Frack you

[hcap]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/03/oklahoma-earthquakes-fracking-waste-water-wells

Oklahoma earthquakes linked to fracking wastewater wells, study says


Scientists have, for the first time, linked hundreds of earthquakes across a broad swath of Oklahoma to a handful of wastewater wells used by the fracking industry.

The research, published in the journalScience (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/07/02/science.1255802) on Thursday, said about one-fifth of the quakes that helped turn Oklahoma into the earthquake capital of America were caused by just four wells.

[HUSKER55]

Sooo.....now you blame earthquakes for climate problems because the earthquakes broke up our sewer/waste storage?

[hcap]

My, my, ever think of becoming a writer for the Daily Caller?

[tucker6]

My, my, ever think of becoming a writer for the Daily Caller?
says the guy quoting a british newspaper on news for Oklahoma...

[HUSKER55]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

says the guy quoting a british newspaper on news for Oklahoma...The research, published in the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/07/02/science.1255802) on Thursday, said about one-fifth of the quakes that helped turn Oklahoma into the earthquake capital of America were caused by just four wells.Read my post again. I hyper-linked to the original article in the journal Science. You must have skipped that, as you do every valid journal and peer reviewed paper I link to--- over and over over and over again :cool:

[davew]

How can they tell it is/was fracking and not just

global warming (oops, climate change) ?

[hcap]

How can they tell it is/was fracking and not just

global warming (oops, climate change) ?Because I read it unlike most cons on this board I read more than rightie rags. Try reading accredited scientific articles sometimes why don't you?

Your understanding is meager:sleeping:

[Tom]

How can they tell it is/was fracking and not just

global warming (oops, climate change) ?

The gullible believe what they are told to believe.

[Rise Over Run]

Deep well injection of wastewater is not fracking.

[PhantomOnTour]

says the guy quoting a british newspaper on news for Oklahoma...
How ridiculous can you get, honestly?

[davew]

Because I read it unlike most cons on this board I read more than rightie rags. Try reading accredited scientific articles sometimes why don't you?

Your understanding is meager:sleeping:

you read what? the Abstract?

do you understand what is meant by the scientific term 'model' ?

[Tom]

How ridiculous can you get, honestly?
See Post #1.

[hcap]

Deep well injection of wastewater is not fracking.Stick to building stairs.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/07/02/science.1255802

Abstract..

Unconventional oil and gas production provides a rapidly growing energy source; however, high-production states in the United States, such as Oklahoma, face sharply rising numbers of earthquakes. Subsurface pressure data required to unequivocally link earthquakes to injection are rarely accessible. Here we use seismicity and hydrogeological models to show that fluid migration from high-rate disposal wells in Oklahoma is potentially responsible for the largest swarm. Earthquake hypocenters occur within disposal formations and upper-basement, between 2-5 km depth. The modeled fluid pressure perturbation propagates throughout the same depth range and tracks earthquakes to distances of 35 km, with a triggering threshold of ~0.07 MPa. Although thousands of disposal wells operate aseismically, four of the highest-rate wells are capable of inducing 20% of 2008-2013 central US seismicity.

And
Duh !!!!!!!

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/deep-injection-well/

Deep Injection Wells: How Drilling Waste Is Disposed Underground

...Deep injection wells are also called brine disposal wells, and are officially known as class II underground injection wells. They can take any fluid related to oil and gas drilling, including frack waste water.

In Pennsylvania, the wells are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC). The EPA took over the task of permits, inspections and enforcement from state regulators in 1985.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there currently seven active deep injection wells for oil and gas waste in Pennsylvania. Three others have received permits from the EPA that either remain inactive or are being appealed

[hcap]

See Post #1.No rather read #9 and remember the most gullible posster here composed it :jump: :jump:

[Tom]

Did you get clumps in your Farina this morning?

[hcap]

Not the first study

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/19/usgs-study-connects-earthquake-risk-wastewater-injection-fracking-advocates-say-who-cares

2013-07-19 05:00

USGS Study Connects Earthquake Risk To Wastewater Injection, Fracking Advocates Say, "Who Cares?"

[tucker6]

How ridiculous can you get, honestly?
get over yourself

[hcap]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-fracking-safe-for-the-public-and-environment/

New concerns arise over fracking's safety

The ongoing controversy over the method for removing oil and gas from unconventional, hard-to-reach underground deposits that's known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," has some new data to chew on.

It seems a large percentage of oil and gas wells tapping the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania are leaking methane gas, either into the air or into underground sources of drinking water.

That's the finding of an analysis conducted by a Cornell University-led research team and published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The team looked at compliance reports for more than 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. It determined that unconventional gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania had a nearly three-fold higher risk of leaking, compared to conventional wells in the same region.


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/25/1323422111.abstract?sid=5dbce871-26ed-4ea4-9778-86be65317367

Significance

Previous research has demonstrated that proximity to unconventional gas development is associated with elevated concentrations of methane in groundwater aquifers in Pennsylvania. To date, the mechanism of this migration is poorly understood. Our study, which looks at more than 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells, helps to explain one possible mechanism of methane migration: compromised structural integrity of casing and cement in oil and gas wells. Additionally, methane, being the primary constituent of natural gas, is a strong greenhouse gas. The identification of mechanisms through which methane may migrate to the atmosphere as fugitive emissions is important to understand the climate dimensions of oil and gas development.

[tucker6]

Cappy, fracking is here to stay. The science of business, as opposed to global warming, is indeed settled.

[Clocker]

It seems a large percentage of oil and gas wells tapping the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania are leaking methane gas, either into the air or into underground sources of drinking water.

Or not.


A new study in the peer-reviewed journal Groundwater found that naturally-occurring methane is ubiquitous in northeastern Pennsylvania as the region’s groundwater is contained in a hydrocarbon bearing rock that is interspersed with water wells that lack structural integrity.


The peer-reviewed study examined over 1,700 water wells in gas-producing and non-gas producing areas, determining that “methane is ubiquitous in groundwater” in the region, and that it is unrelated to Marcellus Shale development. In fact, the study noted that over 78 percent of the sampled water wells exhibited detectable methane concentrations. Of these, some 3.4 percent of the sample exceeded action levels at which corrective action is recommended by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.



Link. (http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/study-naturally-occurring-methane-ubiquitous-in-ne-pa-groundwater/)

[hcap]

Your link was not to the journal "Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation", (The National Ground Water Association is the hallmark organization for anyone affiliated with the groundwater industry) but rather a link to an article discussing it from "Independent Petroleum Association of America" published June 3, 2013 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to the study instead Or any other that supports your position

My link includes an article from CBS Money Watch July 2, 2014 citing a newer and more comprehensive study from a Cornell University-led research team and published within a week of the Money Watch article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "The team looked at compliance reports for more than 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. It determined that unconventional gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania had a nearly three-fold higher risk of leaking, compared to conventional wells in the same region".


It is certainly newer and trustworthy. Not associated financially with the"Independent Petroleum Association of America"

Just sayin'

[hcap]

I wonder what they are worried about?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24770-aggressive-tactic-on-the-fracking-front

For the last eight years, Pennsylvania has been riding the natural gas boom, with companies drilling and fracking thousands of wells across the state. And in a little corner of Washington County, some 20 miles outside of Pittsburgh, EQT Corporation has been busy – drilling close to a dozen new wells on one site.

It didn't take long for the residents of Finleyville who lived near the fracking operations to complain – about the noise and air quality, and what they regarded as threats to their health and quality of life. Initially, EQT, one of the largest producers of natural gas in Pennsylvania, tried to allay concerns with promises of noise studies and offers of vouchers so residents could stay in hotels to avoid the noise and fumes.
But then, in what experts say was a rare tactic, the company got more aggressive: it offered all of the households along Cardox Road $50,000 in cash if they would agree to release the company from any legal liability, for current operations as well as those to be carried out in the future. It covered potential health problems and property damage, and gave the company blanket protection from any kind of claim over noise, dust, light, smoke, odors, fumes, soot, air pollution or vibrations.

[tucker6]

PA hasn't been riding any boom. Thanks to the idiot governor they have, who I must assume he has been bought and paid for by the drilling interests, the state of PA collects no revenue from all the natural resources found on PA land due to fracking. Hard to believe.

[Clocker]

Your link was not to the journal "Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation", (The National Ground Water Association is the hallmark organization for anyone affiliated with the groundwater industry) but rather a link to an article discussing it from "Independent Petroleum Association of America" published June 3, 2013

Link to the study instead Or any other that supports your position

Thank you for explaining to me what I read and what I linked to.

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, you seem to be implying that the IPAA summary of the peer-reviewed article is biased, if not wrong, to support their special interests.

You also seem to be claiming that your big swinging peer-reviewed article is bigger than mine. :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Thank you for explaining to me what I read and what I linked to.

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, you seem to be implying that the IPAA summary of the peer-reviewed article is biased, if not wrong, to support their special interests.

You also seem to be claiming that your big swinging peer-reviewed article is bigger than mine. :rolleyes:You gents are always telling me that all governmental agencies, renowned scientific organizations national and international, universities throughout the world, all climatologists and 97% of scientists are crooked, on the take and Al Gores payroll, are all part of a vast worldwide conspiracy to redistribute wealth from the piggish corporations to the lazy no goodniks and expect me to ignore peer revived well supported well researched evidence in favor of your cockamamie paranoia.

I simply wondered 'bout you-Mr Independent-not citing the actually study but rather an article from the fracking industry's petroleum mama. A study 1 year older older than the one I cited. Substantially fewer data points and much less inclusive, and conducted by a journal whose internal peer (http://www.ngwa.org/pubs/gwmr/Documents/GWMR_What_is_peer_review.pdf) review process is somewhat secretive and not open to all in the field until it is published. (try tracking down the actual study!) Rather than the study published by Columbia University in the journal of the National Academy of Sciences I quoted.

All reasonable objections. And as I mentioned only adds to the growing body of info reporting lots of problems other than just groundwater contamination.

I previously indicated in another thread I had previously lived in NY state on the border to P and personally knew many PA residents up in arms against fracking. The NYS Supreme court just ruled in favor of banning fracking locally.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/24761-towns-can-ban-fracking-says-ny-supreme-court

...After ongoing battles between communities and natural gas companies, individual towns now have secured the right to ban fracking within their own limits. It’s a moderate eco victory that essentially dictates: you don’t have to stop drilling, but you can’t drill here. fracking

[hcap]

PA hasn't been riding any boom. Thanks to the idiot governor they have, who I must assume he has been bought and paid for by the drilling interests, the state of PA collects no revenue from all the natural resources found on PA land due to fracking. Hard to believe.What's hard to believe is your dismissal of many local residents raising honest reasonable objections to being steam rolled over by corporate interests.

All hail unregulated crony capitalism! :lol:

Again

[tucker6]

What's hard to believe is your dismissal of many local residents raising honest reasonable objections to being steam rolled over by corporate interests.

All hail unregulated crony capitalism! :lol:

Again
Can you find any quote by me that supports your statements above?? I said the fracking business was here to stay. I didn't say people had to bend over and take it. I am all for business, but not at the expense of someone else's interests. You completely misread me.

[hcap]

Sometimes it is hard to read you. If that is the case, you have my apologies.

[tucker6]

Sometimes it is hard to read you. If that is the case, you have my apologies.
I find that Classhandicapper and I are not far apart on many matters concerning free enterprise, privacy and property rights, and govt intrusion.

[Clocker]

I simply wondered 'bout you-Mr Independent-not citing the actually study but rather an article from the fracking industry's petroleum mama.

Sorry, I didn't realize that forums rules require citing original source material only. I didn't bother looking for it because I didn't care enough to make the effort, because it would not have made a difference if I did. That is obvious from the fact that you are savaging the source yourself without citing it. Or seeing it, apparently.

The article I cited was sufficient proof to me that this is not settled science, and that the debate is not over. It will certainly never be settled in this forum, so I see no point in trying. I am content with taking a few drive-by pot shots and moving on.

[hcap]

The article I cited was sufficient proof to me that this is not settled science, and that the debate is not over. It will certainly never be settled in this forum, so I see no point in trying. I am content with taking a few drive-by pot shots and moving on.Obviously you cannot support your views, on this issue, nor most others--none of which sound as were written by an "independent"

Ok that's par for off topic righties

[Clocker]

Obviously you cannot support your views, on this issue, nor most others--none of which sound as were written by an "independent"

Ok that's par for off topic righties

The obsessive compulsive need to label everything is also known as the Rumpelstiltskin syndrome, the belief that naming something is equivalent to understanding it.

[boxcar]

The gullible believe what they are told to believe.

Of course! Because it's "science" -- the repository of all truth. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[delayjf]

I simply wondered 'bout you-Mr Independent-not citing the actually study but rather an article from the fracking industry's petroleum mama. A study 1 year older older than the one I cited. Substantially fewer data points and much less inclusive, and conducted by a journal whose internal peer review process is somewhat secretive

Do you mean like the peer review process of the AGW data from East Anglia University - the main data source for AGW . They initially claimed their algorithms and data were proprietary and blocked their publication in scientific journals. What they should have done was Publish their data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took Climate-gate to allow the public a view behind the curtain and see the manipulations.

I have no doubt that the faith you put into the "settled science" of climate and earthquake prediction is political and ideologically bent.

[Clocker]

Do you mean like the peer review process of the AGW data from East Anglia University - the main data source for AGW .

For some, "peer" means someone who shares their faith-based beliefs.

[hcap]

More crappola from the right wing PA off topic fringe deniers

Letter to Congress from U.S. scientists, DECEMBER (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/scientists-statement-on.pdf) 4, 2009 : The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. … Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

Furthermore a number of investigations were carried out. None of which found any merit to the charges.......


In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

[Tom]

2009?
Really?
:sleeping:

[tucker6]

More crappola from the right wing PA off topic fringe deniers

[B]

Furthermore a number of investigations were carried out. None of which found any merit to the charges.......


In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".


Cappy,

As a grad of PSU, I can state categorically that the Mann "investigation" was a complete sham. They went into the affair with a not guilty verdict, and damned if that isn't what they found. Shameful.

[hcap]

And the other investigations?

[tucker6]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/quakes-fracking-hysteria-and-energy-independence/

From the comments:

This activity has nothing to do with fracking.
The fact that wastewater disposal can augment earthquake activity has been known for decades.
The process actually lubricates the fault lines and permits shifting at the fault line.
We could argue all day whether this is a good thing.:
Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.
On the other hand it’s not nice to fool with mother nature.
So many countries around the world are cautious about this activity in seismic regions.
But to conflate this activity with fracking is dishonest. (And I don’t think the authors intend it) Fracking liquids go directly into the porous rock. It can cause small tremors, just as an underground explosion would, but it has never led to an earthquake.

[tucker6]

And the other investigations?
I don't know enough about them to comment. I know about the Mann "investigation" because I know a faculty member. The review was a farce to bring harmony to the faculty team. How sweet. The truth is murkier.

[reckless]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/quakes-fracking-hysteria-and-energy-independence/

From the comments:

This activity has nothing to do with fracking.

The fact that wastewater disposal can augment earthquake activity has been known for decades.
The process actually lubricates the fault lines and permits shifting at the fault line.
We could argue all day whether this is a good thing.:
Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.
On the other hand it’s not nice to fool with mother nature.
So many countries around the world are cautious about this activity in seismic regions.

But to conflate this activity with fracking is dishonest.

(And I don’t think the authors intend it) Fracking liquids go directly into the porous rock. It can cause small tremors, just as an underground explosion would, but it has never led to an earthquake.

The left wing common-sense deniers also wants us to believe that horizontal drilling causes Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)!

[Clocker]

The left wing common-sense deniers also wants us to believe that horizontal drilling causes Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)!

That depends on what you are drilling. :p

[reckless]

That depends on what you are drilling. :p

Can you source that comment, please -- all you right wingers never source anything around here :lol:

[Clocker]

Can you source that comment, please -- all you right wingers never source anything around here :lol:

No source yet. It hasn't been pee-er reviewed.

[Boris]

Oil E&P companies are untouchable right now. End of story. Beau Rock's pen and phone stayed holstered for the next two years as they frac away. The little people will get their hands dirty, but nothing, absolutely nothing, comes out of DC that causes the markets to worry about domestic oil production. What tech was to Clinton, oil E&P is for Beau. Hopefully the economy will be a more solid ground when this bubble bursts.

[hcap]

I don't know enough about them to comment. I know about the Mann "investigation" because I know a faculty member. The review was a farce to bring harmony to the faculty team. How sweet. The truth is murkier.You don't know enough about any of these investigations. All unwarranted speculation because you have NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL

None of you are honestly debating AGW. East Anglia was a scandal cooked up by climate change deniers that:

1) even if true, would have no impact on the larger body of evidence for AGW

2) was shown by 9 inquiries to be baseless.

3) Has no bearing on the case for or against fracking

[hcap]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/quakes-fracking-hysteria-and-energy-independence/

From the comments:

This activity has nothing to do with fracking.
The fact that wastewater disposal can augment earthquake activity has been known for decades.
The process actually lubricates the fault lines and permits shifting at the fault line.
We could argue all day whether this is a good thing.:
Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.
On the other hand it’s not nice to fool with mother nature.
So many countries around the world are cautious about this activity in seismic regions.
But to conflate this activity with fracking is dishonest. (And I don’t think the authors intend it) Fracking liquids go directly into the porous rock. It can cause small tremors, just as an underground explosion would, but it has never led to an earthquake.How about something else other than A. Watts? It is even worse that you extracted comments and not the article itself which has no rebuttal other than although the Cornell researchers who Watts says did an admiral job in their study (and by default must also be saying the journal of the National Academy Of Sciences who published their study), all Watts can conclude is that the study is hysterical and typical of climate alarmists :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So once again silly baseless unwarranted speculation without evidence, and a distinct lack of honesty in debate. How about you discontinue quoting Watts and I will quit quoting Skeptical Science? :cool:

[tucker6]

You don't know enough about any of these investigations. All unwarranted speculation because you have NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL

None of you are honestly debating AGW. East Anglia was a scandal cooked up by climate change deniers that:

1) even if true, would have no impact on the larger body of evidence for AGW

2) was shown by 9 inquiries to be baseless.

3) Has no bearing on the case for or against fracking
What does any of your post have to do with fracking? You brought it up, not me. Look in the mirror.

[tucker6]

How about something else other than A. Watts? It is even worse that you extracted comments and not the article itself which has no rebuttal other than although the Cornell researchers who Watts says did an admiral job in their study (and by default must also be saying the journal of the National Academy Of Sciences who published their study), all Watts can conclude is that the study is hysterical and typical of climate alarmists :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So once again silly baseless unwarranted speculation without evidence, and a distinct lack of honesty in debate. How about you discontinue quoting Watts and I will quit quoting Skeptical Science? :cool:
Again, the source of articles/quotes seems to be where you focus when you can't attack the truth of the matter at hand. Same old, same old from you.

[hcap]

What does any of your post have to do with fracking? You brought it up, not me. Look in the mirror.This thread is theoretically is about Fracking, hence titled "Frack You". Initially, Clocker, your soul mate in arms (and brother ".....er") had ventured an article describing a very weak paper in a rather secretive journal by the "Independent Petroleum Association of America" :lol: disputing methane release into ground water. I mentioned Clocker could not link to the original study due to their closed policy. (try finding it yourself).
I also mentioned the obvious limitations apparent in this study as described by the "Independent Petroleum Association of America".. A reasonable argument as compared to the open, more comprehensive study I cited. from Cornell and the journal of The National Academy of Sciences.

Then, lo and behold delayjf with nothing better to criticize my study
compared it to AGW using a very stupid argument of faulty associative knee-jerking logic......
Do you mean like the peer review process of the AGW data from East Anglia University - the main data source for AGW . They initially claimed their algorithms and data were proprietary and blocked their publication in scientific journals. What they should have done was Publish their data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took Climate-gate to allow the public a view behind the curtain and see the manipulations.

I have no doubt that the faith you put into the "settled science" of climate and earthquake prediction is political and ideologically bent.Trying to insinuate the peer-reviewed study I linked to from a Cornell University-led research team and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was a poor case of peer review because it was just like the so-called "Climategate" scandal. :lol:


I defended my point by listing indepent investigations into Climategate
Originally Posted by hcap
More crappola from the right wing PA off topic fringe deniers

Furthermore a number of investigations were carried out. None of which found any merit to the charges.......Then you stuck your nose out
Cappy,

As a grad of PSU, I can state categorically that the Mann "investigation" was a complete sham. They went into the affair with a not guilty verdict, and damned if that isn't what they found. Shameful.That is why I did not start it. The loony comparison to the so-called flawed peer review process of the exaggerated Climate gate "scandal" brought it up!!

[hcap]

Again, the source of articles/quotes seems to be where you focus when you can't attack the truth of the matter at hand. Same old, same old from you.Anthony Watts is all you got!

(Exc-u-u-u-u-u-s-e M-e, I forgot. The Daily Caller who quotes Watts too! Another independent bastion of truth, justice and the American Way :sleeping: )

[davew]

How about something else other than A. Watts? It is even worse that you extracted comments and not the article itself which has no rebuttal other than although the Cornell researchers who Watts says did an admiral job in their study (and by default must also be saying the journal of the National Academy Of Sciences who published their study), all Watts can conclude is that the study is hysterical and typical of climate alarmists :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So once again silly baseless unwarranted speculation without evidence, and a distinct lack of honesty in debate. How about you discontinue quoting Watts and I will quit quoting Skeptical Science? :cool:

Research did not come from Cornell:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/03/26/oklahoma-earthquake-was-largest-linked-to-injection-wells-new-study-suggests/


and waste water injection does not equal fracking:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: read the comments as they seem to know more than us

[tucker6]

Research did not come from Cornell:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/03/26/oklahoma-earthquake-was-largest-linked-to-injection-wells-new-study-suggests/


and waste water injection does not equal fracking:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: read the comments as they seem to know more than us
No one is smarter than Cappy. Just ask him.

[hcap]

No one is smarter than Cappy. Just ask him.I guess neither of you geniuses read the article dave posted.The article does not say what dave says it says and is just the opposite and counters your so-called "smart" arguments.

Try again you two very "smart" guys :lol:

[tucker6]

I guess neither of you geniuses read the article dave posted.The article does not say what dave says it says and is just the opposite and counters your so-called "smart" arguments.

Try again you two very "smart" guys :lol:
Oops ...

From the article Dave posted:

Oklahoma’s official seismologist — the Geological Survey’s Austin Holland — is skeptical of the link between injection wells an earthquakes, a view shared by the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers. More data is needed, Holland says.

In a policy paper written in response to the new research, the Geological Survey says “the interpretation that best fits current data is that the Prague Earthquake Sequence was the result of natural causes.”

[hcap]

Oops ...

From the article Dave posted:

Oklahoma’s official seismologist — the Geological Survey’s Austin Holland — is skeptical of the link between injection wells an earthquakes, a view shared by the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers. More data is needed, Holland says.

In a policy paper written in response to the new research, the Geological Survey says “the interpretation that best fits current data is that the Prague Earthquake Sequence was the result of natural causes.”Are we reading the same article? HEADLINE...Oklahoma Earthquake Was Largest Linked to Injection Wells, New Study Suggests

first paragraphs.....

University of Oklahoma seismologist’s research, released today, provides further evidence that Oklahoma’s largest-recorded earthquake was triggered by injection wells used by the oil and gas industry.

Katie Keranen’s findings, published today in the geoscience journal Geology, adds to a growing chorus of scientific evidence suggesting that injection and disposal wells are likely causing an uptick of earthquakes in the continental United States.

The research centered on a sequence of earthquakes that occurred in November 2011 near Prague, Okla. They included a 5.7-magnitude quake on Nov. 6, the largest quake triggered by injection wells to date, according to the research.

The analysis suggests that injection-induced earthquakes could be larger than previously thought, and that they could occur on much longer timescales.

“This is basically a different class of induced earthquake,” Keranen tells StateImpact.

Oklahoma’s November 2011 earthquake was the state’s largest recorded with modern instrumentation. Two people were injured in the quake, which destroyed 14 homes, “buckled” pavement and was felt in 17 states, according to the paper.

Keranen’s analysis — co-written with Columbia University’s Heather Savage and Geoffrey Abers, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Elizabeth Cochran — is based on data collected from more than a dozen seismometers deployed during the November 2011 earthquake sequence and is correlated with data collected by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator.

[hcap]

Your excerpt was way down below not what the new study suggests, but rather the sidenote obligatory comment by Oklahoma’s official seismologist — the Geological Survey’s Austin Holland — is skeptical of the link between injection wells an earthquakes, a view shared by the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers. More data is needed, Holland says. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

Your excerpt was way down below not what the new study suggests, but rather the sidenote obligatory comment by Oklahoma’s official seismologist — the Geological Survey’s Austin Holland — is skeptical of the link between injection wells an earthquakes, a view shared by the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers. More data is needed, Holland says. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Maybe you need to read all that again. You find more humor than warranted, so my take is that you misunderstand what it says. Just to be clear, the geologist is independent of those groups and works for the state. His views are SHARED by those other groups. It does not mean he represents them. It should be obvious that they would support a skeptical view. Doesn't mean they are wrong. Sometimes you're very thick upstairs.

[OntheRail]

Your excerpt was way down below not what the new study suggests, but rather the sidenote obligatory comment by Oklahoma’s official seismologist — the Geological Survey’s Austin Holland — is skeptical of the link between injection wells an earthquakes, a view shared by the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers. More data is needed, Holland says. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No more bias then your liberal socialist college professors with there hand out for federal funding. ;)

As for methane in ground water... that's been occurring for Centuries before Drake ever drove a pipe in the ground. And to be shocked and surprised to find it in a coal region like PA.. and your wagging your boney finger in the air and blame fracking. Remember your last act on earth will be to contribute to the another cause according to your (liberal socialist college professors) of your Global Warming fear by releasing methane gas.

............... :faint:............... :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

Maybe you need to read all that again. You find more humor than warranted, so my take is that you misunderstand what it says. Just to be clear, the geologist is independent of those groups and works for the state. His views are SHARED by those other groups. It does not mean he represents them. It should be obvious that they would support a skeptical view. Doesn't mean they are wrong. Sometimes you're very thick upstairs.More sneakiness and ducking your ostrich head into the ground ole ostrich brain. You are avoiding the point of dave's article. Can't believe you are committing debate hari-kari and don't even know it.

When you were in first grade and took reading comprehension tests, were you ever asked what is this paragraph about? Go dig up some and try them again.

Mr 6 cylinders, you are barely chugging along on 2.
IMO, kinda young for Alzheimers.

[hcap]

No more bias then your liberal socialist college professors with there hand out for federal funding. ;)

As for methane in ground water... that's been occurring for Centuries before Drake ever drove a pipe in the ground. And to be shocked and surprised to find it in a coal region like PA.. and your wagging your boney finger in the air and blame fracking. Remember your last act on earth will be to contribute to the another cause according to your (liberal socialist college professors) of your Global Warming fear by releasing methane gas.

This is the article we ar discussing titled "Oklahoma Earthquake Was Largest Linked to Injection Wells, New Study Suggests"

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/03/26/oklahoma-earthquake-was-largest-linked-to-injection-wells-new-study-suggests/

You need not be a professor of any particular political leaning in order to read it clearly. So spout off all you want, but don' don't put your head in the ground too. Of course a few posts back we were discussing the study by the National Academy of Sciences also a non-political organization. Your spin is only spin.

[tucker6]

More sneakiness and ducking your ostrich head into the ground ole ostrich brain. You are avoiding the point of dave's article. Can't believe you are committing debate hari-kari and don't even know it.

When you were in first grade and took reading comprehension tests, were you ever asked what is this paragraph about? Go dig up some and try them again.

Mr 6 cylinders, you are barely chugging along on 2.
IMO, kinda young for Alzheimers.
so you got nuthin' in reply again.

[tucker6]

This is the article we ar discussing titled "Oklahoma Earthquake Was Largest Linked to Injection Wells, New Study Suggests"

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/03/26/oklahoma-earthquake-was-largest-linked-to-injection-wells-new-study-suggests/

You need not be a professor of any particular political leaning in order to read it clearly. So spout off all you want, but don' don't put your head in the ground too. Of course a few posts back we were discussing the study by the National Academy of Sciences also a non-political organization. Your spin is only spin.
your paper is only one paper and one point of view. So now we should believe the first paper out of the gate that supports YOUR view of things. Just say it and be done with it. This paper supports your belief system and therefore it is infallible. We already know this is how you operate, so just say it. All other papers are either non-peer reviewed, or not sufficiently peer reviewed, or the scientist is in the pocket of industry, or the scientist doesn't have the credentials, or the scientist doesn't have as many published papers than your guys, or the science was sloppy, or, or, or.

Does that just about cover your position Cappy? Your science education is as shallow as a mud puddle.

[hcap]

I already gave you everything you need to follow along.

Let me repeat and translate what my grandparents might say at this point.
Hakn a tshaynik (literally "to knock a teakettle"; meaning to rattle on loudly and insistently, but without any meaning, is a widely used Yiddish idiomatic phrase. It is most often used in the negative imperative sense: Hak mir nisht keyn tshaynik! (literally "Don't knock a teakettle at me!"; That reminds me I will make some tea. :jump:
Later :lol:

[reckless]

your paper is only one paper and one point of view. So now we should believe the first paper out of the gate that supports YOUR view of things. Just say it and be done with it. This paper supports your belief system and therefore it is infallible. We already know this is how you operate, so just say it. All other papers are either non-peer reviewed, or not sufficiently peer reviewed, or the scientist is in the pocket of industry, or the scientist doesn't have the credentials, or the scientist doesn't have as many published papers than your guys, or the science was sloppy, or, or, or.

Does that just about cover your position Cappy? Your science education is as shallow as a mud puddle.

You should read his other posts from all the threads and topics we discuss here at PA.

He's equally ignorant and hateful there too.

[Clocker]

This paper supports your belief system and therefore it is infallible.

And Pope Paul V was infallible when he told Galileo that the sun revolved around the earth, and that was settled science. You can't argue dogma with a true believer.

[hcap]

You should read his other posts from all the threads and topics we discuss here at PA.

He's equally ignorant and hateful there too.More Hak mir nisht keyn tshaynik! from another master bull sh*tter

[OntheRail]

This is the article we ar discussing titled "Oklahoma Earthquake Was Largest Linked to Injection Wells, New Study Suggests"

http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/03/26/oklahoma-earthquake-was-largest-linked-to-injection-wells-new-study-suggests/

You need not be a professor of any particular political leaning in order to read it clearly. So spout off all you want, but don' don't put your head in the ground too. Of course a few posts back we were discussing the study by the National Academy of Sciences also a non-political organization. Your spin is only spin.

I believe you injected this... ;)

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1673192&postcount=19



Significance

Previous research has demonstrated that proximity to unconventional gas development is associated with elevated concentrations of methane in groundwater aquifers in Pennsylvania. To date, the mechanism of this migration is poorly understood. Our study, which looks at more than 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells, helps to explain one possible mechanism of methane migration: compromised structural integrity of casing and cement in oil and gas wells. Additionally, methane, being the primary constituent of natural gas, is a strong greenhouse gas. The identification of mechanisms through which methane may migrate to the atmosphere as fugitive emissions is important to understand the climate dimensions of oil and gas development.

You go on about reading comprehension and seem to also lack reading retention... :rolleyes:


National Academy of Sciences also a non-political organization. All bias checked at the door... like a coat. :lol:

No Spin... It's a fact methane naturally occurs in groundwater... especially in regions with coal... oil and natural gas. :ThmbUp:

[reckless]

More Hak mir nisht keyn tshaynik! from another master bull sh*tter

Yes I am a great bull sh--tter but that doesn't exonerate you from all your inane, incoherent, racist, hateful and often downright juvenile posts, now does it?

[HUSKER55]

yeah...but it is fun to listen to a pro :D

[hcap]

I believe you injected this... ;)

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1673192&postcount=19

You go on about reading comprehension and seem to also lack reading retention... :rolleyes: One more time

Significance

Previous research has demonstrated that proximity to unconventional gas development is associated with elevated concentrations of methane in groundwater aquifers in Pennsylvania. To date, the mechanism of this migration is poorly understood. Our study, which looks at more than 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells, helps to explain one possible mechanism of methane migration: compromised structural integrity of casing and cement in oil and gas wells. Additionally, methane, being the primary constituent of natural gas, is a strong greenhouse gas. The identification of mechanisms through which methane may migrate to the atmosphere as fugitive emissions is important to understand the climate dimensions of oil and gas development.My reading comprehension?

[hcap]

Yes I am a great bull sh--tter but that doesn't exonerate you from all your inane, incoherent, racist, hateful and often downright juvenile posts, now does it?This is why I ignore you. As should most.

[reckless]

Yes I am a great bull sh-tter but that doesn't exonerate you from all your inane, incoherent, racist, hateful and often downright juvenile posts, now does it?

This is why I ignore you. As should most.


Okay, okay, I'll take it back.

I am not a great bull sh-tter.

[davew]

'one possible' must mean the only way if it agrees with your hypothesis

so is fracking the same as waste water injection? or close enough to be considered the same?

it is a shame there is not enough infrastructure to keep gasolines separate for leftist who could pay $10/gallon instead of raising the costs for everyone...

[iceknight]

Or not

Link. (http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/study-naturally-occurring-methane-ubiquitous-in-ne-pa-groundwater/) The study you are quoting is better served with some context:

"The study authors are from the Houston, Texas-based GSI Environmental Inc. and Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."

Source (http://www.ngwa.org/Media-Center/press/2013/Pages/2013-05-24-groundwater-.aspx)

And at the same time I would like to add couple of things:

1) A fair amount of waste water (over 15%) in oil and gas comes from fracking operations.

2) Furthermore a number of investigations were carried out. None of which found any merit to the charges.......


In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Umm.... I am not going to believe ANY investigations that are carried out by the Pennsylvania State University. Like several large organizations, they have huge interests to protect and as they have shown in multiple cases, they circle around their wagons well. Sandusky et al?

[hcap]

There were 9 investigations in total

[Robert Goren]

'one possible' must mean the only way if it agrees with your hypothesis

so is fracking the same as waste water injection? or close enough to be considered the same?

it is a shame there is not enough infrastructure to keep gasolines separate for leftist who could pay $10/gallon instead of raising the costs for everyone...The cost of fracking may yet exceed $10 per gallon when we get through paying for all the damages it causes. At this point, we just don't what all the costs will be.

[Rise Over Run]

I spent 3 days over the Holiday Weekend in Greene County Pennsylvania (southwest corner of PA), formerly coal country and now located in the epicenter of Marcellus Shale exploration. Within a 2 mile radius of where I stayed seven natural gas wells have been drilled and fracked over the past 4 years. I believe each of these wells is already producing natural gas.

Two additional wells are currently being drilled about 1 mile away, with an additional 6 planned over the next year. No fracking operations were being conducted during my visit. All of the exploration is being performed for EQT.

Truck traffic is high on the windy country roads and is the biggest complaint of the locals. The hum of the drill rigs was noticeable unless there were other nearby noises. I am happy to report that I did not experience any earthquakes and the in-laws water tasted good and would not ignite on contact with open flame. :jump: :jump:

[Boris]

Oil E&P companies are untouchable right now. End of story.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-overtaken-by-us-as-largest-oil-producer-556854.html
"The US increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil," said Francisco Blanch, head of commodities research, Bank of America. "The shale boom is playing a key role in the US recovery. If the US didn't have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable," he said.

It's ironic that the oil industry props up the Obama recovery.

[Clocker]

It's ironic that the oil industry props up the Obama recovery.

The American private sector can survive anything. Even Obama.

[Boris]

Oil E&P companies are untouchable right now. End of story.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/ap-newsbreak-obama-opens-east-coast-oil-search-24617695

Obama Opens Eastern Seaboard to Oil Exploration

Friday's announcement is the first real step toward what could be a transformation in coastal states, creating thousands of jobs to support a new energy infrastructure. But it dismayed environmentalists and people who owe their livelihoods to fisheries and tourism.

It's hard to feel bad for the environmentalists. They keep attaching themselves to politicians they can't afford. For God's sake read the price tag next time. However, depending on how it plays out, it will be a blow to the tourism. Fisheries if there is a problem. But when your economy is tied to the oil industry and McJobs, you gotta give em what they want.

[Tom]

You fry fish in oil.....what's the problem here?