Tzor.. to continue:
Here is an article by the USGS:
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs ... rthquakes/The whole article is too large to print, but these excerpt pretty much refutes your claim that these earthquakes are not a worry at all:
USGS Man made Earthquake Update wrote: For example, wastewater disposal appears to be related to the magnitude-5.6 earthquake that struck rural central Oklahoma in 2011 leading to a few injuries and damage to more than a dozen homes. Damage from an earthquake of this magnitude would be much worse if it were to happen in a more densely populated area.
Now note, a 5.6 earthquake is not a huge quake. (I already compared most of the quakes, smaller than that, to a truck passing ) Still, damage to home and injuries mean its a serious quake, no matter what scale you want to use. An explosion causing that damage would make news, warrant heavy scrutiny.
STILL... my point, which you did not even counter, was that these quakes occurred at all was cause for concern. (translation.. "concern" means we need to look into it more, not just assume it is OK.. it doesn't mean we have cause to tar and feather the folks involved)
http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Is-the- ... anmade.cfmDepartment of Interior wrote: Studies show one to three magnitude 3.0 earthquakes or larger occurred yearly from 1975 to 2008, while the average grew to around 40 earthquakes per year from 2009 to mid-2013.
“We’ve statistically analyzed the recent earthquake rate changes and found that they do not seem to be due to typical, random fluctuations in natural seismicity rates,” said Bill Leith, USGS seismologist. “These analyses require significant changes in both the background rate of events and earthquake triggering properties needed to have occurred to be consistent with the observed increases in seismicity. This is in contrast to what is typically found when modeling natural earthquake swarms.”
The Oklahoma analysis suggests that a contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes occurrence may be from injection-induced seismicity from activities such as wastewater disposal. The OGS has examined the behavior of the seismicity through the state assessing the optimal fault orientations and stresses within the region of increased seismicity, particularly the unusual behavior of the swarm just east of Oklahoma City.
Another piece of "information" widely published, with a slant that depends on the article, comes from the Dept of Interior:
Basically, they say they cannot
definitively prove that many [of the recently reported quakes] are caused directly by either deep injection of wastewater or fracking, etc. (that is, all the operations generalized as Hydraulic fracking) BUT to make that statement complete, you have to add that there just is not enough information and data out there. The really key point is this:
(From the Dept of the Interior)
USGS Man made Earthquake Update wrote:Currently, there are no methods available to anticipate whether a planned wastewater disposal activity will trigger earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern. Evidence from some case histories suggests that the magnitude of the largest earthquake tends to increase as the total volume of injected wastewater increases. Injection pressure and rate of injection may also be factors. More research is needed to determine answers to these important questions.
tzor wrote: The artificial quakes may have less energy — only after 6 miles away — because the fault is lubricated by the injected wastewater, making it easier to slip and do so more smoothly in less of a herky-jerky motion, Hough theorized. Also these faults can be slipping with less pent-up energy than they would have if they slipped naturally years later.
And you were mentioning the "long term?"
Just to clarify, "theorized" (highlighted by me to emphasis it) does not mean fact, it means it is someone's idea. In this context, without supporting data or long-term studies, it is just speculation... and one of many points of speculation that may or many not each be correct.
ALSO, there is no "long term" in deep hydraulic fracking.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, as I said before, the worst worry are the chemicals -- chemicals that are not even identified, making any definitive testing even more difficult.
Proverbial straw man. Debunked in 2012 (from same article).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today [July 25, 2012] that it has completed its sampling of private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pa. Data previously supplied to the agency by residents, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Cabot Oil and Gas Exploration had indicated the potential for elevated levels of water contaminants in wells, and following requests by residents EPA took steps to sample water in the area to ensure there were not elevated levels of contaminants. Based on the outcome of that sampling, EPA has determined that there are not levels of contaminants present that would require additional action by the Agency.
LOL -- you provide a link saying ONE set of claims was ruled in favor of a company and now try to claim this disputes my statement that the companies are using many toxic chemicals and not divulging what they are?
LOL
To begin, the example you chose is exactly the one I said was largely over-stated, used in Gasland, . Even so, here is this, from 2013:
A recent report in the Los Angeles Times revealed that EPA officials in Washington chose to close an investigation of Dimock drinking water despite evidence gathered from agency investigators based in Philadelphia that found “significant damage to the water quality,” from poisonous contamination likely caused by fracking.
The EPA PowerPoint Presentation was released last Monday on DeSmog blog by investigative journalist Steve Horn. Evidence of drinking water contamination due to fracking was similarly ignored by the EPA in Pavillion, WY, and Weatherford, TX. The resident-activists conducted a press conference on their way down to EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, where they will deliver about 50,000 petitions to new EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy calling on her to reopen investigations in Dimock, PA, as well as Pavillion, WY, and Weatherford, TX. They are also calling on EPA to provide safe drinking water to residents while these investigations recommence.
“For years now, I have had to live with toxic, poisoned fracked water in my home,” said Ray Kemble, a former gas industry employee turned whistleblower and an affected Dimock area resident. “When EPA finally stepped in and tested my water, I thought ‘Thank God. Someone is finally here to help us.’ But then it became apparent to those of us on the ground that they were playing politics. EPA officials literally told us officially that our water was safe to drink but then told us off-the-record not to drink it. Now the truth is out and we want justice.”
This article goes into that specific about the whole incident (for any not already familiar.. its not that long, but too much to post here)'
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/draic ... cabot.html tzor wrote:As someone who lives in a community located near farmland, I can tell you that there is a far greater danger of groundwater contamination from agriculture than there is from fracking, in fact it is already a major critical problem in many areas. After that, there is a far greater problem cause by ethanol enabled petroleum contamination by gas stations. (Ethanol allows the petroleum to propagate through the soil faster.)
LOL LOL LOL
As someone who has not only lived in and near farmland my entire life, AND who's field of study is water...
#1 define "Greater" in terms of sheer volume, absolutely. However, I would far rather deal with a whole lot of fecal matter (aka manure), phosphorus, chemical nitrogen, etc than fracking "xenoids".
#2 Agriculture has absolutely used some nasty chemicals in the past (DDT anyone?) and continues to invent new stuff. However, because we eat the food that comes from farms, it is subject to scrutiny and investigation in ways that fracking operations are not.
#3. Because agriculture happens on the surface, its pathways are largely known, filtered and controllable. (even if they are not always actually controlled, we know how to do so) Fracking changes the basic geostructure and underground fluid/air channels
#3 When someone asks if I would rather be poisoned with arsenic or cyanide, my answer is "neither" ! Agriculture poisons need to be studied, controlled and limited, so do hydraulic fracking chemicals. Unfortunately, fracking operations are happening very, very quickly and many entities (doctors, health departments, etc.) are not only not getting information they need, have even been prohibited from collecting it (either prohibited outright or just denied any associated funding).
The USGS/earthquake issue was a bit of an exception, but that is probably both because it was just too big to ignore and, overall was not that significant an impact for the immediate future (its more of a "if it does this, then what else might happen" situation).