Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jeff on January 2, 2012 at 11:59

You will be surprised at the outcry and negativism from the public regarding fracking and oilfield operations. The energy sector is going to continue moving forward regardless of public outcry, but ultimately, all that the naysayers are doing is driving everyone's cost of living up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on January 2, 2012 at 14:35

i think this is a clear signal that all shale production outside of louisiana should be stopped immediately and until further notice.  who's with me?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colquitt Charlie on January 4, 2012 at 9:41

great idea - but seriously, i strongly believe that the decision to allowing fracing ( or ANY oil and gas / mining operations ) are a matter of STATES RIGHTS.  Any state (sounds like the Northeast Corrider has all the concerns) that doesn't want it should be allowed to stop it.  The key is that the FEDERAL government needs to stay out of it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on January 4, 2012 at 9:59

tongue firmly in cheek, bro.  we're on the same page.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on January 5, 2012 at 1:34

The reason the Federal government needs to get involved is because what happens in one state doesn't stay in one state.  Anybody remember the Gulf spill and do you really believe that the state of PA has the right to poison the Ohio and Miss rivers so that they are dead zones.  The water that is causing the earthquakes in OH is from PA fracking because PA isn't allowing easy disposal of frack water.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colquitt Charlie on January 5, 2012 at 4:57

Respectfully, I beg you to reconsider.    At the end of the day, we certainly don't want the "newbies" in the Northeast corridor who are trying to "adjust" to the management of their newly discovered unconventional natural resources dictating in ANY WAY the efficient and effective ways of hydrocarbon extraction currently in place in most of the "oil patch".  The poisoning of rivers and other interstate issues can be managed just fine through our Court system.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on January 4, 2012 at 7:32

  a consultant hired by Ohio says quakes are related to fracking and "not natural". 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-earthquake-ohio-idUSTR...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on January 4, 2012 at 7:34

Seismic surveys before drilling could avoid earthquakes - but they cost a lot

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/us-fracking-ohio-idUSTRE8...

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/04/way-to-avoid-possible-earthquake...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 4, 2012 at 8:47

How bad is a 4.0 earthquake?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on January 4, 2012 at 9:34

Magnitude	Description	Earthquake effects	Frequency of occurrence
Less than 2.0	Micro	Micro earthquakes, not felt.[14]	Continual
2.0–2.9	Minor	Generally not felt, but recorded.	1,300,000 per year (est.)
3.0–3.9		Often felt, but rarely causes damage.	130,000 per year (est.)
4.0–4.9	Light	Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely.	13,000 per year (est.)
5.0–5.9	Moderate	Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings.	1,319 per year
6.0–6.9	Strong	Can be destructive in areas up to about 160 kilometres (99 mi) across in populated areas.	134 per year
7.0–7.9	Major	Can cause serious damage over larger areas.	15 per year
8.0–8.9	Great	Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometres across.	1 per year
9.0–9.9		Devastating in areas several thousand kilometres across.	1 per 10 years (est.)
10.0+	Massive	Never recorded, widespread devastation across very large areas; see below for equivalent seismic energy yield.	Extremely rare (Unknown/May not be possible)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on January 5, 2012 at 4:02

its less of a hastle than living next to a RR track.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on January 4, 2012 at 17:37

Bottom line is that there will be a hunt for less expensive alternates to water disposal wells (from hydraulic fracking).  Waste water disposal is a tricky part of the process as it is often transported over long distances.

Yes, that will drive up costs, but I don't see any other way to get the public's support over the earthquake risks.

Fracking can also be done with propane and one company is even working on something using vegetable wastes. As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong) the earthquake risk is much more with the waste water injected from the fracking process than the fracking itself.  Is that correct?

Or. some companies are working on ways to clean the waste water right on site.  Some municpalities are refusing to accept waste water from fracking. They say the municpal water treatment plants weren't designed for anything like fracking waste water.

Oh, and then there is the drought ....

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page