The Off Topic Topic

[Admiral Yi]

I think we're having a classic moment of Yi-Jacob complete lack of mutual understanding.

I thought I was following.  Please explain if you think I'm proceeding based on a misunderstanding.

[Barrister]

Magnitude 3 is pretty trifling, isn't it?

In and of itself, yeah, but I think when you're looking at seismic activity it's less about the strength of any given individual incident and more about trends. I believe big earthquakes, for example, are often preceded by many smaller shakes.

The objection to fracking re: seismic activity is not, I believe, that magnitude 3 quakes are terrifying - it's that it's connected patterns of greatly increased seismic activity.

When looking at Money's graph, you need to keep in mind that the richter scale is logarithmic - Magnitude 4 is 10x more powerful than Magnitude 3, Magnitude 5 is 100x more powerful than Magnitude 3, and so on and so forth.

So an increase in lower level "earthquakes" is not necessarily going to mean a corresponding increase in substantially larger earthquakes.

When you consider what is involved in fracking, you'd actually expect to see an increase in minor shaking.  Fracking involves pumping a high pressure fluid into the hydrocarbon-carrying formation so that the rocks themselves will crack.  It's not surprising that would lead to minor amount of shaking above.  If you set off underground explosives those can typically be measured by seismographs.

But there's no reason to think that would cause more significant earthquakes.  Why would it - places like Oklahoma are in the middle of a continental plate and are geologically very stable.

Finally, from what I remember big earthquakes are preceeded by a lack of small earthquakes.  Small earthquakes allow continental plates to slowly move and release pressure.  It's when the plates seize up, pressure builds, and is not released, that leads to large earthquakes.

[Malthus]

Is "creating earthquakes" cited by anyone as a serious danger of fracking? I know they create quakes, but have any ever caused damage?

My understanding is that the main concern was groudwater contamination.

[MadImmortalMan]

We should go back to coal. That should fix it.

[Admiral Yi]

Is "creating earthquakes" cited by anyone as a serious danger of fracking? I know they create quakes, but have any ever caused damage?

My understanding is that the main concern was groudwater contamination.

It's mentioned quite a bit by opponents of fracking.  Whether it's a serious danger I guess depends on your tastes.

[Valmy]

We should go back to coal. That should fix it.

Right?  I mean obviously the end goal is to create a sustainable renewable grid that powers everything but we have to have intermediate steps people.  Gas is a great move from coal, as it drastically reduces pollution.  The Fracking business will be short lived as we are making big strides in other energy sources but we have to do this for now.

[CountDeMoney]

Is "creating earthquakes" cited by anyone as a serious danger of fracking? I know they create quakes, but have any ever caused damage?

"Clinical trials?  Pfft, push the drugs straight into stores!"

[Malthus]

Is "creating earthquakes" cited by anyone as a serious danger of fracking? I know they create quakes, but have any ever caused damage?

"Clinical trials?  Pfft, push the drugs straight into stores!"

I'm asking because I don't know, not to make a rhetorical point.

[The Brain]

What about chemtrails from fracking?

[DGuller]

Fracking may very well be a dangerous thing, but all new technologies have seen their shares of opposition, so forgive me for being skeptical about it being so horrible. But hey, who knows, it might be the first invention in a million years where the naysayers are right.

The naysayers were probably right about asbestos.

[Jacob]

I think we're having a classic moment of Yi-Jacob complete lack of mutual understanding.

I thought I was following.  Please explain if you think I'm proceeding based on a misunderstanding.

You asked for evidence that the many mag 3+ earthquakes are linked to increased seismic activity. The earthquakes aren't linked to increased seismic activity, they ARE the increased seismic activity. The minor earthquakes are not bad because of the impact each of them have individually; you may not notice them. But if they're happening all the time they are indicative, at the very least, of a significant change and may well be a precursor to more catastrophic problems (or not - BB says it's not a problem, and he's studied more geology than me, so maybe he's right - it's worth getting more expert opinions).

It's kind of like, say, your neighbourhood used to have about 1.6 six incidents of shoplifting or worse crimes a year. Now things have changed and you saw more than 140 incidents of shoplifting or worse crimes by May alone this year.

Even if an individual incidence of shoplifting is minor, that's nonetheless a major change in criminal patterns. Now, maybe that shift does not indicate that there is going to be more significant crimes than shoplifting coming, or maybe it does; but noting that shoplifting is not a big crime doesn't really address whether a hundredfold increase in incidents is linked to an increase in worse criminality.

Now, personally it's my understanding that places that see big earthquakes also see many many minor earthquakes over the years. So if I lived in a place that basically never even had minor earthquakes, and then saw more than a hundredfold increase, I'd be concerned.

As for fracking... maybe the increased seismic activity is basically nothing in the long run, or maybe it has some serious long term geological effects. I don't know. I don't believe we have a lot of studies on it, in part because there hasn't been time for any long term effects to be observed, and in part because people have only now started to look for it.

Some people are saying outright "it's terrible because oil is terrible too, stop it all now," some are saying "it's nothing, trust us, because good money is being made". Personally I'm not sure - we need oil, and certainly it's good to make money; on the other hand, it seems reasonable to me to be fairly rigorous about the possible long term effects of the technology we apply to exploit those resources.

[The Brain]

Fracking may very well be a dangerous thing, but all new technologies have seen their shares of opposition, so forgive me for being skeptical about it being so horrible. But hey, who knows, it might be the first invention in a million years where the naysayers are right.

The naysayers were probably right about asbestos.

You for real? Even the name tells you you're wrong.

[Jacob]

You for real? Even the name tells you you're wrong.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Try fracking instead;  it's good, and good for you.

Yay, I finally get to post this: Beyond the Headlines: Earthquakes: Should We Be Worried?

Commence the barrage of "OMG INDUSTRY SHILL!!!!1" ad homs. 

[MadImmortalMan]

I am under the impression from events of the last few years (local quake clusters and stuff) that one benefit where I live from the many small quakes we get is that we don't get many large damaging ones. The small ones relieve the pressure that would otherwise build up to a large release. One of the members of the UNR seismic lab told me this.