![o-FRACKING-facebook[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XLlD3Vc.jpg "o-FRACKING-facebook[1].jpg")
Does fracking cause earthquakes like the left keeps saying it does? And is this inherently dangerous for the planet? There's virtually no media coverage from the other side of the coin.
>Does fracking cause earthquakes like the left keeps saying it does?
It can, but the earthquakes are usually quite minor.
>And is this inherently dangerous for the planet?
No, but it can be dangerous to humans if it's done improperly.
No it contaminates the water supply.
To test, run your tap and try to burn the water with a lighter for 30 seconds. If you see small explosions or the flame flaring, your water is contaminated and you need a carbon filter.
This is why Australia only fracks the desert.
>>75724058
Yeah right, you're an Australian poster, I heard about you guys. Always spreading disinformation and lies. All for the "lols."
Can anyone here give us the read "redpill" on fracking?
>>75722467
If you do it wrong it causes issues. If you do it correctly, which apparently costs a lot more, it's perfectly safe.
>>75724195
Sure, here's the real redpill on fracking:
It contaminates the water supply.
To test, run your tap and try to burn the water with a lighter for 30 seconds. If you see small explosions or the flame flaring, your water is contaminated and you need a carbon filter.
This is why Australia only fracks the desert.
>>75724299
Thanks man, I'll make sure not to do any fracking near my home.
>>75724195
Short term: Allows oil to be gained from places where you normally would have no access to it
Long Term: Its new and unstudied, Its detrimental to water tables and can cause many issues, not limited to geological instability.
>>75724299
This makes way more sense than what Australia posted, thanks.
To add to this, fraccing will decline as long as we have cheap oil. It's a more expensive process, and it needs oil to be priced a little higher to make it profitable.
>>75724409
Well I wouldn't know what to do with it if I got it. I don't suppose I would take the risk.
>>75724299
You're an American, I can't really tell if you're pulling my leg.
Can anyone here give us the real "red pill" on fracking?
>>75724195
Are you aware that tumblr, reddit and democrat shills use Australian proxies to shitpost? Australians know, because these people understand so little about Australian culture that they spell things the American way or drop Americanisms.
The Australian shitposter is a lie, Australia is specifically targeted because there's an Australian that's proving God, preaching virtues, fighting hate and all round defeating the /pol/ narrative. People who defeat narratives are scary to the fascist, regressive left.
>>75724299
I love you sympathetic Americans. You are literally why I'll never stop.
>>75724451
And I'm back to hating Americans.
old thread
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/70472282/
>>75724604
>Are you aware that tumblr, reddit and democrat shills use Australian proxies to shitpost?
Well why don't you stop giving your proxies to them?
>>75722467
Think the earths plates like a car engine.
What happens when you remove all the oil and run the engine?
What happens when a piston rod over heats and shoots out the oil pan?
What happens when the earth does the same thing?
You guys could have had most of your energy come from safe nth generation nuclear plants with a waste recycling pipeline. But the oil barons made people afraid of it. Then you had to go bomb the brown people in the middle east to secure the supply. Now you're going to turn your country into a moonscape and contaminate the ground water just to try to squeeze what's left of it. Just stop burning dead stuff already. The alternatives can be made to work, it just needs some will. It can create shitton of jobs too.
>>75724863
I like to imagine the earth as a large mass with a molten core, covered with a crust of solid matter broken up into plates that push and pull against each other.
Plus, I save a ton on oil changes and car insurance.
>>75724604
I hope your boyfriend takes dick better than you take bantz.
>>75725185
>cement
triggered
>>75724863
>Think the earths plates like a car engine.
>>75724975
>The alternatives can be made to work
like what?
>It can create shitton of jobs too.
Enough to offset the loss of millions of jobs that rely on the oil industry?
>>75725554
why?
>>75725822
He's still a leaf, but he might have a point.
Nuclear subsidies will encourage more jobs in the nuclear field, which generally leads to innovation. Thorium could become a reality, and fusion starts looking like less of a pipe dream.
Oil is too cheap right now, and has been for too long. Most are just pumping as much as they can to pay the bills and with talk of a federal interest rate hike, the cheap loan train stops and you'll start to see layoffs.
It's better to invest in another sector in the long term while slowly easing back on oil investment until modern extraction methods become more profitable.
>>75725429
kek
>>75725366
kek
>>75725822
>like what?
Nuclear. Just don't let them explode. Be great at something difficult for once in a long, long time. Show the world how it's done. The wastes can be reprocessed in many ways if the investment is made.
>Enough to offset the loss of millions of jobs that rely on the oil industry?
Yeah, it's going to require a ton of initial work to get (re)started and probably going to be less efficient than oil in general for a while. But inefficient in a way that makes more jobs isn't completely bad. It's not like we're freeing up people that go on to cure cancer here. There's lots of unemployment. People need jobs.
Electric cars would be more expensive (and have poor range), but they're going to get better and getting rid of oil dependency is a huge deal. It's going to be worth it.
My understanding is that there are other reasons for the US to seek control of the world's oil. They use it to protect their currency, but they also want to deny it to others that could use it to get control over the third world which is dependent on it (they're not going to develop alternatives, they can't).
>>75726650
I would like to add, there are more and more nations trying to sell oil in something other than dollars.
The most recent being Iran, selling oil in euros.
I can see the BRICS nations shrugging the petrodollar in the future if the trend continues, splitting the market share more evenly.
It would make sense to invest in alternatives and improve energy storage.
>>75726650
>>75725822
>Changing to one kind of energy source completely removes every last job from the other energy source
Ignoring that utter retardation, it will create a shitton of construction jobs, since nuclear cooling towers are a bitch to make
>>75722467
>Does fracking cause earthquakes like the left keeps saying it does?
yes
>And is this inherently dangerous for the planet?
yes
the water table in most places is usually 500 to 1000 m deep. For comparison, Devonian shale formations are usually 6km to 10 km deep. Crack lengths don't go near as high as the water table from the horizontal reference level of the well. However, the vertical casing that runs through the water table is much more reinforced the the rest of the well. Fracking does release residual stress within the crust which can cause microquakes. If a large enough stress is relieved it could theoretically produce larger quakes. I believe this danger is mitigated by the newer "slickwater"fracking technique the generated smaller and more branched cracks as opposed to larger less branched cracks made by more viscous fracking fluids. Cores are taken before wells are built to asses the geologic conditions at the well depth. If preliminary work or management of drilling is haphazard, risks of not catching potentially dangerous nearby faults increases. Human error and profit seeking are the maing culprits of many of the incidents shown in flims like Gasland. Coal seams and untapped oil and gas wells can cause the same problem of flammable gas dissolved in tap water.
I think fracking is here to stay due to the sheer amount of recoverable reserves it opens up for the US when economically feasible. I can also foresee other potential benefits like relieving stress underground to produce more frequent small quakes as opposed to catastrohpic large ones. I believe this technique is used in water wells and geothermal wells too.
>>75726939
Oh yeah... I wonder if it could happen in the next decade? I understand that if the petrodollar scheme collapses, the US can no longer import so much manufactured goods like it does right now. How convenient that Trump arrives just in time to reindustrialize the US!
I don't really understand the effect on the affordability and profitability of the oil industry for the US (and Canada) though...
>>75726323
>nuclear
a valid option
>subsidies
into the trash it goes
>>75726650
>Electric cars would be more expensive (and have poor range), but they're going to get better and getting rid of oil dependency is a huge deal. It's going to be worth it.
Worth it to whom? Electric cars and hybrids are heavily subsidized by the government and are just toys for the wealthy. If alternative energy products were viable then they would exist without handouts, yet they aren't. That's not to say that they won't be in the future, but the government shouldn't shill this shit with taxpayer money with promises of a rainbow tomorrow.
>>75726982
I phrased that badly, my point was that the left doesn't have a problem with killing the oil industry and the coal industry but turns around and uses "muh job creation" for their pipedream ideas.
>>75727493
Canada will be screwed if oil prices remain too low. They don't have as many industries to fall back on if the oil companies go bankrupt.
Any dramatic shift in American hegemony, excluding war, would realistically take between 5 and 20 years.
North America invested heavily in fraccing at $100 oil, and it dropped to $30 and stabilized at round $44. There wasn't enough time at $100 to pay all the overhead for fraccing, and they are just playing catch up, taking advantage of cheap, low interest loans.
A shift in types of energy production is inevitable.
>>75727861
A subsidy as in, lower interest federal loans for students majoring in the desired field.
I used it as a general term to describe promoting an accommodating environment to desired fields.
Not a fan of traditional subsidies, I take it?
>Does fracking cause earthquakes like the left keeps saying it does? And is this inherently dangerous for the planet?
Don't care, if it damages the Saudi's stranglehold over us, it's good by me. Drawbacks be damned.
>>75727861
Worth it to get rid of oil and create local jobs I'd say. Electric cars will get more affordable in time (there are already some really good cheap hybrids, but probably only thanks to subsidies as you say).
Seems like western nations already subsidies and protect many of their "great industries" so much they might as well be nationalized. Energy and efficient exploitation of natural resources is already a matter of national interest; it might be the ONE thing the government will do right (or might have done well in the past, maybe too corrupt now :/).
My understanding is that nuclear was killed by regulations. Public opinion became hostile to nuclear (the media and the oil barons were probably behind it mostly). Excessive regulation was a way to kill it. It didn't make it safer since there was no money left for safety.
This made necessary the interventions in the world to secure access to the oil. The oil companies become very rich and the US gets to spread its influence.
>>75728257
the last thing we need is further subsidies by the government, look at how "successful" the solar industry is due to the heavy subsidization
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/
>I used it as a general term to describe promoting an accommodating environment to desired fields.
Because there aren't any nuclear engineering students in the country? You don't think these people already exist without hand-holding from uncle sam?
>>75728568
>Worth it to get rid of oil and create local jobs I'd say. Electric cars will get more affordable in time
The question is why should the government play a role in this? Just let the existing car companies or new companies do their thing.
>Seems like western nations already subsidies and protect many of their "great industries" so much they might as well be nationalized. Energy and efficient exploitation of natural resources is already a matter of national interest; it might be the ONE thing the government will do right (or might have done well in the past, maybe too corrupt now :/).
Not in the oil and coal industry. The leftists would love to destroy those and instead subsidize wind farms and similar pointless shit.
>My understanding is that nuclear was killed by regulations. Public opinion became hostile to nuclear (the media and the oil barons were probably behind it mostly). Excessive regulation was a way to kill it. It didn't make it safer since there was no money left for safety.
Exactly, government slowed down the process and interfering again wouldn't do any good either. Just let the nuclear engineering industry work.
>>75722467
geologist here. Fracking doesn't directly cause earthquakes, the waste disposal wells cause earthquakes by lubricating the faults which causes the stresses to release easier.
Honestly I view these quakes as a good thing because if the stresses build up long enough then potentially catastrophic earthquakes would happen
>>75728620
Solar is shit to produce, shit to maintain, and shit with efficiency. In no way would I ever support solar subsidies unless it's for a satellite. Too expensive.
You do have a fair point on government hand holding, and I'd have to agree.
>>75726323
nuclear doesn't need subsidies
nuclear needs the NRC removed
the NRC is the single impediment that have kept new nuclear power plants from being produced
Nothing to do with cost or anything like that, the NRC sits on the necessary approval to build a plant until it is withdrawn.
They have only recently approved a couple, which still took years.
>>75729410
I will admit, I know more about economics than nuclear policy.
I'll read up on it. Just keeping the thread bumped because this interests me.
>>75722467
To give you a low-down that my geologist friend gave me (he gave me the layman's version so my understanding of the science isn't perfect):
>Pollution:
Fracking is potentially is dangerous as normal oil drilling; the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing are applied below the water-table, as one would do in conventional oil drilling. The chemicals won't rise into said water table because there's a layer of impermeable rock there; hence how oil accumulated in the first place. The risk is from leaks/spills out of the drill.
The increase in risk is not so much that fracking is more dangerous; it is that since it's technically more complex there's potentially more things that can go wrong. With competent personnel, it's innocuous.
>Earthquakes:
Theoretically yes? The way he described it was that the Earthquakes were known to occur but were minor in nature. However, the Richter Scale is logarithmic, so in theory you could have compounding numbers of small Earthquakes that would lead to a big Earthquake in time. Was there any actual evidence that this would occur? He had told me no, it was just hypothetical and the geological community at large didn't want to make claims that had no conclusive evidence in either direction. Their approach is more or less "wait and see"
>>75728902
>The question is why should the government play a role in this?
It already does. Access to natural resources, energy production and reserves, and the general ability to wage wars are so incredibly important matters that it isn't being left to the free market (even though it may appear to be). If any of these things are compromised, they will do anything to restore them (they already went to war for the oil).
I won't claim to understand these matters very well, but I can see that there is a great game being played. Nations protect themselves. Especially the world's hegemon.
>Not in the oil and coal industry. The leftists would love to destroy those and instead subsidize wind farms and similar pointless shit.
I like to think that they could work too since they are so much less explody, but I don't know if they can be efficient enough to completely replace oil. Wind turbines are maintenance-heavy. Solar apparently requires a lot of water to wash them. There's no way to buffer the energy... It's not going to create a lot of jobs if it isn't viable (it's still competing with other sources of energy). And the subsidization process seems corrupt as fuck.
>Exactly, government slowed down the process and interfering again wouldn't do any good either. Just let the nuclear engineering industry work.
But nuclear is so incredibly dangerous. Just one accident can render a large area uninhabitable forever (in relatable time). Some regulation is necessary. But right now the regulations are designed to make them unprofitable. The government has to want nuclear back first. It's all fixable I'm sure. The military seems to be pretty nuclear accident-free.
>>75729005
does your firm atleast inform locals of the possibilities of earthquakes and well contamination?
>>75729105
>Solar is shit to produce
But steadily getting cheaper
>shit to maintain
Lolno
>and shit with efficiency
Who cares, sunlight is free.
Petroleum's not gonna be obsolete any time soon (for vehicles and emergency power especially), but solar is fast approaching the point where it's actually competitive for certain applications.
>>75730389
>the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing
You mean gritty, slightly-soapy water? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRphniHLHgo
>The chemicals won't rise into said water table because there's a layer of impermeable rock there
The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of fracking is to fracture impermeable source rock.
>>75727988
OK. I'm wondering, if the US/Canada decided to cut off all outside oil imports, any idea what would be the price of that oil (assuming there was proper local competition, and maybe assuming those loans were paid off...)? I guess they can't fill all the domestic demand yet, which would mean more drilling and more loans... It doesn't seem THAT much more expensive if they're not bankrupt yet.
>>75722467
>Does fracking cause earthquakes like the left keeps saying it does?
yes
>And is this inherently dangerous for the planet?
no
the only real problem is ground water getting polluted because kikes cheap out on drilling and other things.
>>75722467
I have experience in this field and can honestly say there is no risk by fracking causing an earthquake nor is it dangerous to the planet. I worked for an oil and gas company for many years and my job was to obtain leases for oil and gas companies. For many years we drilled wells that would show gas and oil deposits within underground shale deposits. This would be useless to us because we had no way of extracting it because shale is thick like a chalkboard. We would have to wait until we hit sand to be able to produce any hydrocarbons. Recently a chemical was discovered that erodes grooves in the shale deposits. This chemical is harmless and even if it was damaging, it is not anywhere near shallow water reserves. ama.
>>75731078
>Gritty, slightly-soapy water?
The actual drill lubricants and additives used alongside said water vary from job to job. They're not all safe for humans.
>fracture impermeably source rock
Penetration into impermeable rock is controlled; otherwise the oil would just fucking flow out in a big puddle. Do you really think they drill a hole just to let that shit openly spill everywhere? The hole is usually made on a funnel shaped cone of impermeable rock on top of the oil.
By impermeable rock, I don't mean the porous sandstone which the oil is trapped in between. I mean real layers of hardened rock.
>>75722467
If done right then no dangers to the water supply. No matter how it is done it cannot create earthquakes, they are not reaching the tectonic plates in fact they are nowhere near the depths required to cause quakes and nothing we have today can reach that. Short of nukes going off we will not be shaking the ground and mudslides avalanches and etc are not earthquakes.
>>75734144
>Penetration into impermeable rock is controlled
No it's not. in the past it would take days to get through these hard layers that would show hydrocarbons on censors in order to get to a sand formation that could produce.
Now these more shallow layers can be produced at far less cost.
>>75724058
>>75724299
>>75724409
>>75724975
>>75727173
>>75733270
See >>75725185
>>75724409
>Its new and unstudied,
Fracking has been going on since the 1950's
>>75722467
if the people fracking just made their shit stable instead of having shoddy work we'd be fine. when dumbasses fuck up the wells it starts the environmental hazards
>>75734144
Ok hippy let me go through this point by point:
>>Gritty, slightly-soapy water?
Yes it is not a new compound, just a new technique to use it.
>The actual drill lubricants and additives used alongside said water vary from job to job. They're not all safe for humans.
Even if they were not safe. Once the production zones are pinpointed the well is cased with an outer lining that prevents any leakage for production.
>>fracture impermeably source rock
>Penetration into impermeable rock is controlled; otherwise the oil would just fucking flow out in a big puddle. Do you really think they drill a hole just to let that shit openly spill everywhere?
The well is controlled by a heavy mud that prevents the pressure from causing a blowout or "leakage" stupid fucking term. It wouldn't leak. It would BTFO.
The hole is usually made on a funnel shaped cone of impermeable rock on top of the oil.
Retard nonsense.
>By impermeable rock, I don't mean the porous sandstone which the oil is trapped in between. I mean real layers of hardened rock.
See>>75734549
>>75734854
Don't be dense, the whole point of fracking is to destabilize the rocks to get the fossils fuels out.
And yes, it causes small earthquakes, none of which are important. Christ, coal mining has collapsed whole towns, drained a lake by accident, and left underground fires burning for years.
>>75735133
>destabilize the rocks
Do you picture individual rocks under thousands of feet with millions of tons of pressure on it? In that world fracking would not be an issue. It's layers and layers of chalkboard shale that protects an underneath layer of sand.
It has not and will never cause an earthquake, because fracking has no where the potential to disrupt continental drift.
You are a fucking idiot,
>>75722467
If fracking causes earthquakes, why are there none in N.Dakota?
The media exists to sell hysteria, that's it. The sole purpose of these documentaries, 24-hour news channels, etc. is to get you to consume their product. The most effective way to do that is peddle fear.
Yes, hydraulic fracturing is dangerous in the sense that it's not a risk free activity. It has the potential to release a great deal of methane into the atmosphere, a potent greenhouse gas, improperly built wells can contaminate groundwater sources as the structural integrity of the casing fails (this is a when, not if, type deal. They'll all fail eventually), improper disposal of wastewater can also pose significant health hazards, if the wells are ''shallow'' there exists the potential to contaminate drinking water, etc.
You'll notice, of course, that many of these dangers can be mitigated by drilling according to established safety standards, a robust regulatory regime is necessary to safeguard the public from the negative externalities of potential bad actors who are willing to dump the water in some backwater river and pocket the money that would have gone into treating it. The process itself, however, can be relatively safe. And that's what's important, the relative safety compared to other methods of energy production.
>>75722467
How strong are these "earthquakes" compared to a tremor from mine blasting?
>>75735684
Because OP is a long gone shill. See:
>>75725162
>>75727258
>>75735052
>>75735602
>>75735937
5.0 earthquakes at most, they might shake your beer bottle off your table
>>75736440
More like 3.0 at worst. Barely noticeable. Might rattle your windows a bit.
>>75737401
PTSD!
>>75737696
If were happening constantly over a long period of time, it might.
>>75737790
Eh, oh yeah! If it happens often it might become really annoying and wake you up at night, etc. Can't be worse than living near an airport though (not that that's any fun).
>>75726294
It's concrete you dense fuckers. Of course he is triggered.
>>75722467
>Does fracking cause earthquakes like the left keeps saying it does?
No.
>And is this inherently dangerous for the planet?
No.
>>75735937
It's like 8.0, tests if your building was earthquake proof. Pretty good imo.
