Seeking Alpha

Ohio geologists link earthquakes to fracking, state unveils tougher rules

Comments (129)
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Funny that the EPA and USGS didn't find that true. Hmmm. I sense more progressive liberal lies.
    11 Apr, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1238) | Send Message
     
    It just amazes me how you cons find conspiracy and liberalism and lies in every decision. You just will not accept facts no matter what. Life is a conspiracy? Actually the USGS did find problems. They found problems with the areas where the waste water was being introduced back into wells.You might take some time out to do some research on that FACT.
    12 Apr, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    "On average, there were two quakes a year in Ohio greater than magnitude 2.0 between 1950 and 2009. But between 2010 and 2014, that average rose to nine, according to a Dispatch analysis of Ohio Department of Natural Resources data"

     

    If they are lying, this is a finding that would be easily disputed.
    12 Apr, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Paulus
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Interesting data sets. Are they "tricky"? An average of 2 per year over 60 years indicates approx 120 quakes. Did any of those 60 years in the sample have 9 or more incidences? Perhaps 5 consecutive years of those 60 years had 45 of the 120 quakes. Enquiring (sic) minds want to know
    12 Apr, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    I have no doubt that industry staffers are digging into the data, as we type
    12 Apr, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • JMajoris
    , contributor
    Comments (637) | Send Message
     
    The article is about how a state level geologist thinks that fracking induces earthquakes, not pollutes drinking water. The comment was that the EPA and USGS has an opposite opinion then that of the state level geologist.

     

    If I'm missing a connection between drinking water pollution and inducing earthquakes then I apologize. If not, you need to stop clouding the issue.

     

    <<It just amazes me how you cons find conspiracy and liberalism and lies in every decision. You just will not accept facts no matter what. Life is a conspiracy? Actually the USGS did find problems. They found problems with the areas where the waste water was being introduced back into wells.You might take some time out to do some research on that FACT. >>
    12 Apr, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • alfie0077
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I lived in Denver about 1968. Thee is a place called Rocky mountain arsenal. They had a deep well to put radioactive stuff in. It seems it was about 10k feet deep. There was a lot of liquid dumped down it. This caused several earthquakes. When the dumping stopped the quakes stopped too. Perhaps the layers down deep have something to do with the quakes. The liquid there caused slippage. One of the quakes was about 3 AM and woke everyone up. This was pretty severe.
    12 Apr, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    Was there any damage, lives lost in this pretty severe quake?
    13 Apr, 12:53 AM Reply Like
  • sweeps63
    , contributor
    Comments (932) | Send Message
     
    Why is the magnitude being tracked and/or reported on so low, the USGS starts their listing at magnitude 2.5, which is still of such limited magnitude that most people in the occurrence area would not even feel that the event happened. Actually most people would be more likely to feel the 18-wheeler passing by then an earthquake less than 3.0.

     

    At 05:34 UTC this morning (4/13) 2km NNE of Englewood, TN there was a magnitude 2.7 earthquake let's see how many papers carry the news - of course that would be along with the other 62 earthquakes that have happened today (4/13) as of 08:43 UTC.
    13 Apr, 04:45 AM Reply Like
  • Abigsoxfan
    , contributor
    Comments (434) | Send Message
     
    When it comes to conspiracy theories far and away it is the liberals who are afflicted with that disease. Kennedy assassination, 9/11, WMD in Iraq, etc. But go ahead and accuse the other side of having your affliction.
    13 Apr, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Abigsoxfan
    , contributor
    Comments (434) | Send Message
     
    Back in the day if one placed a bunch of dirty rags in the corner of an unused room, rats and mice would appear. The conclusion at the time was that mice and rats were begot from dirty rags. Not enough connection here. Especially when dealing with a planet over 4 billion years old.
    13 Apr, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • garyrm
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    It was also reported that the Ohio geologist's wife started anti-fracking group. Could this fact influence the research?
    14 Apr, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Links please
    15 Apr, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • stashuzz
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    stocknerd was not discussing water pollution, he's saying they inject water back into a depleted to porous formation via an injection well. The wells are very near an exiting fault. This is the favored method of EPA, often putting the water back into the same formation it came from.
    17 Apr, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    Fracking has been taking place for over 50 years. No links to earthquakes before now?

     

    What the frack?
    11 Apr, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Obviously the modern use of the word "fracking" has come to mean "fracking + horizontal drilling". Which you well know has only really taken off in the 21st century. Let's please be intellectually honest in these discussions.
    12 Apr, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Additionally, the recent reports of earthquakes are coming from Ohio (hardly a liberal haven) and Oklahoma (as right wing as a state can be).
    12 Apr, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    Why no increase in the state of PA?

     

    Plenty of fracking/horizontal drilling taking place mere miles from the PA/NY state line. No increase in earthquakes here. The last measurable quake in western NY was centered in Ottawa. No fracking taking place in that region at that time.

     

    Why point a finger at the Nat Gas folks when plate tectonics could be the answer?

     

    I will answer my question: Plate tectonics is not newsworthy and has been going on for millions of years. Fracking/horizontal drilling criticisms will grab headlines.
    12 Apr, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    DCV, I'll address your post from a few different angles:

     

    * I'm not here to support a political agenda, only to explore facts

     

    * I don't know why there haven't increases reported in PA, it's a fair question. There has been "scattered chatter" about increases in other drilling areas, but no substantial studies to date (e.g.,TX, AR). Perhaps there has truly been no issue. Maybe the geological differences make OK and OH more susceptible than these other areas. Dunno.

     

    * Plate tectonics *could* be the answer. But it's not unreasonable to question why two areas not exactly famous for seismic activity 1000 miles apart, which now have substantial drilling w/ the new technologies, are experiencing it but nothing in between in (or at least, not reported)

     

    * Please note that I am not advocating any particular actions (e.g., "shut down all the rigs now"). I just want to know the truth. Then informed decisions can be made. I don't see "shut em all down" as a realistic, or even desired, outcome
    12 Apr, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for your response and the civility of it. Tough to find that sometimes when hot-button issues are discussed.

     

    I, too, would like the facts on this. I keep flashing back to Copernicus and how his discovery was kept under wraps for 30 years because he feared for his life.

     

    A cautious approach is needed when making claims and publishing findings. The race to be first should never outweigh the responsibility to be correct.

     

    Have a great day.
    12 Apr, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Yah, I don't get religious on these things. As a balanced view:

     

    * Okay, let's say earthquakes *can* be caused by the drilling. So far, it's not like there has been widespread damage, and not a single death reported. So maybe we just need to be more careful about *where* drilling is permitted, as we learn more (e.g., not too close to population centers if the geological conditions make it susceptible).

     

    * On the other hand, the nice thing about renewables is that the "costs" are far more transparent than with fossil fuels, because the latter seem to have health, safety, and er military issues related to them ;-)

     

    Cheers.
    12 Apr, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    Vertical fracking has been going on over 40 years. Horizontal fracking (very big difference from vertical) cut its teeth in the Barnett Shale (North Texas) in the mid to late 90's. Approximately 20 years of data is available from this area. Google;

     

    "earthquakes in north texas"

     

    There is an obvious connection that few, until recently, are willing to discuss. Not sure if from fracking or waste water injection. Most are 2-3.5 magnitude. No deaths. I have heard of minor structural damage.

     

    Full disclosure: centrist on position or even pro fracking if away from cities and done right. More concerned about unnecessary methane leaks. There is a right way to do it.
    12 Apr, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • John Grandits
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    Do you really think, or more importantly know, that fracturing today resembles the process that took place 50 years ago?

     

    Given the technological advancements in drilling and exploration machinery the process is much more intensive than it was 50 years ago. We also had computers 50 years ago but today smart phones have as much power, processing speed as machines did a few decades ago that were 100 x the size and cost.
    12 Apr, 11:38 PM Reply Like
  • Harold McGowen
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    I was doing hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells in the Giddings Austin Chalk Field of Texas in 1986. The technology was developed a few years before that. It has been common practice for decades in fields like the Giddings Austin Chalk where it was applied to thousands of wells (no earthquakes by the way). The East Coast was not impacted so it did not enter the popular vernacular until the Marcellus Shale Boom.
    13 Apr, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Then why was no one talking about the fracking boom until the 21st century?

     

    Okay, let's try this again, without getting distracted by the semantics. However impure from a petrochemical engineer's viewpoint, the general populace uses the term "fracking" to mean something like

     

    "the combination of modern hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling credited to George Mitchell with the first well using such methods in the Barnett Shale and became a major force and entered the national consciousness circa 2010"
    13 Apr, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    We put men on the Moon decades ago too...not sure what computer size has to do with anything...
    13 Apr, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    The problem with this definition or use of the term frac'ing is that it is patently wrong.

     

    As deercreekvols and others have pointed out, frac'ing began ca 1948 and has been used & has evolved consistently since that time; in both vertical and horizontal wells, in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs.

     

    The first patent issued for non-vertical drilling was issued in 1891 and the first true horizontal well was drilled in 1929. Commercial horizontal drilling has been in use since the late 1970's.

     

    I'm very much in favor of intellectual honesty. It shouldn't be dumbed-down or incorrectly redefined.
    17 Apr, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Then please propose an intellectually honest definition that captures the modern methods of drilling that have made the recent gas boom possible in shale formations, starting circa 2008-ish.

     

    Every industry-written definition I've ever seen, and have heard described by industry participants themselves at conferences on the subject, speak to the new technologies and techniques re: combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

     

    I guess I'm sympathetic if the general public wants to simplify all this into a single verb.
    17 Apr, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Harold McGowen
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    I guess "No one" in this context means only people outside of large urban centers on the East (and possibly West) Coast. The term "entered the national consciousness" has more to do with the spread of knowledge in the general population through various communications media over time than it does with historical facts.

     

    It seems likely that "No one" was talking about the "fracking boom" until the 21st century because it had mainly been applied in rural areas of the country where people familiar with the oil and gas industry resided and therefore it was not really news. Once people that had never had any contact with the upstream industry encountered companies leasing and drilling in their area, it became a "new" thing to them.

     

    Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. For example, petrochemical engineers work in refineries and chemical plants (downstream industry). Petroleum Engineers are experts in upstream technologies. On the other hand hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells using "slick water" fracs in literally thousands of wells in Texas from the mid 1980's onward is an actual fact. I know because I was there and recommended the first hydraulic fracture treatment of a horizontal well in the Giddings Austin Chalk for my employer at the time, who happened to be one of the largest operators in the field.

     

    The science behind combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is not new. OnePetro is an online library of technical literature for the oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) industry. With contributions from 18 publishing partners and over 160,000 items, OnePetro.org is the definitive resource on upstream oil and gas. A quick OnePetro word search on the combined terms "Hydraulic Fracturing" AND "Horizontal Well" yields 2,459 technical papers published between 1980 and 2000.

     

    Another little known fact, George Mitchell's idea of modern "Slick Water" hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells was actually borrowed from the Giddings Austin Chalk field. His innovation was not horizontal wells or slick water fracs but rather applying the combination of these technologies in a "shaley" type formation that was not economical to drill and frac vertically. That is, the "new" thing is developing shale formations not hydraulic fracturing.
    18 Apr, 02:50 AM Reply Like
  • Harold McGowen
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    The primary innovations in these hydraulically fractured horizontal wells that are being discussed here has to do with:

     

    1) Completing wells in "shales" versus sandstone or limestone reservoirs. The breakthrough was that shales were considered to be un-producible source rock versus producible reservoir rock (sandstone and limestone)
    2) More efficient methods of drilling, completing, and controlling the placement of hydraulic fractures that have evolved over the years.
    18 Apr, 03:03 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Okay. So the general public is using 1 word to substitute for the ~47 you put forth directly above.
    18 Apr, 07:35 AM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    Horizontal drilling, frac'ing, shale .... 3 terms. I have confidence in the general public's ability to comprehend, differentiate and properly use the terms.

     

    Like most other industries, the O&G industry has its own jargon and terms which may not be easily or completely understood by the 'general public' without help from those of us in the industry. I believe that, for the most part, an educated general public is capable of understanding, able to discern and able to properly use / discuss the jargon.

     

    As for the issue you've brought up, I think Harold is exactly right:

     

    'It seems likely that "No one" was talking about the "fracking boom" until the 21st century because it had mainly been applied in rural areas of the country where people familiar with the oil and gas industry resided and therefore it was not really news. Once people that had never had any contact with the upstream industry encountered companies leasing and drilling in their area, it became a "new" thing to them.'
    18 Apr, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    You have a higher opinion of the general public than I do.

     

    I live near the Eagleford Shale formation and I can assure you that all the activity is in decidedly rural areas. What part of the Bakken activity would you consider not rural? How about Fayetteville? I know many people who are actually doing the drilling in the Marcellus, ain't many staying in big city hotels because all of their activity is in more rural areas.

     

    Tell me more about this "fracking boom" that waited until 2008, until it drove a recent massive runup in land and mineral rights prices that were otherwise backwaters in South Texas, a precipitous supply-driven drop in US natural gas prices, switching the plans for Gulf of Mexico LNG ports to change from import to export facilities, and enabling diner waitresses in Williston ND to get paid up to $25/hour. Or is that all a figment of the general public's imagination because it is only now that the left wing media Illuminati just now started to cover it?
    18 Apr, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    More generally, words mean whatever the majority of a populace decide it means. If you don't believe me Google the phrase "words that now mean the opposite of what they used to mean". And see what I did there with using a company name as a verb?

     

    The petrochem purists argue that the shortening of "hydraulic fracturing" is "fracing" not "fracking".

     

    So the general populace has hijacked the word "fracking" to refer to the modern (circa 2010) technology and processes utilized to extract hydrocarbon-based products from previously unexploited resources on a large scale.

     

    Booyah. :-)
    18 Apr, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    I disagree. I believe the general populace has misunderstood and misattributed the term due to ignorance and the intentional transmogrification of it by those who prey on peoples' fear of the unknown for personal gain.

     

    Ignorance can be fixed. Unwarranted fear can be addressed with full and balanced transparency & disclosure. The (un)ethical issues are the most difficult to combat but must be challenged.

     

    In this instance, are you sure that you haven't transferred your own confusion about the topic / term onto 'the general populace'?

     

    As for the definition of the term, the example you cite is pertinent only for common vernacular. As long as hydraulic fracturing / frac'ing / fracking remain part of industry jargon its meaning will always be determined by the industry.

     

    As per your earlier comments, there is 'physical' rural and then there is 'media' rural. Given the proliferation of links to 'big data' and lots of information, in general, I don't think anyone can be effectively rural or isolated today unless they want to be and put a lot of effort into it.

     

    The frac'ing boom didn't wait until 2008. What happened from the late 1980's - mid 2000's was the realization that existing tools could be utilized to liberate hydrocarbons from source rocks that historically gave them up only under specific geologic conditions and over geologic timescales.

     

    The nature of the source rocks requires much closer well spacing vs conventional reservoir rocks in order to recover a reasonable & economic fraction of in-place hydrocarbons. As a result, many more drilled wells are required, much more publicity is generated and more people are introduced to unfamiliar business practices.
    18 Apr, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Given that I've attended multiple conferences in recent years, in which senior executives of many of the major players have stated that it is technological breakthroughs that are making it possible... I think I'll take their word for it.
    18 Apr, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    That is a non-answer and isn't relevant to your original issue / problem / challenge.

     

    Technological breakthroughs have happened throughout the history of the O&G industry and will continue to occur. So?
    18 Apr, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    The technologies (which include combinations of technologies, as well as associated processes) only recently got to the point to make widespread exploitation of the shale formations economically viable. Or it would have happened before. The formations have been known for a long time, it's not like geologists suddenly woke up in the 21st century and said "oh hey, look at all this shale". And it's not like people suddenly realized that technology at the state it existed 20 years ago would have been suitable for economical use now -- the various components were not in a state to make it economically viable. That's why the Dept of Energy put so much funding to support the development of the technology (shh, the industry doesn't like when that's discussed). And I learned this from the people actually using it, through direct conversations as well as hearing these O&G executives say it to our audience. So again, I'll take their word for it over yours.
    18 Apr, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    'Or it would have happened before'

     

    Really not true. As mentioned previously, directional / horizontal drilling as well as frac'ing have been around for quite a while and were capable of being effectively used in shales.

     

    Commodity prices, the existence of significant new conventional plays as well as deeply ingrained E&P concepts are primary reasons why shales weren't seriously pursued.

     

    Of the three, the last one is IMO the critical one. Shales have long been known as hydrocarbon source rocks but they've also been viewed as 'junk rocks' and /or seals (of conventional reservoirs, preventing hydrocarbon leakage / escape). For those reasons, they had not been studied to the same extent & detail as conventional reservoir rocks.

     

    BTW, I've actually used all of these things; throughout my ~40 year career.
    18 Apr, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/1lhrsqp

     

    Please inform ANGA and EIA that there have been no improvements in the technology, as they seem to be lost in the woods, what with all those quotes about how new technology has made the fracking boom possible in the shale plays. Thank heavens we have you to inform us that all these industry sources are wrong (and other gems like -- North Dakota and South Texas aren't rural). LOL.
    18 Apr, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    Comprehension issues?

     

    How does "Technological breakthroughs have happened throughout the history of the O&G industry and will continue to occur" get interpreted as "there have been no improvements in the technology"?

     

    What was that you said about intellectual honesty?

     

    LOL
    18 Apr, 11:29 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    I can understand why you are now trying to squirm out of your *multiple* postings in this comment stream, in which you have been trying to argue that the technology has been there for a long time for the large-scale exploitation of the shale reserves, which is only now occurring.

     

    Are you now admitting that's a ridiculous point of view?

     

    Or just continuing to be tediously silly with semantics? Oh, the "concept" of hydraulic fracturing isn't "new", so it's not "new technology". When, if you know as much as you pretend to about the industry, you'd know that the technical capabilities have improved dramatically in recent decades... enabling phenomena such as what we are seeing in the Eagleford, Marcellus, Utica, Haynesville, Bakken, etc. formations. Oh, that's "evolution", not "new technology".

     

    Unhelpful and tedious semantics. Intelligent people would that's new technology. Just like the concept of an IC in a PC isn't a new concept, but the "technology" within the IC gets better with every generation.

     

    Okay, I'm bored with you. You can have the last word. But good to know not to read any of your articles.
    18 Apr, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • Harold McGowen
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    Tricky, you and many of the other posters make some good points. There is no denying that the scale of the application of these technologies is greater than what was seen in the past.

     

    I think the conflict here is a matter of perspective. The recent rapid growth follows the principle of Diffusion of Innovations, which has a predictable growth pattern and looks like a wave. You are probably familiar with this phenomenon, but for the sake of discussion, here is a great summary: http://bit.ly/1nhSHRl. Some people see the innovation wave suddenly coming towards them while others have been riding the wave for decades, which makes for very different perspectives. What can be seen in the commentary is the difference in perspective between the pioneers/early adopters of these technologies, the early/late majority adopters of these technologies, and the general population that has been exposed more recently and are just observers. The pioneers of horizontal well frac’cing have had the closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators in the field.

     

    The engineers and geologists that developed these technologies over the last 30 years see only evolutionary changes in technology while late adopter CEOs may feel that these technologies are revolutionary. Pioneers toiled in obscurity for years, slowly perfecting all these tools and an understanding of how the physics work down-hole long before early adopters noticed, adopted, and proved up the concepts and technologies on a large scale. Once the early adopters paved the way and removed the remaining risk factors the early majority jumped in and the growth rate of adoption exploded. What the general public calls a “Boom” is actually the occurrence of “Critical Mass”, which is when a sufficient number of adopters of an innovation in a people group (or industry) recognize the value of an innovation such that the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining and creates almost exponential growth.

     

    In this discussion I think we are all confusing the diffusion of the negative ideas attached to the technology with the diffusion of the technology itself. The latter has apparently sparked the former. A more precise way to say what I was trying to say before might be: “The controversy started when operators moved into largely undrilled urban areas of states that historically had intense drilling/frac'cing mainly in rural areas AND almost all areas of states that had never experienced intense development activities at all.”

     

    People that had never heard of frac'cing were shocked to discover that it existed. Many of us in the industry have been shocked by all the controversy. Having never experienced any of the negative issues being claimed by detractors of the technology during our long careers our initial reaction has been confusion as to what the fuss is all about.

     

    Coincidence does not prove causation and earthquake patterns occur over geologic time, so a year over year comparison is interesting but it may also be meaningless. The entire data set needs to be examined, not just the negative examples. For example, how many field have been developed using these technologies that have NOT had an increase in earthquakes? The physics of what is actually going on down-hole is not significantly different than what was going on in the thousands of fracs pumped in the preceding decades. That is, we have a huge population (many thousands) of analogous events (fracs) that occurred over a long period of time in diverse areas, depths and formations, and we did not observe the negative unintended consequences being ascribed to the current events. Given the evidence at hand, the negative narrative seems to be following the pattern of the band-wagon effect. That is, as more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the lack of underlying evidence.
    19 Apr, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Buyandhold 2012
    , contributor
    Comments (1835) | Send Message
     
    So the earth shakes a little due to fracking. Isn't that a small price to pay for cheap energy? So a few people go to their kitchen sinks, light a match, and have an instant blowtorch coming out of their faucets due to fracking. Isn't that a small price to pay for cheap energy?

     

    I say keep the cheap energy flowing. Just install grab bars in every room in your house so that you can hang on to something when the house starts to shake. And, for goodness sake, don't light any matches near the kitchen sink.
    11 Apr, 09:16 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Stop lying.
    11 Apr, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    You panic alot, don't you. The sky is falling. Were you called a drama queen in school?
    11 Apr, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • capitolp
    , contributor
    Comments (533) | Send Message
     
    Why cant we just pump something back in the hole so the Earth will just kind of slide around, how about landfill slime. See folks, Lemonade it what you make and everyone is happy. I just love Boone Pickens, can't wait for the Nat Gas cell phone. Lets get everyone/thing on Gas, the company store wants you to open a account for your own good, of course.
    12 Apr, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • John Grandits
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    'I say keep the cheap energy flowing.'

     

    As long as it's NIMBY. Live within 5 miles of a frac operation?
    12 Apr, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • TreyT
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    It's wastewater injection not fracking directly tha will be the cause. This smells a bit like propaganda.
    11 Apr, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Can we pipe down on the political commentary? This is interesting news and something as a long I will keep an eye on

     

    I have no idea or opinion on the rightness of the study but I do know that studies
    Can be poorly designed or have results manipulated

     

    I personally don't see any fracking ban on the horizon that would be meaningful but
    I appreciate the update. I disagree with most of the above commenters who are rabidly pro or anti fracking or pro or anti Obama etc
    11 Apr, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • jcm2320
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Tgar, agreed - it would be nice to see some on point comments address the possible effects of this study on the business and value of any of the involved companies. I'm on this site to gain investment knowledge, not waste my time muddling through soapbox political comments on either side.
    Long MWE
    12 Apr, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Good post. The polarized political postings are tiresome.
    12 Apr, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1238) | Send Message
     
    Tgar, you live in a civilized and quaint world. Everything is political now. the season has started (did it ever leave?) where the cons continue to blame everything on Obama and/or the government. This article is not about fracking and possible repercussions, it is about any chance one side gets to blame the other. Sorry, that is the economic/political climate to modern America. Saying as you did "calm down" does not work on a people who are apoplectic with hate and anger. I believe there will legislation limiting fracking in some way, thus impacting companies that frack.
    12 Apr, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • badbernanke
    , contributor
    Comments (231) | Send Message
     
    I agree tgar. In my home state we have not had earthquakes or fracking. Yet we have ground disturbance -- cracking and settling earth -- from things like depletion of our groundwater from pumping for human consumption.

     

    It seems conceivable that the fracking and wastewater re-injection -- and the withdrawal of huge volumes of natural gas and oil -- could have impacts. While I tend favor fracking, it seems to me that it would be helpful to have real science conducted to ascertain the source of impacts and ways to minimize them.
    12 Apr, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • scout44
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    non taxpaying lib in mexico who spews hate and anger for those who do not worship at the shrine of green energy.
    12 Apr, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (416) | Send Message
     
    TGAR:
    True---alas, when the government is in everything---everything becomes political.
    12 Apr, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    bdarken, that IS the problem.
    13 Apr, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • Abigsoxfan
    , contributor
    Comments (434) | Send Message
     
    Really? Any geology experts out there. Can anybody explain the size and mass of the earth and how shallow this fracking is in relation to the size of the earth or how deep the actions of the earth that effect earthquakes are? This is left wing propaganda which wants to have more control over our economy and reduce our use of energy and economic activity so the "elites" can live comfortably and we can all live in caves. Lets look at hypocritical "environmentalist" Al (energy hog) Gore.

     

    http://bit.ly/1euyrJU
    12 Apr, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1238) | Send Message
     
    2007 email? Get real.
    12 Apr, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    ODNC's statement states that the drilling activity in question occurred "near a previously unknown microfault".

     

    In all likelihood, the recent quakes had more to do with injected fluids changing stresses associated with the fault system rather than frac'ing, per se.

     

    USGS places the focal point for the quakes at a depth of ~17,000' below the surface. The Utica is ~6,000' below the surface at the locations in question.

     

    Ohio earthquake and fault maps show a series of WNW-ESE trends in Mahoning and Columbiana counties. It is likely that fluids associated with O&G activities interacted with a deep-seated fault system in a way that allowed rocks along the fault system to slide past one another thereby relieving built-up subsurface stresses and generating the earthquakes.

     

    Though these quakes may be a bit disconcerting, the associated stress relief most likely reduces the probability of larger future earthquakes along that fault system.
    12 Apr, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    Also probably worth repeating a similar discussion from 2012:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    12 Apr, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1987) | Send Message
     
    This is the crack the EPA was waiting on. Further controls on fracking are now expected. WTI and Nat Gas soon may find a price base from the threat of Federal Frac restrictions. Watch the Domestic Rig Count.
    13 Apr, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • JohntheOld
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Craig, as often happens, I enjoy your analysis and agree. Plate movement is an ongoing event that will result in earthquakes. Do small ones relieve the pressure? I do not know, but tend think it may do so.
    On the other hand, the first large Okie quake that I felt made me wonder "how long will this go on?" The power is amazing.
    14 Apr, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • randyguyer
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    Right. Because we never had earthquakes before fracking
    12 Apr, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    So which of this are you disputing?

     

    "On average, there were two quakes a year in Ohio greater than magnitude 2.0 between 1950 and 2009. But between 2010 and 2014, that average rose to nine, according to a Dispatch analysis of Ohio Department of Natural Resources data"
    12 Apr, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Steve Doering
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Interesting that Ohio Geologists link the earthquakes to drilling in the Marcellus shale in Ohio in that the only drilling activity in Ohio is occurring in the Utica shale. What a bunch of crap. Get the story straight idiots.
    12 Apr, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    The reports are coming from the Youngstown area in eastern Ohio. Every map I google of "Marcellus Shale" covers that area. They overlap. Last line from Wikipedia entry...

     

    "It lies a few thousand feet under the Marcellus Shale."

     

    Carry on.
    12 Apr, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • ECapo
    , contributor
    Comments (434) | Send Message
     
    Well I guess this may be the beginning of a host of articles that the sky is falling to drive down frack related stocks by the shorts.
    12 Apr, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • Marek
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like a buying opportunity is coming up.
    13 Apr, 01:37 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    If they survived the water issues, they'll probably survive this concern re: earthquakes
    13 Apr, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • PFD
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    The reality is that all energy forms have negative environmental consequences and some regulation is required in order to keep unscrupulous operators from creating harm to the environment. Fracking will be subjected to increased regulation and studies, which will ultimately raise some pricing. As an investor, I look at the coming storm as a potential boost to the beaten down coal stocks. Coal suffered greatly with the advent of more productive, slightly regulated fracking. BTW, there are more than sufficient political sites to vent on the merits of public policy. IMHO this is an investment site and political issues should be brought up only to study the investment ramifications. Pontification is best saved for the rants of the talking heads on both sides of the aisle.
    12 Apr, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Great post. EVERY single form of energy has its downsides, no free lunch. Best to be intellectually honest about them and make calm, sober choices.
    12 Apr, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    PFD

     

    Agree whole heartedly
    Fighting about politics is not productive on this investment site

     

    That's what relatives are for
    12 Apr, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2393) | Send Message
     
    Or to put it another way: until you tear down your house (deforestation for your lumber); sell your car (gasoline has many of the same additives as fracking fluid); and turn off your heat (gas, oil coal, electric, envirowhackjobs hate em all when it is convenient): please do us all a favor. SILENCE!

     

    And whatever ya do don't get flatulent, you silly methane emitters!
    12 Apr, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    LOL. I have family members who are as socialist as they get. And others who listen to all 4 hours of Rush Limbaugh every day he's on. Makes family parties entertaining for a little while, I enjoy poking the bears on both sides.
    12 Apr, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    For the record it's only 3 hours.
    12 Apr, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • macgillgb
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    It is funny how people believe what they want to believe. You simply can't alter the natural design of the earth without consequence. Remember in Florida quite a few years back when long droughts resulting in a LOT of sinkholes? Nature. Remove the water that exists and gravity will eventually take effect to fill that hole. Fracking is no different. Remove liquid and gas that has filled pocket in the rock for millions of years and there will be an effect. Pumping significant pressure into those pockets and what do you think the result is going to be. This is common sense 101. Not wanting to hear it because it might result in let profits in our investments doesn't make it so. This has nothing to do with politics. I has to do with common sense and when there is so much money involved we will always see people turn a blind eye because of the potential ramifications. I love the money I'm making on the oil/gas boom, but I have also been paying attention to this problem for years. Nothing new now, other than the reality of the problems getting bigger which makes it harder to pretend nothing is happening. Simple geology, not politics. This issue will get much worse over the next five years. Hide and watch.
    12 Apr, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1238) | Send Message
     
    Coal is dead. DEAD. It is a dirty (the worst) and any investment in coal will result in economic death also.
    12 Apr, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    You may want to send your "coal is dead" message to the folks in China and other parts of the world who are using coal at record paces.
    12 Apr, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    Long (YZC)- just wanted to disclose that I do invest in coal.

     

    Long (CSX), a coal transporter, among other freight.
    12 Apr, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    It would also be news to the Germans
    12 Apr, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • JMajoris
    , contributor
    Comments (637) | Send Message
     
    Dirty eh?

     

    Any idea how much methane is released in the atmosphere during LNG harvest and transport? Any idea what that leaked methane does to our atmosphere?

     

    Do a little research and then let us know what you think "The Worst" is.

     

    <<Coal is dead. DEAD. It is a dirty (the worst) and any investment in coal will result in economic death also. >>
    12 Apr, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • sweeps63
    , contributor
    Comments (932) | Send Message
     
    stocknerd if coal is dead then I guess so is steel as the Coke (not the drink) used in its derivation typically comes from bituminous coal.
    13 Apr, 04:00 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    I am long MWE, EPD, HCLP, ETE, KMP, CVX, SZYM ( which has developed a drilling lubricant)
    http://bit.ly/1euEe20

     

    This is another article
    My take on this is that this will likely be more rules that will spread possibly to some other states. It seems that likely some wells will be shut based on seismic activity and I want to know: What company stands to benefit from having seismic meters installed in wells everywhere?

     

    The big picture is that none of these quakes sound serious but I think limiting activity at a well after one quake that hits 1 on the Richter scale may be a too much and hopefully other states would select a scale of 2 or 3
    12 Apr, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • THECHEMIST
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    I live near this area and according to the local news these earthquakes are due to fracking near a previously unknown FAULT LINE in the earth. We have hundreds of wells in the county south of this area without one earthquake. I doubt this will halt fracking in the rest of Ohio to the south of this fault line where jobs and income are welcomed.
    12 Apr, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Chemist for this helpful comment
    It brings some needed perspective to someone who has feet
    On the ground in Youngstown
    12 Apr, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • sweeps63
    , contributor
    Comments (932) | Send Message
     
    As one who was previously in the Geology field, I think people are missing one of the important points that the earthquakes are near a previously unknown fault line. Had this fault line been known than the nature in which the fracking would be done (if at all) in this area would most likely be different.
    13 Apr, 04:07 AM Reply Like
  • rjgottardi@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Thank you Tricky...in God We Trust...all others with an opinion should bring DATA to support their claims.
    12 Apr, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    Just a simple question, has there been any documented case of damage to residents living in areas of earthquakes "caused" by fracking?
    12 Apr, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    I have read stories about this issue and have seen no evidence of damage
    That said if I lived in an area that was getting Richter 3 earthquakes and is was suspected that. Waste water injections at a previously unknown fault was causing them I would be a little nervous about my family's safety
    To say the least

     

    But from my observations I do not think IMO that these activities
    Will likely cause a large enough earthquake to cause
    Damage.

     

    But if I was a government official in charge of the safety of drilling
    And use of Natural resources in Ohio or a Scientist in Ohio I might
    Approach the issue differently
    12 Apr, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    So we have extremists on both sides getting worked up into a lather when there has never been any real damage caused by "fracked caused earthquakes". Hmm.
    12 Apr, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • sweeps63
    , contributor
    Comments (932) | Send Message
     
    One of the problems with talking about earthquakes and fault lines is that there is more than one Fault Type and as such what holds for one does not hold for all. Also, as one person above stated that small earthquakes can indeed be good in some fault types as they can act as a pressure relief mechanism (think of the pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker -- if it wasn't there then you dinner might explode rather than just cook). Seismologists are actively studying the ramifications on whether intentionally inducing small earthquakes can relieve some of the stress along fault lines and thereby reduce the intensity, duration, occurrence of future earthquakes.

     

    Also of note a less than 3.0 magnitude earthquake occurs over 1 million times per year and is only felt slightly by some people and with no damage to buildings. An earthquake of magnitude 3.0-3.9 happens over 100,000 times a year and is often felt by people, but rarely (so yes it can cause some minimal damage -- especially if you have a china store) causes damage and shaking of indoor objects can be noticeable.
    13 Apr, 04:21 AM Reply Like
  • Overanalytical
    , contributor
    Comments (609) | Send Message
     
    Where I live you can't drive 2 miles without seeing some serious frackin' going on and we've never had an earthquake in my life.
    12 Apr, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Chaudhuris
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    This is not the first time that such evidence has been found. Cuadrilla, a company engaged in fracking in England admitted that their actions had resulted in increased seismic activity.

     

    http://bit.ly/1euZkgG

     

    Of course there are many questions - whether this will only happen in certain places depending upon the geological structure there or can it happen just about anywhere, whether these are mild in nature or can they have dangerous consequences and so on. This requires scientific research, not religious or ideological reasoning.

     

    Also just because there has not been any earthquake previously in a place because of fracking, does not mean it cannot happen in the future. That's why this needs careful and serious investigation.
    12 Apr, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • arthur_bishop1972
    , contributor
    Comments (2142) | Send Message
     
    Too much $ involved to just scrap it. Deals and compromises will be worked out in every place that has problems-however the locals decide to define 'problems'.

     

    Many of the commenters here are acting like animals, swept away in left or right wing rhetoric (and so easily too). Says a lot about America sadly.
    12 Apr, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • 6034700
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    Fracking stocks and those who service this industry will be avoided until further research becomes public. One must now avoid these stocks or short them.
    12 Apr, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    This advice seems rash....it seems most likely that there are small. Unknown
    Faults out there and that a tiny percentage of drilling sites are near these and tend to cause tremors when waste water
    Is injected

     

    It like when I sold Boeing at the first hint of
    787 problems-big mistake on my part

     

    That said it pays to be aware of risks.....and rewards
    12 Apr, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    I guess the offshore drillers will now be the place to be. Backup the truck.
    12 Apr, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • sweeps63
    , contributor
    Comments (932) | Send Message
     
    Yeah my SDRL thanks you Rebel
    13 Apr, 04:22 AM Reply Like
  • Marek
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    Ok. You first.
    13 Apr, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Surrealty
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Time to feed a different beast.?

     

    http://bit.ly/Qh9PsH
    12 Apr, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (283) | Send Message
     
    Fracking is a rather shallow procedure in relation to the earth's crust. California is the quake capital of the US and they don't frack and hardly drill. I smell a certain agenda in this report...
    12 Apr, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Respectfully, I find both of those points fairly irrelevant to the conversation on the issue raised, because they imply that seismic activity ONLY occurs by actions of tectonic shifts below the zone of modern "fracking" activity.
    12 Apr, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • John Grandits
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    'California is the quake capital of the US and they don't frack and hardly drill.' - Spurious correlation
    12 Apr, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    California has been fracking in the Monterry formation for years. Drilling for over a hundred years. We just talk, act and vote like liberals. Yes we do have a few quakes now and then. I've been waiting for "The Big One" all my life, seven decades now.
    13 Apr, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • Marek
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    What if you already had it?
    13 Apr, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    I was not alive in 1906. San Fernando and Loma Prieta don't qualify.
    13 Apr, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (283) | Send Message
     
    Excessive removal of ground water has triggered seismic activity Tricky. I still smell an agenda here...
    13 Apr, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Background: I knew nothing about the political makeup of the state of Ohio or its Dept of Natural Resources before Googling a little just now.

     

    It would appear the Governor is a Rep. A little Googling seems to indicate that environmentalists are concerned that the ODNR is aggressively trying to START drilling in state parks.

     

    So... what exactly are you accusing the (apparently Republic-led) ODNR of, since you "smell an agenda"?
    13 Apr, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (283) | Send Message
     
    No problem with leaving the state parks to the critters. You know quite well there are those who would just as soon stop drilling and fracking everywhere. That is what I call an agenda. The folks in Ohio have the right to regulate their resources as do other states. I'm cool with that...
    14 Apr, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    Great discussion and viewpoints on fracking.

     

    NY has held a moratorium on fracking until Gov. Andrew Cuomo gets all the information. He has had the Department of Environmental Conservation's opinion for almost two years and has failed to act on it. Perhaps if my Governor can find some donors who would benefit from fracking the moratorium will be lifted. Until then, PA will show the Empire State what can be gained from allowing this.

     

    Sitting on top of Nat Gas and can't do anything about it. My PA neighbors, several miles south, have reaped financial gains. I have my taxes increased each year.
    12 Apr, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • toomuchgas
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    No law against starting earthquakes, just helping nature along to do something that would happen eventually anyway.
    12 Apr, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    :-) well... if there isn't a law against starting earthquakes, Congress should create one!
    13 Apr, 12:01 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    Tricky, I'm sure they already have. If we pass the no-fracking law, we will have no earthquakes, Period! Increasing the National Debt is un-patriotic! July 3, 2008, B.O. Google that... If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period.
    13 Apr, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Richard Waldren
    , contributor
    Comments (221) | Send Message
     
    Up until a few years ago wasn't the biggest earthquake in Missouri around 1850 or 1860 sometime. So nothing new here.
    13 Apr, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    Missouri has a significant fault that has a major earthquake every 200-500 years, give or take a few.
    13 Apr, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • Manitobatex
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    Well, this will eventually prove itself in time if North Dakota starts quaking.
    13 Apr, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • spinrbait
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    i live in upstate south carolina. in the past 3 months or so, there have been 3 earthquakes within 150 miles of my home. plus one bad one in brazil, (i think). weren't there just several out in california as well? i think there are more earthquakes happening regardless of fracking.
    13 Apr, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • joeduck
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Has no one read the articles about the Sun Spot explosions currently occurring potentially causing elevated increases for earth quakes and volcano's on our planet. Why suddenly is fracking the only potential cause?
    13 Apr, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    I think the point is that they linked earthquakes to a particular well in Ohio and they passed more restrictive laws re seismic monitoring at wells

     

    I don't have the data and I am not a seismologist

     

    As an investment I am still planning on holding all of my pipelines and other fracking related holding because I do not thing this will spiral as far as my investment is concerned

     

    However while it is possible the relation of specific earthquakes to this well may be wrong it could be right and not dismissed out of hand
    13 Apr, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • toomuchgas
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I live in Maine and we two or three earthquakes a year which rattle the windows and there is no fracking within 500 miles.
    13 Apr, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • richard.w.goodwin@att.net
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Small earthquakes “… can be triggered by disposal of fracking waste water in deep wells near geological faults”. Please consider the following:
    • RECYCLING OF FRAC WATER AVOIDS DEEP WELL DISPOSAL AND RELATED LOCALIZED EARTHQUAKE EFFECT
    Recycling frac waters would not only save operators money and secure ‘fast track’ permits, but reuse would avoid deep well injection – removing a high potential contributing factor to localized earthquakes.
    I refer to “Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies” National Research Council 2012. Per ‘Executive Summary’:
    “the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events
    Injection for disposal of waste water derived from energy technologies into the subsurface does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few evetns have been documented over the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation”
    My work, economically justifying recycle of treated frac or production waters would eliminate use of disposal wells.
    This section has been extracted from my publicly available comments accepted and posted by [4/5/14] USAEPA Scientific Advisory Board [SAB] Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel’s November 20, 2013 teleconference website for the panel’s consideration. This website is
    http://1.usa.gov/1n4Tp4h
     Fracked vs. Deep Disposal Wells – Potential Earthquake Impact
    Millions of gallons of water are typically used to fracture, or frack, a well, and much of it eventually returns to the surface. Some is recycled, but most is pumped down disposal wells. And the extra fluid can migrate far from the well.
    I refer to "Injection-Induced Earthquakes," by Bill Ellsworth, a USGS geophysicist [Feb, 2014], who stated that unlike hydraulic fracturing, wastewater injection is done at lower pressures to permanently store the fluid deep underground. Because it operates at considerable depth and often with considerable volumes of fluid, the wastewater discarding process may exert significant stress within multiple subterranean levels that can potentially cause unavoidable disturbances.

     

    Please contact me if I can help with future articles.
    Richard W. Goodwin 4/13/14
    13 Apr, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • stockdunn
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    I find those who are climate change deniers and claim fracking does not cause earthquakes generally have a financial interest in that being the case. Those of us who believe the climate is changing due to man's activities and that fracking waste water disposal may be causing earthquakes tend to have an interest in the safety of our families, future generations, and the survival of our planet.
    14 Apr, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • Marek
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    If that is what you look for, then that IS all you find.
    15 Apr, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1017) | Send Message
     
    stockdunn, I find your comments rude, insulting and without facts or merit. Thank you for sharing.
    15 Apr, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • mydogmoe
    , contributor
    Comments (283) | Send Message
     
    stockdunn, no one is denying the climate changes. Let's face it, even elementary school children know about the extinction of dinosaurs and the coming and going of the Ice Age. Don't tell me you are going to attempt to pin those two events on mankind...
    16 Apr, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • toomuchgas
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    So you don't want oil and gas produced and used and I assume you never use it. Do you want a huge increase in nuclear or reduce energy consumption by 90% throwing the country into a deep recession? Solar and wind are terrific but they'll never be more than 10% of production and will have to be subsidized by gas. They have been tearing down hydro dams to allow fish to move upstream and in many areas there is a water shortage slowing hydro production.
    18 Apr, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • sweeps63
    , contributor
    Comments (932) | Send Message
     
    stockdunn, though I hope you are not painting the picture of those of us that deny the extremes of the climate change proponents or fracking causes earthquake position as not having an interest in the safety of our families, .... Evidently you did not read my non-partisan explanation about earthquakes.

     

    For those that truly have researched the climate change issue you would also know that we are past due to be in an ice age (scientific proof that one occurs approximately every 10,000 years) -- evidence can be seen in the record cold temperatures and unseasonal winter weather (though the record high temps seem to be the temps that keep everyone's attention). Is mankind causing increased temps -- Yes. Could mankind's interaction be buffering the onset of colder climates -- Under scientific investigation.

     

    If we are going to talk about what "May" cause earthquakes than why are people limiting themselves to fracking waste water disposal? Would injection of any medium near a fault line be reason for additional research/investigation... -- Yes, and when the fault line is known then alternate sites are usually used and/or determinations as to the depth of the fault and the impact of actions above that depth (eg just because you're on a fault line doesn't mean mankind can have much of an impact on it -- eg some fault are so deep that mankind does not have the means to drill that deep or withstand the temperatures). Again, what is being missed by most from the Ohio statements is the part of the story "... previously unknown fault ..." -- one makes scientific hypothesis based on the set constants that are known, when an unknown variable is interjected than that variable would only effect the hypothesis that it (that variable, "the specific unknown fault") pertains to.

     

    Don't rely on the headlines, people, the headlines are geared to insight emotional reaction to sell papers, tv time, advertising, ....
    15 Apr, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • xomstock
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    My comments got kicked out and were deemed inappropriate and off topic.

     

    At least 50% of the above comments are off topic and or are political jabs.

     

    I stand by my previous comments but I will not repost. My point is that we must go on with oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, and whatever else we can find until something better comes along. We are not going to kill the earth and life will go on. One day many years from now future man will look back on this time like we look back on previous generations and laugh saying look they burned gas in cars like we might look back and say look they burned whale oil.

     

    I don't know if fraking causes earth quakes or not but we must strive to utilize natural resources we have to avoid dependence on the middle east. they are draining our piggy bank dry and I for one am not going to sit in the dark and sing kubaya.

     

    To site staff if this is off topic, off color, or inappropriate please lock my account because there is no use in any more warnings.
    15 Apr, 04:02 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|