my thought on Scotland was, "where are they going to get the excess energy from? ... will they just buy it else where ? Will it be like Toyota planning to buy Australian coal - having them reform into hydrogen & then claim they have a pollution-free vehicle?" maybe build more nukes? ie; one heck of a NIMBY issue .
I also understand that these injection-related earthquakes are associated with wastewaters from other processes too, unrelated to fracking. The brines need to be pressurized to produce flow rates high enough to take care of a continuous waste stream. I'm not aware of the fracked fuel wells staying pressurized during production. It seems that such pressurization would prevent the gas from flowing out.
Philosophically speaking, all of the extractive industries (mining for minerals or fossil fuels) have the issue of environmental impact. The subsurface has brine water and radioactive elements, and other issues. IN the past in the US extractive industries have enjoyed exemptions from tough regs, basically because it was felt there was no economical way to conduct mining/extraction. Historically Congress has set tighter regulations on chemical plants, while giving break to utilities, municipalities and extractive industries. The "Bevel ammendment" was one law that gave exemption to mining activities. So we are struggling with dealing with the past leniency, and at the same time, there probably is better ways to control the pollution. Right now the Southeast states from Virginia south and west out to about Kenntucky are struggling to deal with mountains of coal ash, which has been considered non-hazardous by Congress, much of which has been stored in huge ponds in these states (for some reason water slurry disposal was the norm here and in Southeast). The EPA has given the ruling it can be capped, but the enviro groups are saying it should be considered haz waste and excavated at great cost. Another issue is Congress is always trying to look out for the smaller business development...if we had complex costly regs and impossible paperwork, then only the big companies could play the game.
I saw this relevant article in hardcopy a few days ago, and should have posted in promptly -- Scientific American: Drilling for Earthquakes Scientists are increasingly confident about the link between earthquakes and oil and gas production, yet regulators are slow to react
hoopla "Fracknation" Watch it free with your library card. First fact is that methane can and does occur in water supplies naturally without any fracking.
if that's the case, why would these people be so worked up? what do they gain by shutting down the frackers?
It can, but the naturally occurring stuff is mostly the by product of anaerobic 'bugs'. Testing should be able to distinguish it from petroleum and fossil sources. I haven't heard of any of the pro-fracking neighbors of those with methane in the water supplying their own tap water methane for testing. If the methane in the water happened after fracking began, and it isn't biologically sourced, the worry is over what else might be in the water. If it was due to the drilling, other chemicals can be getting into the water with the natural gas. Some of which can be nasty. On top of that, the drillers don't have to disclose what is in their mud that is going down into these wells. Chemical burns have been linked to it alone, and the companies don't even have to disclose what it is to doctors. I don't see fracking stopping, but it does need tighter oversight.
It can, but the naturally occurring stuff is mostly the by product of anaerobic 'bugs'. Testing should be able to distinguish it from petroleum and fossil sources. I haven't heard of any of the pro-fracking neighbors of those with methane in the water supplying their own tap water methane for testing. If the methane in the water happened after fracking began, and it isn't biologically sourced, the worry is over what else might be in the water. If it was due to the drilling, other chemicals can be getting into the water with the natural gas. Some of which can be nasty. On top of that, the drillers don't have to disclose what is in their mud that is going down into these wells. Chemical burns have been linked to it alone, and the companies don't even have to disclose what it is to doctors. I don't see fracking stopping, but it does need tighter oversight.
Every form of mineral or mining resource goes through generations of improved technology that start wasteful and eventually become safer and more efficient. Fracking has gotten better but our species first had to pay the price, the tuition in the school of 'hard knocks.' Too bad it doesn't work 'entertainment.' Bob Wilson
I wonder what these frequent, smaller releases are doing to the stress building up on other surrounding parts of the fault. Will there be liability for more destructive earthquakes when the cause can be linked to these smaller releases caused by hydraulic fracturing?
Anti-Fracking Study Gets Retracted For Basic Math Error | The Daily Caller "The University of Cincinnati has yet to be publish another three-year study, which was financially supported by environmental groups, that found fracking had no effect on water quality in five eastern Ohio counties at the center of the Utica shale boom. The study’s publication has been delayed for over a year despite media attention, and numerous calls from industry groups and elected officials."
“changes air concentrations significantly relative to those reported in the published article. This correction also changes some of the conclusions reported in the original article.” Is the paper discussing air pollution or water pollution or is there confusion on the sites report?
The false retracted study was on air pollution.A different study that found no effect on water pollution is not being released as it doesnt fit the meme.
Internet search engines will aid in locating studies (and summaries) of fracking with respect to air or water quality, etc. Readers are either interested in these subjects, or not. If so, search as above. If not, well that's just the way it goes. A part of such studies should deal with quality issues avoided by having performed some amount of coal processing. In other words, even if fracking has some detectable badness, it ought to be compared with realistic alternatives. Starting your search at Daily Caller is not certain to provide ideal results. That is, unless you already know what you're trying to find...
Fracking (fluid disposal) vs. earthquakes: How The Oil And Gas Industry Awakened Oklahoma’s Sleeping Fault Lines | FiveThirtyEight The 'news' here was about 1952 and I enjoyed reading that.
Mom called and she had driven through Pawnee. Roughly half of the buisnesses were 'roped off.' Sandstone is (was) a popular facing material being cheap and plentiful. Just it isn't very strong and that was the obvious damage. Bob Wilson
So the take away from this article is that fracking is good? or at least better in terms of wastewater and earthquakes than traditional extraction?
Shouldn't the take away be 'it depends'? The North Dakota vs Oklahoma difference here seems to be a function of their particular locations and hydrocarbon producing formations.
