Northeast Ohio rocked by 11th earthquake linked to Youngstown injection wells

[moostraks]

http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977

Didn't feel anything here (even though we live super close). Local area media is stating all hopes are on this reviving the area. My money is on people wanting to take the first train out selling out the rest of us and leaving us to clean up their mess.

[ZanZibar]

My money is on people wanting to take the first train out selling out the rest of us and leaving us to clean up their mess.Why would anyone stay there to begin with?

[Pawl2012]

Ya, I live in Mercer County and we felt it here. Drilling everywhere.

[Bodhi]

Never heard of injection wells before. Seems like there could be lots of unintended consequences, earthquakes being one of course. From what I have read it looks like this has been going on for sometime. I just don't get how it is o.k. to get rid of waste by pumping it thousands of feet down into the Earth, I'm shocked really. I'm not convinced that our Grandchildren or maybe their Grandchildren will look back and say injection wells were a good idea. Of course all the people responsible will be long since gone, so they don't have to worry about any unintended consequences.

[Zippyjuan]

4.0 isn't that big for a quake- unless you are really close and in a static position- say sitting in a chair or on a couch- you might not even notice it. Just a little shaking. Kinda like a large truck driving by in front of your house.

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't know much about injection wells, but the concern over the fracking process is blown WAY out of proportion in the vast majority of cases.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that takes place thousands of feet beneath the surface in most cases, and under many layers of solid rock. The fracking liquids are pumped down through a well which is encased through the water table with multiple layers of steel casing and concrete lining.

Many of the instances of well water contamination are the result of shallow methane gases which are common in regions where natural gas occurs. In most of these cases, baseline levels of methane had not been established.

The biggest challenge facing producers right now is not protecting the fracking process itself, but in treating the fracking liquids. Industry is currently working on numerous solutions, including looking for a different composition for the fracking liquid itself to treating the liquid after it has been reclaimed from the well. Spills of fracking liquids are more of a threat by far than the actual process of rock fracturing 5,000-10,000 feet below the surface.

People living near properties that have leased to producers, and the lessors themselves should absolutely be allowed to enforce their property rights in the event of being negatively impacted. Maryland, a state which is presently imposing a moratorium on Marcellus drilling, is considering a "guilty until proven innocent" approach in regards to producers, which should induce them to do more preliminary studies if they're ever permitted to drill. Incidentally, the Maryland moratorium is being imposed largely by down-state legislators and "environmentalist groups" who look at Western Maryland as their "playground", with the lake and the slopes... while a lot of farmers in Garrett County barely make ends meet, and the gains to be made from leases and royalties would go a LONG way to improving their quality of life.

[AFPVet]

At first, the EPA said that fracking wasn't a big deal... after some people's water started smelling like lighter fluid, I guess it was.... We shouldn't be destabilizing rock and poisoning ground water. As Ron previously stated, in a private market, you can't pollute your neighbors property; however, with the government "ok", they have permission to do just that. This needs to end.

[A Son of Liberty]

At first, the EPA said that fracking wasn't a big deal... after some people's water started smelling like lighter fluid, I guess it was.... We shouldn't be destabilizing rock and poisoning ground water. As Ron previously stated, in a private market, you can't pollute your neighbors property; however, with the government "ok", they have permission to do just that. This needs to end.

It doesn't need to "end". Property rights need to be enforced.

Water smelling like lighter fluid (presumably methane) is not necessarily caused by drilling - most of your biggest encasement bores are going to be in the 24"-36" range... that's pretty miniscule when you consider the area of the strata we're talking about.

The hyperbole is a mile wide, but the knowledge is only an inch deep.

[AFPVet]

It doesn't need to "end". Property rights need to be enforced.

Water smelling like lighter fluid (presumably methane) is not necessarily caused by drilling - most of your biggest encasement bores are going to be in the 24"-36" range... that's pretty miniscule when you consider the area of the strata we're talking about.

The hyperbole is a mile wide, but the knowledge is only an inch deep.

The problem is the fact that the government walks all over your rights when it wants to.

[A Son of Liberty]

The problem is the fact that the government walks all over your rights when it wants to.

Absolutely; additionally, there is much hyperventilating where it is not due.

[Suzu]

In many places in NE Oklahoma where there are oil rigs, the tap water smells and tastes like crude oil. I have no doubt that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for pollution of groundwater.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is an issue right now in NC. A bill has been passed and then vetoed to authorize fracking. Because of groundwater concerns, I introduced (and passed) an amendment to require the completion of the safety study for NC's ground and bedrock conditions first before opening the practice widely. Chances are the bill will be up for a veto override soon.

I've already come further than any other House Republican by insisting on the successful completion of the safety study, but there remains a lot of opposition from the left, mostly people unaware of the safety study requirement.

But seriously, free market principles don't support sustaining a total ban here. At the same time, once you kill a water table it stays killed, and no amount of money will ever bring that self sustainability back.

It's a tough choice.

[A Son of Liberty]

You're basing that upon what imperical evidence? I can't speak to the conditions in Oklahoma, but fracking typically is the process of pumping fluids tens of thousands of feet beneath the surface (and therefore thousands of feet below water tables) through multiple layers of double encasement - steel and concrete. In order for fracking liquids to impact ground water, typically a failure of at least three layers each of steel and concrete would have to fail simultaneously, in conjunction with a less-pressurized environment than the well itself being available to the fluids (since the they would naturally seek the path of least resistance).

Edit: in response to Suzu.

[A Son of Liberty]

This is an issue right now in NC. A bill has been passed and then vetoed to authorize fracking. Because of groundwater concerns, I introduced (and passed) an amendment to require the completion of the safety study for NC's ground and bedrock conditions first before opening the practice widely. Chances are the bill will be up for a veto override soon.

I've already come further than any other House Republican by insisting on the successful completion of the safety study, but there remains a lot of opposition from the left, mostly people unaware of the safety study requirement.

But seriously, free market principles don't support sustaining a total ban here. At the same time, once you kill a water table it stays killed, and no amount of money will ever bring that self sustainability back.

It's a tough choice.

There has been roughly one proven case of fracking contaminating groundwater in over 1 million wells drilled in the U.S. since the practice has been employed.

I'm all for protecting the environment, but I believe the best way to do that is to preserve and protect PROPERTY RIGHTS.

[Suzu]

You're basing that upon what imperical evidence? I can't speak to the conditions in Oklahoma, but fracking typically is the process of pumping fluids tens of thousands of feet beneath the surface (and therefore thousands of feet below water tables) through multiple layers of double encasement - steel and concrete. In order for fracking liquids to impact ground water, typically a failure of at least three layers each of steel and concrete would have to fail simultaneously, in conjunction with a less-pressurized environment than the well itself being available to the fluids (since the they would naturally seek the path of least resistance).

Edit: in response to Suzu.

The word is "empirical". I have travelled extensively in NE Oklahoma, observed the landscape and tried to drink the water. That's all the evidence I need. If you need more than you have, go to areas where drilling/fracking is going on, and do your own observation. Then you will have the information firsthand.

[A Son of Liberty]

The word is "empirical". I have travelled extensively in NE Oklahoma, observed the landscape and tried to drink the water. That's all the evidence I need. If you need more than you have, go to areas where drilling/fracking is going on, and do your own observation. Then you will have the information firsthand.

I'm in areas where drilling and fracking is going on.

Did you try to drink the water before the drilling/fracking began? Do you know how deep below the surface fracking occurs? Do you understand how wells are encased? For fracking liquids to reach ground water, multiple layers of steel and concrete would have to fail, or the liquids would have to make their way from the layer of rock where the fracking took place thousands of feet below the surface UP through several layers of solid rock to groundwater depths (which are typically only hundreds of feet below the surface), RATHER than following the path of least resistance, back up through the well.

I'm 100% in favor of enforcing property rights and seeing to it that damaged parties are made whole in the event of contamination. As I stated earlier, Maryland is considering a "guilty until proven innocent" model IF they "allow" Marcellus drilling. In the meantime, struggling farmers and land owners are prevented by government fiat from enjoying the bounty of their own private property, over a bunch of environmentalist fearmongering from downstate swells who want to preserve their little playground in the mountains. It is nauseating, and detestibly wrong.

And I'll be sure to follow you around and point out any spelling errors, too! :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

I am pretty sure that the fracking liquids are not what people are concerned about. I know that out of the 8000 or so emails I have gotten fewer than 1% have said anything about the blasting compounds, and neither did Suzu, so that's kind of a strawman.

As to being made whole, when the water table is destroyed it's literally impossible to be "made whole." No amount of money will restore self sufficiency. If your water table is destroyed, then you either go on city water or buy it at the store. Period. So if the city goes under and the stores go out of business...well...you can't drink money. So the implication that someone drawing from a ruined water table can in any way be 'made whole' is kind of a pipe dream.

[ca4paul]

Phrack!

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/18100000/Battlestar-Galactica-Starbuck-dirk-benedict-18158328-549-537.jpg

[A Son of Liberty]

I am pretty sure that the fracking liquids are not what people are concerned about. I know that out of the 8000 or so emails I have gotten fewer than 1% have said anything about the blasting compounds, and neither did Suzu, so that's kind of a strawman.

Yes, she did:


In many places in NE Oklahoma where there are oil rigs, the tap water smells and tastes like crude oil. I have no doubt that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for pollution of groundwater.



As to being made whole, when the water table is destroyed it's literally impossible to be "made whole." No amount of money will restore self sufficiency. If your water table is destroyed, then you either go on city water or buy it at the store. Period. So if the city goes under and the stores go out of business...well...you can't drink money. So the implication that someone drawing from a ruined water table can in any way be 'made whole' is kind of a pipe dream.

How exactly is the water table going to be destroyed by this process?

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, she did:






How exactly is the water table going to be destroyed by this process?

Hmm. I suppose we are living in different realities? Because I STILL see no mention of the blasting compounds in that bit you quoted. So I'm not sure an actual discussion would be meaningful when we seem to inhabit completely different realities here.

The two primary concerns with hydraulic fracturing are bedrock damage and hydrocarbon (petroleum) infiltrates from blasting pressure.

I don't actually think it will be as big of a deal in NC as other places as we tend to have a very thick solid bedrock, and there is evidence that PA was leeching methane prior to fracking. But then unlike most I make a solid effort to examine the arguments and data on both sides of the issue.

Still, I am worried that we are going to be talking past each other here, because Suzu's quote simply does not say what you seem to think it says.

[A Son of Liberty]

Hmm. I suppose we are living in different realities? Because I STILL see no mention of the blasting compounds in that bit you quoted. So I'm not sure an actual discussion would be meaningful when we seem to inhabit completely different realities here.

You said that Suzu didn't say anything about fracking liquids.


I am pretty sure that the fracking liquids are not what people are concerned about. I know that out of the 8000 or so emails I have gotten fewer than 1% have said anything about the blasting compounds, and neither did Suzu, so that's kind of a strawman.

Suzu clearly stated that she "believes" that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for polluting groundwater.

As for "blasting compounds", I didn't say anything about it... and I'm not really sure what "blasting compounds" are. At the fracking depth, the well casing and rock within the immediate vicinity are penetrated with an electrical charge, not with any kind of an explosive compound. The fracturing of the rock itself is performed through hydraulic pressure. The chemicals in the fracking liquids perform a number of functions, none of which are explosive.


The two primary concerns with hydraulic fracturing are bedrock damage and hydrocarbon (petroleum) infiltrates from blasting pressure.

Maybe we are talking past each other, because in this region (Marcellus, which is what the thread has been about), they're not drilling for petroleum, they're drilling for natural gas. So maybe there is some sort of blasting involved in that process, but that's not what we're talking about here.


I don't actually think it will be as big of a deal in NC as other places as we tend to have a very thick solid bedrock, and there is evidence that PA was leeching methane prior to fracking.

Indeed. And the sad part is that most of the fearmongering going on with this issue is based upon the "documentary", "Gasland", which didn't exactly concern itself with that.


But then unlike most I make a solid effort to examine the arguments and data on both sides of the issue.

This isn't a very fair comment, sir, and I don't appreciate it. I'm very well aware of both sides of this issue. But when people make claims like, "Fracking causes groundwater contamination", don't you think they should back it up? Because it makes me think that they don't know how hydraulic fracturing actually works...

I have nothing to gain from this. I don't own a large piece of land that could possibly be drilled where I'd stand to gain from a lease and royalties. It just angers me when I see folks here in this region literally struggling to get by forcibly prevented from making use of their private property over false information. I think it's important that if we're going to make these kinds of decisions, we need to have the actual information, and not hyperbolic fearmongering.

If it's shown that drilling causes groundwater contamination, then by all means, don't allow it. But do it based on facts.

[GunnyFreedom]

You said that Suzu didn't say anything about fracking liquids.



Suzu clearly stated that she "believes" that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for polluting groundwater.

As for "blasting compounds", I didn't say anything about it... and I'm not really sure what "blasting compounds" are. At the fracking depth, the well casing and rock within the immediate vicinity are penetrated with an electrical charge, not with any kind of an explosive compound. The fracturing of the rock itself is performed through hydraulic pressure. The chemicals in the fracking liquids perform a number of functions, none of which are explosive.



Maybe we are talking past each other, because in this region (Marcellus, which is what the thread has been about), they're not drilling for petroleum, they're drilling for natural gas. So maybe there is some sort of blasting involved in that process, but that's not what we're talking about here.



Indeed. And the sad part is that most of the fearmongering going on with this issue is based upon the "documentary", "Gasland", which didn't exactly concern itself with that.



This isn't a very fair comment, sir, and I don't appreciate it. I'm very well aware of both sides of this issue. But when people make claims like, "Fracking causes groundwater contamination", don't you think they should back it up? Because it makes me think that they don't know how hydraulic fracturing actually works...

I have nothing to gain from this. I don't own a large piece of land that could possibly be drilled where I'd stand to gain from a lease and royalties. It just angers me when I see folks here in this region literally struggling to get by forcibly prevented from making use of their private property over false information. I think it's important that if we're going to make these kinds of decisions, we need to have the actual information, and not hyperbolic fearmongering.

If it's shown that drilling causes groundwater contamination, then by all means, don't allow it. But do it based on facts.

Yeah I don't know what to tell you, because Suzu still wasn't talking about the blasting compounds. And here in NC they are harvesting primarily natural gas (methane) and the process is called "blasting."

Also, there is a pretty solid question about property rights since some 90% or better of these fracking drills are slanted and end up beneath someone else's property.

All fracking involves blasting, and the vast majority is for natural gas. The are injecting a compound at extremely high velocity to force natural gas out of shale type deposits. That injection is called "blasting" by the industry experts who have briefed us.

You may think my characterization is unfair, but the question is simply not as cut and dry or black and whut as both you and Suzu seem to claim.

Furthermore, the evidence in this thread suggests that one of us is delusional, because I'm telling you there is no discussion of the fracking compounds in what Suzu is saying, and there still is no discussion of the compounds there. You keep insisting she is talking about the fracking compounds, and from where I sit it honestly looks like you are just making it up.

The debate over the blasting compound is irrelevant anyway. Halliburton just developed a compound composed mostly of water and sand, that is basically drinkable by itself. Due to pressure from environmental groups, we can expect the "drinkable" fracking liquid to become dominant. So even if the fracking liquids WERE what we were talking about (they are not) then that would be irrelevant.

But the bottom line here is we are clearly seeing two different realities.

Neither I, nor Suzu, nor the thousands of people contacting me are talking about the fracking liquid. Pretty much only you are talking about the fracking liquid, and you are telling us we are crazy for thinking the compound could pollute the water table.

But nobody (except you) is suggesting such a thing in the first place.

Until we are coming at this discussion from the same reality, I'm not sure there can be much value in it.

[GunnyFreedom]

and how is methane not petroleum? :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

and who said anything about 'explosions' either? geeze

[A Son of Liberty]

Yeah I don't know what to tell you, because Suzu still wasn't talking about the blasting compounds. And here in NC they are harvesting primarily natural gas (methane) and the process is called "blasting."

NEITHER WAS I!! NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT "BLASTING COMPOUNDS" UNTIL YOU MADE THE COMMENT. :lol: What the hell... Your comment was:


I am pretty sure that the fracking liquids are not what people are concerned about. I know that out of the 8000 or so emails I have gotten fewer than 1% have said anything about the blasting compounds, and neither did Suzu, so that's kind of a strawman.

Suzu's comment was:


In many places in NE Oklahoma where there are oil rigs, the tap water smells and tastes like crude oil. I have no doubt that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for pollution of groundwater.

I responded to her comment that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for pollution of groundwater.

Hydraulic fracturing is done by forcing "fracking liquids" into the rock, to expand cracks and allow the gas out of the rock. I still don't know what you're even referring to when you say, "Blasting compounds".


Also, there is a pretty solid question about property rights since some 90% or better of these fracking drills are slanted and end up beneath someone else's property.

Agreed.



You may think my characterization is unfair, but the question is simply not as cut and dry or black and whut as both you and Suzu seem to claim.

Yes, it was unfair, because I'm aware of both sides of this issue. I merely entered the thread to clear up some misconceptions.


Furthermore, the evidence in this thread suggests that one of us is delusional, because I'm telling you there is no discussion of the fracking compounds in what Suzu is saying, and there still is no discussion of the compounds there. You keep insisting she is talking about the fracking compounds, and from where I sit it honestly looks like you are just making it up.

I'll grant that maybe I misunderstood her comment that hydraulic fracturing caused groundwater pollution, but I don't think it's such a stretch to assume that's what she was talking about based on this comment:


In many places in NE Oklahoma where there are oil rigs, the tap water smells and tastes like crude oil. I have no doubt that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for pollution of groundwater.

Certainly not so much of a stretch as for you to say I'm "making it up". That's just rude, dude.


The debate over the blasting compound is irrelevant anyway. Halliburton just developed a compound composed mostly of water and sand, that is basically drinkable by itself. Due to pressure from environmental groups, we can expect the "drinkable" fracking liquid to become dominant. So even if the fracking liquids WERE what we were talking about (they are not) then that would be irrelevant.

That's great.


Until we are coming at this discussion from the same reality, I'm not sure there can be much value in it.

Oh, I agree. There isn't much value in having a conversation with someone as smug and condescening as you seem to be.

[A Son of Liberty]

and how is methane not petroleum? :confused:

Wow. Just wow...

[A Son of Liberty]

and who said anything about 'explosions' either? geeze

Sorry if I interpreted your "blasting compounds" to refer to some sort of explosive before you clarified that "blasting" is a local industry term for fracking in North Carolina.

"Geeze" indeed.

Edit to remove a rude comment. I apologize.

[A Son of Liberty]

Please go back and read this thread. I think you're seriously misunderstanding my position here.

There has been no need for you to approach this discussion with me in the way you have. Unreal.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sorry if I interpreted your "blasting compounds" to refer to some sort of explosive before you clarified that "blasting" is a local industry term for fracking in North Carolina.

"Geeze" indeed.

Edit to remove a rude comment. I apologize.

Actually the people who called it that have had nothing to do with North Carolina, and claimed to be the inventors and refiners of the hydraulic fracturing process itself.

[GunnyFreedom]

Please go back and read this thread. I think you're seriously misunderstanding my position here.

There has been no need for you to approach this discussion with me in the way you have. Unreal.

I'm not sure where you are getting this hostility from.

Suzu was talking about hydrocarbon infiltrates from the fracturing process.

You started talking about the fracking compounds.

I pointed out that nobody but you is talking about the fracking compounds.

You insisted that Suzu and I were talking about the compounds.

I explained that we clearly perceive different realities, because you are still the only one talking about pollution from the compounds.

So now I am the asshole?

Seriously man, I don't get it. :confused:

[A Son of Liberty]

Actually the people who called it that have had nothing to do with North Carolina, and claimed to be the inventors and refiners of the hydraulic fracturing process itself.

I've never heard of fracking referred to as blasting.

Whatever. It seems to me that the discussion went off the rails because we were using different terminology for the same thing, that I possibly misinterpreted Suzu's comment, and that you were unnecessarily rude.

Good day.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow. Just wow...

"In its strictest sense, petroleum includes only crude oil, but in common usage it includes all liquid, gaseous, and solid (e.g., paraffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin)) hydrocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbons). Under surface pressure and temperature conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure), lighter hydrocarbons methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane),ethane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethane), propane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane) and butane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane) occur as gases, while pentane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentane) and heavier ones are in the form of liquids or solids. However, in an underground oil reservoir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reservoir) the proportions of gas, liquid, and solid depend on subsurface conditions and on the phase diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram) of the petroleum mixture." via Wiki

[GunnyFreedom]

I've never heard of fracking referred to as blasting.

Whatever. It seems to me that the discussion went off the rails because we were using different terminology for the same thing, that I possibly misinterpreted Suzu's comment, and that you were unnecessarily rude.

Good day.

Ohhhh k. more :confused: than ever now.

[GunnyFreedom]

NEITHER WAS I!! NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT "BLASTING COMPOUNDS" UNTIL YOU MADE THE COMMENT. :lol: What the hell... Your comment was:



Suzu's comment was:



I responded to her comment that hydraulic fracturing is responsible for pollution of groundwater.

Hydraulic fracturing is done by forcing "fracking liquids" into the rock, to expand cracks and allow the gas out of the rock. I still don't know what you're even referring to when you say, "Blasting compounds".



Agreed.




Yes, it was unfair, because I'm aware of both sides of this issue. I merely entered the thread to clear up some misconceptions.



I'll grant that maybe I misunderstood her comment that hydraulic fracturing caused groundwater pollution, but I don't think it's such a stretch to assume that's what she was talking about based on this comment:



Certainly not so much of a stretch as for you to say I'm "making it up". That's just rude, dude.



That's great.



Oh, I agree. There isn't much value in having a conversation with someone as smug and condescening as you seem to be.

OK, from where I sit you are the smug and condescending one, which is why about 5 posts in I started to sound annoyed. But I wasn't going to say anything.

I still don't get why you insist that the only posible form of pollution comes from the fracking compounds?

Everybody I know is not worried about the compound, but about methane infiltration. The liquids are forced into the rocks, methane is released, and not all of the methane is captured. The gas seeps up and eventually contaminates the water table, causing toxic and flammable well water with hydrocarbons saturating the water.

That's what everybody I know is complaining about, and it seems pretty obvious to me that's what Suzu was complaining about.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not sure where you are getting this hostility from.

Suzu was talking about hydrocarbon infiltrates from the fracturing process.

That's your assumption about what she was talking about. I assumed when she said that hydraulic fracturing causes groundwater pollution that she was saying that fracking (or, "blasting") liquids were causing the pollution. Again, I really don't think that's such a wild stretch that you'd think I was "making it up". I mean, come on...


You started talking about the fracking compounds.

I pointed out that nobody but you is talking about the fracking compounds.

See above.

You insisted that Suzu and I were talking about the compounds.

I explained that we clearly perceive different realities, because you are still the only one talking about pollution from the compounds.

Yeah, see above. Again, making comments like "different realities" and "making it up" aren't, to me, necessary. We have two different interpretations of what Suzu was talking about. Notice I didn't say that you were making things up. All I was trying to do was to clarify my position.


So now I am the asshole?

Seriously man, I don't get it. :confused:

Yeah, you've really been a jerk in this "discussion", right from the point where you said that "unlike other people I try to look at both sides"... Yeah, I'm aware of both sides.

If you understood that "blasting" and "fracking" are essentially the same thing, you should have clarified that... it certainly would have helped facilitate the discussion. I'm not an industry insider, but I'm aware of the process and the terminology and fracturing being referred to as blasting is a new one on me.

Again, if fracking/blasting can be shown to cause groundwater contamination on a widespread, common basis, then by all means, ban it. But imposing bans based upon hyperbole and misinformation is truly unjust when there are people who are really struggling and could benefit from it.

That's all I've been trying to say, for cryin' out loud...

[A Son of Liberty]

OK, from where I sit you are the smug and condescending one, which is why about 5 posts in I started to sound annoyed. But I wasn't going to say anything.

No, it started with your second post to me. "Then again, unlike other people I like to look at both sides of the issue." I pointed it out right away...


I still don't get why you insist that the only posible form of pollution comes from the fracking compounds?

I'm not insisting that. For the fourth time, that was my interpretation of what Suzu was saying.


Everybody I know is not worried about the compound, but about methane infiltration. The liquids are forced into the rocks, methane is released, and not all of the methane is captured. The gas seeps up and eventually contaminates the water table, causing toxic and flammable well water with hydrocarbons saturating the water.

That's what everybody I know is complaining about, and it seems pretty obvious to me that's what Suzu was complaining about.

That's your interpretation based upon your experiences, then, it seems. In my experience, fracking/blasting liquids have been the biggest cause of concern.

Let's just agree that this has been an utterly failed conversation for whatever reason and walk away from it. What a freaking mess...

[A Son of Liberty]

"In its strictest sense, petroleum includes only crude oil, but in common usage it includes all liquid, gaseous, and solid (e.g., paraffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin)) hydrocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbons). Under surface pressure and temperature conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure), lighter hydrocarbons methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane),ethane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethane), propane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane) and butane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butane) occur as gases, while pentane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentane) and heavier ones are in the form of liquids or solids. However, in an underground oil reservoir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reservoir) the proportions of gas, liquid, and solid depend on subsurface conditions and on the phase diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram) of the petroleum mixture." via Wiki



:facepalm:

Not even worth it...

[GunnyFreedom]

That's your assumption about what she was talking about. I assumed when she said that hydraulic fracturing causes groundwater pollution that she was saying that fracking (or, "blasting") liquids were causing the pollution. Again, I really don't think that's such a wild stretch that you'd think I was "making it up". I mean, come on...



Yeah, see above. Again, making comments like "different realities" and "making it up" aren't, to me, necessary. We have two different interpretations of what Suzu was talking about. Notice I didn't say that you were making things up. All I was trying to do was to clarify my position.



Yeah, you've really been a jerk in this "discussion", right from the point where you said that "unlike other people I try to look at both sides"... Yeah, I'm aware of both sides.

If you understood that "blasting" and "fracking" are essentially the same thing, you should have clarified that... it certainly would have helped facilitate the discussion. I'm not an industry insider, but I'm aware of the process and the terminology and fracturing being referred to as blasting is a new one on me.

Again, if fracking/blasting can be shown to cause groundwater contamination on a widespread, common basis, then by all means, ban it. But imposing bans based upon hyperbole and misinformation is truly unjust when there are people who are really struggling and could benefit from it.

That's all I've been trying to say, for cryin' out loud...

I've never seen anybody sympathetic to both sides of an argument not only use strawmen, but insist and demand that we accept the strawmen after it has been rejected multiple times. What you are calling me a jerk for I was trying to be kind in the face of sheer ugliness on your part. I was biting my tongue and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The ONLY people I have ever encountered in my life who demand that I eat their strawmen are shills.

But I stopped that thought process, bit my tongue, and chalked it up to a difference in perception.

So my giving you the benefit of the doubt makes me a jerk?

So why the hell should I bother to be nice if you are just going to shit on my face anyway?

[GunnyFreedom]

:facepalm:

Not even worth it...

LMAO uh huh, and I'm supposed to be the arrogant one here

Look man, what you think you are seeing is not what I am seeing.

If you really want to do yourself and the world a favor, you should review this conversation objectively.

Because I'm pretty confident that you are the one being an asshole here.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, it started with your second post to me. "Then again, unlike other people I like to look at both sides of the issue." I pointed it out right away...

Oooohh kayyy... If you wanted to apply that to yourself I guess it's your perogative to do so. :confused:



I'm not insisting that. For the fourth time, that was my interpretation of what Suzu was saying.

Why would you have to 'interpret' anything? She was talking about earthquakes and hydrocarbons.


That's your interpretation based upon your experiences, then, it seems. In my experience, fracking/blasting liquids have been the biggest cause of concern.

Honestly, I've only ever seen a couple people (out of thousands) to even consider the liquids as a possible problem.


Let's just agree that this has been an utterly failed conversation for whatever reason and walk away from it. What a freaking mess...

I'll say.

[smithtg]

At first, the EPA said that fracking wasn't a big deal... after some people's water started smelling like lighter fluid, I guess it was.... We shouldn't be destabilizing rock and poisoning ground water. As Ron previously stated, in a private market, you can't pollute your neighbors property; however, with the government "ok", they have permission to do just that. This needs to end.

whoever invented the idea of 'mineral rights' anyways? probably was a government thing. If they can actually own the property and produce gas etc and not bother their neighbors then it would be fine to do in a ron paul world

[A Son of Liberty]

I've never seen anybody sympathetic to both sides of an argument not only use strawmen, but insist and demand that we accept the strawmen after it has been rejected multiple times. What you are calling me a jerk for I was trying to be kind in the face of sheer ugliness on your part. I was biting my tongue and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The ONLY people I have ever encountered in my life who demand that I eat their strawmen are shills.

But I stopped that thought process, bit my tongue, and chalked it up to a difference in perception.

So my giving you the benefit of the doubt makes me a jerk?

So why the hell should I bother to be nice if you are just going to shit on my face anyway?

Unreal... I wasn't making a strawman argument and I wasn't insisting anyone accept it. I took her comment differently than you did. Why is that flying over your head? Jeezus...

Newsflash, bub... It's entirely possible that people don't read things the way you mean them sometimes... It seemed likely to me that your comment about seeing both sides was directed at me. If it wasn't, I apologize, but again you could have clarified that when it was brought up.

Unfreakingbelievable....

Edit: And now I'm a shill? :lol:

[GunnyFreedom]

whoever invented the idea of 'mineral rights' anyways? probably was a government thing. If they can actually own the property and produce gas etc and not bother their neighbors then it would be fine to do in a ron paul world

I agree. You can't really stay beneath your own property with this process though. To make any kind of money off of it you end up doing a lot of slant drilling that ends up beneath a lot of other people's properties.

That's the part that's always bothered me. If you do crap under your own property I couldn't care less. If you do crap under my property then I'm gonna care.

Almost all of this process ends up under someone else's property.

[smithtg]

I agree. You can't really stay beneath your own property with this process though. To make any kind of money off of it you end up doing a lot of slant drilling that ends up beneath a lot of other people's properties.

That's the part that's always bothered me. If you do crap under your own property I couldn't care less. If you do crap under my property then I'm gonna care.

Almost all of this process ends up under someone else's property.

and people willingly 'sell' these 'rights' to these production companies and then complain about the crap they do. The biggest thing the companies don't do even though they have the 'rights' is leave enough buffer area with their neighbors. This stuff comes up all the time in the news where some industrial company or mineral producer blows crap on their neighbor or dumps crap in the river. Just contain it on your property and account for the weather/wind/noise etc

[GunnyFreedom]

Unreal... I wasn't making a strawman argument and I wasn't insisting anyone accept it. I took her comment differently than you did. Why is that flying over your head? Jeezus...

Newsflash, bub... It's entirely possible that people don't read things the way you mean them sometimes... It seemed likely to me that your comment about seeing both sides was directed at me. If it wasn't, I apologize, but again you could have clarified that when it was brought up.

Unfreakingbelievable....

Edit: And now I'm a shill? :lol:

Seriously, don't know what to tell you man. What you are seeing here is not what I am seeing here. I know of no 'kinder gentler' way of saying it.

[OrigSEOH]

That's what I have been wondering? I've heard that some realtors are making deals in Eastern Ohio where foreclosed properties' "mineral rights" are being sold off to some oil and gas company and the land is put on the market for cheap. I know in Southern Ohio, the water table is near non-existent because of the coal mining over the years. I can't imagine that fracking does not ever ever push hydrocarbon upwards into the water table, just like a earthquake can push up fluids upward to liquify the soil.
whoever invented the idea of 'mineral rights' anyways? probably was a government thing. If they can actually own the property and produce gas etc and not bother their neighbors then it would be fine to do in a ron paul world

[GunnyFreedom]

and people willingly 'sell' these 'rights' to these production companies and then complain about the crap they do. The biggest thing the companies don't do even though they have the 'rights' is leave enough buffer area with their neighbors. This stuff comes up all the time in the news where some industrial company or mineral producer blows crap on their neighbor or dumps crap in the river. Just contain it on your property and account for the weather/wind/noise etc

Oh yeah, I am totally 100% in favor of the NAP as applied to property rights. Hydraulic Fracturing is just not that simple cut and dry though. You kinda have to be in a position to damage someone else's property just to do this as it was intended. And if there is any hydrocarbon infiltration, chances are it hits properties that were never part of a mineral rights deal to begin with. Depending on the bedrock formations, escaping methane could hit water tables 100 miles away, in an area completely unrelated to the drilling, fracturing, or trapping.

[A Son of Liberty]

Seriously, don't know what to tell you man. What you are seeing here is not what I am seeing here. I know of no 'kinder gentler' way of saying it.

That's fine. I feel the same way. I really feel like we just spent a lot of time misinterpreting what we've (and Suzu) been saying. I sincerely took her comment to mean that she was saying that fracking liquids contaminate groundwater. I'm willing to grant that may be the incorrect interpretation, but I still don't think it's a wildly off-base interpretation. And I really don't see where insisted and demanded that everyone accept my interpretation, but nevertheless, again things can get lost in translation on the internet.

My sole intention was to clarify the process and to express concern for property rights. If drilling is found to be detrimental to groundwater on a consistent, widespread basis, then I would certainly oppose it.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree. You can't really stay beneath your own property with this process though. To make any kind of money off of it you end up doing a lot of slant drilling that ends up beneath a lot of other people's properties.

That's the part that's always bothered me. If you do crap under your own property I couldn't care less. If you do crap under my property then I'm gonna care.

Almost all of this process ends up under someone else's property.

My understanding of this process is that if the producers go horizontal under your property, they need your permission (a lease) to do it.

I'M WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THIS MAY NOT BE CORRECT. AGAIN, THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING (ONLY) OF THIS PROCESS. I'M NOT INSISTING THAT THIS IS CORRECT.

;)

[GunnyFreedom]

My understanding of this process is that if the producers go horizontal under your property, they need your permission (a lease) to do it.

I'M WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THIS MAY NOT BE CORRECT. AGAIN, THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING (ONLY) OF THIS PROCESS. I'M NOT INSISTING THAT THIS IS CORRECT.

;)

I'm pretty sure that's correct with respect to mineral rights. The danger is that the contaminants that actually scare people...the various natural gasses...when released they rise. The can hit slabs of bedrock on the way up and get pushed off to one side eventually ending up impacting places miles and miles away that never signed over their mineral rights at all.

I think that's the most worrisome part. If you release a pocket of trapped methane 10,000 feet below the surface, it's anybody's guess where that methane is eventually going to end up.

Methane is completely odorless and flavorless, purity depending of course. If it manages to enter a house through the groundwater, it can potentially be very dangerous.

I don't believe that we will have such a problem in NC though, our bedrock is not very porous, we don't have methane deposits above the primary layer of bedrock... but at the same time that makes the "methane popping up 50 miles away" problem that much more of an issue.

The thing that makes me so deeply concerned here, is that self-sufficiency is a precious precious thing. Once an area becomes dependent on the county or the supermarket for water, it becomes a lot easier to make them into slaves. That gives me serious pause.

I understand, fracking for natural gas in NC would lead to tens of thousands of jobs. I hate the idea of government telling citizens what they can and can not do with their own property.

On the other side of the coin, it has the potential to impact people who are simply not a part of a mineral rights (or land-use lease) contract at all, who may have wanted nothing to do with it, and now (assuming the worst) can no longer use their groundwater well and can drink only at the pleasure of the county or municipal water system.

And I'm not even touching the fluoride or lithium in municipal water question.

I want to know that my grandkids 100 years from now are not going to be forced to use someone else's water to survive, but can draw their own water out of the ground. If they are forced with no option to rely on the county or city to provide water to survive, then they can easily be made into slaves.

So the question is by no means simple. Even free market principles can point to both yes and no. Say I agree with property A and B, but then end up spewing all over property C, that's an aggressive act, whether intentional or accidental.

My complaint with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is everybody treats fracking like it's all so damn simple and obvious. It's not. Republicans pretend like there can not possibly be a problem, and anybody who has concerns is just stupid. Democrats pretend like every time we have ever deployed fracking in America it has destroyed 100% of the environment in it's general area, and anybody who doesn't agree is just stupid.

It's way, way more complex and articulated than that. There is a very real danger, but it's not remotely as pervasive as some people think. Fracking could work very well in some areas, and may be a very bad idea in other areas.

I've done what I needed to do on SB709 to push it forward while trying to ensure safety, but I dread the next veto override vote because both the members and the electorate on both sides are blatantly oversimplifying the issue, and that's never helpful.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's fine. I feel the same way. I really feel like we just spent a lot of time misinterpreting what we've (and Suzu) been saying. I sincerely took her comment to mean that she was saying that fracking liquids contaminate groundwater. I'm willing to grant that may be the incorrect interpretation, but I still don't think it's a wildly off-base interpretation. And I really don't see where insisted and demanded that everyone accept my interpretation, but nevertheless, again things can get lost in translation on the internet.

My sole intention was to clarify the process and to express concern for property rights. If drilling is found to be detrimental to groundwater on a consistent, widespread basis, then I would certainly oppose it.

I am sure we both misunderstood each other on several occasions, and were both misunderstood by the other likewise. I apologize for anything that came off "jerkish" and I certainly had no intent to aggress argumentatively.

[sam1952]

OK, guess I'll jump in here. I am living right in the middle of the Marcellus drilling in Southwesten PA. I can see a well being drilled from my window. I watched a well beging finished from my hill top a week ago. I am not in these drilling units and drilling will not take place under my property. I am close enough to the one so that before drilling took place an independant company came and took samples of my water for quality and quantity. I have a well and many springs that I have concerns about. From my layman investigations I am not that concerned about my water. The first post by "A Son of Liberity" was a very fair and acccurate view of the "Horizontial Drilling Process" which includes "Fracking" (for anyone interested here is an animation of the process http://www.oerb.com/Default.aspx?tabid=242 )
I can tell you honestly that I am more concerned with coal minning that I ever am about drilling for natual gas. Gas migration into drinking water occurs naturally and methane gasses have migrated by coal minning wich releases "coal bed methane". Most coal minning occurs hundreds of feet below the surface and has caused many landowners to loose their water or have it contaminated. In my opinion natural gas drilling is much safe to my land and water than coal minning. BTW the animation shows the perf gun and the fracturing process. Maybe this will clear up the "BLASTING" discussion here.

LOL at my sig. here

[Carole]

Never heard of injection wells before. Seems like there could be lots of unintended consequences, earthquakes being one of course. From what I have read it looks like this has been going on for sometime. I just don't get how it is o.k. to get rid of waste by pumping it thousands of feet down into the Earth, I'm shocked really. I'm not convinced that our Grandchildren or maybe their Grandchildren will look back and say injection wells were a good idea. Of course all the people responsible will be long since gone, so they don't have to worry about any unintended consequences.

It is called "fracking" Water and certain chemicals, some deadly, are forced downward under great pressure, then horizontally to break up the rock containing gas.

IMHO, in additon to destroying some underground water aquifers, this may be the main cause of so many earthquakes occurring around Arkansas and other places. If you just think about it, the natural consequences would seem to be obvious, but that is just me.

It is an important topic to research. Fracking has been around since Haliburton, I think it was, got into it decades ago, but today's version seems fraught with unintended dangers to people and property and water. It is the big thing now, but it needs excellent oversight to keep it responsible because of the large geographic areas involved. This is one area in which oversight is a must. People in Pennsylvania have had great difficulty when trying to seek legal satisfaction after having had their water destroyed by the fracking process. Courts may be too corrupt and slow at this point in time to protect the public. So what is the answer? I do not want it to come from DC, but I do hope for reasonable oversight locally.

Big energy, big money, big potential consequences. We need energy, but I do want it to be safely obtained.

[PeacePlan]

Who knows this may save them from getting a large earthqauke. Earthqaukes are caused by the built up stress and this seems to relieve some of that.. They are greasing the plates.........

[Carole]

4.0 isn't that big for a quake- unless you are really close and in a static position- say sitting in a chair or on a couch- you might not even notice it. Just a little shaking. Kinda like a large truck driving by in front of your house.

True enough, but what if it later becomes a giant sinkhole after having all the gases extracted from the "fracked" rock below? Fracking involves great pressure and liquid. Think about it.

I you had a football buried a few feet below the ground, and something punctured it, what would happen to the earth above it?

Ever been to a cemetery and seen how graves have become sunken?

What about soil liquefaction?


In soil mechanics the term "liquefied" was first used by Hazen[1] in reference to the 1918 failure of the Calaveras Dam in California. He described the mechanism of flow liquefaction of the embankment dam as follows:

If the pressure of the water in the pores is great enough to carry all the load, it will have the effect of holding the particles apart and of producing a condition that is practically equivalent to that of quicksand… the initial movement of some part of the material might result in accumulating pressure, first on one point, and then on another, successively, as the early points of concentration were liquefied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

[sam1952]

Now as to the "drilling under others properity" discussion. It is against the law to drill under others properity and is taken seriously by landowners, the State and drilling companies. A horizontial leg may go for thousands of feet under numerous surface owners. When this is done a lease is obtained from every landowner impacted by the drilling. A "unit" is formed to include all the impacted landowners. Units usually consistive of 640 or 1280 acres. These land owners share in their portion of ownership from the whole pool.

Natural gas migration form shale is different that say oil. The shale formations are so tight that the gas doesn't escape naturally hence the reason of the fracking. Also most of this is thousands of feet (like 5 to 10,000) below the surface. Wells are cased in steel and concrete. In my opinion contamination is low risk. I'll take natural gas drilling every single time over coal minning.

[A Son of Liberty]

OK, guess I'll jump in here. I am living right in the middle of the Marcellus drilling in Southwesten PA. I can see a well being drilled from my window. I watched a well beging finished from my hill top a week ago. I am not in these drilling units and drilling will not take place under my property. I am close enough to the one so that before drilling took place an independant company came and took samples of my water for quality and quantity. I have a well and many springs that I have concerns about. From my layman investigations I am not that concerned about my water. The first post by "A Son of Liberity" was a very fair and acccurate view of the "Horizontial Drilling Process" which includes "Fracking" (for anyone interested here is an animation of the process http://www.oerb.com/Default.aspx?tabid=242 )
I can tell you honestly that I am more concerned with coal minning that I ever am about drilling for natual gas. Gas migration into drinking water occurs naturally and methane gasses have migrated by coal minning wich releases "coal bed methane". Most coal minning occurs hundreds of feet below the surface and has caused many landowners to loose their water or have it contaminated. In my opinion natural gas drilling is much safe to my land and water than coal minning. BTW the animation shows the perf gun and the fracturing process. Maybe this will clear up the "BLASTING" discussion here.

LOL at my sig. here

Edit: We're fairly close, geographically.

Thanks. I think it's important to point out the relative impact of the two processes, too. Drilling makes a very limited impact and subsurface disturbance, especially relative to coal mining and the surface areas of the layers of rock involved. It's also worth noting that areas which are prime for natural gas drilling are also frequently areas with much methane gas present.

The Marcellus shale sits roughly 10,000 feet below the surface (almost two miles). Typically, groundwater is found less than 1,000 feet below the surface. Gases certainly can migrate, but any gases within the shales being fracked are likely to follow the path of least resistance, which would be back up the well itself. That is NOT to say that there is no chance that gases couldn't migrate through rock back to water table elevations, or that the process of drilling through the many layers could not free some gases, but again, we're still mining coal which has a far greater area of disturbance, etc.

It's simply my sincere hope that people understand this process before they villify it.

[A Son of Liberty]

Now as to the "drilling under others properity" discussion. It is against the law to drill under others properity and is taken seriously by landowners, the State and drilling companies. A horizontial leg may go for thousands of feet under numerous surface owners. When this is done a lease is obtained from every landowner impacted by the drilling. A "unit" is formed to include all the impacted landowners. Units usually consistive of 640 or 1280 acres. These land owners share in their portion of ownership from the whole pool.

That's my understanding as well. Also, royalties are due to property owners who have gas extracted from under their property (while not necessarily being drilled under).


Natural gas migration form shale is different that say oil. The shale formations are so tight that the gas doesn't escape naturally hence the reason of the fracking. Also most of this is thousands of feet (like 5 to 10,000) below the surface. Wells are cased in steel and concrete. In my opinion contamination is low risk. I'll take natural gas drilling every single time over coal minning.

Agreed, regarding drilling over mining. And I think vigilant enforcement of property rights, as well as vigorous prosecution of violators can and does make mining a much better process than it has been over the years.

[moostraks]

Update from:http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/communitynews/warren/story/Quake-Epicenter-Near-Injection-Well/-Zjj8FavpE-jONyDBtQ6ug.cspx

"In addition to cracks in drywall in Girard, bricks fell from a chimney in McDonald. Posters to the station's Facebook pages have submitted many pictures of cracked cement block walls, cracks in drywall, and reported slanting floors. No injuries have been reported."

Wonder how many people will get compensated for this? Many of these houses are old here and I could see insurance adjusters writing the majority off as unprovable even if they were caused by the earthquakes and the individual left to repair at their own cost damage caused through no fault of their own.

[sam1952]

Update from:http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/communitynews/warren/story/Quake-Epicenter-Near-Injection-Well/-Zjj8FavpE-jONyDBtQ6ug.cspx

"In addition to cracks in drywall in Girard, bricks fell from a chimney in McDonald. Posters to the station's Facebook pages have submitted many pictures of cracked cement block walls, cracks in drywall, and reported slanting floors. No injuries have been reported."

Wonder how many people will get compensated for this? Many of these houses are old here and I could see insurance adjusters writing the majority off as unprovable even if they were caused by the earthquakes and the individual left to repair at their own cost damage caused through no fault of their own.

I bookmarked that report. I'd like to follow what the outcome is. How much drilling is going on in that area? Also was curious if the "brine" injection was fracking fluid or if it was storage/disposal of fracking fluid.

[angelatc]

4.0 isn't that big for a quake- unless you are really close and in a static position- say sitting in a chair or on a couch- you might not even notice it. Just a little shaking. Kinda like a large truck driving by in front of your house.

I call hyperbole. Ohio sits square on the Madrid fault, and has always had small iearthquakes .

[angelatc]

I think that's the most worrisome part. If you release a pocket of trapped methane 10,000 feet below the surface, it's anybody's guess where that methane is eventually going to end up.

Physics wasn't my strong point, but I'm thinking that it's going straight up that shaft you just drilled. And if this is 10,000 feet below the surface, it's about 9900 feet below the water table

[moostraks]

I bookmarked that report. I'd like to follow what the outcome is. How much drilling is going on in that area? Also was curious if the "brine" injection was fracking fluid or if it was storage/disposal of fracking fluid.

As explained through the local paper,"the brine-injection well on Ohio Works Drive in Youngstown that is blamed for the 11 quakes — the first to have an epicenter in Mahoning County...Injection wells are the opposite; the fluid left over from the fracking process is injected deep into the ground, sometimes as deep as 9,300 feet in Ohio.

The brine injections is a separate practice from fracking.

The nearest horizontal fracking operation is in Milton Township. There is no horizontal fracking going on in the immediate Youngstown area.

There was, however, one fully-functional injection well, on Ohio Works Drive in Youngstown.

That well was shut down by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources on Friday."

http://www.vindy.com/news/2012/jan/02/quake-fallout-takes-many-paths/
They are going as far as they can to try and distance this from fracking. The local media is highly invested in encouraging people to support the fracking as the cure for the economy here. That alone makes me suspicious. I do like the comments from some who are paying close attention to how this matter is being handled. I am currently fence sitting on this issue as I have not taken enough time to be well read on the matter. I do think they are trying too hard to distance something which does have its ties to the fracking process. I also see how big corp manage to entice crooked government officials to look the other way in too many instances so I am incredibly leery of the matter going well for those of us who are here for the long haul and not looking to get the heck out of Dodge.

[A Son of Liberty]

That to me sounds like a bad practice altogether. It's a consequence of not having a good solution for what to do with the portion of fracking liquids that are reclaimed from the well, and it should become obsolete once new fracking chemicals are introduced. Gunny mentioned Halliburton is introducing a eco-friendly solution, and I've heard talk of a carbon dioxide based solution. In the meantime, there are on-site filter units which are being employed to handle the water. Pumping brine into the ground because they can't figure out what else to do with it is just a bad practice, I think.

[sam1952]

Thank you for the reply. If they are injecting the Brine, which I'm taking to mean used frack fluid, as a way of disposing it that is something I disagree with on the surface. Here there have beeen companies dumping frack fluid into streams and rivers in the past. Responsible drillers do not support that and it is illegal! They are now recycling the water to new wells and also have water treatment plants to return the water to normal.

I am confused about the earthquakes though and am interested in this. To me it seems the perforation of the pipe is minor. Just enough charge to blow through the well casing. then the Fracking takes place.The well spacing is only a couple of hundred feet apart meaning tiny fractures in the shale run a hundred feet each side. it just doesn't seem to be enough to disturb the rock that much. Of course i am no geologist and why I am interested in following this.

[moostraks]

I call hyperbole. Ohio sits square on the Madrid fault, and has always had small iearthquakes .
:confused:

Previous quake history appears to be few and far between...
Historical Earthquake Data (Within 100 Miles)

All distances and depths in the table below are measured in miles

Date Distance Magnitude Depth
06/10/2010 60.96 2.6 5

06/07/2010 51.85 2.4 5

05/17/2010 45.79 2.7 5

04/25/2010 52.02 3 5

01/09/2008 58.92 3.1 5

10/17/2007 60.10 3.4 5

03/12/2007 39.97 3.7 5

06/20/2006 59.32 3.5 5

03/11/2006 60.66 3.1 5

06/30/2004 52.02 3.3 5

06/30/2003 56.15 3.6 4

06/03/2001 55.64 3.4 5

01/26/2001 58.57 4.4 5

09/25/1998 30.14 4.5 5

10/16/1993 45.49 3.6 5

03/15/1992 64.03 3.5 5

01/26/1991 51.48 3.4 5

07/13/1987 55.84 3 5

07/13/1987 55.64 3.8 5

01/31/1986 46.32 5 10

http://www.homefacts.com/earthquakes/Ohio/Mahoning-County/Youngstown.html

Now:
"The quake was the 11th over the last eight months in Mahoning County, all within two miles of the injection wells, he said. Saturday’s quake was the largest yet..."
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977

I think calling this hyperbole is disparaging people with well founded fears of a process being given tons of positive publicity and minimal oversite when damge is apparently being caused. I understand not jumping to conclusions after one earthquake but it took 11 quakes before the decided to see a connection. Geesh! 4.0 might not be a big deal in some areas of the country but in an area with old houses that already have sinking potentials due to extensive coal mining in the area, all areas are not created equal...

[moostraks]

That to me sounds like a bad practice altogether. It's a consequence of not having a good solution for what to do with the portion of fracking liquids that are reclaimed from the well, and it should become obsolete once new fracking chemicals are introduced. Gunny mentioned Halliburton is introducing a eco-friendly solution, and I've heard talk of a carbon dioxide based solution. In the meantime, there are on-site filter units which are being employed to handle the water. Pumping brine into the ground because they can't figure out what else to do with it is just a bad practice, I think.

I had heard about the recycling as well. I was rather surprised to find out this waste is being dumped in a nearby town's back yard. They figure we are too poor and desperate to complain if I had my guess. You hear daily about fracking potential on the local talk radio but this is the first mention I have seen of the waste being dumped. The 11 quakes have also only been sparsely mentioned as I have only heard of 3 earthquakes out of the 11 and we have the local radio on almost 24/7 in the kitchen and bedroom...

[moostraks]

Thank you for the reply. If they are injecting the Brine, which I'm taking to mean used frack fluid, as a way of disposing it that is something I disagree with on the surface. Here there have beeen companies dumping frack fluid into streams and rivers in the past. Responsible drillers do not support that and it is illegal! They are now recycling the water to new wells and also have water treatment plants to return the water to normal.

I am confused about the earthquakes though and am interested in this. To me it seems the perforation of the pipe is minor. Just enough charge to blow through the well casing. then the Fracking takes place.The well spacing is only a couple of hundred feet apart meaning tiny fractures in the shale run a hundred feet each side. it just doesn't seem to be enough to disturb the rock that much. Of course i am no geologist and why I am interested in following this.

I am not very knowledgable on the matter but glad to pass on what I can find. I am very skeptical when government goes on a propaganda tour with corporations as they have been pimping in our area over the last few weeks. So I lean towards pessimistic. The term brine water seems very innocuous as opposed to waste water which is more accurate imo. Sorry about the problems in your area. I know many here are using PA's problems with the industry as a reason to go slow and trust no one while the industry is waving bundles of cash under the noses of those sitting on parcels of land.

[Zippyjuan]

:confused:

Previous quake history appears to be few and far between...
Historical Earthquake Data (Within 100 Miles)

All distances and depths in the table below are measured in miles

Date Distance Magnitude Depth
06/10/2010 60.96 2.6 5

06/07/2010 51.85 2.4 5

05/17/2010 45.79 2.7 5

04/25/2010 52.02 3 5

01/09/2008 58.92 3.1 5

10/17/2007 60.10 3.4 5

03/12/2007 39.97 3.7 5

06/20/2006 59.32 3.5 5

03/11/2006 60.66 3.1 5

06/30/2004 52.02 3.3 5

06/30/2003 56.15 3.6 4

06/03/2001 55.64 3.4 5

01/26/2001 58.57 4.4 5

09/25/1998 30.14 4.5 5

10/16/1993 45.49 3.6 5

03/15/1992 64.03 3.5 5

01/26/1991 51.48 3.4 5

07/13/1987 55.84 3 5

07/13/1987 55.64 3.8 5

01/31/1986 46.32 5 10

http://www.homefacts.com/earthquakes/Ohio/Mahoning-County/Youngstown.html

Now:
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977

I think calling this hyperbole is disparaging people with well founded fears of a process being given tons of positive publicity and minimal oversite when damge is apparently being caused. I understand not jumping to conclusions after one earthquake but it took 11 quakes before the decided to see a connection. Geesh! 4.0 might not be a big deal in some areas of the country but in an area with old houses that already have sinking potentials due to extensive coal mining in the area, all areas are not created equal...

According to the article, the quakes have not been significant in size as far as earthquakes go. Other quakes mentioned in the article:
December 24th 2.4
March 17th 2.1 and 2.6

There are about 1.5 million earthquakes of 3.9 or lower each year someplace on earth. 1.3 million in the 2.0 to 2.9 category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale Quakes under 3.0 are not usually felt at all.

This is not to say that fracking does not cause problems. Just to say that the quakes so far are not significant events.

The epicenter of this latest quake was over three miles down according to the USGS http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/ld60029101.html which is far below any wells being drilled in Ohio.

[sam1952]

Really the problems have been few and far between. Honestly local media and the state are not pushing the drilling agenda. There are enough news reports taking the anti-drilling position. The anti position has as much propaganda as any i've seen. Kinda like FOX vs CNN, lol.... My personal opinion now that the dust has settled is I belive it to be a safe energy source. i am glad to see PA take a lead position in the exploration of natural gas rather than put a moritorium on drilling as other states have done. Of course responsible drilling and waste disposal practices are a part of the equation.

I will still take natural gas drilling over coal minning anytime...

[angelatc]

:confused:
I think calling this hyperbole is disparaging people with well founded fears of a process being given tons of positive publicity and minimal oversite when damge is apparently being caused. I understand not jumping to conclusions after one earthquake but it took 11 quakes before the decided to see a connection. Geesh! 4.0 might not be a big deal in some areas of the country but in an area with old houses that already have sinking potentials due to extensive coal mining in the area, all areas are not created equal...

I grew up there. It's no secret that the fault exists, and we've always known that there was going to be a big quake there some day, which still hasn't happened, btw. You can't build houses on an earthquake fault and not seriously expect that the ground won't move.

Seismic activity along one of the biggest faults in America - yeah, must be corporate America's fault, coz the liberal media says so.

[moostraks]

I grew up there. It's no secret that the fault exists, and we've always known that there was going to be a big quake there some day, which still hasn't happened, btw. You can't build houses on an earthquake fault and not seriously expect that the ground won't move.

Seismic activity along one of the biggest faults in America - yeah, must be corporate America's fault, coz the liberal media says so.

:rolleyes: Yeah the injection well is completely irrelevant to the 11 earthquakes in 8 months in the immediate locale. Good grief. Dismiss data because you know better. Alrighty there...

Btw liberal media ain't sayin nothin' cause they are in for the fracking deal. Check out the vindy piece. They want to dismiss this as much as possible. All the media does here is pimp for the fracking contracts. They don't give a damn about the consequences. They have been pretty quiet up till the damn well was closed as to why we were having these quakes.

[moostraks]

According to the article, the quakes have not been significant in size as far as earthquakes go. Other quakes mentioned in the article:
December 24th 2.4
March 17th 2.1 and 2.6

There are about 1.5 million earthquakes of 3.9 or lower each year someplace on earth. 1.3 million in the 2.0 to 2.9 category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale Quakes under 3.0 are not usually felt at all.

This is not to say that fracking does not cause problems. Just to say that the quakes so far are not significant events.

The epicenter of this latest quake was over three miles down according to the USGS http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/ld60029101.html which is far below any wells being drilled in Ohio.

"analysis of the 10th earthquake, a 2.7-magnitude temblor on Dec. 24, showed that it occurred less than 2,000 feet below the well. Because of a lack of data, depth estimates of earlier earthquakes had been far less precise."...

John Armbruster, a seismologist with Lamont, said that the data from the Saturday quake should be available within a few days, and that analysis should help pinpoint the location of the fault that slipped.

'In our minds, we were already pretty convinced that these events were connected to the well,” Mr. Armbruster said. “Having that many earthquakes fairly close to a well in Ohio, where there aren’t a lot of earthquakes, was suspicious.'"


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/science/earth/youngstown-injection-well-stays-shut-after-earthquake.html

I guess it might be okay to you to wake up one day and have your house start tilting so your floors slope but around these parts folks are having a hard enough time trying to sell their houses without this type of crap happenning. As I suspected local response on regarding insurance is sounding like an uphill battle. Insurance stance seems to be taking the position they won't cover the damage because it was a manmade earthquake according to at least one local respondant. Guess they can just take them to court and try suing the company. That usually works well esp. for low income folks...