3140
3141

EnvironmentFracking caused Ohio earthquake in 2014, say scientists (rtcc.org)

pnewellNGO|Climate Science が 投稿

評価の高い 200 コメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]comcast_ebola_tyson 201 ポイント202 ポイント  (26子コメント)

These comments are a perfect example of why /r/science shouldn't be a default. Bunch of people who know nothing about the science of fracking parroting their favorite "news" articles.

[–]fockface 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (9子コメント)

If r/science wasn't a default, I would have missed out on a lot of interesting articles. Science being popular may come with some annoyances but is overall a good thing.

[–]MeatwadsTooth 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Except a large portion of the titles you see are sensationalized or just plain misleading which everyone will spout like gospel

[–]fockface 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It just shows that people are putting in the effort to participate in a scientific community. Unless the title has clear non-scientific motives, then I see nothing wrong with it. By the time something hits the front page, the top comments almost always correct a misleading title.

For example, because of this post, I now understand how fracking actually causes mini earthquakes. I would have never read anything about that otherwise.

I understand your frustration, I just believe that Reddit is a better place by having r/science as a default sub.

コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

      [–]vaultingbassist 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      So only experts can comment on it? How are lay people supposed to learn if they can't discuss it with other people? Isn't the point of a subreddit to discuss these things?

      I am one of the people who doesn't know much about fracking, but I do have enough interest to talk about it. I've already said stupid things here, but I'm interested in correcting my current views if they are wrong.

      [–]sonicqaz 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (9子コメント)

      Then use the nifty little arrows to the left of their names to push down the trash.

      [–]thatsmyaibo 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      The arrows are worthless. Some communities on Reddit are ass backwards and uninformed and have huge voting power.

      [–]comcast_ebola_tyson 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (5子コメント)

      I, of course, do. However, the combination of "fracking" and front page make it really easy for hundreds of posts of drivel to land before a goddamn geologist even arrives.

      [–]couchburner27 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Then when the geologist do arrive they refute our science and claim that we are in the oil industries pockets and are not actual scientists.

      [–]Fuck_whiny_redditors 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      so what about the hundreds of incorrect statements by "scientists" in this sub for past 4 years mocking anyone who even suggested there might be scientific evidence of a link between fracking and earthquakes? guess all those geologists who do think there is a link are just crazy 12 year olds in mom's basement, huh?

      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

            [–]cpxh 634 ポイント635 ポイント  (110子コメント)

            What a garbage title.

            What they mean to say is "Hydraulic fracturing may be creating larger microquakes than previous estimates would have guessed."

            "Fracking causes earthquakes" is a stupid statement. No shit. The purpose of fracking is literally to create fractures in the ground, which moves the ground which is a fucking earthquake. This is like saying water makes things wet, or alcohol is linked to getting drunk.

            The issue here is that fracking was only expected to cause quakes of magnitude < 1, and now we are seeing that they cause earthquakes up to magnitude 3. This is noteworthy but not really anything to worry about, instead its something to watch and study, and definitely something to consider when extraction happens around known fault lines.

            FAQ

            • Isn't it better to have a bunch of little quakes than 1 big quake anyways?

            Yes in theory. However you need tens of thousands of small quakes to equal 1 big quake as the the energy release of an earthquake, which closely correlates to its destructive power, scales with the 3⁄2 power of the shaking amplitude. (10Δm3/2 )

            A brief overview of earthquake magnitudes and frequency

            • It says scientists identified earthquakes ranging from magnitude 1.0 to 3.0, the largest of which could be felt by people. How bad is a 3.0m earthquake?

            A m3.0 earthquake has the same shaking force or destructive power as your average 18 wheeler driving past your house at ground level. So these earthquakes, even if they occur every day, are not going to errode the infrastructure or foundation of your property anymore than the daily UPS delivery.

            We really only start worrying about earthquakes when they are of m > 5.5.

            There are millions of earthquakes of magnitude < 2.0 per year.

            Some info on the scales used

            [–]acaban 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

            this could be a better study http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140818/srep06100/full/srep06100.html

            there are listed earth quakes really big (>5.5) that caused millions of damages and many deaths.

            [–]SpinningHead 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

            There are millions of earthquakes of magnitude < 2.0 per year.

            That doesnt mean citizens want to turn a blind eye to those caused specifically by industry.

            [–]BenDarDunDat 86 ポイント87 ポイント  (9子コメント)

            How in the sam blazes hell is this a garbage title? It states "Fracking caused Ohio Earthquake in 2014".

            What they mean to say is "Hydraulic fracturing may be creating larger microquakes than previous estimates would have guessed."

            Did you even read the article? Researchers were not investigating every earthquake, but a specific unusually strong earthquake in March 2014 in Poland Township of Ohio.

            After investigation, it was determined that fracking caused the earthquake. So the title is far more accurate than your suggestion of: What they mean to say is "Hydraulic fracturing may be creating larger microquakes than previous estimates would have guessed."

            For one, yours is too damned long. Second, that wasn't what was being investigated. They investigated one specific abnormally large earthquake in an area that hasn't recorded an earthquake of that magnitude in the last century.

            [–]typeIA 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            He was just trying to be contrarian because it's trendy. Though some articles do have misleading titles, this one doesn't. Still, the surest way of appearing smart is to argue semantics and flood your post with scientific data to give it an air of validity. OP is clearly a master of the tactic.

            [–]wainu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            This was a reply I wrote to the parent post. Couldn't paste it as it was deleted.

            I'll just add my 50 cents here.

            Its a bit too simplistic to categorize an earthquake only by its magnitude when discussing possible damage to buildings. Magnitude is just one component if the earthquake spectrum. The frequency and length of the earthquake are also very relevant, as are the soil conditions.

            Here in the Netherlands we just had a natural gas industry induced earthquake of magnitude 2.8. This has led to 760 reports of damage to (mainly) masonry buildings.

            A few years ago it wasn't expected those earthquakes would get significant.

            It is now expected these induced earthquakes can reach a magnitude of 5. 50,000 houses will need to be structurally reinforced in the next few years.

            Not saying the same will happen with fracking induced earthquakes, but know that the science isn't settled here and that predictions will likely be adjusted in the future.

            コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

              [–]redw04 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

              While I definitely learned something interesting out of your correction, I drew the same conclusion from your explanation that I did from reading the title (that is fracking causes earthquakes, but they might be marginally worse than we thought). I don't think it was a garbage title necessarily, it got the point across pretty well. Either way it's cool that you have a passion for this sort of thing

              [–]thadandy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              As someone not from the USA, when I read "Ohio earthquake" I think there must've been some sorta disaster, because I don't know if there was one or not. Kinda like if I said "Perth bushfire" you'd think hundreds may have died. Oh wait I was referring to the bushfire just outside my house the other day which involved one bush.

              It's pretty misleading and majority of redditors don't read articles or comments on these sort of posts.

              [–]dancingmanatee 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (26子コメント)

              Boyfriend works for gas company. Used to help with injection well projects. I completely agree. Maybe not regulations today, but saying they have 5 years to find a better method would force companies to research technologies. Like a way to use the salty groundwater instead of fresh water.

              [–]Black_ice-Dragon 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (22子コメント)

              Right now salt water does not work because the gel used to suspend the sand in the water, that is sent down hole, doesent work in salty eviroment. It causes the reaction to break down and the sand just settles and plugs off instead of going into the fracture. Don't get me wrong here though. We need to find a better way and I have been fracing for 4 years now. Using upwards of a million liters a day of fresh water for 1 crew is asinine.

              [–]chris45215 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (15子コメント)

              What liabilities does a company face if it causes pollution to groundwater? Most say that it couldn't possibly happen, but there's a lot of things that couldnt possibly happen that have happened.

              Also, would it be possible for the tracking companies to be required to include a nontoxic tracer chemical in their water, so that any ground/water pollution could be traced back to them?

              [–]Black_ice-Dragon 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

              I'm up in Alberta, Canada so our laws here differ. But we are not allowed to drain any water away from our leases whatsoever due to possible contamination. We don't use flow back pits at all. Everything that comes back need to go into tanks and is transported off lease to injection sites. I don't know much about I injection sites, so I cannot comment on that.

              But as far as if ground contamination goes we have to clean it up. We always have a vaccum truck on lease to suck up all our spills and suck out our lines. For bigger spills for example in the 1+m3 of spills. We have to bring in a cleaning company that digs up the dirt 6 feet down and decontaminates it. This costs usually at least $30,000 or upwards of a few hundred thousand dollars.

              We have used a slightly radioactive tracer to track certain wells and see where it goes. I would love to explain more but I'm on mobile. If you want to know more I'm glad to explain what I have experienced.

              [–]notthatnoise2 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (9子コメント)

              What liabilities does a company face if it causes pollution to groundwater?

              There are some laws on the books in regards to this, depending on which state you're in, but for pretty much all of them the practical answer is "none."

              [–]MISSINGxLINK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              If a Frac job is polluting the fresh water zones it is because of poor cementing practices. The cement is either not being pumped at API standards or it is not being circulated to surface on the appropriate strings of pipe. If everything is cemented properly and there is no damage to the casing being ran in the hole then the chances of frac fluid migrating anywhere up the hole, especially from depths ranging from 5,000' all the way to 20,000' + measured depth are pretty slim.

              Source: I manage an oilfield cementing and specialty pumping company.

              Edit* Added a letter

              [–]drakesjam 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Do you work in the industry? My guess is no, because the practical answer is most certainly not "none."

              If you do, you really need to go talk with your HSE department and ask them what an NOV is, as well as about all of the pre-drill sampling they must do for all fresh water (springs, personal wells, etc.) within a radius of the well in order to show there is no contamination of the water once drilling and more importantly the fracking begins. These tests are in place to monitor any contamination at all to the groundwater, which would be felt almost immediately by those fresh water sources.

              Source: work in an HSE department in the industry

              [–]d0dgerrabbit 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

              Source? Is there precedent?

              [–]stumbles047 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Oil and gas drilling is explicitly exempt from both the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts.

              コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                    [–]Bigmanrpb 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    Wrong. Salt tolerant gels, FR's and and crosslinked systems are offered by all three of the top oilfield service companies.

                    [–]CatmasCatman 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Thank you

                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                      [–]cpxh 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      I changed my post slightly to better reflect the info in this article, so I pulled out the waste water injection stuff, but yes, I agree with you.

                      [–]Jeremiah164 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      We use water that is pretty dirty and water that is pumped out of rivers. The lab analyzes the water and adjusts chemicals based on that.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                        [–]ImportantPotato -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Thanks for the facts.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (55 返事)

                          [–]basscheez 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Here is the study cited

                          [–]HongShaoRou 87 ポイント88 ポイント  (87子コメント)

                          "The largest earthquake was unusual in that it could be felt by residents"

                          I'm not sure how much of a risk this seems to be.

                          [–]vaultingbassist 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (36子コメント)

                          In Ohio, no, not much risk. But the ramifications are that we should regulate where fracking is allowed so it doesn't happen near places where earthquakes are more than "actually felt by residents."

                          I also feel like the potential to trigger earthquakes in general is pretty risky, as it seems rather difficult to predict how dangerous they will be, right?

                          EDIT: There may actually be risks associated with even small quakes, things like landslides and buildings that aren't built for that level of vibration - there are some good points below. I hadn't considered these.

                          [–]N8CCRG 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                          Add to this that in regions where there are no earthquakes, buildings are not built in a way to handle earthquakes. For example, lots of buildings made of bricks.

                          [–]Coldmode 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                          Like the relatively minor Virginia earthquake causing damage to masonry buildings all over.

                          [–]Apiphilia 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                          Well that earthquake was a 5.8, which is a good deal larger than a 3 as the Richter scale is logarithmic. This means the difference between a 3 and a 5 is a 100 fold increase in magnitude.

                          I was in DC during this earthquake. Definitely enough shaking for you to know there is an earthquake going on, but not enough to be really scared about it. However, they did close a lot of buildings right afterwards, to assess the damage. Some of the damage was quite expensive (as noted in the first link).

                          [–]Mehworth 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          I live about 20 mins from the epicenter of that quake. Hoo-boy did we feel it.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                              [–]LudovicoSpecs 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Even in places where earthquakes aren't usually felt by residents, this can be an issue. The most powerful earthquakes in the Eastern US happened in Missouri and Arkansas in 1811-12. Four earthquakes ranging from 7.0 to 8.1 that could be felt as far away as Boston.

                              The area was sparsely populated back then. Today? You could kiss St. Louis goodbye.

                              [–]batquux 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              The area was sparsely populated back then

                              And mostly by people in leather houses, that don't hurt as bad when they fall on you.

                              [–]gl77 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                              In the Ohio river valley, a lot of residential areas and infrastructure is build on and around the Appalachian foothills. Earthquakes could trigger landslides in these areas. Throughout the last 10-15 years, there have been several small landslides along Ohio route 7, a main through way along the Ohio River, forcing the closure of sections of the highway when they happen.

                              [–]Happyhotel 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                              In Ohio, no, not much risk. But the ramifications are that we should regulate where fracking is allowed so it doesn't happen near places where earthquakes are more than "actually felt by residents." I also feel like the potential to trigger earthquakes in general is pretty risky, as it seems rather difficult to predict how dangerous they will be, right?

                              An earthquake is caused by large masses of rock moving past each other due to the tension between them overcoming the forces holding them in place. Fracking causes earthquakes by reducing the holding forces, allowing smaller than usual levels of tension to cause movement. However, humanity does not and may never have the capacity to significantly (geologically speaking) increase the amount of tension present between sections of the Earth's crust. Neither fracking nor any other existing technology will lead to hugely damaging earthquakes, rather just a larger amount of inconsequential ones.

                              [–]prematurepost 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I also feel like the potential to trigger earthquakes in general is pretty risky, as it seems rather difficult to predict how dangerous they will be, right?

                              I have no real knowledge about this subject either, but too me triggering earthquakes in this manner seems like a good idea in terms of overall reduction is damage. Here's what I'm assuming; please who know what they are talking about, correct me:

                              Earthquakes are a result of built up tension between moving tectonic plates. The longer the pressure builds without releasing, the bigger the earthquake and greater the damage will be.

                              If the tension is released more quickly and often, isn't it better for us? It's not like the plates will move faster because earthquakes are triggered? Seems like responsible management actually.

                              (Disclaimer: I'm opposed to fracking for other reasons)

                              コメントをもっと表示する (14 返事)

                                [–]kharmedy -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                One thing I'm worried about is that if fracking increases earthquake activity here in Pennsylvania we could have a huge amount of sink holes forming. We have a lot of limestone here and it does not do well with shaking.

                                It could be a repeat of what happened in 18-19th century Britain where the same thing happened do to the introduction of industrial mining techniques. A sink hole would open up miles away from a mine and the companies would deny it was their fault and bribe Parliament to keep allowing the practices. Of course later it was discovered that not only was it the mines fault but that it's operators new damn well that it was their fault.

                                [–]ExecutiveFingerblast 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                uh, mining is completely different than drilling for gas.

                                Sink holes in limestone aren't caused by shaking they're caused by water creating limestone karst systems. here's a map of the karst systems in PA. Marcellus gas drilling occurs almost entirely in southwest PA where the most dense karst systems are not located. In southwest PA we have very hard limestone/chert formations. Not to mention, all lateral drilling occurs well below any sort of water table and there's no interference between the limestone/aquifer/aquitards.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                  [–]PlantedDerp 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  This is what makes the cut now on r/science? Where is the journal link instead of a clickbait climate change website? I'm guessing it's a link to salt water disposal and they just went ahead and said fracking because that's what sounds good.

                                  [–]TrollMcAnally 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                  Actual source article that I had to search for on the SSA Site:

                                  http://www.seismosoc.org/society/press_releases/BSSA_105-1_Skoumal_et_al_Press_Release.pdf

                                  There are a couple of things I question about this study.

                                  • There is no mention of source data to support the premises, which I find curious.

                                  • The full fracking process is not sited, which makes me wonder if they understand the entire process. This doesn't mean they do or don't, but the article just doesn't supply the reader with the entire picture.

                                  That being said, since the actual hydraulic fracturing process involves down hole explosions after pressurization and although it certainly wouldn't be a 3, the process itself may present 'False Positives' to their sensitive equipment affecting their supporting data. I would be interested in knowing how they rule this out of their analysis.

                                  [–]fuckyouasshole2 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  I question your questioning because you spelled cited wrong. You're also a two day old account and your name is trollmcanally. You've also said this elsewhere in this thread:

                                  Clearly, the problem here is that they didn't follow the proper procedure. Everyone knows that if you use a sheep's bladder in the right way, it will prevent earthquakes!

                                  -Also, you say there's no mention of source data when in the first paragraph they cite "research published online by the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA)." I'm not saying it's on you to find out what they're referring to and am not sure of the context of what you say is the source article, but their email addresses and phone numbers are all there. I'm sure if you call they can provide their source which should be properly cited, but I don't think the context is a proper paper with citations.

                                  [–]dgauss 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  There is no mention of source data to support the premises, which I find curious.

                                  This is the press release not the paper. The press doesn't usually care.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                    [–]redsriot 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                    RTCC.org is so biased politically/financially.

                                    Take this with a grain of salt, unfortunately. You can find a group of scientists to support anything when money is involved.

                                    [–]originalmaja 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    "Website is offline No cached version of this page is available." http://i.imgur.com/gLn1yfz.png

                                    [–]little_cock 43 ポイント44 ポイント  (26子コメント)

                                    “This activity did not create a new fault, rather it activated one that we didn’t know about prior to the seismic activity.”

                                    I read this as though the conclusion is that it really did no harm. Am I wrong?

                                    [–]tectonicus 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Almost all earthquakes activate existing faults; many of those faults are not known prior to the earthquake. This conclusion has no bearing on whether the fracking was harmful or not.

                                    [–]1_wing_angel 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Well, it might have ruined that well.

                                    Drillers try to avoid drilling into faults, as that's a great way to get a water well instead of an oil/gas well.

                                    [–]jabb0 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                    That depends, are earthquakes harmful?

                                    [–]jlasoreilly 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                    Two questions come to mind. Could this have released tension in the fault, thus preventing a potentially larger earthquake? And if so, could this be more cleanly implemented to make faults near major cities (and vulnerable developing nations) safer?

                                    [–]cpxh 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Could this have released tension in the fault, thus preventing a potentially larger earthquake?

                                    In theory yes. In practice no.

                                    See my post for more info on why.

                                    [–]jlasoreilly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Thanks. Things are always better in theory. Isn't that a joke about engineering?

                                    [–]1_wing_angel 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    That's actually an intriguing idea.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                      [–]cpxh 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Generally speaking no.

                                      Of the millions and millions of measurable earthquakes that happen every year we really only worry about 1 or 2.

                                      So 1 in a million are harmful, by super conservative estimates.

                                      And thats just the ones we measure.

                                      [–]little_cock 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      I believe the answer is "it depends on the earthquake" and "it depends on the point of view, some earthquakes can be simultaneously good and bad".

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        [–]ExecutiveFingerblast 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        no, you are not.

                                        [–]SolubleCondom 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        Wouldn't the pressure building up in that fracture eventually just naturally release as an earthquake in the future anyway?

                                        [–]KageJittai -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Hard to say. We don't actually know.

                                        It might be the case that it could, but tens of thousands of years from now. On the other hand, the pressure could be alleviating it self so slowly that we can't perceive it and this is only increasing the rate the pressure is being alleviating.

                                        The most we can say at this, is that there is clear correlation between fracking and an increase in earthquake activity. If this is limited to small minor and relatively harmless quakes, or even reducing the risk potentially for larger quakes is unknown.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                          [–]randomlyahero 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          I was on the second floor of a hospital during one of those earthquakes. I've lived in Ohio my whole life and had never felt one before. It felt like the floor was a wave. It scared the crap out of me.

                                          [–]ExecutiveFingerblast 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          TIL from the comments in this thread that earth science is not taught well enough in schools.

                                          [–]little_cock 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                          Question for the scientists: Are their studies ongoing to determine if a similar procedure could be used in places like California and Japan to actually force small earthquakes instead of waiting for nature to produce extremely large earthquakes? Is this even a reasonable proposition technically?

                                          [–]LudovicoSpecs 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          Follow-up question for scientists: Are there studies existing or ongoing that determine the ripple effect of small earthquakes-- how far a chain reaction can reach over what amount of time?

                                          Hip bone connected to the thigh bone, etc. Tectonic plates don't exist in a void.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                            [–]motiv999 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            mining causes earthquakes too. Perhaps we should stop that.

                                            [–]Ry-Fi 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            Yup - pretty much any type of earth moving or large scale resource relocating activity induces earthquakes. Dams and geothermal cause earthquakes, as you said mining causes earthquakes, re-injecting waste water after drilling for oil induces earthquakes, etc. This isn't surprising, as generally speaking pulling a ton of stuff out of the ground and replacing it with water, or artificially storing millions of gallons of water on top of the surface via a dam will create forces that are not natural. The good news is to date virtually all of these earthquakes have been non-threatening to humans, with most being undetectable by your average joe.

                                            [–]Crunkbutter 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            I remember Iceland having problems with earthquakes due to water injection for geothermal power.

                                            Here's a popsci article from 2010 about it, actually.

                                            Not sure why it's a surprise that wastewater injection from fracking is causing earthquakes.

                                            [–]3thirtysix6 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            It's not so much a surprise as it is inconvenient politically and financially for some people to admit that.

                                            [–]notthatnoise2 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            Because in the US it's a political issue. Energy companies don't want the populace to know about it, because then they might not allow fracking.

                                            [–]timewaitsforsome 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            aaand the site is down

                                            [–]SaitoHawkeye 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                            I love everyone saying that "well, it wasn't that severe an earthquake so it probably doesn't matter."

                                            It was severe enough to cause property damage (cracked foundations, broken pipes), and it's one of those things that you can't know the future impact of.

                                            Is "the earthquakes we're causing probably won't destroy your home" really a standard you're comfortable with?

                                            [–]batquux 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            And if it does happen to cause damage to your property, shouldn't the company profiting from it have to pay for the damages?

                                            [–]WasabiBomb 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            I'm sure they have an army of lawyers willing to argue otherwise.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                [–]jbakers 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Cmdr. Adama will not have it!

                                                [–]ssnehan 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                you're going to have to cite that source

                                                [–]mynameiscourtney 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                I live in Texas, but we've had this same issue for the last 2 years. They're not huge earthquakes, but scare you when you are not used to them.

                                                [–]00worms00 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Just saying that reddit (probably this very sub) is where I 'learned' that fracking has no environmental impact at all and screw those luddite liberal scaremongers --praaaise haliburton! Anyone else remember? I can't be the only one.

                                                [–]monkeyman114 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                Oklahoma has only 4 fracking sites in the whole state, and have had 3000 earthquakes one as high as 5.1 which caused significant property damage. This is an area which rarely has earthquakes

                                                [–]old_greggggg 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Oklahoman here. This needs more attention. The poster above is certainly making a good point that a lot of very small earthquakes are not that big of a deal. BUT I now have a 4 foot crack in the drywall in my ceiling in a house that was built in 2006. Structural damage is not something to brush off because you made a blanket statement that it's nothing to worry about. It's happening. Look up the damage to OBU. How do we know a larger earthquake is not possible?

                                                [–]PlantedDerp 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Uh...there have been hundreds of wells fracked in Oklahoma this year alone.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                  [–]micbael 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                  Ehm... Guys, we've had a lot of those in the northern Netherlands. You're really only finding this out now?

                                                  [–]PCCP82 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  my friends dad is a geologist. he said the same thing a few years ago. I was incredulous at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with him.

                                                  think of what fracking stands for: hydraulic fracturing. consider that a 2.0 on richter is equivalent to a considerable quarry blast...are we surprised that a method to extract more natural resources from the earth that destroys the rock formation could have minor tectonic consequences?

                                                  [–]hotsizzlepancakes 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  This is the front runner for worst thread of the year in /r/science

                                                  [–]R6RiderSB 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  a 3.0? You can feel those? -Californian

                                                  [–]Uberzwerg 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  I live in a region that had very much coal mining in the past.
                                                  Whenever you drive through some smaller towns with strong relation to the mines, you can see massive cracks in the older buildings where the ground gave in to the mines that were running several hundred meters below.

                                                  No one could hope that such shit would not come again from fracking.

                                                  [–]HelpS1r 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (17子コメント)

                                                  Has anybody ever noticed all these threads about fracking have a few people talking about how fracking really isn't bad? Are there really this many people neutral parties who want to clear up what fracking is or does anybody think there's astrosurfing going on?

                                                  [–]mordacthedenier 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  So, you disagree with them, that makes it astroturfing? I'm assuming you meant astroturfing, astrosurfing sounds awesome though.

                                                  [–]couchburner27 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  There are lots of people who support and are educated on the issue, but for many people whom are educated on the issue it is pointless to argue with people because they are so polarized on the issue and refuse any actual science. Instead they drink the political koolaid that they accuse the supporters of fracking of drinking.

                                                  [–]BukkakeKing69 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  There are tons of irrational people who see crap like gasland and have delusions about fracking. I imagine lots of engineers and oil related people are eager to try and inform people about the fracking process whenever the topic comes up. No conspiracy going on.

                                                  Just remember there are always two extremes to any opinion and the truth more often than not is somewhere in the middle.

                                                  [–]ButtCancer 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  some people know what they are talking about and don't want to have to deal with horribly ignorant bias and uninformed comments. I'm not saying that about your comment in particular just a lot of them.

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

                                                    [–]CarlEatshands 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                    I live in Kansas and felt 3 earthquakes last year. One being 4.8. I've lived here all my life so having an earthquake scared me being in my apartment alone.

                                                    [–]misterstevew 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                    I live in this area and study geology at a nearby university. The anti-frackers are silly.

                                                    [–]clutchest_nugget 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    Would you care to expound upon that? As it stands, your post is neither enlightening not scholarly. Your pretty much saying

                                                    top kek lol frack noobs

                                                    Provide some information to support your assertion. You are a scientist, aren't you?

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                                      [–]agorale 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      And economists say fracking is why oil is $50 a barrel.

                                                      Economists: 1

                                                      Scientists: 0

                                                      [–]Carelesslexx 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                      I felt one in Lexington KY, around that time, could that be connected?? (first earthquake experiance, scared the shit out of me)

                                                      [–]MINthree 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      aaand the site is down

                                                      [–]arkitekt47 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Magnitudes ranging from 1.0 to 3.0? This must have been 77 of the 900,000 (.009%) earthquakes of that magnitude class last year.

                                                      http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/magnitude.html

                                                      [–]knightress_oxhide 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Apparently fracking is less destructive than the reddit hug.

                                                      [–]unicastflash 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      Luckily for the people who caused the earthquake, we live in an era of "fuck science"

                                                      [–]username_deleted -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                      A San Franciscan wouldn't even recognize the ground was moving. There are plenty of legitimate concerns about fracking (mostly due to above ground activities and lack of regulation) but this is not one of them.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (145 返事)