It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Aim64C
I bet with $11+billion a quarter in profits
they could find a way to extract responsibly .
This is why we have so few jobs now, the big guys are cutting corners and getting away with it.
If BP had used all the failsafes it was supposed to in the gulf the spill never would have happened.
Same thing is happening here.
While the EPA has not claimed certainty that the contamination came from fracking at this point, the presence of 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE), a chemical used in fracking, and the lack of contamination with nitrates and fertilizers that would indicate an agricultural source, suggest a link.
CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today for the first time that fracking — a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells — may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution.
In the 121-page draft report released today, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds [1] known to be used in frack fluids.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by WilburMercer
Good point! I often wonder if oil companies are just retarded or they just don't give a sh$t.
Where do you propose the oil used to make the gasoline that powers your car come from?
Like it or not - for another 50 years, at the least, the industrialized world is going to require massive amounts of oil to function.
It's not just gasoline - plastics, tar for roadway construction/maintenance, lubricants - just to name a few. All of these are required in massive volume, and while alternatives do exist that come from sources other than oil... none of them can even approach the volume necessary to supply current demand.
All the while - demand continues to grow.
Then I think that it's all about the almighty dollar. (which is really worthless paper)
It's not about the dollar. It's about economics. Resources like oil are in high demand and essential for the normal function of society as it stands. The more scarce it becomes - the more valuable it is in relation to other resources available.
The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.
Before these unconventional natural gas sources can add significantly to our nation's supply, the public health and safety, environmental, social, economic and legal/political consequences and constraints that may be associated with these technologies must be identified and examined.
During drilling, the major potential sources of pollution are the air emissions from the 1000-to l500-hp diesel engines and ground water pollution from accidental spills from the drilling mud pit.
...
The principal potential pollution sources during stimulation are exhaust emissions from diesel engines during the fracturing job and minor spills of the chemicals used in the fracturing fluid
emphasis mine
Another potential source of environmental impact during well stimulation is contamination of freshwater aquifers with fracturing fluid components. Standard oilfield practices to prevent this seem to be effective. It is anticipated that groundwater contamination will only occur if the cementing of the casing has not been properly done. The possibility of stimulating a well with an inadequate cement job is believed to be low because a cement bond log is run previously to insure a good bond. Some uncertainties surround this issue because the overall effectiveness of the current control techniques is not know.
Concern has been expressed that hydraulic fracturing operations might lead to increased seismic activity. Fracturing operations should not result in seismic events in these basins because:
-The volume used in a fracturing job is from one-hundredth to one-tenthousandth of the amount which have triggered seismic events.
-None of the three basins is seismically active.
-Past fracturinq jobs have not resulted in seismic or other subsurface activity (Pakisen et al. 1969, and Tonnessen.1977.)
I bet with $11+billion a quarter in profits
they could find a way to extract responsibly .
I agree with you, in fact they should extract responsibly regardless of whether they make a profit or not. Our well being should be the number one priority, not resources or profit.
This is why we have so few jobs now, the big guys are cutting corners and getting away with it.
If BP had used all the failsafes it was supposed to in the gulf the spill never would have happened.
Q: Can you prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by "lubricating" the fault with water or another material?
A: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are never enough to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake.
Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
I think part of what Robin is concerned about is the effect all of these small quakes may have in the NMSZ which could trigger a larger quake.
Whether the fault that ruptured in 1811-12 does so once more or another yet-to-be-defined fault breaks and generates a M 7+ quake, the truth is we would all be in a world of hurt.
Robin's not the only person who thinks that small quakes could trigger a larger quake.
Importance of small earthquakes for stress transfers and earthquake triggering is a study published on the Cornell University Library database which indicates just that possibility:
The stronger the spatial clustering, the larger the influence of small earthquakes on stress changes at the location of a future event as well as earthquake triggering. If earthquake magnitudes follow the Gutenberg-Richter law with b>D/2, small earthquakes collectively dominate stress transfer and earthquake triggering, because their greater frequency overcomes their smaller individual triggering potential.
This is telling us that even though each individual quake represents only a small amount of energy release, the cumulative effects are more than the sum total. In other words there is a possible synergistic effect with a multitude of small quakes on a (non) related fault system within a certain geographical area.
Why hasn't this been given more research?
Because large earthquakes modify stress over a much larger area than smaller ones, and because computing Coulomb stress changes requires a good model of slip distribution available only for large earthquakes, most studies have neglected the influence of “small” earthquakes.
So, how does this influence propagate into a fault system?
• A triggered earthquakes size is independent of the magnitude of the triggering event (“mainshock”) as suggested by [Helmstetter, 2003]. This implies that the crust is everywhere close to failure, such that any small earthquake, triggered by a previous small one, can grow into an event much larger than its trigger
As one takes notice of the rifts that circle the globe and then thinks about the fact that there is spreading taking place around the globe, one cannot help but conclude that all of the that spreading is going to be causing pressure to increase in areas which are being "crowded." This results in a globe who's surface is everywhere fractured, thus on the point of rupture at any given time with no prior notice.
What does all of this mean?
emphasis mine
These results imply that a small earthquake can trigger a much larger earthquake. It thus validates our hypothesis that the size of a triggered earthquake is not determined by the size of the trigger, but that any small earthquake can grow into a much larger one [Kagan, 1991b; Helmstetter, 2003; Felzer et al., 2004]. The magnitude of the triggering earthquake controls only the number of triggered quakes
So, smaller quakes can trigger larger quakes and it is merely the number of quakes triggered, not size of subsequent quake which is affected when considering remote triggering.
It all boils down to this:
emphasis mine
Although large earthquakes are much more important than smaller ones for energy release, small quakes have collectively the same influence as large ones for stress changes between earthquakes, due to seismic spatial clustering.
Since smaller quakes occur in a more compact area, they have influence equivalent to larger quakes due to the closer proximity to one another.
Another study I found some place (I can go dig it out if it is really necessary, I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but I think it dealt with induced seismicity incidents in India related to petroleum production) indicates that induced earthquakes (like those caused by fracking) are similar enough in energy release and signature that the seismic waves behave as if they were naturally occurring.
This means, that all of the fracking induced quakes that are taking place are acting like a series of firecrackers popping off continually on top of a larger fault system (NMSZ) and are potentially going to cause that system to release any pent up energy.
Remember, it's not the fact that it's an earthquake, or volcano (seems to be a bit of activity on that front around the world presently), but it is more a function of energy that is being released and thus moved to another location. Which causes a build up of stress (energy in potential) increasing until friction is overcome (a rupture happens) and then that energy flow is unblocked, albeit briefly, and thence the energy seeks a new equilibrium.