. I am still somewhat surprised that no new energy source breakthroughs have been made since nuclear power. I am not against nuclear power per se if it can be made very safe. However, I think for the isles the big untapped source has got to be wave power. The safest possible method IMO is a very broad spectrum of power from wind, hydro-electric, gas, wave, solar etc so that there is safety in diversity if something goes wrong. We definately got dangerously reliant on Putin's gas in Europe.

GailT
07-05-2014, 03:45 PM
My view is there are always risks associated with any industry such as this. In truth, if the last major occurrence was in 1966, then I would think this is a relatively safe process.

The last earthquake at RMA was in 1966 because they stopped the injection program in 1966. The quakes ended when the injection ended. There have been many recent earth quakes in other areas caused by ongoing underground injections activities.

AJL
07-05-2014, 07:03 PM
I am still somewhat surprised that no new energy source breakthroughs have been made since nuclear power.

Hydrogen still seems somewhat promising:

http://www.cnet.com/news/with-toyota-in-its-rear-view-mirror-gm-talks-fuel-cell-car-technology/

Historically, an issue with hydrogen was that it was mostly made by separating hydrogen from hydrocarbons anyway, so fossil fuels were still being used and we weren't any farther ahead. One of the more recent spins on hydrogen power is separation of H2 from water using solar power, which should mean much less use of hydrocarbon energy:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142331.htm

The critical point is persuading governments to offer incentives to invest in hydrogen or other non-polluting or minimally polluting infrastructure, or to intervene directly as they did in Iceland, since fuel companies are never going to do that on their own initiative.

alan
07-06-2014, 12:22 PM
I dont want to enter the debate about how much global warming is man made and how much not - IMO its irrelevant. It doesnt matter how much is man made and how much is natural variation because that doesnt take away from the fact that global warming is happening and has consequences. The natural cycle of this is obviously going to do its own thing so its only the man made part that can be modified. I would start off by government commissioning mass manufacturing of house roof solar panels and mini wind turbines at break-even/non-profit prices to tempt the public to install them in huge numbers as at present they are a little costly and/or have unfavourable contracts where your roof is basically being rented in exchange for your surplus energy.