It's not Fracking that Causes Earthquakes

[RW]

If fracking is causing minor earthquakes, my question would be - so what?



The sizes of earthquake described are happening continuously, all over the world, with no discernible effect.

So you think man made quakes due to oil and gas extraction will have no foreseeable consequence in the future?

[reel]

If fracking is causing minor earthquakes, my question would be - so what?



The sizes of earthquake described are happening continuously, all over the world, with no discernible effect.

So you think man made quakes due to oil and gas extraction will have no foreseeable consequence in the future?

No, not really.  I can't imagine what consequence they would have.  The fracking process creates disparate shear stress in the rock that overloads the rock.  The earthquake releases the stress.  Done.  So what?

[RW]

If fracking is causing minor earthquakes, my question would be - so what?



The sizes of earthquake described are happening continuously, all over the world, with no discernible effect.

So you think man made quakes due to oil and gas extraction will have no foreseeable consequence in the future?

No, not really.  I can't imagine what consequence they would have.  The fracking process creates disparate shear stress in the rock that overloads the rock.  The earthquake releases the stress.  Done.  So what?

Fracking quake magnitudes are rising and being felt far beyond fracking sites.  If they get big enough, they could start doing damage.  I imagine that's a concern.



That aside, how about folks lighting water on fire?  No one seems to want to touch that one.

[reel]

If fracking is causing minor earthquakes, my question would be - so what?



The sizes of earthquake described are happening continuously, all over the world, with no discernible effect.

So you think man made quakes due to oil and gas extraction will have no foreseeable consequence in the future?

No, not really.  I can't imagine what consequence they would have.  The fracking process creates disparate shear stress in the rock that overloads the rock.  The earthquake releases the stress.  Done.  So what?

Fracking quake magnitudes are rising and being felt far beyond fracking sites.  If they get big enough, they could start doing damage.  I imagine that's a concern.



That aside, how about folks lighting water on fire?  No one seems to want to touch that one.

If they get big enough... 5.6 is big enough to feel some ways off, but it's not big enough to do damage.  There is nothing magical about earthquakes.  They are a release of pent up energy in the rock.  The energy needs to come from somewhere.  In nature, this energy is caused by a build up of the massive forces of shifting tectonic plates.  A "man-made" earthquake will release once, then stop, based on the amount of potential energy generated by the process, which is finite.  It could get bigger if there is more fracking in a particular site, but would never get big enough to be a serious concern unless the localized pressures created by the process increase exponentially in scale, which wouldn't make much sense.



I don't know much about the lighting water on fire thing.  I'd heard that the chap in the movie who did that had been doing it for years before the fracking took place in the area, but I don't know if that's true.  There are a huge number of places in the world where natural gas release is a natural phenomenon, whereas most fracking occurs much too deep in the earth to affect the water table.  I say most because I'm sure there are some that aren't deep enough and as Herman said, every case is different.  That doesn't mean that fracking is bad - it means that that particular instance of fracking is bad.  But then so, probably, was drilling any sort of well in that area.

[RW]

If fracking is causing minor earthquakes, my question would be - so what?



The sizes of earthquake described are happening continuously, all over the world, with no discernible effect.

So you think man made quakes due to oil and gas extraction will have no foreseeable consequence in the future?

No, not really.  I can't imagine what consequence they would have.  The fracking process creates disparate shear stress in the rock that overloads the rock.  The earthquake releases the stress.  Done.  So what?

Fracking quake magnitudes are rising and being felt far beyond fracking sites.  If they get big enough, they could start doing damage.  I imagine that's a concern.



That aside, how about folks lighting water on fire?  No one seems to want to touch that one.

If they get big enough... 5.6 is big enough to feel some ways off, but it's not big enough to do damage.  There is nothing magical about earthquakes.  They are a release of pent up energy in the rock.  The energy needs to come from somewhere.  In nature, this energy is caused by a build up of the massive forces of shifting tectonic plates.  A "man-made" earthquake will release once, then stop, based on the amount of potential energy generated by the process, which is finite.  It could get bigger if there is more fracking in a particular site, but would never get big enough to be a serious concern unless the localized pressures created by the process increase exponentially in scale, which wouldn't make much sense.



I don't know much about the lighting water on fire thing.  I'd heard that the chap in the movie who did that had been doing it for years before the fracking took place in the area, but I don't know if that's true.  There are a huge number of places in the world where natural gas release is a natural phenomenon, whereas most fracking occurs much too deep in the earth to affect the water table.  I say most because I'm sure there are some that aren't deep enough and as Herman said, every case is different.  That doesn't mean that fracking is bad - it means that that particular instance of fracking is bad.  But then so, probably, was drilling any sort of well in that area.

At 5.0 and above, earthquakes can do damage.

[reel]

At 5.0 and above, earthquakes can do damage.

If it occurred at shallow depth directly below a population centre that had poor building codes.  Don't frack directly under cities made up of mudbrick huts.

[reel]

This is similar to every human industry.  There should be regulations and assessment of the impacts done for each site.  Don't build a skyscraper on top of a bog.  Don't pump chemical effluent into a river.  Don't frack for gas too shallow or in a geological zone that is heavily populated and prone to man-made earthquakes.



Fracking probably can cause issues if done poorly.  But that by no means implies that it can't be done safely.

[RW]

This is similar to every human industry.  There should be regulations and assessment of the impacts done for each site.  Don't build a skyscraper on top of a bog.  Don't pump chemical effluent into a river.  Don't frack for gas too shallow or in a geological zone that is heavily populated and prone to man-made earthquakes.



Fracking probably can cause issues if done poorly.  But that by no means implies that it can't be done safely.

Yes I'm sure it can be done properly but is it being done properly?

[reel]

How should I know!?



Like anything else, I'm sure some of it is done properly and some isn't.  And of the ones who are doing it wrong, some is probably based on ignorance or incompetence and some is probably based on greed.



But it's not a bad extraction idea.  It's quite effective and reasonably low cost.

[RW]

Some is probably based on greed?  Just some?!?!



What's the long term cost going to be?  Sometimes things that are inexpensive can end up costing you a fortune in the long run.

[reel]

Yeah, just some.  It's an industry that supplies you with energy.  It's not inherently greedy as you seem to suggest.  Thousands of people engaged in it try to do the right thing both from a social and an environmental standpoint.



What's the long term cost going to be of what?  Of fracking as a resource extraction technique?  Pretty minimal.  The earthquake thing is a total red herring and in most geological conditions, the water tables wouldn't be affected even if the fracking does occur too close to the surface.

[RW]

I don't believe the social and environmental stewardship line for one second.  I think MANY do the bare minimum (if that) to meet regulatory markers.  



Face it.  Energy companies are treated with contempt because they repeatedly fail to respect the environment - sometimes with catastrophic consequences.  They should be kept on a damn short leash IMHO.

[reel]

I've done work for Exxon Mobil and they were a horrible pain in the butt with all of their HSE.  Perhaps they get some people who don't respect the rules and try to take shortcuts, but for the most part, they were fanatical extremists about it.  Others fall in a range on the spectrum.  Some do the bare minimum, some go well beyond.  Exxon learned the hard way that doing the minimum was not a good way to be.  I sat across from the first officer of the Valdez for 8 weeks in Korea.  He had some stories to tell, but most of all, there was a constant reminder that you can never let your guard down.  Their HSE manager used to get into screaming matches with the HSE guy from their main subcon (an awful Limey bulldog, who sat next to me) because that guy was a lazy buffoon who was just trying to avoid paperwork.  Then on the other hand, there's Shell and their Arctic adventures from a few years ago.



There's nothing for me to face.  They are people like any others.  Most will assume that everything is going to go well until it doesn't.  Then they learn from their experiences and try to implement processes to counter this aspect of human nature.  It's not like people intentionally create environmental disasters.  People make terrible mistakes in every other field out there as well.  This one just happens to have bigger consequences.  But it is hypocritical to hold them to a higher standard than anyone else or in your case to act as though they are operating to a much lower standard if you don't expect this behaviour from everyone.

[Bricktop]

I don't believe the social and environmental stewardship line for one second.  I think MANY do the bare minimum (if that) to meet regulatory markers.  



Face it.  Energy companies are treated with contempt because they repeatedly fail to respect the environment - sometimes with catastrophic consequences.  They should be kept on a damn short leash IMHO.

Would energy companies exist if you did not use their product?

[Anonymous]

If fracking is causing minor earthquakes, my question would be - so what?



The sizes of earthquake described are happening continuously, all over the world, with no discernible effect.

So you think man made quakes due to oil and gas extraction will have no foreseeable consequence in the future?

No, not really.  I can't imagine what consequence they would have.  The fracking process creates disparate shear stress in the rock that overloads the rock.  The earthquake releases the stress.  Done.  So what?

Fracking quake magnitudes are rising and being felt far beyond fracking sites.  If they get big enough, they could start doing damage.  I imagine that's a concern.



That aside, how about folks lighting water on fire?  No one seems to want to touch that one.

If they get big enough... 5.6 is big enough to feel some ways off, but it's not big enough to do damage.  There is nothing magical about earthquakes.  They are a release of pent up energy in the rock.  The energy needs to come from somewhere.  In nature, this energy is caused by a build up of the massive forces of shifting tectonic plates.  A "man-made" earthquake will release once, then stop, based on the amount of potential energy generated by the process, which is finite.  It could get bigger if there is more fracking in a particular site, but would never get big enough to be a serious concern unless the localized pressures created by the process increase exponentially in scale, which wouldn't make much sense.



I don't know much about the lighting water on fire thing.  I'd heard that the chap in the movie who did that had been doing it for years before the fracking took place in the area, but I don't know if that's true.  There are a huge number of places in the world where natural gas release is a natural phenomenon, whereas most fracking occurs much too deep in the earth to affect the water table.  I say most because I'm sure there are some that aren't deep enough and as Herman said, every case is different.  That doesn't mean that fracking is bad - it means that that particular instance of fracking is bad.  But then so, probably, was drilling any sort of well in that area.

You sound like my husband reel..



He has said the same thing as you have about seismic activity..



And he has said that lighting water on fire happens when anything is drilled into a methane bed..



Fracking was blamed in Alberta when the culprit was a water well drilled into a methane pocket..