moostraks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,640
axiomata
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,581
I don't know whether fracking causes earthquakes, but if it does, and they are minor, is that such a bad thing? I'd rather have 5 little earthquakes then let the stresses build up for the big one. Similar to the way small forest fires are beneficial so the dead underbrush doesn't build up for when the big fire comes.
moostraks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,640
The earthquakes here are in an area with a number of century homes where we haven't had the numerous earthquakes we are now getting and the repairs have been the sole responsibility of the owners. The home owners policies will not honor the repairs because they blame the fracking and the companies doing the fracking were not being held accountable because they blamed it on natural causes. I don't think that communities like Youngstown should have to bear the costs and take the loss so that the earth can let off steam here. We certainly aren't equipped to deal with it. This ruling is a start to getting people to stop scoffing over the connections between fracking and earthquakes. I don't think if we just look the other way these will keep being minor earthquakes either,imo, but this is only a speed bump for the industry.
invisible
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,790
I never really paid any attention to this issue until I moved to OK. I had only ever been through one earthquake before, the one that hit the east coast in summer of 2011. After experiencing several earthquakes shortly after moving to OK (none of them have been anywhere near the scale of that one on the east coast), and remembering something about earthquakes possibly being related to fracking, I started doing some research. I had never lived in an area that had any fracking going on, but being oil country, OK is one of the fracking capitals of the universe. There seems no be no real conclusive info out there that ties earthquakes to fracking, but there is PLENTY of empirical evidence that says it is absolutely so. Scientists seem to be paid off to not make any definite conclusions, everything is a "maybe".
Earthquakes aren't the only impact that fracking has, however. There have been proven instances of water wells being damaged and polluted. There are well blowouts that spray nasty chemicals over someone's property. The nasty chemicals used in the fracking solution ("mud") are quite poisonous, and are pumped back out of the (fracked oil or gas) wells, left lying around in open pits for temporary storage, and then injected back into the earth in deep "disposal wells" (or "injection wells"). Livestock has been poisoned and killed when drinking from those open fracking pits. It is claimed that the mud is injected deeply enough into the earth's surface that it could never possibly cause any sort of groundwater contamination or other environmental damage. One of the major producers of these chemicals is halliburton, IIRC (I'd have to double check that, but I remember it being one of those type of companies with shady dealings and government connections). This fracking waste is also exempt from the clean water act environmental law, and can be disposed of with virtually no oversight, unlike virtually any other form of toxic waste.
Fracking (any oil or gas drilling company, actually) can just come onto someone's land and do their thing, regardless of if the owner wants them there, in many places that have historically had oil, gas, and mining operations. This is because land and property is sold as a "split estate" rather than in "fee simple". What this means is that mineral rights are sold separately from surface rights to the land. You own the land, but not what is underneath it. In OK, it is virtually impossible to buy land in fee simple unless it is a large (100+ acres) has been owned for 100 years by the same family who never sold (or leased) the mineral rights off and they actually sell it that way. Usually in that situation, the mineral rights are sold off first, before the surface rights, and there is never any chance to buy in fee simple - you'd have to get EXTREMELY lucky.
I'm not an environmentalist tree-hugging type by any means, but I do think there are some very valid concerns with this fracking business. I'll admit that I'm pretty much undecided, and don't have a conclusive opinion one way or the other. I do believe that if we have oil here in the US, we should absolutely do what we need to do to get it out of the ground and use it, rather than have to buy so much of it from other countries. But fracking has caused domestic production to increase by huge amounts, and not only has there not been any decrease in prices of things like gasoline or natural gas, we have ended up increasing our exports of those resources. This makes no sense to me. And at what price does this come? How many poisoned wells is it worth? What if we discover a groundwater supply for an entire town near an injection well has been poisoned? I don't seem to see any benefits to us consumers from the fracking, but the potential risks seem to be huge. Direct and proven damage has been small and localized in nature so far. But what if some sort of harm is proven on a larger scale? After so many years, the damage will have already been done before we discover it, and cannot reverse it.
I feel that the OH law is a step in the right direction. Fracking needs to be much more closely watched and studied. Fracking should absolutely not occur on or near fault lines (read the fracking and earthquakes studies), but unfortunately those are considered some of the most productive areas to drill. The risk of damage or other ill effects is probably minimal, if the fracking is done carefully. Some companies have been much more sloppy in their work than others. I don't claim to know all that much about fracking (or the oil and gas drilling industry in general, for that matter), but if anyone is further interested in the topic, I can point them in the right direction for further research.
Earthquakes aren't the only impact that fracking has, however. There have been proven instances of water wells being damaged and polluted. There are well blowouts that spray nasty chemicals over someone's property. The nasty chemicals used in the fracking solution ("mud") are quite poisonous, and are pumped back out of the (fracked oil or gas) wells, left lying around in open pits for temporary storage, and then injected back into the earth in deep "disposal wells" (or "injection wells"). Livestock has been poisoned and killed when drinking from those open fracking pits. It is claimed that the mud is injected deeply enough into the earth's surface that it could never possibly cause any sort of groundwater contamination or other environmental damage. One of the major producers of these chemicals is halliburton, IIRC (I'd have to double check that, but I remember it being one of those type of companies with shady dealings and government connections). This fracking waste is also exempt from the clean water act environmental law, and can be disposed of with virtually no oversight, unlike virtually any other form of toxic waste.
Fracking (any oil or gas drilling company, actually) can just come onto someone's land and do their thing, regardless of if the owner wants them there, in many places that have historically had oil, gas, and mining operations. This is because land and property is sold as a "split estate" rather than in "fee simple". What this means is that mineral rights are sold separately from surface rights to the land. You own the land, but not what is underneath it. In OK, it is virtually impossible to buy land in fee simple unless it is a large (100+ acres) has been owned for 100 years by the same family who never sold (or leased) the mineral rights off and they actually sell it that way. Usually in that situation, the mineral rights are sold off first, before the surface rights, and there is never any chance to buy in fee simple - you'd have to get EXTREMELY lucky.
I'm not an environmentalist tree-hugging type by any means, but I do think there are some very valid concerns with this fracking business. I'll admit that I'm pretty much undecided, and don't have a conclusive opinion one way or the other. I do believe that if we have oil here in the US, we should absolutely do what we need to do to get it out of the ground and use it, rather than have to buy so much of it from other countries. But fracking has caused domestic production to increase by huge amounts, and not only has there not been any decrease in prices of things like gasoline or natural gas, we have ended up increasing our exports of those resources. This makes no sense to me. And at what price does this come? How many poisoned wells is it worth? What if we discover a groundwater supply for an entire town near an injection well has been poisoned? I don't seem to see any benefits to us consumers from the fracking, but the potential risks seem to be huge. Direct and proven damage has been small and localized in nature so far. But what if some sort of harm is proven on a larger scale? After so many years, the damage will have already been done before we discover it, and cannot reverse it.
I feel that the OH law is a step in the right direction. Fracking needs to be much more closely watched and studied. Fracking should absolutely not occur on or near fault lines (read the fracking and earthquakes studies), but unfortunately those are considered some of the most productive areas to drill. The risk of damage or other ill effects is probably minimal, if the fracking is done carefully. Some companies have been much more sloppy in their work than others. I don't claim to know all that much about fracking (or the oil and gas drilling industry in general, for that matter), but if anyone is further interested in the topic, I can point them in the right direction for further research.
invisible
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,790
There have been a few which have been not-so-minor. Look into the Prague, OK earthquake of 2011. The scientific reports all but say that it was caused by fracking, and then stop just short, in spite of their evidence seeming really solid to me. If you look for it, there is a pdf that you can download that is almost shocking to read. I haven't read that much about it, but the one in Youngstown, OH wasn't exactly minor either.
invisible
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,790
I would be VERY interested in seeing how this plays out, please keep me posted on this. This hasn't happened here in OK, the insurance companies pay out with no trouble, and do not try to get out of paying by blaming fracking. However, rates for earthquake coverage on a homeowner policy have been increased in recent years.
moostraks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,640
I have come to similar conclusions as you, regarding the potential dangers and necessities. It is a very popular topic of conversation in my area because the economy is so depressed here and the industry could benefit select individuals but at what cost in the end? This area has had several industry boom-bust cycles. Hopefully cooler heads prevail on the subject so that the area isn't destroyed for short term gain.
invisible
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,790
For anyone interested in the relationship between fracking and earthquakes, the pdf available at the following link is an extremely worthwhile read: http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf
invisible
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,790
Another interesting link, includes maps of fracking well locations: http://www.fractracker.org/
Christopher A. Brown
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,388
Very few know how that happened. The clean water act is US law. Such a thing basically cannot happen . . . Unless US law is suspended in US territory. That would be treason.
And it is. GATT signed into effect by Clinton. It is a WTO scam and the natural gas is going to Africa and Asia.
Our lawmakers created this, the worst of them. NAFTA is why the XL pipeline is getting shoved through.
Lawmakers WILL NOT DEAL WITH IT. There is only one way to rescind the treaties. Article V. It is our first constitutional right we can involve with.
We have a sizable contingent in the forum that are PAID by ALEC to make you afraid of using your first right to protect the vital elements. It is called "cognitive infiltration". This is after the infiltrated government forbade teachers in schools to teach students about it for at least 70 years.
There is a safe strategy but it means abandoning partisan politics and aligning with citizens for enforcement of the principals of the 1787 constitution. We can do this.
http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html
Step by step.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668
Similar threads
