Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Banning Fracking?

  1. Top | #21
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,126
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,339
    Rep Power
    57
    Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins
    Yes, “minor”. Of course any shaking of the ground should be prevented.



    Yes, minor. As in, most are barely perceptible outside the immediate vicinity of the epicenter, and many are not perceptible at all.

    As as I have demonstrated above, fracking is way too valuable for US energy supply to be abandoned now. Eventually, the supplies will be played out anyway, but I hope not too soon. Certainly before we can for example increase BEV market penetration.

    Yet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9319_Oklahoma_earthquake_swarms article shows quakes up to 5.8 in Oklahoma when none had been recorded prior to 2008,

  2. Top | #22
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,126
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,339
    Rep Power
    57
    OK post above was in response to Derec's comments about negligible quakes not to Jimmy Higgins. Good old forbidden got me again.

    My reference was to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E...thquake_swarms which pointed out many quakes above 4.5.

    Image below shows change in EQs before and since fracking and waste injection in OK. Please note EQ drops since regulation of wastewater injection in 2016


    Whether fracking is needed is a political question. Increase in EQs suggests significant risks as do contamination of water tables which can be found elsewhere.

    All this fits with Democrats discussion of healthcare as aright which should be free from cost-benefits justifications. We are a democratic Republic not a capitalistic Oligarchy after all.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 02-14-2020 at 04:56 PM.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,428
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,339
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins
    Yes, “minor”. Of course any shaking of the ground should be prevented.



    Yes, minor. As in, most are barely perceptible outside the immediate vicinity of the epicenter, and many are not perceptible at all.

    As as I have demonstrated above, fracking is way too valuable for US energy supply to be abandoned now. Eventually, the supplies will be played out anyway, but I hope not too soon. Certainly before we can for example increase BEV market penetration.

    Yet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9319_Oklahoma_earthquake_swarms article shows quakes up to 5.8 in Oklahoma when none had been recorded prior to 2008,
    Let's not forget that we don't always know when there is or is t you know... a fucking supervolcano in the vicinity.

    Yes, we just discovered the existence of a supervolcano bigger than Yellowstone, in Utah. We didn't even know it was there. And we don't know there's not a fault, or supervolcano, or some other horror waiting.we can be pretty sure, but "pretty sure" just shouldn't be the metric of whether we go mucking about with risking seismic events.

  4. Top | #24
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,386
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    My reference was to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E...thquake_swarms which pointed out many quakes above 4.5.
    4.5 is still pretty minor. And your graph shows the number >3 which is very minor.


    Image below shows change in EQs before and since fracking and waste injection in OK. Please note EQ drops since regulation of wastewater injection in 2016
    Which just shows that the earthquake problem can be taken care of without throwing the baby (aka fracking) out with the bathwater.

    Whether fracking is needed is a political question.
    Whether fracking is allowed or not is a political question. Whether fracking is needed (and it is) is independent of the politics. We rely on fracking for half of oil and 2/3 of gas produced in the US. Banning fracking would make us more reliant on imported oil and gas, reduce number of jobs, reduce government tax and royalty revenies, increase energy prices, and send more energy dollars (at those higher prices) abroad instead of keeping it in the country. It would also make it more difficult for US to be able to afford the costly transition to low-carbon alternatives.

    Increase in EQs suggests significant risks as do contamination of water tables which can be found elsewhere.
    Increase was mostly in very light tremors. You have not shown that contamination of water tables is a significant risk.

    All this fits with Democrats discussion of healthcare as aright which should be free from cost-benefits justifications. We are a democratic Republic not a capitalistic Oligarchy after all.
    TANSTAAFL, so everything is in some way subject to reconciling costs and benefits. The government gets its money from the taxpayers and should not be wasting it on proposals that bring more harm than good, like banning fracking would be.

  5. Top | #25
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,386
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Yes, we just discovered the existence of a supervolcano bigger than Yellowstone, in Utah. We didn't even know it was there. And we don't know there's not a fault, or supervolcano, or some other horror waiting.we can be pretty sure, but "pretty sure" just shouldn't be the metric of whether we go mucking about with risking seismic events.
    Eschewing all risk, no matter how small, should not be the metric or else we could not do anything.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,428
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,339
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Yes, we just discovered the existence of a supervolcano bigger than Yellowstone, in Utah. We didn't even know it was there. And we don't know there's not a fault, or supervolcano, or some other horror waiting.we can be pretty sure, but "pretty sure" just shouldn't be the metric of whether we go mucking about with risking seismic events.
    Eschewing all risk, no matter how small, should not be the metric or else we could not do anything.
    Eschewing all risk of catastrophic outcomes.

    Risk of getting hit by a car? Acceptable. Risk of literally wiping out the planet? Unacceptable.

    The value of risk is mediated by outcome, and necessity of the product. We can (must, really) find other ways to solve our energy needs anyway... Ways that don't involve fucking up our planet. Even if they are expensive (Boo. Fucking. Hoo.), Or time consuming or less fun or whatever. We don't need it, and the possibility of catastrophic outcomes in both the short term from rolling the seismic dice, and in the long term of rolling the climate dice are dealbreakers.

  7. Top | #27
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,386
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Eschewing all risk of catastrophic outcomes.
    Risk of getting hit by a car? Acceptable. Risk of literally wiping out the planet? Unacceptable.
    Literally wiping out the planet? Overdramatic much?

    The value of risk is mediated by outcome, and necessity of the product. We can (must, really) find other ways to solve our energy needs anyway... Ways that don't involve fucking up our planet. Even if they are expensive (Boo. Fucking. Hoo.)
    Cost matters - remember that the Great Recession of 2008 was triggered by the oil price climbing above $140/bbl. But cost is not all of it - it's shifting the energy dollars from domestic sources, that provide jobs and government revenues (which can be used to invest in transition away from carbon) and siphoning all that energy money abroad.

    Or time consuming or less fun or whatever. We don't need it, and the possibility of catastrophic outcomes in both the short term from rolling the seismic dice, and in the long term of rolling the climate dice are dealbreakers.
    Even if you banned fracking tomorrow, your gasoline car is not going to transform itself into a Tesla. That new NGCC power plant is not going to run without natural gas. The transition to a much lower carbon economy will take decades not only to develop technology but because existing infrastructure and deployed technology needs to be changed as well. In the meantime we need oil and gas, including from fracking. Even if we get some magnitude 4 and a few magnitude 5 tremors along the way.

  8. Top | #28
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,126
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,339
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    4.5 is still pretty minor. And your graph shows the number >3 which is very minor.



    Which just shows that the earthquake problem can be taken care of without throwing the baby (aka fracking) out with the bathwater.

    Whether fracking is needed is a political question.
    Whether fracking is allowed or not is a political question. Whether fracking is needed (and it is) is independent of the politics. We rely on fracking for half of oil and 2/3 of gas produced in the US. Banning fracking would make us more reliant on imported oil and gas, reduce number of jobs, reduce government tax and royalty revenies, increase energy prices, and send more energy dollars (at those higher prices) abroad instead of keeping it in the country. It would also make it more difficult for US to be able to afford the costly transition to low-carbon alternatives.

    Increase in EQs suggests significant risks as do contamination of water tables which can be found elsewhere.
    Increase was mostly in very light tremors. You have not shown that contamination of water tables is a significant risk.

    All this fits with Democrats discussion of healthcare as aright which should be free from cost-benefits justifications. We are a democratic Republic not a capitalistic Oligarchy after all.
    TANSTAAFL, so everything is in some way subject to reconciling costs and benefits. The government gets its money from the taxpayers and should not be wasting it on proposals that bring more harm than good, like banning fracking would be.
    A lot of Phoo phooing and dismissive minimum emphasizing there Derec.

    As for groundwater effects here are several reference that show effects.

    Wyoming: http://www.chc4you.com/wp-content/up...pavillion3.pdf

    Our investigation highlights several important issues related 702to impact to groundwater from unconventional oil and gas 703extraction. We have, for the first time, demonstrated impact to 704USDWs as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Given the high 705frequency of injection of stimulation fluids into USDWs to 706support CBM extraction and unknown frequency in tight gas 707formations, it is unlikely that impact to USDWs is limited to the 708Pavillion Field requiring investigation elsewhere. 709Second, well stimulation in the Pavillion Field occurred many 710times less than 500 m from ground surface and, in some cases, 711at or very close to depths of deepest domestic groundwater use 712in the area. Shallow hydraulic fracturing poses greater risks than 713deeper fracturing does, 714 57,116 especially in the presence of wellintegrity issues 715 117,118 as documented here in the Pavillion Field.Additional investigations elsewhere are needed. 716Finally, while disposal of production fluids in unlined pits is a 717legacy issue in Wyoming, this practice has nevertheless caused 718enduring groundwater contamination in the Pavillion Field. 719Impact to groundwater from unlined pits is unlikely to have 720occurred only in the Pavillion Field, necessitating investigation 721elsewhere.
    Pennsylvania: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10093933

    t. Subsurface disposalinto UIC wells appears to raise concerns regarding increasedseismic activity12 and thus could be limited in the future. Infield wastewater reuse for additional well completions will(eventually) become less available as drilling activity in any oneregion slows down. Therefore, the volume of O&G wastewatersent to CWT plants for treatment and disposal to surface wateris likely to increase in the future. As highlighted by this study,large volumes of effluent from CWT plants can lead tosediment contamination far downstream that persists for longperiods of time. We note that these discharges are permissiblewith respect to permits that stipulate no contaminantconcentration limits. The overall risk associated with thesesediment contaminants has not yet been determined, but tominimize potential impacts, regulatory agencies should developand apply more restrictive effluent discharge limits for CWTplants that protect human health and the environment.
    Doesn't matter where wastewater disposal impacts drinking water drinking water effects health

    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperi...?paperid=75575

    Increased risk was associated with exposure to groundwater, expressed as the county ratio of water wells divided by the number of births. Conclusions: Fracking appears to be associated with early infant mortality in populations living in counties where the process is carried out. There is some evidence that the effect is associated with private water well density and/or environmental law violations.

  9. Top | #29
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,386
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    A lot of Phoo phooing and dismissive minimum emphasizing there Derec.
    Well, most of these tremors are quite minimal.

    As for groundwater effects here are several reference that show effects.
    Wyoming: http://www.chc4you.com/wp-content/up...pavillion3.pdf
    This paper is about old (pre-1990) unlined pits.

    From the data given, contamination seems to be minimal. Orders of magnitude of mg/kg (i.e. ppm) for Barium and Strontium and pCi/g (one pCi represents 1 radioactive decay event per 27 seconds!) for Ra226 and 228 are quite small. Besides, that graph indicates same orders of magnitude for these species even before the shale revolution.

    Doesn't matter where wastewater disposal impacts drinking water drinking water effects health

    Those data are not very strong (one even had p=.13) and I do not think they properly accounted for confounding variables associated with higher private well density.

    Then there are other studies that show no water contamination due to fracking.

    There is some evidence that the effect is associated with private water well density and/or environmental law violations.
    Maybe we should ban private water wells and not fracking.

  10. Top | #30
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,540
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,292
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Yes, we just discovered the existence of a supervolcano bigger than Yellowstone, in Utah. We didn't even know it was there. And we don't know there's not a fault, or supervolcano, or some other horror waiting.we can be pretty sure, but "pretty sure" just shouldn't be the metric of whether we go mucking about with risking seismic events.
    Eschewing all risk, no matter how small, should not be the metric or else we could not do anything.
    Eschewing all risk of catastrophic outcomes.

    Risk of getting hit by a car? Acceptable. Risk of literally wiping out the planet? Unacceptable.

    The value of risk is mediated by outcome, and necessity of the product. We can (must, really) find other ways to solve our energy needs anyway... Ways that don't involve fucking up our planet. Even if they are expensive (Boo. Fucking. Hoo.), Or time consuming or less fun or whatever. We don't need it, and the possibility of catastrophic outcomes in both the short term from rolling the seismic dice, and in the long term of rolling the climate dice are dealbreakers.
    By existing we risk wiping ourselves out. Civilization is only one major pandemic away from collapse and probable extinction.

    We need to worry about the important threats like the climate.

    However, by disregarding cost you're just asking for making the bad choice. Cost represents the effort required, there is not infinite effort available.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •