How shale fracking led to an Ohio town's first 100 earthquakes

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/w-hsf081913.php

[font face=Serif]Public release date: 19-Aug-2013

Contact: Ben Norman
[e-mail]
44-012-437-70375
Wiley

[font size=5]How shale fracking led to an Ohio town's first 100 earthquakes[/font]

[font size=3]Since records began in 1776, the people of Youngstown, Ohio had never experienced an earthquake. However, from January 2011, 109 tremors were recorded and new research in Geophysical Research-Solid Earth reveals how this may be the result of shale fracking.

In December 2010, Northstar 1, a well built to pump wastewater produced by fracking in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania, came online. In the year that followed seismometers in and around Youngstown recorded 109 earthquakes; the strongest being a magnitude 3.9 earthquake on December 31, 2011.

The study authors analyzed the Youngstown earthquakes, finding that their onset, cessation, and even temporary dips in activity were all tied to the activity at the Northstar 1 well. The first earthquake recorded in the city occurred 13 days after pumping began, and the tremors ceased shortly after the Ohio Department of Natural Resources shut down the well in December 2011.

Dips in earthquake activity correlated with Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving, as well as other periods when the injection at the well was temporarily stopped.

…[/font][/font]

[Auggie]

1. What about toxicity of the ground water?

That's the real story.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Actually, in my estimation, neither are “the real story”

I tell people “‘Fracking’ is a side issue.” The real story is that “fracking” (and related changes in laws/regulations) makes the extraction of “unconventional” oil and gas economically attractive.

From a “climate change” standpoint, we cannot afford to burn this stuff. It should be left in the ground. In the case of “natural gas” in some cases research shows that the amount leaking from the facilities makes burning “natural gas” worse for the environment than burning coal!

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/493012a

[Auggie]

3. +1

[limpyhobbler]

4. +3

For 3 real stories.

1) Climate effects
2) Physical damage to local infrastructure via shaking the earth
3) Local pollution (water, air, noise, trucks)
4) Steals water during a time of scarce water.

So make that 4.

Clearly the climate contribution is the gravest threat. But the local impacts are also very important, not least because they motivate people to resist.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. And let’s not forget economic factors

“Fracking” is sold as a “get rich quick” scenario.

“Get rich quick” can translate to “Boom and Bust.”

Centuries ago, Appalachia had forests. Those were cut down. Appalachia had coal, that was (in many places) dug out. Appalachia had oil (that was pumped out.)

Each time, Appalachia was promised to “get rich quick” by selling her resources. Yet somehow, Appalachia remains economically distressed.
http://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/AppalachiasEconomy.asp


Will “Fracking” finally make Appalachia rich unlike all the other schemes?

[limpyhobbler]

6. A few people might get rich, but mostly it's just wealth extraction and pushing the costs off onto

the rest of us.

Same old story.

[Bill USA]

7. recommended!