my first earthquake

[highwater]

I've watched the documentary stuff on that New Madrid fault.
Looks like that one could be nasty for sure.

For most of our disasters around here we have been raised to crawl in a hole.
This run out into the open is a new concept
Randall

[Lloyd]

Get used to it.

Fracking is the new normal which means earthquakes in your part of the country are also going to be the new normal.

Of course, it's all perfectly safe...  

Just don't drink any well water.

While it may be possible that Fracking can lead to ground water contamination, it is wholly unlikely. Even more unlikely  that it could lead to a tectonic plate shift, or even influence tectonic shifts of any nature. Earthquakes are a result of earths crust movement, and it's more likely that a full moon causes them, that any amount of fracking could conceivably influence.

BC fracking is so localized, it's questionable if it can even cause ground water contamination, especially since most fracking drills go far below the surface water and create pressure from below oil and gas reserves. The hydrological fracking only reaches a distance of limited reach to create drain fissures within the shale to create drain backs to the horizontal pipe, drilled after the deep well is drilled, then the horizontal drill thousands of feet below the water table.

Due to gravity it's unlikely that any of the hydraulic solution(salt-water) pumped into the horizontal perffed pipe is going to move up, it's more likely that one of the fracking fissure created a "leak down" and dries out water producing wells. Remember we are talking solid rock here, any hydraulic fluid pumped into the well, has to come back out the same hole it went into, other wise no oil or gas.

Just imagine that your water well is drilled into that same ground that holds crude oil and gas...how polluted your water well would be!!!

If you're worried about FRACKING...get off the cool-aid, I mean green tea...oh what the hell just don't listen to ALGORE inc & Associates.

Lloyd

[Apogee]

Lloyd,

Not a fan of the Kool-Aid.

However, not a fan of drinking water that is possibly contaminated by chemicals about which there are no records of because the companies don't have to disclose what they're fracturing with.  It's a bunch of BS that's it's being treated as a free-for-all!

Where I used to work (govt) we had to deal with groundwater contamination issues on a regular basis.  The notion that the contamination will stay localized over time is truly drinking the Kool-Aid.  Groundwater contamination plumes move...

And yes, of course there is the possibility of natural contamination from hydrocarbons in the well vicinity irregardless of whatever work is done in the area.  However, *usually* the rock separating the two prevents this from happening unless of course one deliberately mixes the two as is happening in this case.

At some point, the dimwits (both govt and industry) are going to begin to realize that the true gold is not gold in color, and not energy related at all, but rather clean, unpolluted water.  Good luck finding some of it in about 50 years.  The sun will still be shining, energy will be supplied by nukes and solar and the earth overall will be a much cleaner place.  Unfortunately, there won't be much, easily obtainable, clean water left to drink...

I'm very glad I don't have kids at this point.  The mess the young folks are being left with as a result of short-term gains and no long-term energy policy is unconscionable imho.

Steve

[Lloyd]

Hi Steve,

Be sure I wasn't directing anything towards you, that's why I wrote the post minus salutation.

But remember, it cost millions of dollars to set up and run a fracking operation. It only is financial feasible to do this under large oil and gas reserves.

Those oil and gas reserve are far far below the water table. The only perf and fracking done is in the horizontal pipe drilled under the reserves, not the vertical going down. What ever is pumped down must come back out the same hole it went in...it's dead end street.

Our ground water is at bigger risk of pollution form septic tanks, than any other source, they sit a top the ground water, and by gravity are draining into the water supply.

Lloyd

[Apogee]

I remembered this thread and thought that I'd post the following info.  If you don't like the Financial Times, you can find many other articles here:

http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&ncl=d31P2QGk_WAQYqMNUhfPPl9YBTznM&topic=b


EPA blames fracking for Wyoming pollution

By Ed Crooks in New York

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that the pollution of ground water in Wyoming was probably connected to the hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", used in gas production, setting off a fresh round of calls for curbs on the controversial technique.

The results of the EPA investigation of water sources around the town of Pavillion in central Wyoming were seized on by environmental groups that have argued for either tighter regulation or an outright ban on fracking.
More
On this story

    PetroChina finds shale gas reserves
    Pollution fears dominate 'fracking' hearing
    Video New Yorkers question role of 'fracking'
    North America US has its eye on oil independence
    Interactive graphic Unconventional oil and gas

IN Oil & Gas

    BP faces five more charges over gulf spill
    BP talks peace deal with Russian partners
    Halliburton slurry tests could play out in court
    BP claims Halliburton destroyed evidence

However, the EPA stressed that many features of gas production in the area were "specific to Pavillion" and "different from those in many other areas of the country".

Encana, the Canadian company that owns the gas field around Pavillion, said the EPA's investigations had not been conclusive.

"The water is poor there; there's no question of that," said Doug Hock, Encana's US director of community and public relations. "But is that the result of our operations and is there any evidence that our operations caused that? Not at all."

Encana's shares declined 4.7 per cent in Toronto to C$19.53 on Thursday.

The EPA launched its investigation in September 2008, after complaints from Pavillion residents that the water from their wells tasted and smelled bad after fracking for gas production nearby.

The agency took a range of water samples, including some from wells 770ft and 1,000ft deep, which it said showed signs of contamination.

Fracking involves pumping a mix of water, sand and chemicals down a well at high pressure to crack rock and let gas or oil flow out more readily, increasing the productivity of what might otherwise be commercially unattractive resources.

The technique has opened significant news sources of gas for the US, and is starting to have a similar effect on oil production.

Opponents argue that there is a risk that the chemicals used could leak into vital water sources, either by migration through the rock or by improper disposal of fracking fluids after use.

The significance of the EPA's investigation is that it is the first time in more than 20 years that there has been an official suggestion that fracking fluids have migrated underground to contaminate ground water; a potentially more serious and worrying issue than the known incidents of pollution by spills on the surface.

However, much of the new gas and oil extracted by fracking comes from horizontal wells that can be several thousand feet below the surface, whereas the gas wells around Pavillion are vertical, and were sometimes fracked as little as about 1,230ft below the surface.

The geology of the area is also different from many of the other areas where fracking is used, the EPA added.

The implications of its Wyoming findings for the regulation of fracking will go into the EPA's wider investigation of the practice, which may lead to a recommendation of further regulations.

In its statement announcing the Pavillion findings, the EPA said: "Natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future, and the Obama administration is committed to ensuring that the development of this vital resource occurs safely and responsibly."

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c21fc68e-21ec-11e1-8b93-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fzc2UWGS