In the past few weeks there has been a flood of reports linking hydraulic fracking with recent shallow earthquakes across America and elsewhere, with a particularly damning report coming from the UK. I had not pieced this together myself until recently and have since had growing concern for this topic. The Oklahoma earthquakes from yesterday prompted my inquiry into this matter and I found scores of info online afterwards.

A simple google search yields the following results.

UK firm says shale fracking caused earthquakes
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/uk-gas-fracking-idUSL5E7M220J20111102

Fracking May Have Caused 50 Earthquakes in Oklahoma
http://www.care2.com/causes/fracking-may-have-caused-50-earthquakes-in-oklahoma.html

Quote :

"Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased. There have been previous cases where seismologists have suggested a link between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes, but data was limited, so drawing a definitive conclusion was not possible for these cases."

Wait, Now Fracking Causes Earthquakes?!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wait-now-fracking-causes-earthquakes-20111102

[Edited on November 6, 2011 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2011 1:32:57 PM

Dammit Battlestar Galactica!

11/6/2011 1:38:17 PM

It makes sense to me.

11/6/2011 1:52:46 PM

It sure can. but not enough to worry or regulate about.

11/6/2011 3:03:16 PM

Quote :

"Granted, the strongest tremor measured a pretty much harmless 3 on the Richter Scale, and the particular geological circumstances in play here reportedly were "rare." But still, this can't be good. "

I'm just fucking tired of "journalists" injecting their tripe into whatever it is they post. Just fucking read that again for a second and contemplate this

pretty much harmless -> this can't be good


I just...I don't even

11/6/2011 4:37:05 PM

I wonder what the tremors are from excavating a quarry or building a large building is?

11/7/2011 2:48:30 AM

seriously though, human activity has been shown to trigger earthquakes before... traditional drilling, building of dams, etc have all caused tremors.

The thing is, these tiny fracking earthquakes are too small to cause damage.

The 2008 Earthquake in China that killed almost 70,000 people was thought to have been triggered by building a dam (the weight of the water in the reservoir can be tremendous)

[Edited on November 7, 2011 at 7:10 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2011 7:02:07 AM

mother fracker

11/7/2011 1:13:40 PM

We all know it's because when I frack my girlfriend, it causes the ground beneath to shake.

Seriously, I don't know if we should ban the practice outright, but it's worth studying. As they start refining fracking techniques, it may cause more trouble down the road. Yes, it may be rare when it does, but even a minor earthquake can cause problems for a town or city that wasn't built to handle one.

11/8/2011 4:25:27 PM

id be more concerned about ground water contamination

11/8/2011 4:29:24 PM

Quote :

"TINY FRACKING EARTHQUAKES"

11/8/2011 9:20:47 PM

^^

and

You can tell by how quickly these companies want to gobble up land leases and get to drilling/fracking before proper assessments can be made so that they'll be grandfathered into any future laws or regulations.

11/8/2011 9:48:56 PM

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/440/game-changer

And everybody's watched Gasland, right?

11/9/2011 1:30:58 PM

so?

11/9/2011 2:08:30 PM

?

11/9/2011 2:13:38 PM

Quote :

"id be more concerned about ground water contamination"

Likewise, but I doubt earthquakes are good for maintaining the integrity of water supplies...

11/9/2011 3:03:41 PM

^^ What do you think we should have taken away from watching Gasland? What I got was a deep desire to lease my land to gas drillers, if only they wanted to do so.

11/9/2011 5:47:41 PM

That deserves an explanation. Any rational person wouldn't have come away from that film with that thought.

11/9/2011 6:55:39 PM

You're dealing with the Quark of TSB. He'd sell his mother if he saw a profit motive in it. Hail the Almighty Dollar!!!

11/9/2011 7:01:37 PM

^ If that's his M.O. then his comment makes perfect sense.

11/9/2011 7:46:50 PM

It's like watching Food, Inc. and immediately buying a boat load of Tyson and Monsanto stock. . .

11/9/2011 8:02:41 PM

Well, no, I'd never do that. I try to keep my portfolio diversified through Index funds.

Look, the movie looked to be propaganda to me, so I watched it with an extremely skeptical eye. When it was over, I was wrong, it wasn't really meant to be propaganda, he just showed it like it was. But what it was, was not that bad. People that sold drilling rights to their land for a boatload of cash found themselves with natural gas in their wells. Neat to watch, but not that big a deal. I grew up on a farm with well water. We drank the pesticides. And pesticide is far worse than anything they would be getting out of their wells.

Of course, this is assuming everything was as it was portrayed in the film. Post viewing reading on the internet proclaimed the film showed only half the story. Natural gas was common in water wells in the area long before anyone began drilling there. And according to the libertarian rag reason magazine, which I trust until found lacking, the instances of bad well casings which leaked natural gas were reasonably compensated (either buying the land outright or providing alternative water supplies). While it would be better if bad things never happened to anyone, that is impossible, so as long as those inadvertently harmed by the system are compensated thoroughly, why should we object?
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/27/reasontv-the-truth-about-frack

11/9/2011 11:38:42 PM

I'll see your "I grew up on a farm and we drank pesticide-tainted well water just fine" ancedote -

and raise you a "I live next to a quarry. The trees around the quarry are dead and I got a rash from showering until I installed a water softener."

11/10/2011 3:21:00 AM

^^ roflmao

11/10/2011 7:37:17 AM

The film did do some truth-warping and a few facts were questionable, but yeah overall its premise bears out.

11/10/2011 10:06:28 AM

LoneSnark lol

Quote :

"he just showed it like it was. But what it was, was not that bad"

Not that bad? Holy shit man...

Quote :

"Natural gas was common in water wells in the area long before anyone began drilling there."

The natural gas isn't the problem man did you really watch the film? Was the sound on?

Quote :

"as long as those inadvertently harmed by the system are compensated thoroughly, why should we object? "

Because they aren't being compensated thoroughly, and some not at all.

When you have children (I'm guessing you're the type that doesn't want any), I want you to calculate how much your child's sense of smell is worth to you. Also his/her sense of taste. Cancer? Does that have a certain value to you when it appears in your child's body? Maybe testicular or ovarian cancer means more to you than lung or liver cancer? Arguing that it's okay to ruin people's health and therefore their lives as long as we pay them is one of the sickest things I've ever read on here. Does it not bother you that we are turning the Earth into swiss cheese filled with deadly chemicals? Of course it doesn't, I'm sure you only care about yourself.

If you are bored and just arguing for the sake of arguing just let us know, because you look like a sick fuck man. One day you'll figure it out.

[Edited on November 10, 2011 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2011 12:43:36 PM

Quote :

"I grew up on a farm with well water. We drank the pesticides."

Suddenly everything makes sense

11/10/2011 12:46:10 PM

^ This.

11/10/2011 12:53:43 PM

Quote :

"Natural gas was common in water wells in the area long before anyone began drilling there. And according to the libertarian rag reason magazine, which I trust until found lacking, the instances of bad well casings which leaked natural gas were reasonably compensated (either buying the land outright or providing alternative water supplies)."

Scientist can differentiate between gas originating in shale formations and gas that naturally occurs closer to the ground surface (and would be present in drinking water). There is more and more evidence that gas in groundwater near drilling operations isn't just from natural sources or from blown well casings; shale gas released into groundwater may be an intrinsic part of the process.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108


We will know more when the EPA releases its study (2012 and 2014).

[Edited on November 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM. Reason : also what good is compensating someone for their land when the value of the land has been destroyed?]

11/10/2011 1:01:31 PM

Quote :

"The thing is, these tiny fracking earthquakes are too small to cause damage."

well played, lol

11/10/2011 2:45:41 PM

Fracking has been going on for more than 30 years, and EPA chief Lisa Jackson is on record saying that she has never heard of a single case of the practice contaminating groundwater.

11/11/2011 9:55:29 AM

Link to Lisa Jackson?

also the type of fracking known as High Volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing has really only been used for like 10 years, taking off in 2005 after it was exempted from the safe drinking water act.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 10:22 AM. Reason : nm google helped me out]

11/11/2011 10:20:52 AM

Quote :

"Because they aren't being compensated thoroughly, and some not at all."

Then use the channels our society already has in place to deal with the problem. Help raise a legal fund and sue. Contact the authorities to do an inspection. But when those inspections come back clean, you have no right to proclaim they are trying to "ruin people's health and therefore their lives". You need scientific evidence, and that their water is contaminated is not proof. Contact or start a private charity to help install filtration systems in poor households unable to afford them.

Quote :

"The natural gas isn't the problem man did you really watch the film? Was the sound on?"

Yes, they listed various chemicals, most of which are prevalent in the auto industry. Our well water was regularly tested and here in North Carolina the largest pollutant found was usually diesel. Odd, considering the pesticide being purposefully dumped on the surface. None of us owned a diesel vehicle. People's private vehicles with slow leaks are the single largest source of ground-water pollution in this country. It is a fact of life anyone using well water lives with. It is why states require auto inspections. This is why we have state regulators. As such, finding such chemicals in your water is not proof of who put it there.

However, it is also why we have shockingly cheap filtration systems. After watching the movie I went and looked into them and sure enough, for a messily sum (say $1000) you can prevent all the damage. It is a cost of living on earth sometimes that either you or a neighbor has poisoned the area with no evidence. We never found any. But being a farming community, there were lots of tractors around, all running on diesel. Would you really suggest we pass a law banning all the tractors and trucks just so my well water is cheaper?

So, if I'm against such a ban in my own area, it would be hypocritical for me to call for such bans in some other area under identical situations. Our tractors are regulated and inspected for safety, their drilling wells are regulated and inspected for safety, seems fair to me.

Quote :

"shale gas released into groundwater may be an intrinsic part of the process."

And the experts I have read came to the opposite conclusion. Seems like more study is warranted. Good thing governments all over the country are studying it.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/11/2011 11:21:41 AM

Quote :

"Seems like more study is warranted. Good thing governments all over the country are studying it. "

I'd agree, we really don't know that much. But thats a different tune than "nothing to see here, no regulation necessary, move along folks."

It brings up the age old question of should we allow an industry, that is suspected of doing overall harm to communities, to continue to operate until we have proof of harm or should we temporarily ban the industry until we have more data and understanding of what is occurring and then make a decision if the industry should be allowed to operate.

11/11/2011 11:40:30 AM

But if something has been studied and is being studied, then lack of evidence of harm is strong evidence there is no harm.

However, let us assume there was harm. Then what? Poverty is a real issue. Mankind needs energy. Just like my water well has been sacrificed to our collective need for transportation and food, is it unreasonable to suggest something other than a ban should be suggested in the production of energy? The state of North Carolina offers support to well users to make their systems less prone to contamination. The county I lived in also subsidized filtration systems for those living in designated basins prone to pollution buildup. These are sensible alternatives to banning activity we all really want.

It really is the case that whatever we do tends to pollute the environment. It is unfair to single out new industries just because they are new.

This is not to say a ban is off the table. But I'd make it as local as possible. Give the county voters the information and let them decide whether to ban such drilling or allow it and use the revenue to offset the harm done.

11/11/2011 11:59:59 AM

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=23EB85DD-802A-23AD-43F9-DA281B2CD287

EPA chief Lisa Jackson testifying before congress earlier this year.

11/11/2011 12:11:05 PM

Quote :

"But if something has been studied and is being studied, then lack of evidence of harm is strong evidence there is no harm."

I posted some pretty damning (but i recognize is still incomplete) evidence.

Quote :

"Poverty is a real issue. Mankind needs energy. "

There are a lot of different versions of poverty, one of which is living in an unhealthy, unusable environment. Mankind does need energy but at what cost? What are the alternatives? Its a false dichotomy to tell someone you can either be poor and have a "relatively clean" environment or be rich.

Quote :

"Just like my water well has been sacrificed to our collective need for transportation and food, is it unreasonable to suggest something other than a ban should be suggested in the production of energy?"

wait, what??? You, of all people, are telling people they need sacrifice themselves or their property for the collective good?

Quote :

"The state of North Carolina offers support to well users to make their systems less prone to contamination. The county I lived in also subsidized filtration systems for those living in designated basins prone to pollution buildup. These are sensible alternatives to banning activity we all really want. "

I thought you were against government subsidies in all forms. You would favor subsidizing filtration systems near fracking sites?

Quote :

"It really is the case that whatever we do tends to pollute the environment. It is unfair to single out new industries just because they are new. "

I actually think fracking can be accomplished with relatively small effects on the environment. It just needs some oversight and a framework of rules, which I'm sure will be coming in the next few years. I'm not singling out new industries, I have a real problem with negative externalities from any industry.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2011 4:35:27 PM

Quote :

"You, of all people, are telling people they need sacrifice themselves or their property for the collective good? "

Freedom is not free. It sometimes means putting up with the freedoms of others.

Quote :

"I thought you were against government subsidies in all forms. You would favor subsidizing filtration systems near fracking sites?"

If fracking site pollution were shown to be an "intrinsic part of the process" with no way to prevent it then society needs to weigh costs and benefits. Relocation assistance would be another option.

Subsidizing consumption directly is always preferable to any other form of subsidy. For example, I would be entirely against subsidizing the manufacturers who make filtration systems, as such is prone to corruption or merely redirection to non-impacted individuals.

I've tried to make it clear I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. Just because I am against giving taxpayer money to the fat-cats on wall-street doesn't mean I reject the state entirely. Yes, I want such programs administered on as local a level as possible. But even Thomas Jefferson accepted laws on behalf of public health. That nearly all laws turn out to have absolutely nothing to do with public health does tend to put me against most laws. But for this discussion we are assuming fracking harms public health, which it has not yet been shown to do.

Quote :

"I actually think fracking can be accomplished with relatively small effects on the environment. It just needs some oversight and a framework of rules, which I'm sure will be coming in the next few years."

As I understand it, the "oversight and a framework of rules" is already in place. Many states are licensing fortune tellers and coffin manufacturers, do you seriously believe oil and natural gas drilling is operating without at least that much oversight?

11/11/2011 5:28:08 PM

Fortune tellers and coffin manufacturers aren't causing people's water to become ignitable. . .

11/11/2011 5:43:06 PM

One might think from that fact that fortune tellers and coffin manufacturers shouldn't be licensed and regulated.

11/11/2011 5:58:03 PM

Quote :

"Freedom is not free. It sometimes means putting up with the freedoms of others."

Their freedom to make a profit while destroying your property or health? I just can't understand how you are reconciling this, i may be slow.

Quote :

"Subsidizing consumption directly is always preferable to any other form of subsidy."

So you might favor subsidies for solar installations as an alternative to fracking?

Quote :

"As I understand it, the "oversight and a framework of rules" is already in place. Many states are licensing fortune tellers and coffin manufacturers, do you seriously believe oil and natural gas drilling is operating without at least that much oversight? "

Yeah, but they are still scrambling and I still maintain they are operating with limited information. For example, Pa only just announced its forming an Oil and Gas Bureau in September, even though fracking has been occurring for a couple of years with questionable oversight by their Department of Environmental Protection

11/11/2011 6:32:04 PM

Quote :

"Their freedom to make a profit while destroying your property or health? I just can't understand how you are reconciling this, i may be slow. "

You aren't slow. You're just beginning to see the scary reality of the hypercapitalist mindset...

11/11/2011 7:50:27 PM

Quote :

"Their freedom to make a profit while destroying your property or health? I just can't understand how you are reconciling this, i may be slow."

Again, operating under the assumption that fracking is as bad as some fear, then I reconcile it by saying this was the outcome of a democratic process, you don't always win and sometimes must live with outcomes you personally disagree with.

But, given the information available right now, experts I trust believe fracking is perfectly safe and causes no water pollution if done correctly and we already know right now how to do it correctly. Which is why state and local governments have imposed laws and surprise inspections to make sure such wells are being drilled correctly.

Quote :

"So you might favor subsidies for solar installations as an alternative to fracking?"

Never. If the democratic system operating under informed information decides to ban fracking, then so be it. But there is never a justification for subsidizing producers of anything, like I said above. If electricity is too damn expensive for the poor to afford because the local democratic process has banned natural gas, coal, nuclear, and oil production then subsidize the poor by writing them a check. This shit is right out of India where a huge chunk of the government's budget goes in subsidies to keep gasoline prices low "for the poor" when the poor can't afford cars.

[Edited on November 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/12/2011 10:10:59 AM

Quote :

"xperts I trust believe fracking is perfectly safe and causes no water pollution if done correctly and we already know right now how to do it correctly"

I think this is where people have a reflexive tilt away from this stuff...because when things go wrong the system is set up to shield corporations who can spend money like a real person from getting punished like a real person. I think this is where people like the OWS'ers end up protesting Wall Street and not Pennsylvania Ave, because they know as 1 person with limited capital it is nearly impossible to take on a corporation with sometimes unlimited capital.

I made this comment in some other thread, if corporations went out of their way to fix what they've wronged, people wouldn't hate them.

11/12/2011 10:39:12 AM

Quote :

"experts I trust believe fracking is perfectly safe and causes no water pollution if done correctly "

If the expert you are going off of is "longtime Reason science correspondent" Ron Bailey (from the video you posted) then I think you need to do more research. Ron Bailey has brought us such hits as:

"Creation Summer Camp"
"Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death"
"ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse"

How can you take that seriously?

Quote :

"But there is never a justification for subsidizing producers of anything, like I said above."

I may not have been clear above, but what I meant was subsidize consumers of solar panels. Its almost the exact same thing as subsidizing the installation of filtration systems near fracking sites IMO.


Sorry to keep going in circles here with you but I'm trying to understand how you are reconciling this with your ideology and I'm trying to understand the irrational hate of renewables that seems to pop up in SOME people.





[Edited on November 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM. Reason : ^yeah, I'd agree that is a major part of the problem]

11/12/2011 10:50:55 AM

Is it your position that no one in the "Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death" and that "Ecological Apocalypse" is a real worry?

That said, not exclusively. I worked for an oil services company for about a year and got to know their engineers pretty well.

Quote :

"I may not have been clear above, but what I meant was subsidize consumers of solar panels. Its almost the exact same thing as subsidizing the installation of filtration systems near fracking sites IMO."

And no. Follow the money. If we subsidize filtration systems for the poor, the vast majority of the money will go to deliver clean water where clean water might otherwise be unaffordable. While filtration systems are arguably affordable even for the poor, at least the vast majority of the money would be a transfer to the poor.
However, if we subsidize solar panels, the money will go to deliver electricity where electricity was already available. As such systems have high up-front costs they are only ever installed by the non-poor, making it a transfer to the rich.

To make it more explicit, if most of the benefactors of a subsidy are not poor then I am against the subsidy.

Quote :

"if corporations went out of their way to fix what they've wronged, people wouldn't hate them."

If the owners of corporations always went out of their way to fix what they've wronged, then they'd stop being human. Government bureaucrats often refuse to fix their wrongs. None of us are angels, it would be silly to act as if it could ever be different. This is why we need to be aware of our surroundings and stick up for ourselves. Get your well water tested regularly, even if the only industry around your house is owned by the government, as governments are the second largest source of water pollution (after private automobiles, comes municipal water treatment plants).

11/13/2011 10:52:31 AM

WRAL did a segment on this the other day that I just happened to catch.

This woman's groundwater had gotten contaminated after fracking and just holding a lit match near her running faucet would cause a little burst of flame.

Apparently, the gas company now just delivers jugs of clean water to her weekly/monthly.

11/13/2011 12:50:40 PM

Someone told me that lonesnark was arguing benzene and other industrial chemicals were perfectly safe to drink because Haliburton gave it the QA Seal of approval. I said to myself, no, there's no way that even somebody as intensely dense as Lonesnark would be that foolish.


And then:

Quote :

"I grew up on a farm with well water. We drank the pesticides. And pesticide is far worse than anything they would be getting out of their wells."

Yes, yes I see. It now makes sense how your brain consistently computes 2 + 2 as 5. If I melted half my functioning braincells drinking pesticides and ground up manure, I'd probably be voting my rights away and begging for flammable water too!

11/14/2011 1:56:50 PM

So if a company can bribe, con, scare or dupe enough local yahoos in a community then it's a-ok for them commit environmental plunder?

11/14/2011 2:57:54 PM

^^ "Don't you owe me $100?"

^ Assuming they pay the damages then sure. Otherwise we'd need to shut down the whole of modern civilization because everything we do commits some form of environmental plunder. If the political system says you can do something and those harmed by your behavior are properly compensated then why shouldn't you be able to do something?

[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/14/2011 3:33:50 PM