Fracking Earthquakes the New Coastal Flooding?

[Rhea]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/23/3650316/oklahoma-local-drilling-bans/

In an especially fractious split, the day after the state’s energy and environment cabinet acknowledged that the “recent rise in earthquakes cannot be entirely attributed to natural causes,” state lawmakers passed two bills to limit the ability of localities to decide if they want to allow fracking and drilling nearby.

So no federal damage payouts to Okie governments unless they buy Fracking Earthquake Insurance, right?
Isn't it JUST LIKE rebuilding in a flood zone?

 

[dismal]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/23/3650316/oklahoma-local-drilling-bans/

In an especially fractious split, the day after the state’s energy and environment cabinet acknowledged that the “recent rise in earthquakes cannot be entirely attributed to natural causes,” state lawmakers passed two bills to limit the ability of localities to decide if they want to allow fracking and drilling nearby.

So no federal damage payouts to Okie governments unless they buy Fracking Earthquake Insurance, right?
Isn't it JUST LIKE rebuilding in a flood zone?

I think if you had bothered to read a little you might have discovered it's not teh fracking.

I know you think this word "fracking" means something like "oogie boogie man" but it actually describes a specific process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Something to keep in mind: Fracking can't cause earthquakes. There simply isn't the energy available.


What it can do is trigger earthquakes that would have happened anyway. They happen sooner with fracking--but they're also less energetic because of this. The danger isn't the fault that slides, it's the fault that keeps building up energy without sliding.

The deep water injection of fracking has actually been proposed as a harm-reduction measure.

 

[Rhea]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/23/3650316/oklahoma-local-drilling-bans/



So no federal damage payouts to Okie governments unless they buy Fracking Earthquake Insurance, right?
Isn't it JUST LIKE rebuilding in a flood zone?

I think if you had bothered to read a little you might have discovered it's not teh fracking.

I know you think this word "fracking" means something like "oogie boogie man" but it actually describes a specific process.

I know perfectly well what EXACTLY it means. I'm using shorthand to avoid typing,

the-wastewater-that-comes-from-fracking-backflow-or-separated-during-production-of-that-drilling-product-that-is-so-toxic-that-it-has-to-be-deep-injected-underground-because-it will-kill-things-if-it-is-disposed-above-ground-so-the-fracking-process-REQUIRES-this-as-a-byprocess-and-you-might-as-well-just-call-it-fracking-because-they-are-inextricably-linked.​

So just read it that way, 'kay? 'Cause if you're actually trying to deny that these earthquakes are a byproduct of fracking then you are just lying to yourself.

back to the main point...

Something to keep in mind: Fracking can't cause earthquakes. There simply isn't the energy available.

yeah it does, functionally, because,

What it can do is trigger earthquakes that would have happened anyway.

they would not have happened without the trigger of the injection wells. They were not happening in all of these palces and not at the magnitudes and frequencies that are being seen. Not in less than 100s of years, at which point the injection wells are long gone. perhaps 1000s of years at which point many different things are going on.

They happen sooner with fracking--but they're also less energetic because of this. The danger isn't the fault that slides, it's the fault that keeps building up energy without sliding.

These are in places where it will NOT necessarily happen sooner or later. The are not already major earthquake zones. The earthquakes are new and/or more severe.

From the article:

According to a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey, prior to 2012, there were virtually no earthquakes in southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma. However, in the last two years, the number of quakes in the region has increased dramatically, with several hundred recorded.

The deep water injection of fracking has actually been proposed as a harm-reduction measure.

in places that are prone to damaging earthquakes. NO ONE is proposing them here for earthquake mitigation.


My point in this OP was that there is a new insurance liability that is being done on purpose and no one else should have to get into that pool with them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something to keep in mind: Fracking can't cause earthquakes. There simply isn't the energy available.

What it can do is trigger earthquakes that would have happened anyway.

Fracking doesn't cause earthquakes, it only makes them happen sooner! Yeah, thanks for that nugget.

They happen sooner with fracking--but they're also less energetic because of this.

Okie dokie. Feel free to prove either of your claims:
1) fracking causes earthquakes that were destined to happen
2) fracking reduces the impact of earthquakes that would have happened regardless

The danger isn't the fault that slides, it's the fault that keeps building up energy without sliding.

Okay, so the fault that wasn't sliding wasn't building up energy and then allowed to move because it was lubricated. And the quake that does happen will cause less damage than the quake that didn't happen, but may likely happen, some point down the road... so in fact, this is making us safer then. (Not that I'm saying injection wells will rip the Earth apart by creating earthquakes)

The deep water injection of fracking has actually been proposed as a harm-reduction measure.

So were cigarettes!

 

[repoman]

I want us to deep water inject the Cascadia fault and have the upcoming megathrust quake be done with. I can't stand the anxiety of it hanging over my head!!!

 

[Bronzeage]

Something to keep in mind: Fracking can't cause earthquakes. There simply isn't the energy available.


What it can do is trigger earthquakes that would have happened anyway. They happen sooner with fracking--but they're also less energetic because of this. The danger isn't the fault that slides, it's the fault that keeps building up energy without sliding.

The deep water injection of fracking has actually been proposed as a harm-reduction measure.

So, when fracking causes an earthquake to happen sooner than it would have under natural circumstances, and someone is injured or killed in the collapse of a building which met all current codes, who is liable for the damages?

I suppose if the "an earthquake is going to happen sooner or later" is a valid defense for triggering earthquake, then telling the family their loved one was "going to die, sooner or later," should mitigate the damage award.