fracking and earthquakes

[JAGG]

I am not a tree hugger by any means, but I do care about nature and the enviroment. In light of the earthquake on the east coast today, I want to make this statement. Oil companies are using a practice called fracking, to expel natural gas from shale and other underground rock, that the gas is trapped inside. No drill they produce is strong enough or long enough to get to this shale. So scientist for big oil invented this method. Its a machine that uses high pressure liquid to chip away at the rock.
Of course big oil denies this, but it causes earthquakes, and it contaminates the surrounding soil, and eventually the water supplies. Arkansas and Wyoming and a few other states made the oil companies stop fracking after earthquakes occured in the regions were fracking was occuring. The epicenters are usually 100 or so miles from the fracking points. So big oil claims its not the cause. But keeps happening the same way everywhere. Usually 100 to 200 miles from the fracking site and about 6 mon to a year after fracking begins. Most areas have never had an earthquake , for generations. Anyway, until this can be studied futher, I wish people would write their state Rep. and voice there concern.
I'd love to stop being dependent on foriegn oil, but this is not the answer. Thanks for the forum to voice my concern. Hope I haven't offended anyone.

[Apocalipstic]

I so totally agree! The Fracking thing can't possibly be good and it has to be related that these earthquakes are occuring.

Fracking is thee first word I thought when I heard about the quake today.

[Gráinne]

Fracking is really controversial, no doubt about that.

Here comes my opinion, for what it's worth. My degree is in geology (although I don't strictly work as one), and I've had a petroleum geology, environmental geo, and hydrogeology course.

First, the earthquake today was centered in (what else?) central Virginia. This region seems benign but is really the Central Virginia Seismic Zone, a series of deep and hidden faults that spread like a web from the Appalacians of eastern Tennessee to the coast. These faults, it's thought, originated during the formation of the Appalacians.

This zone has popped before, with earthquakes of similar magnitude as the one today. The reason that earthquakes east of the Mississippi can be felt so far (to Ohio, NYC and Boston), is that the crust is much stronger, is more like a huge sheet, and acts like a conduit for seismic waves. In California, by contrast, the crust is a broken mess and thus seismic waves rattle around in a much smaller area.

A historic earthquake that occurred in 1886 in Charleston, S.C. was the strongest earthquake east of the Mississippi. That one set bells ringing in Boston. That was unrelated to the CVSZ, but no doubt there are other hidden faults from ancient mountain building and crust stretching lurking around.

In Wyoming, I don't know enough where the earthquakes were occurring to say anything definitively but the entire state, and especially the northwest corner, is very active on its own. The Yellowstone area is essentially a volcanic basin with many earthquakes yearly (all, fortunately, small). Given the geologic history of the entire Rocky Mountain area and even the Great Plains, I'd be cautious about immediately blaming fracking for earthquakes.

As for Arkansas, once again this state has been seismically active (but too small to feel) for eternity well before drilling. The New Madrid seismic zone lurks in the northeast corner of the state and likely has many deep and hidden faults tied up with it. At any rate, faults can happen without a major zone nearby, so it's not out of the question that the earthquakes in the central part of the state were natural but not tied to New Madrid or any other faulting.

Don't think I'm defending big oil or fracking-I agree more studies need to be made. In fact, the earthquakes in Arkansas correspond less with the fracking than with the injection wastewater wells, which are much deeper, so that is a major concern. There's also the very real fact that oil and drilling provide good jobs in typically very depressed areas of the country, here in Arkansas and in the Appalacians. What ways can we provide employment and yet not destroy the environment?

I think I agree with you, JAGG, about the environment and preserving it, but until there is more information from sources with no motives tied up with either position, I cannot jump on the "stop fracking" bandwagon.

Thanks for listening to the other side

[dreadgeek]

Guihong:

Thank you! I wanted to say something along these lines but lack the knowledge-base you have (my area of expertise is in genetics and bioinformatics) but my *first* thought when I heard about the earthquake was "I didn't know there was a fault line in Virginia" and fracking was a distant consideration. It may be fracking but it seems that, right now and lacking reason to believe otherwise, it is a fairly safe bet to chalk this up to your ordinary, garden variety earthquake caused by the fact that the Earth is still a geologically active place.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by guihong

Fracking is really controversial, no doubt about that.

Here comes my opinion, for what it's worth. My degree is in geology (although I don't strictly work as one), and I've had a petroleum geology, environmental geo, and hydrogeology course.

First, the earthquake today was centered in (what else?) central Virginia. This region seems benign but is really the Central Virginia Seismic Zone, a series of deep and hidden faults that spread like a web from the Appalacians of eastern Tennessee to the coast. These faults, it's thought, originated during the formation of the Appalacians.

This zone has popped before, with earthquakes of similar magnitude as the one today. The reason that earthquakes east of the Mississippi can be felt so far (to Ohio, NYC and Boston), is that the crust is much stronger, is more like a huge sheet, and acts like a conduit for seismic waves. In California, by contrast, the crust is a broken mess and thus seismic waves rattle around in a much smaller area.

A historic earthquake that occurred in 1886 in Charleston, S.C. was the strongest earthquake east of the Mississippi. That one set bells ringing in Boston. That was unrelated to the CVSZ, but no doubt there are other hidden faults from ancient mountain building and crust stretching lurking around.

In Wyoming, I don't know enough where the earthquakes were occurring to say anything definitively but the entire state, and especially the northwest corner, is very active on its own. The Yellowstone area is essentially a volcanic basin with many earthquakes yearly (all, fortunately, small). Given the geologic history of the entire Rocky Mountain area and even the Great Plains, I'd be cautious about immediately blaming fracking for earthquakes.

As for Arkansas, once again this state has been seismically active (but too small to feel) for eternity well before drilling. The New Madrid seismic zone lurks in the northeast corner of the state and likely has many deep and hidden faults tied up with it. At any rate, faults can happen without a major zone nearby, so it's not out of the question that the earthquakes in the central part of the state were natural but not tied to New Madrid or any other faulting.

Don't think I'm defending big oil or fracking-I agree more studies need to be made. In fact, the earthquakes in Arkansas correspond less with the fracking than with the injection wastewater wells, which are much deeper, so that is a major concern. There's also the very real fact that oil and drilling provide good jobs in typically very depressed areas of the country, here in Arkansas and in the Appalacians. What ways can we provide employment and yet not destroy the environment?

I think I agree with you, JAGG, about the environment and preserving it, but until there is more information from sources with no motives tied up with either position, I cannot jump on the "stop fracking" bandwagon.

Thanks for listening to the other side

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by guihong

Fracking is really controversial, no doubt about that.

Here comes my opinion, for what it's worth. My degree is in geology (although I don't strictly work as one), and I've had a petroleum geology, environmental geo, and hydrogeology course.

First, the earthquake today was centered in (what else?) central Virginia. This region seems benign but is really the Central Virginia Seismic Zone, a series of deep and hidden faults that spread like a web from the Appalacians of eastern Tennessee to the coast. These faults, it's thought, originated during the formation of the Appalacians.

This zone has popped before, with earthquakes of similar magnitude as the one today. The reason that earthquakes east of the Mississippi can be felt so far (to Ohio, NYC and Boston), is that the crust is much stronger, is more like a huge sheet, and acts like a conduit for seismic waves. In California, by contrast, the crust is a broken mess and thus seismic waves rattle around in a much smaller area.

A historic earthquake that occurred in 1886 in Charleston, S.C. was the strongest earthquake east of the Mississippi. That one set bells ringing in Boston. That was unrelated to the CVSZ, but no doubt there are other hidden faults from ancient mountain building and crust stretching lurking around.

In Wyoming, I don't know enough where the earthquakes were occurring to say anything definitively but the entire state, and especially the northwest corner, is very active on its own. The Yellowstone area is essentially a volcanic basin with many earthquakes yearly (all, fortunately, small). Given the geologic history of the entire Rocky Mountain area and even the Great Plains, I'd be cautious about immediately blaming fracking for earthquakes.

As for Arkansas, once again this state has been seismically active (but too small to feel) for eternity well before drilling. The New Madrid seismic zone lurks in the northeast corner of the state and likely has many deep and hidden faults tied up with it. At any rate, faults can happen without a major zone nearby, so it's not out of the question that the earthquakes in the central part of the state were natural but not tied to New Madrid or any other faulting.

Don't think I'm defending big oil or fracking-I agree more studies need to be made. In fact, the earthquakes in Arkansas correspond less with the fracking than with the injection wastewater wells, which are much deeper, so that is a major concern. There's also the very real fact that oil and drilling provide good jobs in typically very depressed areas of the country, here in Arkansas and in the Appalacians. What ways can we provide employment and yet not destroy the environment?

I think I agree with you, JAGG, about the environment and preserving it, but until there is more information from sources with no motives tied up with either position, I cannot jump on the "stop fracking" bandwagon.



Thanks for listening to the other side

Thank you for the info. I am far from an expert on the matter, just have many concerns with it.

[Corkey]

Colorado is an active earthquake zone, it has thermal hot spots as well. Not surprising when one slips or snaps another end will subduct or elevate. Mother Earth letting us know she's still alive.

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by JAGG

I am not a tree hugger by any means, but I do care about nature and the enviorment. In light of the earthquake on the east coast today, I want to make this statement. Oil companies are using a practice called fracking, to expel natural gas from shale and other underground rock, that the gas is trapped inside. No drill they produce is strong enough or long enough to get to this shale. So scientist for big oil invented this method. Its a machine that uses high pressure liquid to chip away at the rock.
Of course big oil denies this, but it causes earthquakes, and it contaminates the surrounding soil, and eventually the water supplies. Arkansas and Wyoming and a few other states made the oil companies stop fracking after earthquakes occured in the regions were fracking was occuring. The epicenters are usually 100 or so miles from the fracking points. So big oil claims its not the cause. But keeps happening the same way everywhere. Usually 100 to 200 miles from the fracking site and about 6 mon to a year after fracking begins. Most areas have never had an earthquake , for generations. Anyway, until this can be studied futher, I wish people would write their state Rep. and voice there concern.
I'd love to stop being dependent on foriegn oil, but this is not the answer. Thanks for the forum to voice my concern. Hope I haven't offended anyone.

Your points are right on the money.


And money is right on the breaking point of the distinct possibilities
that the Fracking is indeed...Cracking the Earth.

[Dominique]

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread...I just posted something about there was no earthquake in Pa.

I live in Western Pa. In Pittsburgh to be specific. This is at the foothills of the Appalachian mountains. Fracking is newer to the area and comes with
controversy. Please know, this is a RED State. The controversy is not so much from Western Pa and North Eastern Ohio, where we were once heavy coal miners. Like it or not, fracking is another form of mining, and for another product. We also mine, in Western Pa. for cement (bet you didn't know that)
That is done in a very similar way to fracking, from the top down....cement mines, leave huge crators in the earth. But because it is not the goal of everyone to destroy the earth, these crators have been turned into eco-ponds/lakes. Now they've renamed them, man made lakes.

Fracking has been going on for about a hundred years. Fracking has brought a tremendous amount of employment and middle person money
to the area's they are fracking in. NOT want the conservatives want you to believe. There has been no evidence to support the allegations of water contamination. The EPA has assigned an OMBUDSMAN to oversee this. I am extremely interested in this Fracking, and also know. I am a self professed tree hugger. I do every thing I can to save the earth.

As I wrote in my other post. The very people of Pennsylvania who are screaming the loudest about fracking, mostly Northern Pa and Central Pa. still heat their homes with oil. Why is that? Why, in 2011 are you using oil
in the State capitol and not natural gas? (the amish and the penna. dutch are still chopping down the trees and burning wood) hardly clean air....but people are jumping on a political bandwagon of unproven accusations about fracking.

Speaking of mining. Coal mining is still regarded as one of the most dangerous industries around, and because of union busting,imported steel,
and the what not...we continue to pick up news papers about collapsed mines (remember the Chilean coal miners ?) I will also remind you, the Oil drilling industry is not without controversy.....I'll NEVER eat a piece of
fish again. I'll never trust that ocean will be safe.....but thats just me. Oil industry is jobs, good jobs with nice benefits. Thats what Fracking is bring
to Penna. and Ohio.

So if you are going to write your congressman, ask they make sure WOMEN are being given equal opportunity at these jobs. So this doesn't become another male dominated industry.

Jagg, I've been listening to world news since I came home from work and talk radio all afternoon, and no one has blamed fracking for an earthquake in Virginia. Can I ask where you heard this? I am surprised, as Fracking has been blamed for some odd things.

Cement mining was blamed for clear coat paint on a 10 year old chevy cavalier for coming off. Just saying.

[JAGG]

I know the EPA has no power or say in fracking. They were prohibited from testing anything in reguards to fracking in 2005. Have you heard of the Haliberton loophole act? So as far as it not contaminating the soil , that is questionable. Horizonal fracking uses 100's of chemicals as well as deepwell fracking does. But I'm not an expert I only know what I have read. Plus I don't want to debate something that I am not experienced in. I believe there isn't enough proof on either side of the debate, to have a firm conviction. That is how I feel. I want more studies to know for sure, all I am asking. Frankly I wish we used no fossil fuels for energy. But solar and wind, and the like.

[Jess]

When I first saw the title, I was like " yeah! we had a frackin earthquake too!"

I am totally unversed in fracking and its potential for environmental damage. Thanks for the heads up, I'll be doing some reading!

This area and where my mom and grands hail in West VA, are known for mining. Coal/ salt mines not far from here/gravel. You name it, if its here, we dig it.

My opinions on mines ( particularly coal ) have always been wrought with disgust in failed safety practices/ unfair compensation not to mention the environmental impact. In areas like this, however, it is very difficult to turn down ANY job that opens up.

There are no quick fix it solutions for the world demand on natural resources, the best we can hope to do is correct procedures that are harmful as they arise and safeguard against potential disaster. Hopefully, more research will determine the overall gain/ loss from this type of mining.

Big thanks for folks who keep an eye on these things!

[Dominique]

Indeed coal mining has done some damage! Maybe the only good that happened because of coal mining, was it helped bring about OSHA.

That's how it is in this area too Jess, you name it, they will mine it. There are even small oil wells on peoples farms.

There is an awful lot of natural gas in these mountains. Now that they know it is here, they are going to go after it. I'm not going to get into a debate about fracking, I just want to reiterate, it's not new....they've been doing it for one hundered years or so. Not enough conclusive evidence to make them stop. I found your three posts blaming the earthquake in Pennsylvania on fracking to be inflammatory.

Today is a new day, and life goes on. . I'm a pssionate person too.