Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="1krr" data-source="post: 2719000" data-attributes="member: 750">Sorry, multiquote coming below. <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" data-shortname=";)" /> First things, just because this always seems to come up even though it has no relevance to the conversation: the use of the word "fracking" is a well understood term in common usage to name the process of hydraulic fracturing. It is a moniker of the abbreviation "frac" whose orthography is properly represented by the addition of the K to the ending. In a common example, if one were to search Google for the term "fracking" they would find the majority of references to be related to the process of hydraulic fracturing with an smaller number of references to the term used in a popular television program as an acceptable replacement for another word not permissible for general broadcast. The two uses of the word are not interchangeable and do not create confusion in common language. As such, the word "frack" is understood to mean hydraulic fracturing and is thus an appropriate term to use in casual conversation. I've heard the "it's not fracking, it's disposal wells" from a lot of O/G pundits and it's always facinated me. Basically it says, it's not fracking, waste disposal. There are a couple of issues. No body cares if an O/G company causes an earthquake because they are fracking, disposing of toxic waste products resulting from fracking, or drilling a hole to China, the net result is O/G company activity is causing earthquakes. Don't cause earthquakes. You mention science and reference "simple geophysics" which implys that you have knowledge and/or education in the application of physical processes to geological structures. This is good because I have a lot of questions. But let's focus on the science part for a moment. I think most will agree that science is a function of observation, experimentation, detection of patterns, and so on. Since it's beyond the scope of individuals (at least those of us who are not billionaire O/G executives) to experiment at scale with geological formations, we rely on the one thing that makes humans unique on this planet, and that is our skill for pattern recognition and apply it to the experiments already performed which is the o/g wells we already have and the data we have observed. So lets go with patterns since we are keeping things simple. Below is a graph representing the macroseismicity in the state of Oklahoma since 1978. [Broken External Image]That here we see a pattern of seismicity is unprecidented. There are no natural dynamic forces previously causing earthquakes in this area so that leads us to look for other things that can make the earth move outside of purely simple geological forces. Did an astreroid hit us in central Oklahoma? None that I am aware of. Has the US Government started underground nuclear testing in Oklahoma? Could be with our latest tensions with Russia so we can't rule this one out. Has any other action that is not typical of natural geological processes begun within the pattern of time we evidenced above? I can only think of one for sure, fracking and if you must, the waste wells disposing of products generated by, fracking. If I approach this scientifically and get data, what I see is a tight coupling between the large scale introduction of fracking and the unprecidented increase in siesmic activity. So we have established a tight corrolation in time deltas between increased fracking usage and increased siesmicity. We all know that waste injection wells have been around for a while but we haven't had all these earthquakes for that long so what else is there? As it turns out, there isn't a huge difference between a fracked well and a disposal well as far as the structure of the ground beneigh us is concerned. Both push huge volumes of a chemical/water mixture underground at high pressure. In a fracked well, you want to break up that structure and is a disposal well, you don't really care either way so long as the waste goes away. As a matter of fact, both are considered to be the same "class" of well (class II). So lets look at a map of class II wells and see if there is any corolation between the locations of these class II wells and areas seeing this significant increase in earthquakes. Earthquakes[Broken External Image]Wells<img src="https://miningawareness.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image52.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Again, one can see a pattern not only in time but in location between the increase of fracking activity and the increase in seismicity. So you say that "simple geophysics" precludes the idea of fracking induced earthquakes but go on to imply that geology is a complex matter that if we all understood, we would know that fracking didn't cause earthquakes. So there is a bit of a contradiction there. I agree with you that geology is a complex matter that isn't well understood but the simple corolation between increases in fracking and increases in earthquakes is much more clear. That sounds good except when the prinicple himself says that he is under great pressure from the o/g industry. Professors postulating in the classroom is far different from the industry's perspective than them leading protests at the state capital. It absolutely benefits them to lie when the truth hurts profits. There is a calculated risk. If I admit that my product is hurting people, then I have a 100% probability of loosing that business. If I lie, redirect, or downplay the significance of my harm, I have a much higher probability of maintaining profitablility. This is not a new thing, tobacco pulled it off for half a century. The oil industry pulled it off for a while in the face of overwhelming evidence that leaded gas was causing health problems. Their calculation is that with enough propaganda and lobbying, they can maintain their profitability from the highly effective process of fracking for decades. When they lawsuits come, they fold the company up into a spinoff, wash their hands, and count their dough (ref Kerr Mcgee/Anadarko). "THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM" is exactly what their saying. And it's easy. They don't have to counter the facts tit for tat. They don't even have to present facts. All the industry has to do is attempt discredit the facts. There is an entire industry of spin doctors and lobbys whose purpose is to present counter arguements, fact-based or otherwise. In that industry, there is a euphemism called F.U.D. That stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. These tools are employed by the o/g industry massively. Fear - The big government is going to take away our freedoms because they are interfering with our business and damn it, that is unAmerican.Uncertainty -  If we don't keep producing at any cost, the Arabs are going to take over our energy supplies and you will be forced to stand in long lines for gas, drive 55, and be subjected to paying whatever prices they dictate. Doubt - This science is unvetted. We don't really know what is causing earthquakes. Simple geophysics says that fracking couldn't be responsible but because it's a complex issue, we need more time for the science to develop. While that happens, we will continue our activities.Credibility and truthfullness have nothing to do with each other. Simple way to split the two is to follow the money. A geologist isn't going to make a or loose another billion regardless of the findings of his research. But the o/g industry will. They can hedge by drawing out the debate for decades while they continue to make huge profits and they are vested in doing so.</blockquote>

Verification