FRACK NO! extensive Damage to USA's crust since 2001 widespread manmade Quakes - USGS now admits

www.newsinferno.com...

guess finally enough people are complaining about their houses shaking, booms from the ground, sky, etc and USGS had to come in and either dismiss or admit quakes were happening. and then some, cause they admit more wastewater, more chemicals, more 1000s of quakes,

plus now that field drilling has been haulted, more cancer and other diseases affecting families that allow greedy utility vultures to install residential oil rigs on their property... nationwide. how does this not eventually lead up to DISASTER?

theres obviously only so much drilling and prodding the crust beneath our feet can take before it starts giving in. oh wait, it already is:

reply to post by BiggerPicture


Dear BiggerPicture,

The USGS is the same group that previously said that the earthquakes were normal. It is very doubtful that fracking is causing the quakes. We set off thousands of nuclear bombs underground in Nevada and it didn't cause quakes. I want to see a correlation showing how many of these quakes were nowhere near fracking operations and how many were. 50 out of 8,000 is nothing. There was no fracking going on in Haiti or Japan. Look at how many large quakes have happened in places where no fracking is going on.

wutta coincidence i too want to see a correlation for XYZ but if per the article they are like a decade behind in even coming clean about this,

so i'm not going to hold my breath until unretracted/missing data are released

as the OP title indicates, it's not just about blaming quakes on this or that then and now,

but the very real physical damage to America's crust, regardless.

which has DOUBLED from 1990 - 2010 alone (about 200,000k wells fracked to about or over 400,000 well fracks)

and both residential & field fracking continues despite reported stop orders(!):

tomwilber.blogspot.com...
March 28, 2012 BREAKING NEWS:
Propane fracking deal reached in NY Plan would open 130,000 acres in Tioga County

www.newsinferno.com...

A new federal investigation reveals a spate of earthquake activity in certain regions of the U.S. is likely the cause of localized hydraulic fracturing (fracking) drilling for natural gas and oil.

reply to post by BiggerPicture


Dear BiggerPicture,

I do not wish to imply that I am in favor of fracking, I am not in favor of putting chemicals in our ground water. I am not an expert on what chemicals are used or in what quantities. Having said all of that, I definitely am not convinced that fracking is causing the quakes. I believe we are too often given answers simply to keep us from noticing what really is going on. Animals are dying at the same time at the same place in mass numbers, we are having earthquakes and other natural disasters at an unprecedented number and we are given answers prior to any evidence has even been collected. If they are ten years behind in analyzing data, then how can they tell us what it is from? Peace.

Ok, I’m going to pull my conspiracy theorist out of my pocket and posit this;

They keep theories concerning Fracking in a grey area so that many can argue about it. All the while ignoring other possible threats.

Such as the Earth’s Magnetosphere moving at a unprecedented rate and the Solar storm activity.

Pay attention to the right hand folks! Ignore the left hand. I think that they know more about what is going on than is being admitted.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by BiggerPicture

 

Dear BiggerPicture,

The USGS is the same group that previously said that the earthquakes were normal. It is very doubtful that fracking is causing the quakes. We set off thousands of nuclear bombs underground in Nevada and it didn't cause quakes. I want to see a correlation showing how many of these quakes were nowhere near fracking operations and how many were. 50 out of 8,000 is nothing. There was no fracking going on in Haiti or Japan. Look at how many large quakes have happened in places where no fracking is going on.

The video did not say that fracking was the cause of 100% of the earthquakes. Obviously, there was no fracking going on in Haiti or Japan. Fracking was never said to be the cause of ALL earthquakes. Seeing how many earthquakes are/were located near fracking is a valid, though; I agree there. But you can't discount fracking just because it didn't cause earthquakes in locations where there was no fracking happening.

Frankly, there is much more going on UNDERGROUND than the American (and world) population has been informed about. Since the 1950s there has been an *extensive* construction program involving underground bases and communities, most likely connected by high-speed mag-lift transportation corridors. Google the work of Richard Sauder and "Undgerground Bases and Tunnels." There are patents and photos of nuclear-powered underground boring/drilling machines. It is a FACT that these places exist, ---we just don't know how many and how extensive.

Could underground nuclear "testing" be part of this hidden (black budget) underworld? Could these unexplained hums and booms lately be explained by come underground conflict or construction? Could these earthquakes be the side effects of some unknown program taking place far beneath our feet? What kind of underground *threat* could prompt such a powerful, anamolous and secret response from our government and that of the rest of the world? Only 1-2% of all caves/caverns are said to have been discovered, and of those, most have not been fully mapped. Could there be some hidden secrets in the Underdark we should try to uncover? Is this truth (are these truths) too horrifying to consider? Should we remain ignorant and enjoy bliss and Sunday BBQs with the family? Do we really want to know the secrets that some few know...?

reply to post by GhostLancer


Dear GhostLancer,

The video did not say that fracking was the cause of 100% of the earthquakes. Obviously, there was no fracking going on in Haiti or Japan. Fracking was never said to be the cause of ALL earthquakes. Seeing how many earthquakes are/were located near fracking is a valid, though; I agree there. But you can't discount fracking just because it didn't cause earthquakes in locations where there was no fracking happening.

I don't discount it because not all quakes were in fracking areas, I discount it because it is an answer given with no correlation proven. The unusual earthquakes did not happen in fracking areas and that is worthy of consideration. As for d.u.m.b's, I know someone that worked on one and they do not cause earthquakes either. The increase in quakes is occurring worldwide, including many countries where there is no fracking. The question is what is causing the quakes, animal deaths and once in history weather all at the same time. Peace.

Yet another BS thread title from the OP.

Please show where "USGS now admits" that any earthquakes are caused by fracking.

The "report" comes from the heavily biased Environmental Working Group.

According to their 990 tax forms, the Environmental Working Group’s total revenue was more than $6.2 million for 2008. Over $3.2 million of that was distributed to the group’s board members: $219,401 to president Kenneth Cook; $179,218 to executive director Richard Wiles; and $150,226 to director of research Jane Houlihan. Five more board members racked up six figure salaries. Another $2 million was distributed to other employees, and almost $300,000 was put into pension plans and other benefits packages.

activistcash.com...

The EWG raises the vast majority of its money – $6 of the $6.2 million – from various philanthropies, most of which have a distinct leftward bent and seem to be more interested in influencing public policy than doing real scientific work, and individual donations. In 2009, for example, they received $300,000 from the Popplestone Foundation (a major donor to liberal think tank the Center for American Progress and liberal magazine the American Prospect), $50,000 from the Winslow Foundation (who supports, among other projects, Grist.org, a group fighting “the climate apocalypse”) and $75,000 from the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment (a major funder of the Center for Progressive Reform).

In 2008, they received $85,000 from the Turner Foundation (liberal billionaire and CNN founder Ted Turner’s philanthropy) and $250,000 from the Joyce Foundation (which gave millions of dollars to discredited community organizers ACORN and has fought to outlaw private ownership of handguns). One could go on in this fashion, but hopefully you get the point: There’s big money to be had from leftwing philanthropies if you’re in the business of scaring people about health issues and the environment.

Nice group. They know which side their bread is buttered on and it has nothing to do with science.

Yes, an apparent increase in mild earthquake activity...maybe.
Linked to fracking? Not by the USGS.

Originally posted by Phage
Yet another BS thread title from the OP.

Please show where "USGS now admits" that any earthquakes are caused by fracking.

first 12 seconds in the vid

(OP)

thats what the young turks guy reports.

issues with him (and most every source i post)?

not my problem other than ur pattern of takin a dump on any thread u can to discredit it, sources etc. im flattered the info and lengths u go to discredit internet sources of intel... definite pattern on ats, keep it up!

reply to post by BiggerPicture

You mean a pattern of looking for sources rather than just watching youtube videos and running with them? Yes, that would be me.

Of course, it would be asking too much for someone who starts a thread to do some research of their own, wouldn't it? The USGS did not "admit" anything.

yep is it NEWs to you threads i start are and will continue to be YT based?

YT is a platform for 3rd parties to host their content on.

its not the author of the source.

carry on, lol...

reply to post by BiggerPicture

Right.

I guess the motto of ATS really has gone by the boards.
People used to use their heads around here once in a while. People used to do some research. People used to be able to put a coherent sentence together.
Too bad.

reply to post by Phage

Please show where "USGS now admits" that any earthquakes are caused by fracking.

Q: Does the production of natural gas from shales cause earthquakes? If so, how are the earthquakes related to these operations?

A:

To produce natural gas from shale formations, it is necessary to increase the interconnectedness of the pore space (permeability) of the shale so that the gas can flow through the rock mass and be extracted through production wells. This is usually done by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Fracking causes small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety concern. In addition to natural gas, fracking fluids and formation waters are returned to the surface. These wastewaters are frequently disposed of by injection into deep wells. The injection of wastewater into the subsurface can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage.

USGS source

Yes, these are considered microquakes, but you did say "any earthquakes" and we all know how literal and accurate you like to be.

The disposal wells are more likely to cause larger quakes which can be felt, as kdog mentioned in his post above mentioned also in the above quoted excerpt.

note: (must have read a different thread with kdog mentioning this subject and confused it with this thread, apologies)

reply to post by Phage


I see a youtube clip of a television show with an interview in which the USGS shows to have admitted that fracking causes small earthquakes. I am not sure I understand what you are blasting? Youtube?

Originally posted by Phage

People used to use their heads around here once in a while. People used to do some research. People used to be able to put a coherent sentence together.
Too bad.

now, only u can

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

Yes! See how easy it can be?
There is evidence that injection wells can lead to stronger earthquakes. But fracking? Damaging earthquakes? As the OP puts it, "Extensive damage to USA's crust?"

Here's what the actual abstract on which the OP's doom porn is based says:

A naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region. While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.

source
A study of mild earthquakes shows increased activity in mostly two localized areas of Arkansas and Oklahoma (and to a lesser degree, Colorado) which may be related to oil and gas production. No doom.

reply to post by LErickson

I am not sure I understand what you are blasting? Youtube?

Yes. Youtube. And this kind of nonsense:

theres obviously only so much drilling and prodding the crust beneath our feet can take before it starts giving in. oh wait, it already is:

"Extensive Damage to USA's crust". OMG, the crust is failing! Call henny penny!


I understand the concerns about fracking. I don't understand the hysterical panic over an increase in barely (if at all) perceptible earthquakes. Doom porn.

reply to post by Phage


I wasn't promulgating doom, merely indicating that there was at least some reference from the USGS to fracking induced earthquakes.

And hopefully showing that there are still a few members who do attempt to research items and make sure to post quality information backed up with relevant links.

Now for a bit of (researched and linked) doom:

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?

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

emphasis mine

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:

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.

emphasis mine

Since smaller quakes occur in a more compact area, they have influence equivalent to larger quakes due to the closer proximity to one another.

From this post.

Originally posted by Phage

"Extensive Damage to USA's crust". OMG, the crust is failing! Call henny penny!

www.cbsnews.com...
Total's North Sea leak draws comparisons with BP

Oil giant Total has moved to reassure investors and environmental activists over the past week that the financial and environmental damage from its gas leak in the North Sea would be limited, a task made more difficult by comparisons to BP's handling of a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico nearly two years ago.

current.com...
"Ohio Earthquakes Caused By Drilling Wastewater Well, Experts Say"

There is already enough pressure on fault lines without us try to put more there. Ohio is on the north eastern edge of the New Madrid fault line. Major quakes on that line have been felt as far away as Charlestown, New York and Boston. This fault system is ten times as large as the San Andres Fault system. In a report filed in November 2008, The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that a serious earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States," further predicting "widespread and catastrophic" damage across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and particularly Tennessee, where a 7.7 magnitude quake or greater would cause damage to tens of thousands of structures affecting water distribution, transportation systems, and other vital infrastructure. The earthquake is expected to also result in many thousands of fatalities, with more than 4,000 of the fatalities expected in Memphis alone. We are asking for trouble with this extremely dangerous gamble for fossil fuel, when the answer is right above us. Solar energy plants utilizing molton sodium will generate electricity 24/7

en.wikipedia.org...
Fault (geology)

In geology, a fault is a planar fracture or discontinuity in a volume of rock, across which there has been significant displacement along the fractures as a result of earth movement. Large faults within the Earth's crust result from the action of tectonic forces. Energy release associated with rapid movement on active faults is the cause of most earthquakes...

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

I know you were not talking doom and I understand that you are going beyond a sensationalistic youtube video.

That article is very interesting (and rough going) but I'm not sure that it is applicable it is to the question of these "manmade" swarms presenting any more danger than natural earthquakes would. I suppose that these earthquake swarms could trigger a larger earthquake in another location (New Madrid) but wouldn't that earthquake occur eventually even without the "manmade" swarm? The New Madrid fault is a pretty "damaged" piece of crust as it is.