Fracking and Earthquakes

Forums › Off topic › Fracking and Earthquakes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

2692 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1069304 19-Jun-2014 15:57

KiwiNZ:

I don't want to hijack this thread but denying climate change is almost the same as denying that the Earth is round.

Agreed - the climate has been changing for billions of years, since the beginning of the earth. It's only now that we have the taxes to stop it changing

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1069306 19-Jun-2014 16:00

shk292:
KiwiNZ:

I don't want to hijack this thread but denying climate change is almost the same as denying that the Earth is round.

Agreed - the climate has been changing for billions of years, since the beginning of the earth. It's only now that we have the taxes to stop it changing

Good grief

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1069310 19-Jun-2014 16:06

There is interesting info here ...

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/homepage.php

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pdf/OGS_POSITION_STATEMENT_2_18_14.pdf

The summary of the position statement is ....

"The OGS has not ruled out that some earthquakes may have a relationship to oil and
gas activities such as water disposal/injection, and examining these issues remains a
major focus of ongoing research. The majority of earthquakes in Oklahoma are not
strong enough to be felt and it is important to note that an apparent spatial
correlation does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Additionally, fluid
disposal alone is not adding enough energy into the system to materially change the
natural stresses. Overall, the majority, but not all, of the recent earthquakes appear
to be the result of natural stresses, since they are consistent with the regional
Oklahoma natural stress field.

The OGS is increasing its resources in the area of earthquake seismology. This will
provide additional capability to not only improve our monitoring and reporting of
earthquakes, which is the primary responsibility of the OGS, but also to better
understand key geophysical, geological and engineering concepts within the context
of Oklahoma seismicity, and communicate these findings to the citizens of the state."

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1069325 19-Jun-2014 16:25

KiwiNZ:

Instead of doing stuff like Fracking why not put the effort and resources into finding safe, sustainable alternatives to meet energy needs.

Fracking in the US has majorly reduced the environmental impact of gas and oil production. Often the alternative to shale oil and gas is extraction from coal which is much worse. Gas and oil are still needed for uses outside of traditional energy. Just as there are still scenarios where sperm whale oil is used.

The big problem with alternate forms of energy is the discussion and reporting of the science is so often skewed. Or the science is outright misrepresented, or does not take into account all of the factors (social, economic, environmental, moral) involved.

One of the most interesting proposals I have seen is using GM tobacco for bio-fuel production. Rather than replace a food crop with a fuel crop, you use the existing infrastructure for the production and distribution for tobacco. This infrastructure is mostly in underdeveloped (read poor) countries who are are going to suffer badly as global smoking rates decrease. All things considered you decrease misery and don't have to consume a large amount of new resources to create the industry.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1069377 19-Jun-2014 17:04

KiwiNZ: There is interesting info here ...

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/homepage.php

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pdf/OGS_POSITION_STATEMENT_2_18_14.pdf

The summary of the position statement is ....

"The OGS has not ruled out that some earthquakes may have a relationship to oil and
gas activities such as water disposal/injection, and examining these issues remains a
major focus of ongoing research. The majority of earthquakes in Oklahoma are not
strong enough to be felt and it is important to note that an apparent spatial
correlation does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Additionally, fluid
disposal alone is not adding enough energy into the system to materially change the
natural stresses. Overall, the majority, but not all, of the recent earthquakes appear
to be the result of natural stresses, since they are consistent with the regional
Oklahoma natural stress field.

The OGS is increasing its resources in the area of earthquake seismology. This will
provide additional capability to not only improve our monitoring and reporting of
earthquakes, which is the primary responsibility of the OGS, but also to better
understand key geophysical, geological and engineering concepts within the context
of Oklahoma seismicity, and communicate these findings to the citizens of the state."

This information appears to have been superseded by the USGS / OGS press release dated 5 May 2014.
OGS hasn't put the link on their home page - it's buried in the Leonard Geophysical Observatory research page.

Top link in the OGS page here.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1069389 19-Jun-2014 17:13

shk292: This isn't a go at the OP, but to me it's just too coincidental that those causing alarm about quakes from fracking are also those most alarmist

That's silly. As the OP, I do take offense at silly posts - one suggesting "not this (topic) again" when obviously not bothering to read past the topic title to see that there's new information about an old topic. People seem to "take sides" on topics like this because of their own bias - usually politically motivated.

"Those causing alarm" in this case include the USGS. If you can suggest an authority better qualified *and more independent* - then go ahead.

1eStar

1604 posts

Uber Geek

#1069653 20-Jun-2014 00:26

I don't understand the point of this thread, but it may be more enlightening if people indicated if they have any education in the relevant field. Even tho I have an Undergraduate Geotechnical Engineering degree and studied Geologic hazards at a higher level, I haven't bothered to respond to the "Media educated" hype of this thread. I understand earthquake terminology and have a concept of the mechanics of it, but have limited knowledge regarding the mechanics of fracking. It would seem rather likely to me that there could be some causative correlation between the two if it were conducted in an earthquake prone area. And I guess that is what the USGS is flagging.

Sidestep

1003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1069689 20-Jun-2014 07:20

1eStar: I don't understand the point of this thread, but it may be more enlightening if people indicated if they have any education in the relevant field. Even tho I have an Undergraduate Geotechnical Engineering degree and studied Geologic hazards at a higher level, I haven't bothered to respond to the "Media educated" hype of this thread. I understand earthquake terminology and have a concept of the mechanics of it, but have limited knowledge regarding the mechanics of fracking. It would seem rather likely to me that there could be some causative correlation between the two if it were conducted in an earthquake prone area. And I guess that is what the USGS is flagging.

I also don't completely understand OP's point - perhaps because I missed the related thread.
The discussion itself seems relevant in that several companies are about to start "fracking" the East Coast Basin shale deposits. Pretty much the East Coast of the NI from East Cape, South.
I'm a sometime investor in two of them, NZEC (TSX-V:NZ) and Tag Oil (TSX:TAO).
I dropped them as I struggled to balance Ethical Investing with Profitable Investing. Long before there was talk of fracking induced earthquakes, shale oil fracking had become an ethical minefield.
Any & all information on this stuff is interesting. Whether it's rumour on some nutcases blog, or an official government release. Since so much out there is "spin", someone's opinion ( or a USGS release so carefully worded you have to read between the lines) I take it all with a grain of salt, rely on my own worldview to decide if it's likely, unlikely or a completely crackpot theory.
The induced earthquake idea is very interesting in the context of fracking in New Zealand..
The companies involved are spinning the Whangai and Waipapa shales as comparable to the Bakken over here. If so, its a Big Deal for NZ.

I've no valid experience, just an interested observer.
I grew up in the Central NI. Experienced earthquakes, surfed East Coast breaks as a kid.
Spent years as an adult in Western North America oil and gas country, still find myself out here every year.

I'd call myself a pragmatic Greeny, and would hope NZ's going to be very careful, and have lots of debate about all aspects of shale oil fracking there.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1069694 20-Jun-2014 07:31

Fracking on the east coast of NZ smack in the middle of the subduction zone and a very active seismic area would be a very stupid idea.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1069715 20-Jun-2014 08:32

1eStar: I don't understand the point of this thread, but it may be more enlightening if people indicated if they have any education in the relevant field. Even tho I have an Undergraduate Geotechnical Engineering degree and studied Geologic hazards at a higher level, I haven't bothered to respond to the "Media educated" hype of this thread. I understand earthquake terminology and have a concept of the mechanics of it, but have limited knowledge regarding the mechanics of fracking. It would seem rather likely to me that there could be some causative correlation between the two if it were conducted in an earthquake prone area. And I guess that is what the USGS is flagging.

Alfred Wegener wasn't a geologist.
The point of the thread is summed up in your last sentence - that is what the USGS is flagging.
There has been "media (educated) hype" on this topic in NZ. Unfortunately, it's the kind of topic that polarises opinion. I'm fairly confident that in the court of public opinion (as evidenced by several posts in this thread) there's some strongly held belief that "we've had this discussion", and that "fracking doesn't cause (significant) earthquakes". I expected that many people would automatically dismiss any suggestion that fracking may induce significant earthquakes, regardless of there being some new information from a reputable authority, as the oil industry has done a damned good job of media management in NZ - commonly expressed opinion is that people who believe anything counter to their views are a pack of whacko extremists who want us all to freeze in the dark.

geek4me

843 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1071535 21-Jun-2014 11:21

Page B3 of The Dominion Post this morning says Russia "in secret plot against fracking. Russian agents are secretly working with environmental groups campaigning against fracking to try to maintain Europe's dependence on gas imports from Moscow, the secretary general of Nato said yesterday."

I had to check that it was not April 1st today. This may not be about fracking and earthquakes but if true Russia are trying to "shake up" the fracking industry for financial gain.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#1071577 21-Jun-2014 12:16

The fracking debate is fairly 1 dimensional, probably because its the easiest way to sell and debate it.
If we can't predict earthquake events its because we don't fully understand all the elements involved, including the obvious ones like geology, climate and gravitational effects. We simply havent got enough pieces to have reliable modeling.
And man made impacts, whether its mining, drilling, fracking, deforestation, or something else, they all have to be part of the model somewhere.

We're taking an evolutionary environment and trying to pigeon hole it based on fairly short timelines and human impact because that's how we're wired

gzt

15219 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1071598 21-Jun-2014 12:31

geek4me: Page B3 of The Dominion Post this morning says Russia "in secret plot against fracking. Russian agents are secretly working with environmental groups campaigning against fracking to try to maintain Europe's dependence on gas imports from Moscow, the secretary general of Nato said yesterday." I had to check that it was not April 1st today. This may not be about fracking and earthquakes but if true Russia are trying to "shake up" the fracking industry for financial gain.

That would not be a huge surprise. But it would be ludicrous to suggest all opposition to fracking is controlled by 'The Russians'. He's not suggesting that. Even so, it will be good fodder for the conspiracy theorists and one or two congressmen/senators to suggest the US Geological Survey and the Ohio Geological Survey has been infiltrated by russians and anti-americans.

(Link to original article)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1071626 21-Jun-2014 12:46

gzt:
geek4me: Page B3 of The Dominion Post this morning says Russia "in secret plot against fracking. Russian agents are secretly working with environmental groups campaigning against fracking to try to maintain Europe's dependence on gas imports from Moscow, the secretary general of Nato said yesterday." I had to check that it was not April 1st today. This may not be about fracking and earthquakes but if true Russia are trying to "shake up" the fracking industry for financial gain.

That would not be a huge surprise. But it would be ludicrous to suggest all opposition to fracking is controlled by 'The Russians'. He's not suggesting that. Even so, it will be good fodder for the conspiracy theorists and one or two congressmen/senators to suggest the US Geological Survey and the Ohio Geological Survey has been infiltrated by russians and anti-americans.

(Link to original article)

I think it tends to show that when there's such a lot of money involved, a western Europe somewhat vulnerable to energy shortages and reliant on Russia, Russia controlled by a muscle-flexing idiot, fracking a somewhat contentious issue everywhere, then Rasmussen should have considered things a bit more carefully before coming up with such a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
Here's some evidence why what Anders Fogh Rasmussen says is nuts.

gzt

15219 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1071630 21-Jun-2014 12:51

Hang on I'm a bit confused here. He didn't mention Greenpeace at all. What makes you think it is a swipe against Greenpeace?

And what about your link shows what he says is nuts? It shows BP signing an agreement to prospect for Russian oil. I'm not making the connection.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5