the disposal of the waste "water" does, as I understand it.

Science magazine: "Fracking for shale gas is not touching off the earthquakes that have been shaking previously calm regions of the central United States. But other energy-related fluid injection—including deep disposal of fracking's wastewater, extraction of methane from coal beds, and creation of geothermal energy reservoirs—is setting off earthquakes of magnitude 4 and 5 that are rattling the local populace, shutting down clean energy projects, and prompting new regulations"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6075/1436.short

I had never heard of that impact.

What exactly would that be describing?

... not only by associating natural gas extraction with "clean energy" but by adding
FUD by regarding geothermal plants as "the same thing" ...

is that within the context of the quote, where it is talking about the earthquakes, what impact do earthquakes have on green energy projects.

>> But other energy-related fluid injection—including ... creation of geothermal
>> energy reservoirs—is setting off earthquakes of magnitude 4 and 5 that are
>> rattling the local populace, shutting down clean energy projects, and
>> prompting new regulations"

The creation of geothermal energy reservoirs (green energy) uses a form
of "fracking" and so can, if poorly sited, cause similar mini-earthquakes
which, in turn, can cause the locals to shut down such a green energy project.

From memory, it was a site in Switzerland that had to close because of this
but the instances are very few & far between - unlike the case for natural
gas fracking sites - partly because of the nature of most potential geothermal
sites (serious differences in underlying geology) but mainly because of the
difference in exploitation philosophy (geothermal is intended to be sustainable
rather than "frack it, pump it and leg it&quot .

Like I said, the coupling of the two aspects is primarily a greenwashing exercise
intended to provide a fig-leaf for increased fossil-fuel extraction & consumption.

HTH!

Sorry about that, didn't even think about geothermal (really stupid of me) because there's so much wind and solar stuff around here.

because you can still frack and dispose of the "water" in a way that does not cause earthquakes.

Bullets can also be fired at shooting ranges, and cause no holes in people. But whatever.

The statement that fracking has caused earthquakes is correct, in the same way that aerosol sprays caused a depletion of the ozone layer prior to the removal of CFCs.

I thought about the earthquakes it would cause. Hello, why doesn't halliburton think about this?! Dopes are running the industries in this country. It's time for truly smart people to take over.

Halliburton and their ilk don't think about this stuff because they make sure that they live far, far away from where the fracking is done.

I wonder what they'll call the "foundation" that'll spread the lies.

They'll probably claim that earthquakes help with urban renewal or something.

...that the earthquakes are minor, which they admittedly are.

The fact remains they are earthquakes.

Yes, they're minor... until they're not.

The weight of even millions of gallons of water is relatively trivial compared to the kind of tectonic motion that is involved with a major earthquake.

There are much better and more scientifically valid reasons to oppose fracking.

If the tectonics are primed to unleash a big one, a small energy input can trigger it earlier than it would have otherwise come.

There are so many reasons to oppose fracking we should celebrate pretty much any of them getting attention (long as it's true, which logic and the USGS seem to be saying).

Even in your own example, we're not talking about causing earthquakes beyond microtremors. And there's simply FAR too much opportunity here to be proven wrong if one is hanging anti-fracking complaints on the dubious connection to earthquakes as opposed to more direct and provable concerns.

Opposing fracking due to the risk to the water supply is much more rational. The damage the booms do the land just from the build up is a very real and much larger impact than the earthquakes.

Focusing on the minor earthquakes they can cause is the type of thing the news does. OOOOOOH earthquakes.

And then there's the other side where if fracking were stopped today you'd lay off tens of thousands of well paid oil field trash.

They'll use the excuse that the benefits outweigh the costs. The benefits go to them and the costs land on us. If the study is even accepted at all, because we are well aware, denial is their first line of defense when it comes to science that interferes with their bottom line.

The quake map shows four recent ones around the fracking town of McAllister, with the largest being a magnitude 5 that occurred yesterday.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

important thing in the world.

the natural gas industry keeps stuffing the pockets of senators and reps with never ending money.

Senate, Congress, Agencies, White House, ... it has worked a treat for them
for decades (centuries?) and the only people who object are unimportant
to the rich ...

I mean, first man somehow is creating "natural evolving" climate warming, now this ...

Note - tongue in cheek.