Who should pay for fracking induced earthquakes?

[golden beetle]

I am not convinced that this is true, but it is worth a read.

POLL: Who Should Pay for Fracking-Induced Earthquake Damages? - AccuWeather.com

 

[MACFLY]

It's kind of irrelevant as the costs ultimately are born by the Taxpayer

 

[golden beetle]

It is worth a read.

Man-made Earthquakes | StateImpact Texas

 

[WBDluver]

Well, let me tell you a little story. We has a water system in upper Susquehanna County in Pa. It never had a water main break. The year they fracked a well one mile away we had 4. They haven't fracked since and we have not had breaks since. True story, I cant make this stuff up.

 

[Trout Nazi]

You guys are awesome. Man-made climate change, man-made earthquakes. I heard that fracking also causes tornadoes.

 

[FIN-ITE 34]

I heard that fracking also causes tornadoes

Sharknadoes to be accurate.

 

[MACFLY]

Well, let me tell you a little story. We has a water system in upper Susquehanna County in Pa. It never had a water main break. The year they fracked a well one mile away we had 4. They haven't fracked since and we have not had breaks since. True story, I cant make this stuff up.

Wow that was riveting

 

[WBDluver]

im glad you liked it. i kept it short so it would stay within your attention span.

 

[golden beetle]

Well, let me tell you a little story. We has a water system in upper Susquehanna County in Pa. It never had a water main break. The year they fracked a well one mile away we had 4. They haven't fracked since and we have not had breaks since. True story, I cant make this stuff up.

This is an interesting story.

It also suggests that the earthquake activity caused by fracking may resolve, after fracking is stopped?

But I wonder about all those chemicals that may be unleashed in to the environment, and perhaps the water supply?

Recently I think Obama took executive action to require disclosure of what's in these fracking chemicals..?..?

Its fascinating to me....

 

[WBDluver]

Well why would the not go into the water supply? The water around Mt Cobb Pa has a very high sodium levels. The reason they discovered is that Penn DOT has a salt barn and over the years it has leached into the soil and polluted the water. The state paid to have a water system put into the area due to the private wells were polluted. I can also name about a half dozen places where leaking underground storage tanks are the cause for polluted water. So why would one think injecting chemicals into the ground directly will have not effect over time? Remember Love Canal?

 

[MACFLY]

Well why would the not go into the water supply? The water around Mt Cobb Pa has a very high sodium levels. The reason they discovered is that Penn DOT has a salt barn and over the years it has leached into the soil and polluted the water. The state paid to have a water system put into the area due to the private wells were polluted. I can also name about a half dozen places where leaking underground storage tanks are the cause for polluted water. So why would one think injecting chemicals into the ground directly will have not effect over time? Remember Love Canal?

Please use correct grammar. This post has too many errors it should just be deleted

 

[Trout Nazi]

Well why would the not go into the water supply? The water around Mt Cobb Pa has a very high sodium levels. The reason they discovered is that Penn DOT has a salt barn and over the years it has leached into the soil and polluted the water. The state paid to have a water system put into the area due to the private wells were polluted. I can also name about a half dozen places where leaking underground storage tanks are the cause for polluted water. So why would one think injecting chemicals into the ground directly will have not effect over time? Remember Love Canal?

Because liquid injected a mile into the Earths crust is nowwhere near groundwater. Then again, you never know. Perhaps a volcanic eruption, due to man-made earthquakes, could mix that water with the groundwater?

 

[lightenup]

Because liquid injected a mile into the Earths crust is nowwhere near groundwater. Then again, you never know. Perhaps a volcanic eruption, due to man-made earthquakes, could mix that water with the groundwater?

I believe the best part of this post is, Then again, you never know.....Ya' know what...None of these fools shooting toxic chemicals into the ground know...they only speculate, and really don't care with all the $$$ they make from it......
Now excuse me, I need to drive to work in my oversized gas guzzling SUV.......

 

[Pete]

There's not going to be an earthquake, unless there's an active fault.

It could be argued that lubricating the fault, to allow slippage, relieves the pressure.
You get a minor earthquake(s) sooner, rather than a catastrophic "Big One" later.

 

[Future Fanatic]

There's not going to be an earthquake, unless there's an active fault.

It could be argued that lubricating the fault, to allow slippage, relieves the pressure.
You get a minor earthquake(s) sooner, rather than a catastrophic "Big One" later.

I'm with Pete on this one.
NG companies are keeping future folks safer.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I'm with Pete on this one.
NG companies are keeping future folks safer.

Thank you big oil and gas!



Fracking: would you rather have seven 1 magnitude earthquakes or one 7 magnitude quake? We got your back!



​The whole idea that fracking could cause an earthquake alone humors me.

 

[Future Fanatic]

​The whole idea that fracking could cause an earthquake alone humors me.

I believe some injection wells are causing this to happen. I look at the evidence and ask "what else" would be doing it...

I have read of a couple of incidences of actual fracking causing this(to a MUCH lesser degree). Why not? 50 pounds of tnt will produce a small "seismic event", so why not fracking (given the pressures they are working with).

 

[eddavidson9]

There's not going to be an earthquake, unless there's an active fault.

Incorrect, technically. Faults and earthquakes are both results of the release of stored energy (stress) through displacement. However, either can occur without the other. But it's a moot point.

Weakening the strata can result in earthquakes that would never have happened; it is not necessarily as simple as preventing a larger quake down the road. The strata (whether intact or along a dormant fault) may be able to withstand the current stresses (in perpetuity) without yielding, unless it is weakened (e.g. by injection wells).

 

[Pete]

Incorrect, technically. Faults and earthquakes are both results of the release of stored energy (stress) through displacement. However, either can occur without the other. But it's a moot point.

Weakening the strata can result in earthquakes that would never have happened; it is not necessarily as simple as preventing a larger quake down the road. The strata (whether intact or along a dormant fault) may be able to withstand the current stresses (in perpetuity) without yielding, unless it is weakened (e.g. by injection wells).

I was joking....
I guess I should have labeled it with some kind of smiley, :smiley-sniffer: to prevent it from being taken seriously.

 

[eddavidson9]

My bad for being a pedant about geology.

 

[MACFLY]

I was joking....
I guess I should have labeled it with some kind of smiley, :smiley-sniffer: to prevent it from being taken seriously.

He has no sense of humor