Oil Recovery May Have Triggered Texas Tremors 172
ananyo writes "First came reports of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing and the reinjection of water during oil and gas operations. Now U.S. scientists are reporting tremors may have been caused by the injection of carbon dioxide during oil production. The evidence centers on a sudden burst of seismic activity around an old oil field in the Permian Basin in northwest Texas. From 2006 to 2011, after more than two decades without any earthquakes, seismometers in the region registered 38 tremors, including 18 larger quakes ranging from magnitude 3 to 4.4, scientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The tremors began just two years after injections of significant volumes of CO2 began at the site, in an effort to boost oil production. 'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection,' says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in Austin, who co-authored the study."
Plausible Explanation? (Score:5, Funny)
Graboids!
captcha: "bedrock".. Lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, another link to Kevin Bacon is making that game easier all the time.
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Had profit.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
You can bet a lot of people's insurance policies will be damaged one way or another...higher rates or no coverage for earthquake damage.
From TFA (Score:1, Insightful)
Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Or that rocks will break and fracture in ways that aren't necessarily predictable.
It can be the cause in one well, and still not have caused the same problem in another well just simply by the local rocks and what's already happened to them.
I don't think anybody is suggesting "inject CO2, cause earthquake" ... but that the rocks might fracture (or whatever) in ways you don't really have a way to predict very well.
If it was pumping in the high pressure stuff that lead to unexpected mechanical failure of rock structures, you're never going to get a 100% result on something like that.
But I do think it highly likely there's more complexity going on than they're capable of knowing or controlling.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort of.
They're not saying that the simple presence of CO2 causes earthquakes. They're saying the mechanical stresses involved may well have dislodged things.
But you apparently didn't read TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
But it could be a lubricant for the fault, making those thousands of pounds, or even just the weight of the earth itself, cause the earthquakes.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
The pressures that they use to fracture rock are in the THOUSANDS of pounds, the pressures they're injecting CO2 at are in the HUNDREDS.
The CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.
Depends on how the rocks are sited and where the CO2 is injected. A pressure of "hundreds of pounds" doesn't guarantee that no rock crushing forces are generated. Bad luck could result in rocks being configured in such a way that when you injected the CO2, it pushed them together in such a way that unexpected movement occured.
If you inject 100psi of well contained CO2 under a large 50ft by 50ft slab of rock it's going to generate about 36 million pounds [google.com] force on that slab. In comparison, a 50ft cube of granite weighs around 21 million pounds [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The article suggests an undocumented fault line and the CO2 is lubricating it allowing nature to work its course sooner rather that later.
If that is the case, i would think this actually lessens the probability of a catasrophic earthquakein the future due to stress being relieved over time in smaller amounts instead of one large event. But i'M only guessing.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be if anyone's house had been damaged but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Of course you are guessing on the 70 million years too. It could be 20 or 70 years, we have no way of knowing. But i bet california might have rather had several small quakes that the big on in the 90's. And yes, that is a guess too.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to me that you arent grasping his point, nor are you grasping basic forces.
its not just "hundreds of pounds". its hundred of pounds.....per square inch.
we arent talking about simple hundred of pounds of force.
we're talking about hundred of pounds of pressure per some unit area.
the bigger the area, the greater the net force applied by that pressure.
as the man said, even on a not particularly large rock cavity of say 50x50 feet of bearing area, that mere "hundred" pounds of pressure eqautes to 30E6 pounds of net force being applied to that surface. depending on that rock's configuration, its internal stresses, support from surrounding rock, etc, that force can be redirected and concentrated (stress concentration), such that it leads to failures in the internal structural integrity of said rock or nearby rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the CO2 is moving shit around underground. That was the purpose of doing it in the first place, although of course they just wanted to move the oil around. It seems odd to me to find people on a science/technology-oriented web site assume that moving thousands of tons of liquid and gas around from one place to another will NOT cause things to stress unpredictably.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It awoke the Balrog. CO2, they hates it.
captcha: penance
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.
And it couldn't be the Texas drought for the past three years... I mean what would drought have to do with land settling?
Re: (Score:2)
Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.
This of course would take cooperation on the part of the oil/gas companies - something unlikely.
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Until you can figure out why cigarettes causes lung cancer in on person, and not his neighbors who smoked similar amounts, it seems rather more likely that it wasn't the cigarettes that had anything to do with the cancer.
Frankly, I am not informed enough to have an opinion in this matter. However, even someone as ignorant in the matter as myself can see that your fact does not prove your conclusion. It doesn't prove that there is no link; it only proves that it isn't an absolute direct causation. It could mean that it affects probability and that different results were the luck of the draw. It could mean that there are other contributing factors (that we don't understand).
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Until you can figure out why cigarettes causes lung cancer in on person, and not his neighbors who smoked similar amounts, it seems rather more likely that it wasn't the cigarettes that had anything to do with the cancer.
Yes, that's absolutely correct. And then studies were done that showed significant statistical correlations between smoking and lung cancer. If it turns out that 80% of the areas where this was done have sudden increases in seismic activity, then there is probably a connection. A single data point is not enough to draw conclusions.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you can figure out why cigarettes causes lung cancer in on person, and not his neighbors who smoked similar amounts, it seems rather more likely that it wasn't the cigarettes that had anything to do with the cancer.
Yes, that's absolutely correct. And then studies were done that showed significant statistical correlations between smoking and lung cancer. If it turns out that 80% of the areas where this was done have sudden increases in seismic activity, then there is probably a connection. A single data point is not enough to draw conclusions.
I would bet every penny I own that such a study would prove at least probable causation. I grew up in Oklahoma (bordering Texas) and for 30 years I never experienced an earthquake there, until 2009 when they started happening on a very regular basis. Coincidentally, most of the epicenters happened to be located near drilling operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, are you refering to GAS drilling, which did start around 2006-2010, or OIL drilling, which is what the article is refering to. OIL drilling has been taking place in Texas for about 100 years.
http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/business/oil-and-texas-cultural-history [texasalmanac.com]
TFA also says that these earthquakes started in 2006, although it peaked in 2009 to 2011.
The article also says
The data suggest that there is a previously unidentified fault running through the area, and that the CO2 injections effectively lubricate that fault, enabling slippage. (Scientists documented a series of earthquakes in the area from 1975 through 1982, but those tremors were linked to water injections, also intended to boost oil production.)
What the article seems to suggest isn't that drilling causes earthquakes, but rather there was an unidentified fault in this area tha
Re: (Score:2)
Now now!
If you'd been reading The Oklahoman paper like a proper okie, you'd know that there is "no proven link" between fracking and earthquakes. The "science isnt settled". Just like it's not proven "that burning fossil fules causes global warming", as the paper likes to remind us regularly.
(For those not in on the joke: The Oklahoman newspaper is owned by a oil/gas billionaire)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the first data pointing in that direction. It certainly suggests that we should be looking at it further and that the flat denials of any potential for harm (and there are plenty of those) are not really on solid ground (so to speak).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the first data pointing in that direction. It certainly suggests that we should be looking at it further and that the flat denials of any potential for harm (and there are plenty of those) are not really on solid ground (so to speak).
Flat denials of any potential for harm are wishful thinking
They fear so much, that people will think it's causing harm, and call halts on drilling, that they will go to great lengths to assert it must be harmless
Hoping the more times they say it; that make
Re: From TFA (Score:2)
The more they say it... The more they believe it... This is why political parties and interest groups "own" news organizations (indirectly)
The nice lady on the morning news had been saying X for 3 months... She even read the cue cards stating supporting "facts" supplied by interested parties... It must be true, I don't need to research it...
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Obliterates?
So this magically deals with all the pollution burning that stuff causes?
Tell us more.
Re:From TFA (Score:4)
No, I was trying to point out that current economic forces are externalizing some costs and therefore the market cannot act correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course logging in to post would have solved the chances of anyone pretending to be someone else or you thinking it too.
SLashdot has seen a lot of poor form recently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't let science get in the way of your ideology. I guess you're right, I'm a fan of clean air, clean water, and leaving things better than I found them, especially when it could affect a bunch of other people. I guess responsible energy production that thinks of more than just immediate need that makes me a dirty hippy.
"Can never prove correlation is causation" (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's a philosophy of science tangent, but this quote caught my attention. I mean in a strict sense, nothing is "proven" in science, so it's technically true. However, to the extent to which concepts can be "scientifically proven", the difference between correlation and causation comes down to one factor: controls. In experimental science, we control for variables by limiting the systems in play directly. In observational science, that's done with statistical controls on other known (and possible) factors. With enough data, that can be done in a manner that is robust enough to be called science.
I don't think it's fair to take a benign assertion like "correlation is not causation" and extend it to an absolutist position.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Which, indeed, they did not: 'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection.'
In fact, they took the very valid point that coincidence (not even correlation, as CrimsonAvenger correctly notes that other seemingly similar cases do not display the same coincidence) does not imply causation, and then decided to breeze past it and declare that "certainly" that causation is the "most plausible ex
Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't even concerned with the specific assertions in question. I just saw the "never" and my scientific absolutist alarms went off. Correlation is one of the most useful tools in the data collection toolbox, and to assert it has not intrinsic empirical value was bothersome to me.
It does need to be used responsibly, with controls and awareness of uncontrolled variables. It doesn't lack value for "proving" things. Certainly the summary and abstract didn't give sufficient detail about what might have been considered in this particular case.
Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" (Score:5, Funny)
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.
-Randall Munroe [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
- Damon Runyan
Re: (Score:1)
If I hit you on the head with my shoe, and it correlates with pain in your head you blame me.
I immediately retort with "Correlation is not causation!" and insist you had a burgeoning headache which erupted at precisely that moment in time.
We then contact the Amazing Randy and explain our novel new technique of detecting impending headaches. I predict a headache, smack you on the head once more and we split the $1,000,000.
"Correlation is not causation" ... I really like that argument.
Next up... how the cor
Re: (Score:2)
Next time I'll add sarcasm tags. I was completely agreeing with him and mocking those who use the phrase too much.
Satire is the most dangerous form of writing.
Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" (Score:4, Insightful)
What is more likely...
That earthquakes are just suddenly occurring where they previously never have and are occurring more frequently and violently where they normally have
Or...
That earthquakes, which we know are caused by instability in the Earth's crust, just might be result of recently punching massive holes and billions of fissures in the Earth's crust?
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read more than the title of my post did you? I was quoting the article, then I described my problems with its reasoning. Your post doesn't even begin to address the key idea of mine: controls. And yet you phrase it like a rebuttal. That's not good argumentation.
Doesn't matter anyway. (Score:1)
Nothing stands in the way of oil profits. Not even lives.
My personal favorite bit is that the fracking guys are exempt from the clean air and clean water acts. Thats some style there.
Disgusting and sick.. But style. An evil you can remember.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh please. The earthquakes which *might* have been caused did zero damage to any property and took no lives.
As to your claims about fracking, seems you are *assuming* that it's dangerous, when there is little factual evidence that indicates that it is.
Re:Doesn't matter anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that fracking is a permanent change to the environment that can't be undone, EVER, I'd want to see some pretty compelling evidence that it absolutely can't cause harm, EVER, before being used widely across a bunch of different geologies.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone up for proving a negative?
You think this is Climate Science or something?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that fracking is a permanent change to the environment that can't be undone, EVER, I'd want to see some pretty compelling evidence that it absolutely can't cause harm, EVER, before being used widely across a bunch of different geologies.
Wasn't pumping any oil out in the first place a "permanent change that can't be undone ever"?
Or were you planning on recovering all the oil that had ever been pumped, and putting it back somehow?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Zero damage. This time.
But go back a few years.. The tsunami that hit india might have been caused by deep well injection a thousand miles away.
Lots n lots of damage that time.
And the bit about fracking is true. Safety is irrevelant. They ARE exempt from the EPA clean air and clean water acts. Pretty much nothing else in the world can claim that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they actually aren't.
Re:Doesn't matter anyway. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a matter of fact, Dick Cheney and his hand-picked cronies made damn sure that they are indeed [edcnet.org] exempt [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Do the locals really give two shits about this?
Let me see... Billions of dollars in income pumped out of the ground? Jobs created? Taxes paid? Money spent and circulating in my area?
Yep, this Texan has zero issues with a few quakes that shock some rattle snakes and sand while it damaged nothing. I say, keep drillin and pumpin yall.
Don't mess with Texas!
Another Texan says keep on puming that oil... (Score:1)
It was actually kinda interesting the evening of the OKC quake that we felt here in north central Texas. The water in our swimming pool did a really cool sloshing back and forth number, the likes of which I'd never seen before.
Re: (Score:2)
As a local in Oklahoma, which has also seen its share of quakes recently (and some studies have pointed to their statistical relationship to injection wells,) yes, some of us are concerned. Not all such sites are in the middle of nowhere and easily ignored -- there's a lot of oil & gas activity in and around cities, right in the middle of parking lots, behind neighborhoods, really anywhere it's profitable. Midwestern communities may not be as dense as what you east and west coasters consider "civilizati
OK, Got it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation... we're going to run with it because it works for us.
Got it.
Perhaps its the simple explanation (Score:2)
You've pumped oil out from under the ground. That leaves a big ass hole. Perhaps the hole is changing shape because it is no longer supported?
Re: (Score:1)
You've pumped oil out from under the ground. That leaves a big ass hole. Perhaps the hole is changing shape because it is no longer supported?
That is the purpose of pumping gas back in to the big ass-hole
Re: (Score:2)
You've pumped oil out from under the ground. That leaves a big ass hole. Perhaps the hole is changing shape because it is no longer supported?
That is the purpose of pumping gas back in to the big ass-hole
Of course, no one is pumping any gas back into the empty aquafers... I wonder if that could be related?
Re: (Score:2)
under the assumption that the hole that contained rather large molecules of oil will also contain a gas that can pass through much smaller gaps?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure the locals will appreciate a bunch of big assholes full of gas.
Re: (Score:1)
Contrary to popular belief, it does not leave a big ass hole in the ground. The oil comes from tiny pores within the rock structure so even when the oil leaves it's still solid.
http://www.geomore.com/porosity-and-permeability-2/
But is this....bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I wonder as people talk about this. Now, I am no geologist but, my understanding of fault lines is that there are areas where tectonic plates cross, with one moving over the top of the other, pushing one down and one up. So far so good right?
So the model I have understood is, the fault compresses over time as the plates move, and then an earth quake happens when the stress is suddenly released, allowing the plates to slip some amount, relieving the stress and starting the process over again from its new position.
So now if this is an accurate enough description of the process, it seems to me like more frequent, smaller quakes are likely preferable to less frequent larger ones. So could this triggering of earth quakes actually be a....good thing? Is that question even being asked?
Re:But is this....bad? (Score:5, Informative)
...my understanding of fault lines is that there are areas where tectonic plates cross, with one moving over the top of the other, pushing one down and one up. So far so good right?
Half right. Sometimes it cause by plates rubbing against each other but there are other ways to create earthquakes. Since Texas is far away from any fault lines that I know of I don’t think this is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake [wikipedia.org]
So the model I have understood is, the fault compresses over time as the plates move, and then an earth quake happens when the stress is suddenly released, allowing the plates to slip some amount, relieving the stress and starting the process over again from its new position.
So now if this is an accurate enough description of the process, it seems to me like more frequent, smaller quakes are likely preferable to less frequent larger ones. So could this triggering of earth quakes actually be a....good thing? Is that question even being asked?
It has been asked and the answer is maybe. The energy of small earth quakes is trivial to that of large earthquakes. Small earthquakes might just transmit the stress down the fault line resulting in larger earthquakes later. The current models are not very good and this sort of stuff so no answers yet.
Re: (Score:3)
This. [wikipedia.org] There is indeed a fault zone in Texas.
Also there are different types of faults - convergent and divergent. For example, Mt. St. Helens lies on a convergent fault zone, and Hawaii lies on a divergent fault zone. Yep, volcanoes often form along fault lines.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of energy added by injecting CO2 or whatever else is trivial. An earthquake it "causes" would amount to little more than a truck rumbling by. Any energy release greater than that has to have been from energy already there before the fracking. If the injection added enough energy t
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of energy added by spraying WD40 on a stuck hinge isn't much either but suddenly the door opens freely.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Texas is far away from any fault lines that I know of I don’t think this is the case.
http://legendsofgreenisle.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/texasfaultlines.gif [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Now, I am no geologist
Yes, that is certainly true.
FWIW, what you called out is just one kind of fault -- and not the kind they're talking about here.
In this case, the concern is that the process is creating new (or growing existing) faults that would've otherwise been stable. That's the reason for the statistics -- you can't see what is happening down deep, but you can certainly see statistically significant changes.
That's why its so easy for both sides of the fracking debate to confuse the general public -- on something like th
Possibly (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the 1960's this was brought up with wastewater wells.
Geologists are not sure if the small quakes prevented a larger one, or lead up to a larger one.
On a somewhat related note, if you want to see why wastewater wells near fault lines are bad, ask Oklahoma with 300+ earthquakes in just a few years.
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/ [usgs.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed: SO WHAT.
It's the usual fearmongering: ZOMG EARTHQUAKES EVERYTHING FALLING DOWN!
Except that tiny earthquakes aren't even felt by most people. When it is known that one happened, they are often described as being like a truck rolling by. So yeah, what's the big deal? Some rocks shift a bit, hundreds of feet below the surface. There's more effect here in Texas on building foundations from drought/rain cycles.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. The whole notion of fracking causing earthquakes is like a Rorschach test for political bias. Liberals will drone on about how this is just another example of oil and gas companies destroying the environment and leaving the locals with the cost (somebody above mentioned insurance).
Conservatives will immediately begin attack the conclusion and the science. Because modern conservative politics has an anti-environmental stance (for some odd reason), they immediately take issue with the concept of anythin
Re: (Score:2)
whomever modded this troll has never read The Oklahoman. Owned by a oil/gas billionaire, it's always excusing the industry and only quotes science when its convenient an d supports the oil/gas industry. the rest of the time science is not to be believed.
Stop abusing mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
That is how SOME/most quakes happen. There are not that many plate meeting places, but a lot of areas where there are earthquakes.
I think the theory here is that the only factor that is building up pressure is the injection of gasses/liquids.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I am no geologist but...
Well, I am a geologist, and I don't like tomatoes. It's not the taste that I don't like; tomato paste, tomato sauce, ketchup, those are all perfectly tasty. It's the texture. I just can't stand the way tomatoes feel in my mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
On that scale, rock compresses. Relieve the stress in one place and somewhere down the line, the stress increases. Whoever lives there might not appreciate it so much that you made the 1000 year earthquake happen now. They also won't appreciate the 20 year earthquakes happening at 5 year intervals.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man really? I hate that guy, he's a total douchebag; and of quite questionable upbringing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is *not* fracking ... (Score:1)
Obviously God is punishing Texas
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh, from what I've seen of previous cases, like tobacco or DDT, you eventually end in a state of relatively safe regulation, a few long-running whiners whose neo-liberal idealism won't let them shut-up decades after the science is settled, and life goes on.
Then again, there's also cases like "wind-mill disease" where the science is decidedly not on the side of the "little people". Taking the absolute position that corporations are always in the wrong will not set you on the course to righteous accuracy.
Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget, there are just as many chicken littles as there are big business coverups. For every "smoking isn't bad for your health" there's a "vaccines cause autism." Both scenarios can lead to terrible things. In the particular case of fracking, the studies I've seen tend to lean my opinion toward the chicken little side of things. Even assuming all those studies are nothing but frauds paid for by corporate interests, fracking is already in widespread use.
If it's really half as terrible a danger to the drinking supplies as it's made out to be, where are all the cases of environmental catastrophe and illness that should be endemic by this point? Putting out fake studies are one thing, but it'd be hard to suppress that kind of event for such a hot button issue in this day and age.
And forgive me if I'm not overly worried about potentially causing earthquakes up to a 4.4 magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to drink the water down rivier from a fracking location?
Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. (Score:4, Interesting)
> it's already been proven that in some cases the solutions have found their way into water supplies.
Citation needed.
As far as I am aware there has never been a case of fracking fluids contaminating a water supply.
Senate hearings on the Nat Gas industry earlier this year did not reveal any such cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other way, where people never listen, is what happened with nuclear power, seat belts, electronics on planes, and vaccines:
1. New technology or idea proposed with significant internal research. It gets pushed hard by megacorps who see profit made in volume, but the technical research isn't widespread outside the industry.
2. Problems arise such as cancer, different injuries, slowly-developing illness, etc. Rumors and blame spread as the public is scared into believing anyone with any claim of expertise
Re: (Score:3)
What you neglected to mention is that the "greenies" are the source of much of the fearmongering in those steps and are in many cases simply anti-corporation, except for new "environmental" companies that many have financial interest in, and mostly anti-science. These are groups such as Greenpeace, which its founder has tried to distance himself from [youtube.com] because he actually cares about the end result for the environment.
Now gas injection underground seems like a bad idea, but many greenies are in favor of deep
Re: (Score:1)
megacorps never listen.everything from cigarettes to global warming and fracking have all seemed to have this pattern: 1. new technology or idea proposed with limited research. it gets pushed hard by megacorps who want cash. 2. problems arise such as seismic disturbance, gas in the water supply, etc. 3. industry reacts immediately and violently to the concerns of regular citizens. everything classified as an 'isolated event' and media is threatened with advertising boycott if they report too much about it. 4. mounting evidence suggests new technology is dangerous and has negative consequences. 5. industry responds insisting everything is OK. 6. more evidence mounts, legislation gets proposed to curtail the technology and enact regulation 7. industry pushes back with FUD and insists the effects are 'controversial' and 'unknown' with relation to the technology but that regulation is not the answer because jobs.. 8. deaths, major accidents, and environmental impacts are being seen. 9. Industry starts gladhanding senators and congressmen to ensure interests are seen to. senators, as usual, are familiar with ignoring constituents with less than a million dollars. 10. industry no longer formally responds to complaints. evidence consists solely of legislation they crafted and enacted to support their industry. 11. industry pulls out after investment potential is exhausted or litigation expenses become annoying. pack up, move out, and assign a 'vacant trust' to the property to ensure superfund only kicks taxpayers in the beanbag.
Except for the part where frac'ing isn't new technology. The oilfield has been frac'ing wells since before cigarettes were unsafe. Hell, we've been injecting CO2 almost that long.
Nope, not oil recovery what done it (Score:1)
'Twas graboids. And you can take that to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? (Score:4, Funny)
Graboids [wikipedia.org] could have migrated to Texas.
But that can't be! Kevin Bacon killed them all in the end...oh [wikipedia.org], wait [wikipedia.org]...
Indian Saying (Score:1)
"When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money."
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds to me like a technical challenge. Edible. Money.
To be more precise, non-counterfeitable edible money which has a ... hmmm ... I haven't worked this out yet ... a nutritional value that is greater than or equal to the nutrition that could be brought with that much money. Otherwise, you'd end up with a loop one way or the other so that you could use money to buy food, then sell the food for more money. Or vice versae. The nutritional and count
As a Californian... (Score:1)
REcovery? (Score:5, Funny)
Oil Recovery May Have Triggered Texas Tremors
Makes it sound like the oil was always ours and the Earth stole it.
I'm not racist but.... (insert racist comment) (Score:1)
I would like to know what are the various possible explanations for the tremors, and the rubric used for evaluating the relative plausibility of those explanations, so that we can all evaluate Mr. Frohlich's opinion th
Re: (Score:1)
Hell is a local call... (Score:2)
Dark Humor (Score:1)
Funny Logic (Score:1)
"Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that correlation is equal to causation."
There, fixed the quote...
Two possible causes (Score:2)
1. The end of the world is nigh and the Big J is coming (oil/gas backers view)
2. Fracking is causing this.
Choose one. Because climate change is now, and sticking your head in the tar sands won't change that basic fact.
the worse the result the better for us (Score:2)
if everything goes awry and they manage to destroy the area, this could become a cautionary tale. we can only hope politicians have the insight and backbone to act when it other shoe drops.
Injecting anything causes earthquakes (Score:1)
The same thing happens when water is pumped deep underground during geothermal energy production. But nobody objects to that.
Re:Spelling! (Score:5, Funny)
He meant as opposed to "outvironment" which is all that environment that's outdoors like birds and trees and shit. The "invironment" means his living room, and trust me, the natural gas leaks in there are no joke, especially with all the cheeto-based fracking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Wilmington Field (pdf) [saveballona.org] in Long Beach CA apparently generated sharp quakes in the late 40s, while the oil being extracted caused ground subsidence, trashing all sorts of man made structures in the process.