Trouser Trout
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Just because.
Give us a try!
Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!
More fracking earthquakes
- Thread starter golden beetle
- Start date
Rusty Spinner
Active member
I grew up as a child in California long before fracking was invented and experienced lots and lots of minor earthquakes. It certainly was no big deal whatsoever. Now if fracking causes major earthquakes where buildings and infrastructure are damaged and which cause human deaths, then let's ban it today.
BTW, there's no fracking going on in Nepal......
BTW, there's no fracking going on in Nepal......
Pete
Trout Hunter
I think Beetle is on the fracking industry's payroll.
Not so long ago, we had about two members who seemed to be permissive on the issue. All the others who posted were either against it (at least anywhere near their homes or fishing destinations) or skeptical....
Then Beetle started pretending to argue against it....
Now, I'm seeing lots of posts (besides FF & Kilgore) that defend fracking.
Not so long ago, we had about two members who seemed to be permissive on the issue. All the others who posted were either against it (at least anywhere near their homes or fishing destinations) or skeptical....
Then Beetle started pretending to argue against it....
Now, I'm seeing lots of posts (besides FF & Kilgore) that defend fracking.
Last edited:
Rusty Spinner
Active member
I'm one of those. I wouldn't say I'm 100% on the fracking bandwagon, but it just hasn't been anywhere remotely near the disaster the enviros told us it would be. And the more I learn, the more I see that it is as safe as any other natural resource extraction. But I can assure you that my thinking on this topic has nothing to do with beetle's posts!
The biggest issue I take with the anti frackers is when they say "look how bad fracking is to the environment" and then offer zero proof. That is lost credibility in my book. We were also told that trout fishing in PA as we knew it was over. Is that the case? Hardly.
golden beetle
Active member
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
The "CONCLUSIONS" from the study mentioned in that "BIG COUNTRY" web article:
"Modeling induced seismicity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is very difficult, since we do not understand some of the fundamental differences between natural and induced earthquakes, and because the seismic activity can change based on changes in human activity. Predicting when and where induced seismicity will occur in the future is challenging. For example, induced seismicity does not occur near every disposal well, so it is important that we continue to study and learn more about how these earthquakes are generated, so we can better assess future patterns and trends. In Oklahoma, activity rates have varied exponentially, and earthquakes have migrated several tens of kilometers over a year or two. These changes may be related to oil and gas exploration activity but they also may depend on physical processes, which are poorly understood. Many decisions are critical for the analysis, including modeling decisions about earthquake catalogs, rates, locations, maximum magnitudes, and ground motions. Many questions remain, and additional research would enable us to better characterize data, models, and methods. Likelihood testing can be used to evaluate which models and parameters are optimal in forecasting future earthquakes. Our preliminary analysis (appendix 1) supports the use of the recent part of the earthquake catalog, though we may want to consider the use of shorter time periods than one year for developing the smoothed seismicity models. Such analyses will guide our implementation of the logic tree in developing final models."
Now, is that to say fracking doesn't cause some measurable seismic activity?
NO. But that is NOT what you posted earlier. You tried to claim that the activity of disposing water into "disposal wells" WAS fracking. And that is NOT true. You know this...
You're the Harry Reid on this subject.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
In the case you mentioned, the earthquakes are NOT because of fracking, they are caused by disposal wells. They are a result of how companies are allowed to dispose of water(Which can be from OTHER processes besides fracking). The waste can be minimized and disposed of in different ways. They are more expensive and time consuming. AGAIN, let the states require this, pass the costs on to the consumer(like you, GB). No more disposal wells in geologically sensitive areas... VOILA!, problem solved and FRACKING continues...
WHAT? are you saying that you no longer contribute to the tax base in NY?
I used to cut you some slack in these arguments because you had some skin in the game...
With your logic here, isn't it safe to say that YOU cause earthquakes? I mean Disposal wells cause earthquakes because some of the water that goes down the pipe is from fracking. Fracking occurs because people want gas to heat their homes and provide electricity and cook their food. And GB wants gas for these purposes, so... GB causes earthquakes... Thanks A LOT GB. Because you want to cook a sausage, some poor Oklahoman has to feel a tremble...
FIN-ITE 34
Well-known member
Are Fracking Wastewater Wells Poisoning the Ground beneath Our Feet? - Scientific American
This is a few years old, but is a good read. Makes you question the use of wastewater injection wells with regards to the long term use.
And for all of the previous posts on any number of subjects, here is a good quote from the article-
John Apps, a leading geoscientist who advises the Department of Energy for Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. "Every statement is based on a collection of experts that offer you their opinions. Then you do a scientific analysis of their opinions and get some probability out of it. This is a wonderful way to go when you don't have any evidence one way or another... But it really doesn't mean anything scientifically."
This is a few years old, but is a good read. Makes you question the use of wastewater injection wells with regards to the long term use.
And for all of the previous posts on any number of subjects, here is a good quote from the article-
John Apps, a leading geoscientist who advises the Department of Energy for Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. "Every statement is based on a collection of experts that offer you their opinions. Then you do a scientific analysis of their opinions and get some probability out of it. This is a wonderful way to go when you don't have any evidence one way or another... But it really doesn't mean anything scientifically."
golden beetle
Active member
Have a laugh about it, FF.
I don't agree with you, that fracking waste being dumped deep into the earth, without cleanup, is not fracking.
Its the part of the fracking process where the fracking companies dump their waste.
And we've been told that their dumping was safe.
And that it was so safe, that the frackers didnt have to disclose the chemicals they were dumping, inside the earth, that it turns out...
Causes earthquakes!!!
With that in mind, I am thankful for the moratorium, and, of course now the ban of fracking in New York State.
Arent you, FF?
Jon Stewart on Oklahoma earthquakes: Fracking or God’s ‘Shake Weight?’ - The Washington Post
I don't agree with you, that fracking waste being dumped deep into the earth, without cleanup, is not fracking.
Its the part of the fracking process where the fracking companies dump their waste.
And we've been told that their dumping was safe.
And that it was so safe, that the frackers didnt have to disclose the chemicals they were dumping, inside the earth, that it turns out...
Causes earthquakes!!!
With that in mind, I am thankful for the moratorium, and, of course now the ban of fracking in New York State.
Arent you, FF?
Jon Stewart on Oklahoma earthquakes: Fracking or God’s ‘Shake Weight?’ - The Washington Post
golden beetle
Active member
Yes.
It is reasonable to believe that fracking waste dumped into the earth will leech into our water supply.
Which wouldnt be good.
Thanks for the article.
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
I'm glad you are being transparent now. You don't want Fracking period. So you will happily misrepresent information to suit your ideology. Makes you no better then the people you claim are so evil.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
So do you agree that you are causing the earthquakes?
Because you pay the companies to do it?
And what about NY?
And who told you that they don't have to disclose chemicals?
Every state is different, but chemical disclosure is pretty common.
Even if they claim "proprietary" they disclose to the regulators.
Hell, some companies do it voluntarily:
Chemical Disclosure - Find
mudbug201
loose loops, sink tips
I agree that knee-jerk environmentalism is annoying. Knee-jerk anything is annoying. There's plenty of evidence out there that points in both directions, for those who want to spend the time to read up.
On the other hand... I think the whole idea that a business practice has to be proven to be dangerous is problematic. In a lot of places, they take the opposite approach. You have to prove a practice is safe before you can engage in it. There's something to be said for that.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
I think you might be a BIT upset in a few days/weeks... just a bit...
golden beetle
Active member
I don't believe I cause earthquakes.
Are you suggesting that because I see it, I am making them real? And that if we dont look, they will go away?
As to the states being the best arbiters of fracking disclosure laws, I'm starting to do some research into that and am finding that the rules really arent sufficient, and federal regulation is needed.
North Carolina's Fracking Bill Sponsor Has Close Ties to Industry | Jesse Coleman
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
I think you have to strike a balance based on the activity in question. The answer almost always lies somewhere in the middle yet it seems impossible to get there becuse of politics. Obvious ones like mines in the headwaters of Bristol bay are a good example of a place where you just say not worth it. Stronger remediation standards and enforcement would be another logical step.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
And there it is...
You buy electricity.
I assume your building is heated with gas or oil or electricity.
I assume your car burns gasoline.
I assume you cook your food on something powered by something other than wood.
Etc., Etc., Etc...
You pay the companies for this.
You pay them to frack.
You pay them to dispose of the waste.
You cause some earthquakes.
You won't admit it.
golden beetle
Active member
Agree 100 percent.
Get some federal regs to apply across the board here.
Perhaps a moratorium of a few years on the dumping by the fracking companies that is causing earthquakes?
Or a national ban?
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
More ideology. Banning fracking will only hurt the very people who are benefitting from less expensive energy. Besides the federal government has no reason to intervene in a states business with more mandates. Stronger remediation and enforcement can and should be done at a state level. Banning fracking is a stupid idea as it's been done for decades. Instead the federal government could focus on its real responsibility like restoring some fiscal sanity to our country.
golden beetle
Active member
I wont admit that I cause earthquakes?
golden beetle
Active member
Slow down.
I'm talking about banning the dumping of wastewater in fuel injection wells...
You know, the dumping that's causing earthquakes.
Trout Nazi
And...Boom goes the dynamite.
Someone call this guy up. In addition to controlling the weather, we can cause earthquakes now. Your all dipshits for even entertainig this.
golden beetle
Active member
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
No you have not.
And you pay the drilling companies to do this for you.
GB, could you please stop paying the drillers to cause earthquakes?
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
You think the Federal government is the way to go here?
The EPA should be the ones to dictate to us what each state can or cannot do in regard to hydraulic fracturing? Or just disposal of waste?
golden beetle
Active member
Ok.
So its your position that the earthquakes are caused by me, and not by the fracking companies?
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
I thought I laid this out pretty well in post 47.
You don't get it, that by paying for their product, YOU are partly responsible for any earthquake that's produced getting YOU what YOU pay for?
YOU can't claim YOU didn't know... YOU seem to keep on top of these things...
But as a lawyer, you think the EPA should be allowed to usurp states' rights?
You think this president's EPA is up to the task?
golden beetle
Active member
Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, and fracking is commerce.
As you say, something I PAY FOR.
And certainly since I PAY FOR IT, and, as you say, cause earthquakes by paying for it, that certainly makes it necessary for Congress to regulate such commerce...
(Thanks for making my argument for me.)
My responsibility as a citizen is to express my thoughts about how We The People ought to regulate that commerce.
Do you think that CERCLA, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act are usurpations of states' rights too?
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Well then...
I'm glad you've come to your senses and accepted and agreed with my contention that YOU are indeed responsible for subjecting the people of other states to the horror of earthquakes because of YOUR desire for energy in your life.
As far as Congress being the way to go to regulate your conspiracy with the energy companies... good luck.
Congress has ceded the responsibility to the EPA for oversight and regulation pertaining to gas and oil extraction( and the EPA leaves most of the regulation to the states) as well as the disposal of wastes.
The EPA would seem to be the "experts" as to what is safe...in fact, the EPA has conducted a study on the safety of hydraulic fracturing...
From the Huffington Post:
In an interview with The Huffington Post, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy defended the study, arguing that it will be helpful to state oil and gas regulators...
"The president cares about continuing to see the benefits that fracking provides in terms of low natural gas [prices], increasing national security, but he always says it has to be done safe and responsibly," McCarthy said.
McCarthy also argued that officials know fracking can be done safely, as long as the proper precautions are taken. "The good news about drinking water is that we really do know how to construct a well," she said. "These are not out-of-the-loop new technologies we’re seeking to identify. This is standard engineering practice."
"We can develop best management practices that actually address these issues and work with states on how to get that information out, and how they can begin to rely on that to ensure they’re using EPA science to their best advantage."
Defer to the Government Experts, GB.
