Expert Says Quakes in England May Be Tied to (Fracking) Gas Extraction

[Turborama]

Source: NYT

By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Published: October 21, 2011

A British seismologist said Friday that two minor earthquakes in northwestern England “appeared to correlate closely” with the use of hydraulic fracturing, a method of extracting natural gas from wells that has raised concerns about environmental and seismological risks in the United States.

The scientist, Brian Baptie, seismic project team leader with the British Geological Survey, said data from the two quakes near Blackpool — one of magnitude 2.3 on April 1, the other of magnitude 1.5 on May 27 — suggested the temblors arose from the same source. Cuadrilla Resources, a British energy company, was conducting hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, operations at a well nearby when the quakes occurred.

In fracking, water, sand and chemicals are injected into a well at high pressure to split shale rock and release trapped gas.

The company suspended its fracking operations shortly after the second earthquake, which, like the first, was barely felt and caused no damage. Paul Kelly, a Cuadrilla spokesman, said a report by several academic scientists on the quakes, commissioned by the company, should be released in a few weeks.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/science/earth/22fracking.html

[disndat]

1. Arkansas also suspended Hydrofracking.

Also, San Bruno, Calif. and Allentown, PA explosions caused by gas pipes. But don't let those proven hazards caused by hyrdrfracking stop the politically connected energy companies.

[silverlib]

2. And an earthquake in Texas...4.6 (in a frackin' area) n/t

[nineteen50]

6. MSM blackout.

[valerief]

11. We only get truthiness, never truth. nt

[Dover]

20. The NYT has been providing a very indepth look into the dangers of fracking

while apparently being leaned on heavily from the energy industry.

RFK Jr. authored an article about that and the issues with the EPA -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x314592

[Gormy Cuss]

19. The San Bruno gas pipe eruption was caused by hydrofracking?

I thought it was caused by shoddy welds and even shoddier PG&E maintenance and other practices.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. Frack me? Frack you!

It is so nice to know that something as insignificant as man can impact something as large as the earth.
Well, not so much nice as scary.

[movingviolation]

4. it's time to stop these mother (Earth) frackers!!

These politically connected energy corporation monsters need to be stopped before they turn our planet into an in uninhabitable cinder.

[Kingofalldems]

5. Yeah, but the neocon experts claim fracking is 'great'

[glinda]

9. Yes. That is what the kazillion dollar commercials tell us.

:sarcasm:

[jwirr]

13. Yes, just look what the gas company has done for you today!

:sarcasm:

[dipsydoodle]

7. From March 2011 :

The results of the first attempt to extract shale gas in the UK using a controversial technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", will be kept secret for four years, the Guardian has learned.

Cuadrilla Resources, a US private equity backed firm, told MPs at the energy and climate change committee that it will begin this month to pump 1,200 cubic metres of highly pressurised water mixed with chemicals and sand nearly 3,000 metres underground into an onshore shale gas reservoir near Blackpool.

The process is known as "fracking" because it fractures rock to release gas. Industry estimates reckon that more than a tenth of the country's gas needs could be produced in this way by 2015. However, critics such as the Green party say that it is environmentally unsafe because the chemicals could contaminate aquifers used for drinking water and farming.

Cuadrilla is under intense public scrutiny as the UK's first prospective shale gas producer. But under the terms of its licence, awarded in 2007, it does not have to declare how much gas it thinks it can produce from the sites until 2015. If the firm was publicly quoted, stock market rules would require it to disclose the information to the market as it would be share price sensitive.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/01/fracking-shale-gas-energy-mps

The four years is with regard to viability. Proven contamination of ground water would be a different matter - there would be an immediate shut down under our Heath and Safety Laws pending investigation..

[nineteen50]

8. Greater life through

secrecy

[valerief]

10. What do a few dead Americans mean to the 1%? To them, it's just fewer useless eaters.

Wonder what a few dead Brits mean to the 1% there.

[abelenkpe]

12. G, ya think? Nt

[lonestarnot]

14. Gee geniuses trying to tell us something we didn't know?

[Divernan]

15. Obama is pro-fracking. That is all some here need to know.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-say-obama-fracking-panel-financially-tied-gas-industry

The panel, handpicked by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, is directed to investigate the safety of shale gas development and to make recommendations for both improvements to the process as well as ‘best practice’ strategies that can act as recommendations to relevant agencies.

The 41-page report makes clear the conviction that the current state of distrust surrounding the gas industry is bad for business. The industry, the panel suggests, needs to become more transparent, well-regulated and engaged. “And industry response that hydraulic fracturing has been performed safely for decades rather than engaging the issues concerning the public will not succeed.”

Despite the panel’s recommendations to make the gas production process more transparent to the public, there is still a strong industry back-bone running throughout the report’s body. Weighing the pros and cons of shale gas production against environmental risks is of no interest to the panel. Oh, the drilling will happen, they say, but we need to also “give the public concrete reason to believe that environmental impacts will be reduced and well managed on an ongoing basis, and that problems will be mitigated and rapidly corrected, if and when they occur” and so on and so forth.

The committee leaves this responsibility largely to the industry itself while making no mention of repealing the numerous exemptions enjoyed by industry at the federal level, nor the instances of industry capture of regulators at the state level.

[Divernan]

16. Obama's panel "performing advocacy-based science."

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/fracking/Scientists_CHU_Letter_SIGNED.pdf

Scientists from 22 universities in 13 states voiced their concerns over the partiality of the panel, which they claim is “performing advocacy-based science.” As the letter outlines, 6 of the 7 panel members still have strong financial ties to the oil and gas industry, like the panel chairman John Deutch, who received more than $1.4 million from two leading gas companies, Chinere and Slumberger between 2006 and 2009 alone. Deutch currently sits on the board of directors at Chinere.

As such, the group worries that the panel will in fact “serve industry at taxpayer expense rather than serving President Obama and the public with credible advice.”

The letter is reminiscent of a July 13 letter signed by 109 community and environmental representatives also asking for the Secretary’s reconsideration of panel members due to their “substaintial financial ties” to the industry.

Both letters make the specific and base demand that John Deutch step down from the panel.

[Divernan]

17. Fed. govt. finances industry to "greenwash" their practices. As always, money talks!

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/federal-fracking-panel-responds-to-growing-backlash-against-polluting-destructive-practice/

“While the natural gas industry has advocated for, and has been granted exemptions from key environmental regulations, it has racked up countless violations of the rules that do apply to them, and has been questioned about the validity of their gas production forecasts. Yet the subcommittee nonetheless suggests that natural gas producers should play a large role in ensuring that hydraulic fracturing operations do not endanger consumers or natural resources by providing the public information about shale gas production and adopting industry-wide ‘best practices.’

“Just last week The New York Times reported that players within the natural gas industry helped bury evidence produced by the Environmental Protection Agency that hydraulic fracturing had, contrary to industry claims, contaminated drinking water supplies. How can we trust the industry to show ‘leadership in improving environmental impact’ when it has actually gone to great lengths to cover up its detrimental impacts to public health and natural resources? Much like the hearings it convened in the months leading up to the study, which mainly reflected the views of the natural gas industry and policymakers, this study downplays the concerns of those affected by fracking—communities that have been turned into sacrifice zones at the expense of the natural gas industry’s desire to turn a profit.

“While the report recommends allowing the natural gas industry to create a new national organization to police its own practices, it proposes leaving protection of public health and the environment to ‘each relevant jurisdiction.’ We know that industry has gone to great lengths to influence local governments, and even greater lengths to avoid culpability at a national level. Why should we let the industry police itself while leaving localities to fight for themselves?

“Moreover, we are extremely disappointed that federal involvement in this matter will focus on providing money to the natural gas industry for research and development to help greenwash their practices, rather than removing exemptions from key environmental regulations. The federal government should be taking an active role in protecting consumers and the environment from hydraulic fracturing, not throwing money at a destructive and unprofitable industry.”

[McCamy Taylor]

18. Holy moly! What about the east coast quake? They are drilling like mad up there.

[Dover]

21. EPA is dragging it's feet on this. What kind of toxins are we talking about?

This article is from June and posted in a paper in Taiwan.


EPA to tighten wastewater disposal rules

In an attempt to prevent the contamination of the country's underground water by toxic plasticizers, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) will announce stricter standards to regulate the disposal of wastewater by the petrochemical industry, chip makers and semiconductor manufacturers.

The new standards, still being drafted, will provide for stricter limits on the presence of ammonia, nitrogen, six volatile organic compounds, and six plasticizers — DMP, DBP, DEHP, BBP, DEP, DNOP — in the drainage systems of such plants. Even stricter control over the disposal by the chipset and semiconductor industries will be enforced, targeting toxic organic substances in general.

A total of eight plasticizers, including the six mentioned above as well as DIDP and DINP, were reclassified as Class I and Class II toxins in early June, but DIDP and DINP are not incorporated in the new standards that will soon be announced because their use is quite limited in the country.

The other chemicals are not covered by current standards because the substances can dissipate on their own and sewage processing plants can eliminate 90 percent of the plasticizers. However, the EPA has decided to incorporate these chemicals and the six plasticizers into the new standards anyway.

..//..

According to EPA officials, while plasticizers are most commonly used in the plastic industry and oil refining, targeting the petrochemical industry as a whole is nipping the problem in the bud.


http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan-business/2011/06/18/306660/EPA-to.htm

[defendandprotect]

22. Global Warming and melting of glaciers is creating more earthquakes --

and more severe earthquakes --

However, common sense would tell us that fracking is a questionable "business" activity

from any angle --

and if that is so -- what about exploding nuclear weapons all over the planet -- and

other impact weapons?


War isn't good for any living thing -- including the planet and everything on it - !!!

[Lint Head]

23. Oh no not science again! What will the Koch brothers say?

The people that own us will be pissed real good.