Does Fracking lead to earthquakes

I am sure it is but for 38 years, my reality has involved things not shaking.
Tornadoes, lightning, flooding, drought. I can deal. This is going to take some getting used to.

I've been in houses that shook far worse from a hurricane than what 3.5 will do.
 
I am sure it is but for 38 years, my reality has involved things not shaking.
Tornadoes, lightning, flooding, drought. I can deal. This is going to take some getting used to.

You guys do tornado snobbery. We do earthquake snobbery.
 
I like earthquakes more. They come and go without interrupting Judge Judy to tell me they might be stopping by.
 
We have an official POA BBQ snob but I don't believe other POA snobs have been appointed.
 
I wanna be a sheep snob..:idea:.:yes::lol:.....

Signature material right there...

Notice, no edits.

Now on to fracking and earthquakes. I don't work in the industry, but I'd like to know how deep is the Barnett shale, and a few of the other gas producing strata?

These quakes all seem to be about 3 miles deep, and also seem to be a subduction type movement rather than strike-slip(usually around different plates). Hmmmmmmm. Not that I mind a few little bumps to relieve the pressure of taking gas and fluid out of the ground. It's far better to have a dozen 2-4 level quakes once in a while than have it hold tight until we get a 6-8 come along. That would be -- bad.
 
oh but there Is! There are horror story's continuing about modern day frack ing and very recently, ny state has decided not to allow it. Many rubes will say they just don't know what they are talking about and condem " the govmint" but ny state studied it very carefully, much more than you have and did indeed get " their panties in a twist"! No one said it was new. What they HAVE said is modern fracking is in many instances dangerous and costly.

"Rubes," eh? So I guess you dismissed out of hand the NYT article about how the Russian oil industry propped up the anti-fracking movement in order to eliminate the competition.
 
I thought it was mmgw that "caused" earthquakes... according to obama, anyway.
 
You don't campaign for the BBQ snob position as diligently as the appointed snob.
No need to campaign when I have truth by my side! Plus, I think I ran out of campaign credit about beans in chili.
 
My only fear about frakking is contamination of the local water table, which is far more destructive to humans than any earthquake.
 
My only fear about frakking is contamination of the local water table, which is far more destructive to humans than any earthquake.

Water flooding and poor maintenance have already contaminated more fresh water aquifers than frac'ing ever will.

There is no freaking "k" in frac'ing.
 
Water flooding and poor maintenance have already contaminated more fresh water aquifers than frac'ing ever will.

There is no freaking "k" in frac'ing.
Sure there is.
Just like a "Nuke" is shorthand slang for "nuclear bomb", or a "nuclear sub"
Or do you call them "Nuc's"
 
Sure there is.
Just like a "Nuke" is shorthand slang for "nuclear bomb", or a "nuclear sub"
Or do you call them "Nuc's"

Nuke isn't my problem. I'm fighting the no "k" in frac'ing war. Go nuke someone else.
 
We already have statewide regulation of oil production in the Railroad Commission. The Denton ban was likely illegal anyway. But this will put a bunch of messy and expensive litigation to rest. The only real losers are the lawyers and the Russians (who everybody hates) and people who regret selling their mineral rights too cheaply (or bought land without them).

More directly on topic, there is evidence that injection wells may cause earthquakes. That's totally different from fracking. But if you look at most of the articles with headlines about fracking and earthquakes, they're really talking about injection wells.
 
Last edited:
We already have statewide regulation of oil production in the Railroad Commission. The Denton ban was likely illegal anyway. But this will put a bunch of messy and expensive litigation to rest. The only real losers are the lawyers and the Russians (who everybody hates) and people who regret selling their mineral rights too cheaply (or bought land without them).

More directly on topic, there is evidence that injection wells may cause earthquakes. That's totally different from fracking. But if you look at most of the articles with headlines about fracking and earthquakes, they're really talking about injection wells.


But w/o fracing, would there be injection wells?
Meaning I think most people call the entire process Frakin from soup to nuts
 
Don't fret, Bryan; the local bans would never have withstood a halfway-competent legal challenge, anyway. The legislation simply allows all the property owners to avoid having to file suit to get it done.

:( I kind of liked the idea of them not doing it here.
We moved here because they were going to put a well ~500 feet from our last house.
 
But w/o fracing, would there be injection wells?
Meaning I think most people call the entire process Frakin from soup to nuts

Right. It is the same as suggesting that selling almonds has nothing to do with growing trees.

Because water is the base fluid and biggest component used in hydraulic fracturing, its importance remains a critical factor in the operation and economics of shale oil and gas production. But significant and growing water management challenges are impacting hydraulic fracturing.
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/...caribbean/fracking-wastewater-management.html
 
But w/o fracing, would there be injection wells?
Meaning I think most people call the entire process Frakin from soup to nuts

Yes, produced water must also be disposed of. Folks have moved towards re-cycling of frac water for various reasons including high cost of acquisition and transportation.

At any rate, all oil and gas production has water associated with it to some degree and that water must be disposed of in some manner. Traditionally that water is injected underground although in some areas the water is evaporated.

The earliest documented man-made earthquake that I'm aware of was caused by deep-well injection of chemical wastes from the old Arsenal northeast of Denver.
 
:( I kind of liked the idea of them not doing it here.
We moved here because they were going to put a well ~500 feet from our last house.

If you don't want drilling near you then read the title very carefully to see if you have any rights. These days most mineral rights are severed from surface rights which means that the surface rights owner has very little say in the exploitation of minerals.

Maybe I should start up a service to examine titles and advise folks on the likelihood of minerals exploitation in their area?
 
If you don't want drilling near you then read the title very carefully to see if you have any rights. These days most mineral rights are severed from surface rights which means that the surface rights owner has very little say in the exploitation of minerals.

Maybe I should start up a service to examine titles and advise folks on the likelihood of minerals exploitation in their area?
That would be a much better use of your time than trying to convince people of the non-existence of the letter K!:D
 
:( I kind of liked the idea of them not doing it here.
We moved here because they were going to put a well ~500 feet from our last house.

If you don't want drilling near you then read the title very carefully to see if you have any rights. These days most mineral rights are severed from surface rights which means that the surface rights owner has very little say in the exploitation of minerals.

Asked, answered.

Reality is, if you're in an area with producible minerals underneath, odds are they're gonna get produced, unless you own the mineral rights and choose not to produce.

If you don't own the minerals, you have no right to obstruct production (and the ownership of minerals is readily discerned from the most basic review of the title).

Maybe I should start up a service to examine titles and advise folks on the likelihood of minerals exploitation in their area?

Good idea.
 
Back
Top