OK: Fracking, Earthquakes, and Clusters

[pacodever]

So at the same time Oklahoma gov't finally recognizes the link between fracking waste-water disposal and earthquakes, it passes a bill prohibiting local officials banning oil and gas drilling in cities/counties. Meanwhile, insurance carriers are denying claims relating to earthquake damages because they can attribute them to a man-made cause despite the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioners' warnings. Additionally, there is an injury case before the Oklahoma Supreme Court against two energy companies alleging that the companies caused an earthquake that resulted in personal injury when a chimney collapsed on the plaintiff.

All the while, we are waiting for the Big One to hit. What would a free market solution to this cluster look like?

For the first time in the state's history, Oklahoma’s state government officially recognized the long held scientific consensus linking the disposal of oil and gas wastewater with the record number of earthquakes plaguing it in recent years.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-ad...ry?id=30502267

Local officials would be prohibited from banning oil and gas drilling in their cities and counties under a bill approved by the Oklahoma House on Wednesday.

http://newsok.com/bill-passes-oklaho...rticle/5412766

Early last month, Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak cautioned against that, issuing a Bulletin warning earthquake insurers that his office would be forced “to take appropriate action to enforce the law” if they continued to deny quake claims on the basis of what he called “unsettled science.”

n addition, the issue of causation is already wending its way through the legal system, though it is unlikely that the question will be definitively disposed of any time soon. In 2011, one Sandra Ladra sustained injuries when her chimney collapsed in a Magnitude 5.6 quake – the strongest ever in Oklahoma – and she sued two energy companies, alleging that the earthquake was caused by fracking. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but she took an appeal, and the case is presently before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...8-ae3da3e7b427

Long-dormant, 300-million-year-old fault lines across Oklahoma are being "reawakened" by recent small earthquakes that have been previously linked to the fracking process, scientists reported in a new study out this week.

The faults could trigger much higher-magnitude and more destructive quakes than most of the smaller ones that have plagued the state in recent years, according to the new research.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ines/24702741/

[invisible]

Great post! Your question is a very complex one, and there are many different ways of looking at all of this, all of which need to be considered together as a whole. That said, the answer is more than can be given in just one post. For my first post in attempting to answer your question, let's start with the courts. I feel that the root of the problem lies there, since any controversy, claims, and counterclaims will ultimately need to be addressed in one way or another by the courts, sooner or later. That makes the issue one of the courts being bought off. Can the average citizen who has been harmed get actual justice through the court system, when opposed by a corporation with pockets that are infinitely deep, for all practical purposes? Can the average citizen even get access to the court system without having to spend thousands and thousands of dollars that they don't have? If the answer is no to either or both question, then it is impossible to have a truly free market solution, because it is impossible for ANY citizen to ensure that their rights to their property and person are protected and infringed upon. A free market solution cannot exist when justice is only available to those who can afford it, or when the courts are stacked in favor of the corporations and against the individual. So that is the first issue that must be addressed, because a truly free market solution to this requires free access to an unbiased system of justice.

Also, I didn't hear about that bill! Did it go to or through the Senate yet? Hopefully it is not far enough along in the process that it can still be stopped. I'd like to see a roll call on that one.

Hopefully the shills will stay out of this thread enough that it can stay on topic.

[Natural Citizen]

I think that the main hurdle with this is the fact that the industry is able to use the old "Trade Secret" gag. Now, the science community have begun to look at solving that kind of political skullduggery by way of the 14th amendment. I'll have to dig around for the nuts and bolts of that. A the end of the day, science itself simply isn't a trade secret. That's the main roadblock, though.

If you think about it, it's comparable to that whole stingray thing with the phones. They know what they're doing but they don't want to fess up because then the gig is up. You know?

[pacodever]

Great post! Your question is a very complex one, and there are many different ways of looking at all of this, all of which need to be considered together as a whole. That said, the answer is more than can be given in just one post. For my first post in attempting to answer your question, let's start with the courts. I feel that the root of the problem lies there, since any controversy, claims, and counterclaims will ultimately need to be addressed in one way or another by the courts, sooner or later. That makes the issue one of the courts being bought off. Can the average citizen who has been harmed get actual justice through the court system, when opposed by a corporation with pockets that are infinitely deep, for all practical purposes? Can the average citizen even get access to the court system without having to spend thousands and thousands of dollars that they don't have? If the answer is no to either or both question, then it is impossible to have a truly free market solution, because it is impossible for ANY citizen to ensure that their rights to their property and person are protected and infringed upon. A free market solution cannot exist when justice is only available to those who can afford it, or when the courts are stacked in favor of the corporations and against the individual. So that is the first issue that must be addressed, because a truly free market solution to this requires free access to an unbiased system of justice.

Also, I didn't hear about that bill! Did it go to or through the Senate yet? Hopefully it is not far enough along in the process that it can still be stopped. I'd like to see a roll call on that one.

Hopefully the shills will stay out of this thread enough that it can stay on topic.

Thanks for the response! Looks like there have been several bills presented, SB809, SB468, and HB2178 are the ones I've seen mentioned. I believe SB809 was the one that passed yesterday:

SECTION 1. A municipality, county, or other political subdivision may enactreasonable ordinances, rules, and regulations concerning road use,
traffic, noise, and odors incidental to oil and gas operations
within its boundaries, provided such ordinances, rules, and
regulations are not inconsistent with any regulation established by
Title 52 of the Oklahoma Statutes or the Corporation Commission. A
municipality, county, or other political subdivision may also
establish reasonable setbacks and fencing requirements for oil and
gas well site locations as are reasonably necessary to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, but may not effectively
prohibit, or ban any oil and gas operations, including oil and gas
exploration, drilling, fracture stimulation, completion, production,
maintenance, plugging and abandonment, produced water disposal,
secondary recovery operations, flow and gathering lines or pipeline
infrastructure. All other regulation of oil and gas operations
shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Corporation
Commission.

SECTION 2. Whenever a municipality or county or other political subdivision,
other than the Corporation Commission, adopts or implements an
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation or other form of official
policy concerning oil and gas operations that has the effect of: (1)
substantially interfering with use and enjoyment of the mineral
estate, as defined in section 802 of this title, or (2) exercising
dominion and control over the mineral estate, thereby substantially
increasing the costs of the oil and gas operations or substantially
reducing the fair market value of the mineral estate, it shall be
considered a taking pursuant to section 24 of article 2 of the
Oklahoma Constitution.

Section 1 prevents any local rules regarding oil and gas operation that isn't consistent w/ the State/OCC, including bans. They allow for reasonable local rules regarding road use, traffic, noise, and odors, but these rules would be subject to the State. Additionally, any regulation that was approved would be considered a taking that would cost the local government.

My interpretation of the bill is that it effectively prevents a local gov't from passing any rule the State/OCC does not approve, and even if the rule is approved, it would likely prove too costly for the local gov't to enforce.

I am going to do some more research on tort remedies, public/private nuisance, and how they are effected by OK Oil & Gas laws and the OCC, but I agree that injured parties are going to have a difficult time in the court system when the industry is statutorily protected, shielded by the OCC, and has the resources to make any action cost-prohibitive to the regular person.

[pacodever]

I think that the main hurdle with this is the fact that the industry is able to use the old "Trade Secret" gag. Now, the science community have begun to look at solving that kind of political skullduggery by way of the 14th amendment. I'll have to dig around for the nuts and bolts of that. A the end of the day, science itself simply isn't a trade secret. That's the main roadblock, though.

If you think about it, it's comparable to that whole stingray thing with the phones. They know what they're doing but they don't want to fess up because then the gig is up. You know?

Yes, that has been their tactic. Deny, delay, and, when the truth is presented, cast doubt, deny, and delay some more.

[wizardwatson]

Fracking is actually a secret operation to release tension in north American plate due to imminent yellowstone caldera eruption that will result from magnetic pole shift currently in process.

So of course we can't outlaw it. It's the only thing that might save this country (fyi it won't).

I'm surprised you guys didn't know that.

[presence]

https://mises.org/sites/default/file...Universe_2.pdf

Efficiency and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe:
A Modern Austrian Perspective

by Roy Cordato

That's the general "mises" consensus on externalities.

I have my doubts and I'm not sure of the "best" path.

When considering the concept of externalities a hypothetical circumstance comes to mind:

A group of residents in a densely populated town have tradition of firing their weapons into the air on a certain holiday each year. They do so, in timed unison... but each from their respective homes. Every year, 2 or 3 people are wounded or killed from falling lead in the town. Rounding up every participant and ballistics aside; who is responsible? Who is responsible from not just the physical fallout but the psychological effects on the town each holiday? Can there be an equitable solution without regulation? The example seems far more clear cut than the vehicle exhaust / air pollution / lung cancer link but it would seem, like the fracking / earthquakes issue, is otherwise much the same.

[Okie RP fan]

Great post and questions, looking forward to hearing more perspectives.

One side note, is there an explicit difference between the actual process of fracking, and the waste "water" disposal wells (in relation to the earthquakes)?
I say this, because the oil and gas industry will slowly have to come out and admit that the earthquakes are related, but I heard that the actual fracking process isn't what's causing the earthquakes as much as it is the remnants and wells they leave behind with the waste? I know that seems circular but as I said, I heard the difference was important in understanding the issue from a higher perspective.

And to any outsiders, Oklahoma now registers more earthquakes 3.0 and higher than any other state, even more than CA now. So it's kind of a big deal.

[sam1952]

As a proponent of fracking in my area (PA) I am not in favor of the disposal of fracking waste through disposal injection wells. It seems to be common misconception to associate the seismic activity with the fracking process itself.

I found this about OK;


There is general consensus among scientists that the spike in Oklahoma’s earthquake activity has been triggered by disposal wells, used to dispose of waste from oil and gas drilling operations — including hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — a phenomenon known as “induced” seismicity.

Nearly two-dozen peer-reviewed, published papers have concluded disposal wells and quakes are likely connected, the New Yorker reported in April 2015.

There are about 3,200 active disposal wells in Oklahoma as of April 2015, data from the state Corporation Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator, show.

The National Research Council‘s list of best practices for drillers and disposal well operators includes investigating any potential disposal site’s history of earthquakes and its proximity to fault lines. Some states, like Ohio, have done just that, and are forbidding any deep injection wells near fault lines.

Cliff Frolich, the Associate Director of the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, says such moves are smart policy. He also suggests that companies look for new ways of disposing of wastewater altogether. “If disposal is causing earthquakes you can find a different way of dispose of it,” he said. [/B]”You can dispose of the stuff in a different well, or you can even take it to a fluid treatment plant.”[/B]

Of course, he added, such processes are costly and therefore companies’ willingness to do that will depend largely on what states require of them.

OKLAHOMA’S RESPONSE

In September 2014, new Corporation Commission rules went into effect that require operators of disposal wells in the Arbuckle formation — a deep underground layer situated above crystalline “basement” rock — to provide the agency with more detailed and frequent volume and pressure data. Injecting fluid into basement rock is considered a major risk factor for triggering earthquakes.

Seismologists say another risk factor for artificially triggering earthquakes is injecting into faults, especially faults that are likely to slip. Currently, seismologists at the Oklahoma Geological Survey are rushing to update statewide fault maps — including proprietary data supplied by energy companies.

Other states have been more aggressive in adopting formal rules to address oil and gas-related earthquakes, but Oklahoma’s Corporation Commission has used its permitting system to scrutinize disposal well activity in quake-prone areas.

In April 2015, the agency issued its most strident response to date by ordering 92 operators of 347 disposal wells to prove to the commission that their wells weren’t in contact with granite basement rock. The orders, called “directives,” also expanded the definition of “areas of interest” — a term the agency uses to describe locations of concentrated seismic activity.

INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE

The oil and gas industry, for its part, has downplayed the links between disposal wells and earthquakes and has suggested much of the shaking is from natural causes. An April 2015 story in the New York Times noted that while many energy companies are privately cooperating with scientists and regulators, “Publicly, the industry wants Oklahomans to beware of killing the golden goose.”

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/tag/earthquakes/

[invisible]

One side note, is there an explicit difference between the actual process of fracking, and the waste "water" disposal wells (in relation to the earthquakes)?

There are only two real and significant differences:
The fracking process injects a bunch of water mixed with chemicals and sand (the mixture is called propant, or "mud"), to "stimulate" the well (the actual fracturing) and "prop open" the fractures for the oil / gas to flow through.
The disposal process injects the flowback waste (salt water underground near the oil or gas, water used in the fracking process, and the chemicals all come back up out of the well during the fracking process) into a well that is deeper than the wells drilled for oil, or into an unused oil well that is no longer producing oil and thus become unprofitable for that use.

The argument used by pro-fracking people who are willing to admit that fracking causes earthquakes is that the earthquakes occur because the injection wells (at least the ones that aren't recycled non-producing oil wells) are drilled deeper, and / or are located on fault lines, some of which may be deep underground and therefore unknown to exist. However, the fracking process itself IS injection, by definition!

[invisible]

As a proponent of fracking in my area (PA) I am not in favor of the disposal of fracking waste through disposal injection wells.

Ok, so then how exactly do you propose that the industry gets rid of it? Just dump it into previously uncontaminated bodies of water, including lakes, aquifiers, rivers, and streams, like has been occurring in WV, PA, and CA? Just dump it on people's previously uncontaminated land ("landfarming"), which also occurs in multiple states? Or sell it to state governments so that they can use it in the winter as "liquid de-icer" on the roads, contaminating the adjacent land and eating away at the paint and metal of your car? There IS no good way to get rid of highly toxic and corrosive fracking waste, no matter what you do with it! Fracking is another Love Canal in the making, and unfortunately the industry has done such an excellent job of buying off the federal government, state governments, and the courts, that it probably isn't going to stop until a major environmental disaster occurs. What happens when the water becomes undrinkable in Pittsburgh, Dallas, or some other major city? What happens when it's YOUR well or YOUR land that is poisoned, and you can't get relief through the courts because your state government has passed laws that protect the industry? Will you still be a proponent of fracking then?

[The Northbreather]

Great post! Your question is a very complex one, and there are many different ways of looking at all of this, all of which need to be considered together as a whole. That said, the answer is more than can be given in just one post. For my first post in attempting to answer your question, let's start with the courts. I feel that the root of the problem lies there, since any controversy, claims, and counterclaims will ultimately need to be addressed in one way or another by the courts, sooner or later. That makes the issue one of the courts being bought off. Can the average citizen who has been harmed get actual justice through the court system, when opposed by a corporation with pockets that are infinitely deep, for all practical purposes? Can the average citizen even get access to the court system without having to spend thousands and thousands of dollars that they don't have? If the answer is no to either or both question, then it is impossible to have a truly free market solution, because it is impossible for ANY citizen to ensure that their rights to their property and person are protected and infringed upon. A free market solution cannot exist when justice is only available to those who can afford it, or when the courts are stacked in favor of the corporations and against the individual. So that is the first issue that must be addressed, because a truly free market solution to this requires free access to an unbiased system of justice.

Also, I didn't hear about that bill! Did it go to or through the Senate yet? Hopefully it is not far enough along in the process that it can still be stopped. I'd like to see a roll call on that one.

Hopefully the shills will stay out of this thread enough that it can stay on topic.

Who has Erin Brockovich on the roladex?

[sam1952]

Ok, so then how exactly do you propose that the industry gets rid of it? Just dump it into previously uncontaminated bodies of water, including lakes, aquifiers, rivers, and streams, like has been occurring in WV, PA, and CA? Just dump it on people's previously uncontaminated land ("landfarming"), which also occurs in multiple states? Or sell it to state governments so that they can use it in the winter as "liquid de-icer" on the roads, contaminating the adjacent land and eating away at the paint and metal of your car? There IS no good way to get rid of highly toxic and corrosive fracking waste, no matter what you do with it! Fracking is another Love Canal in the making, and unfortunately the industry has done such an excellent job of buying off the federal government, state governments, and the courts, that it probably isn't going to stop until a major environmental disaster occurs. What happens when the water becomes undrinkable in Pittsburgh, Dallas, or some other major city? What happens when it's YOUR well or YOUR land that is poisoned, and you can't get relief through the courts because your state government has passed laws that protect the industry? Will you still be a proponent of fracking then?

Not sure where to start so I'm gonna just jump right in. As I stated I'm not in favor of injection disposal wells. In Pennsylvania there are a total of 7 injection wells, in Oklahoma there are currently 3200. To answer the next question PA trucks it's waste water to Ohio... How convenient I know.

There are not injection wells drilled at every well pad in PA. They put in holding ponds that the water is reused sometimes. Then disposed of though either injection wells or treatment. I am in favor of treatment plants and would like to see the state and the industry more aggressive in this process.

Now I live in the middle of all this activity in southwestern PA. I can assure you no one is dumping frack water in the lake next to me or in the streams on my property. I can walk in my upper field and see 5 well pads around me. The 4 springs and 2 wells on my property have been tested 5 times for each pad that was drilled and once independently paid for by myself and have had no change in my water quality. None of my neighbors have had any issues either. No cows or crops are dying and life is exactly as it was before. When this all started 8 years ago I did what due diligence was available and made and keep an informed opinion. I do not fall into the "sky is falling" mentality as many seem to do. There's a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of this issue and it's easy to copy and paste a million skewed studies depending on which side of the fence you're on.

I will finish with what Penn State University has to say on the basic topic at hand;

Q: What happens to the wastewater (i.e. flowback water) associated with hydraulic fracturing operations?
Hydraulic fracturing is necessary for development of the Marcellus shale natural gas as this process opens up fractures in the shale which allow the natural gas to flow to the well. This operation involves injecting several million gallons of water, sand, and a small addition of chemical additives into the formation at high pressure. After the injection is completed, approximately 10-20 percent of the fluids (known as flowback) return to the surface via the well. Therefore, a 5-million gallon hydraulic fracture stimulation might return 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water. The reuse of the flowback fluids by the drilling industry for subsequent hydraulic fracture treatments significantly reduces the volume of wastewater being generated by hydraulic fracturing. This water can be treated and blended with fresh water and reused, which is what many companies are now doing to minimize the amount of water that would otherwise be potentially discharged to streams or rivers once treated.
Currently, new Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection standards dictate that any flowback must be treated to have a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 500 parts per million, which is consistent with Pennsylvania drinking water standards, and therefore won’t increase TDS levels to unacceptable levels. There are new treatment plants being built to meet these standards and at least one is now in operation in Williamsport, Pa.
Q: What is kept in the large impoundments at Marcellus Shale well sites—fresh water or frac water?
Each well requires approximately 3 to5 million gallons of fresh water. Therefore, impoundments are utilized to store this water at the site. The flowback (frac) water may either be stored in dedicated lined impoundments or in steel tanks so that it may be treated for reuse or for proper disposal. More and more companies are utilizing tanks for storage to avoid potential problems of seepage and spillage from frac water impoundments.

http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/resources/faq.php

[Okie RP fan]

There are only two real and significant differences:
The fracking process injects a bunch of water mixed with chemicals and sand (the mixture is called propant, or "mud"), to "stimulate" the well (the actual fracturing) and "prop open" the fractures for the oil / gas to flow through.
The disposal process injects the flowback waste (salt water underground near the oil or gas, water used in the fracking process, and the chemicals all come back up out of the well during the fracking process) into a well that is deeper than the wells drilled for oil, or into an unused oil well that is no longer producing oil and thus become unprofitable for that use.

The argument used by pro-fracking people who are willing to admit that fracking causes earthquakes is that the earthquakes occur because the injection wells (at least the ones that aren't recycled non-producing oil wells) are drilled deeper, and / or are located on fault lines, some of which may be deep underground and therefore unknown to exist. However, the fracking process itself IS injection, by definition!

I can't give you anymore reputation. But thanks for the explanation, good stuff.

[fr33]

I don't have a solution for it. There's just too many people. Many of those people don't want the consequences of fuel from abroad and they don't want the consequences of domestic fuel. But they want the fuel and they want it cheap. It's the same story with a lot of commodities.

[sam1952]

I came across this and thought it might be useful to the discussion;


I live in Oklahoma, and work as an oil and gas regulator on Indian Lands here. I get asked this question all the time based on the increase in Earthquake activity we have been experiencing.

IF we are seeing an increase in induced (man-made) seismicity and IF that increase can be attributed to oil & gas activity, the most likely cause is salt water injection/disposal wells and not fracture treatments.


If there is such a thing as a "typical" oil/gas well, Fracture treatments will occupy less than a month of the many decade long life of the well. Further, that "month" won't be all at once; instead of "January" you may get 6 hours here and two days there and so on; and part of that time may occur as "re-fracs" ten years or more after the initial completion. "Fracking" as it has come to be known, is a very short term operation.

In many parts of the world however, salt water is produced along with the oil and gas; sometimes quite a bit of salt water. This brine can be concentrated; in my home state it is not unusual to handle water five or six times more saline that sea water.

The most common means of disposing of this water is deep well injection, where the brine is injected into rock porous and permeable formations thousands of feet below the deepest usable or treatable fresh water.

This injection goes on day in and day out for years. In certain circumstances, if the injected water flows into natural (fault induced) fractures in non-porous igneous or metamorphic rocks, (called "the basement" because when an oil well hits these formations, there is little hope of finding deeper production, so these formations tend to be deepest anyone will drill), the water can lubricate the faults and promote slippage (earthquakes).

Injection triggered seismicity is not new; in fact it was considered as a possible defense against "the big one" on the San Andreas fault system in California in the 1960s. The idea was that if we could release stress on the fault by having a large number of small quakes, it would reduce the chance of a big quake. This works in theory, but the practical aspects of deciding where along that several hundred mile fault line needed the injection, plus the relative scarcity of water, made this idea a non-starter.

Our problem is that, for a significant number of people the term "fracking" means, not the actual completion method that uses liquid and pressure to fracture the reservoir, but rather "anything and everything bad that can happen with oil & gas production". Thus, the "fracking causes STDs" type of headline.

Some people are legitimately concerned' they don't know the facts and they are worried for real, if mistaken, reasons. Others have their own agenda, such as a complete opposition to any form of fossil fuel use, or a NIMBY approach to life ("while I want the benefits of cheap and abundant gas, you can't expect to produce it near ME??"), or others. Many of these agenda based idea probably wouldn't garner much support from others, but the "fracking causes Earthquakes" is more widely accepted.

[wizardwatson]

Fracking bans ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED in Oklahoma.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...fracking-bans/

That's right, the governor signed the bill referred to in the OP on Friday, May 29th. Oklahoma has more earthquakes than any state in the union currently on a pretty much daily basis but the governor who is in charge of protecting the people has delegated this power to a three person corporation commission. Effectively making banning fracking nearly impossible.

Texas has also prohibited any fracking banning legislation.

[invisible]

Fracking bans ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED in Oklahoma.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...fracking-bans/

That's right, the governor signed the bill referred to in the OP on Friday, May 29th. Oklahoma has more earthquakes than any state in the union currently on a pretty much daily basis but the governor who is in charge of protecting the people has delegated this power to a three person corporation commission. Effectively making banning fracking nearly impossible.

Texas has also prohibited any fracking banning legislation.

Yup. This came about because last year, there was discussion about banning it in one of the OKC suburbs. I attended the "public meeting" on this, and it was a farce. From what I saw at that meeting, there was no way that any ban on fracking in OK was going to occur anywhere. It was a complete industry propaganda whitewash, the town's councilmen were obviously biased. The questions that the public were allowed to ask were collected on index cards in advance, carefully cherry-picked, and no other time made available to allow unscreened public input (some tried to do so and voice legitimate concerns, and the meeting was quickly shut down). Any sort of real public discussion on the topic wasn't about to be allowed, and this new law is to ensure that it won't be brought up again.

[Brett85]

Why would libertarians be in favor of a law banning fracking? Shouldn't libertarians be pushing for a free market solution to this problem?

[wizardwatson]

Why would libertarians be in favor of a law banning fracking? Shouldn't libertarians be pushing for a free market solution to this problem?

If the actions of a property owner cause earthquakes he's effecting everyone's property in a very serious way. The citizens have a right to ban the practice by law. Oklahoma and Texas have taken away their right to enforce their own property rights. This law is anti-libertarian if there ever was one.

The ecosystem and geological structure of the earth is interconnected. In cases like these your plot of land is not an island unto itself. If you can show with scientific evidence that your actions are harming others property then they should be allowed to ban it.

[invisible]

Why would libertarians be in favor of a law banning fracking? Shouldn't libertarians be pushing for a free market solution to this problem?

See post #2

[Brett85]

If the actions of a property owner cause earthquakes he's effecting everyone's property in a very serious way. The citizens have a right to ban the practice by law. Oklahoma and Texas have taken away their right to enforce their own property rights. This law is anti-libertarian if there ever was one.

The ecosystem and geological structure of the earth is interconnected. In cases like these your plot of land is not an island unto itself. If you can show with scientific evidence that your actions are harming others property then they should be allowed to ban it.

Libertarians believe in protecting private property rights through the court system, which basically means that if I do something that damages your private property, you have the right to sue me for damages. But that's quite different from just creating a blanket law banning all fracking.

[invisible]

Libertarians believe in protecting private property rights through the court system, which basically means that if I do something that damages your private property, you have the right to sue me for damages. But that's quite different from just creating a blanket law banning all fracking.

Again, see post #2.

[Brett85]

Again, see post #2.

So I guess you could apply the same argument to CO2 emissions? If CO2 emissions are causing all kinds of environmental problems and destroying people's property, and since it's hard for a land owner to succeed in a lawsuit against a large corporation, that means that the government should pass a law banning all CO2 emissions? Should we all just start driving around in a horse and buggy?

[invisible]

So I guess you could apply the same argument to CO2 emissions? If CO2 emissions are causing all kinds of environmental problems and destroying people's property, and since it's hard for a land owner to succeed in a lawsuit against a large corporation, that means that the government should pass a law banning all CO2 emissions? Should we all just start driving around in a horse and buggy?

Why are you trying to argue that CO2 emissions destroy people's property? That has nothing to do with this thread.

[Brett85]

Why are you trying to argue that CO2 emissions destroy people's property? That has nothing to do with this thread.

Because the same argument is made in regards to CO2 emissions. So you believe the science that says that fracking is causing earthquakes but don't believe the science which says that CO2 emissions are causing global warming?

[invisible]

Because the same argument is made in regards to CO2 emissions. So you believe the science that says that fracking is causing earthquakes but don't believe the science which says that CO2 emissions are causing global warming?

This thread isn't about CO2. Which means that it isn't the place for you to argue that CO2 causes property damage, global warming, or anything else. Please stay on topic. Let's go back to what you were saying, when you were still on topic here. Obviously, the "correct" solution is through the courts, as you had stated (and as I had stated in post #2). But my question to you is, what happens when the court system has been stacked, and no longer works as a mechanism of proper redress? How is this problem to be addressed?

[Brett85]

But my question to you is, what happens when the court system has been stacked, and no longer works as a mechanism of proper redress? How is this problem to be addressed?

The solution is to reform the court system. I think there have been articles written by libertarian thinkers who have advocated protecting the environment through protecting private property rights, and have advocated certain reforms to the court system to make this system work better.

[invisible]

The solution is to reform the court system. I think there have been articles written by libertarian thinkers who have advocated protecting the environment through protecting private property rights, and have advocated certain reforms to the court system to make this system work better.

So then how exactly do you propose reforming the court system, such that a true free market solution can exist? How easily and quickly do you feel that the reforms you propose can be accomplished? And until that happens, what do you feel is the best solution in the meantime?

[invisible]

http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=...0&catId=112032

Oklahoma's Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that a Prague woman can sue two Oklahoma energy companies.

Sandra Ladra, 64, filed her suit 10 months ago against New Dominion and Spess Oil companies.

On November 5, 2011, the largest recorded earthquake in Oklahoma's history rocked the town of Prague. In her lawsuit, Ladra alleged the earthquake caused rock from her fireplace and chimney to fall into her lap, causing serious injuries to her right knee.

While the state Supreme Court ruled Ladra's case can proceed, its members did not discuss the merits of her case.