Editorial: The risk of cheap energy
Moving heaven and Earth
The pursuit of cheap fossil fuels ‘almost certainly’ causes earthquakes.
It sounds like a plot for a James Bond movie. A super villain, hiding in a secret laboratory inside an abandoned mine deep beneath the Appalachian Mountains, schemes to drill into the Earth, inject fluids and cause earthquakes. He will stop only if America agrees to pay a million, billion or trillion dollars, depending on the decade.
That’s not how it works in the real world, of course. In the real world, Americans willingly pay huge sums to encourage the drilling. Humanity now has the power to alter the world on monumental scales, sometimes unintentionally.
April 13, 2012 - 6:13 AM
It is certainly possible that drilling are causing earthquake. However, as the author pointed out, more data are needed.
Of course, this is going to provide knee-jerk reactions from environmentalist extremists who will trumpet this as proof positive that drilling is no longer acceptable. Obama have often said that “drilling our way out of the problem” isn’t the answer.
So, this beg the obvious question, what is the answer?
Solar? Hydrogen? Wind? Hyrdo-dam?
Personally, I’d like to see some kind of tandem system of solar, wind, and gas/oil power plant. I am not sure what this system is called (tie-in?).
I would also like to see the data myself from the U.S. Geological Survey.
I believe the culprit is the billions of gallons of waste water from the fracking effort that is injected deep underground. This is water, salt and chemicals pumped into the ground underneath us. Any fool thinking that would have no impact, quickly and for the foreseeable future is just not thinking it through. Pushing the boundaries means things can happen. The evidence is overwhelming and wherever these water mines are, there is damage. Is that a big enough clue?
Wastewater injection causes sharp rise in earthquakes
If only we could catch the elusive unicorn…then we’d have “clean” energy forever.
Everybody knows the power of the unicorn.
We should spend everything we have to find them.
Better yet…I bet Obama has friends who have dreamed this…there’s a chance that they might be able to CREATE them out of thin air. We should petition Obama to give them a TRILLION dollars and let them do this for us.
We can always keep printing money to fund them.
Obama has already healed the planet and slowed the rising waters of the oceans…we can trust him.
A program called Earthscope, I believe, from the time of the 2nd Bush admin. is responsible for the installation of some 1200+ seismic stations in the USA. OH look, we have more earthquakes.
Secondly, please define earthquakes. Are we talking the true shifting of the earth’s “plates” or something else? Do we need another term?
Is this another episode of journalism on “shakey ground”?
Sandi, what does “almost certain” mean to you? Are they are 95% or 75% certain?
I’m sorry, but scientific integrity demands a closer examination of all data. Where is the evidence? Where is the statistical data to back up their claim? Right now, it stands as speculation, and in the scientific community, that is not acceptable. The data must be thoroughly examined, tested, and if necessary, revise.
That’s what science is all about, is it not?
As usual, you want to wait for 99.99% certainty and allow the pollution and possible earthquake inducing activity to continue and even increase? Why am I not surprised.
No, the disdain for science, education and intelligence as a matter of principle does not beg for more research, better statistics or even beyond your ability to deny proof.
I don’t think anyone is saying with 90-100% certainty that this is a disaster in the making, but everyone agrees that more study and research is needed and a cautious progression is warranted IMO.
http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf
http://www.ewg.org/analysis/usgs-recent-earthquakes-almost-certainly-manmade
http://www2.seismosoc.org/FMPro?-db=Abstract_Submission_12&-sortfield=PresDay&-sortorder=ascending&-sortfield=Special+Session+Name+Calc&-sortorder=ascending&-sortfield=PresTimeSort&-sortorder=ascending&-op=gt&PresStatus=0&-lop=and&-token.1=ShowSession&-token.2=ShowHeading&-recid=224&-format=%2Fmeetings%2F2012%2Fabstracts%2Fsessionabstractdetail.html&-lay=MtgList&-find
To #1 (Trevor): Excellent comment, sir. I appreciate your ability to see the big picture when it comes to power generation and energy.
And you’re right. If we follow the environmentalists’ “knee-jerk” reaction and prohibit fracking for natural gas, gas production goes down, gas supplies get much tighter, and prices go up. This makes electricity supplied by gas-fired stations more expensive, and it makes heating bills more expensive for people who heat with gas. Stopping fracking would cause real economic pain for people. Particularly those of modest means.
“What’s the alternative?” is indeed the key question.
And as for “tandem” systems, they’re already happening. Primarily wind-farms combined with gas-fired turbines to serve as backup for when the wind isn’t blowing. Invenergy (the company trying to do the mid-sized wind farm on top of Poor Mountain) is in the “tandem” business.
I don’t know if it’ll happen with solar, though. Solar remains awfully expensive and has enormous footprint requirements. The really big wind turbines are fairly cost-effective, although coal, nuclear, and hydro all remain cheaper.
To #4 (BUD): I believe there is some evidence that fracking is causing little localized earthquakes. These are small events, typically measuring 2 or 3 on the Richter scale, that cause little or no damage. This may be a good thing, though, as it allows stress regions in the earth’s crust to relax more gradually. Better a series of small earthquakes happening every couple of weeks than a monster that flattens a city every 100 years: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19700422&id=ySYxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uQEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7223,6073263
Sandi, once again, you have ignored what I am saying. Even the US Geological Survey admit they need more data to back up their hypothesis. That is how science work. If everything was taken as face value, then we might as well throw out the established scientific procedure that respected scientists have followed for hundred of years.
I am not advocating pollution or increased earthquakes to validate the USGS’s claim. Hardly. If they say almost certain, they are inviting to have their hypothesis tested and reproof. Now that the report is out, I am certain that oil companies and subcontractors who do the drilling will be paying attention, and studying it as well. I hope they challenge the claim. That is what science is all about.
The problem is when people take a claim as “gospel” they would defend it hotly, even if it may be inconclusive. That is the gist of the article that I interpreted, the data is inconclusive, but the good news is, it may open the door to further study of oil exploration and the relationship to the earth.
I am also certain that there are plenty we don’t know about our own planet. It’s still mysterious to us.
Yes Trevor, I TOTALLY overlooked it when I said: “I don’t think anyone is saying with 90-100% certainty that this is a disaster in the making, but everyone agrees that more study and research is needed and a cautious progression is warranted IMO.”
That is me, an overlooking fool!
Ah, don’t be too hard on yourself. I flub once in a while too.
Awww Trevor, how gallant! But, everyone knows only liberals and Democrats are ever wrong.
Finally, the truth from Sandi