On Oklahoma Earthquakes

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

An informative video from a Stanford earth scientist, which agrees with what I (and some others) have suggested in the past:

 

[Colorado_Poke]

I think most in the general media have now accepted, as fact, that the earthquakes aren't related to fracking. Hell, 60 Minutes even did a story within the last two weeks saying as much (I think they may have even interviewed the same professor). Many people with strong environmental views are never going to accept that fracking isn't causing the EQs, but as the common phrase goes, "You can't win 'em all."

While that doesn't solve the problem in Oklahoma, it is important for the energy industry as a whole that this message is efficiently and effectively communicated to the general public nationwide: fracking does not cause earthquakes. As with any industrial activity, there are certain risks which cannot be completely eliminated. However, when performed with proper safety precautions and care, any perceived risks related to fracking can be reduced to an acceptably low level.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Key word in that whole video was "expensive". It would be extremely expensive for us to change our injection well so that it disposed water in another zone besides the Arbuckle. Not feasible for some operators.

 

[purkey]

cancer is not caused by the cigarettes, it's caused by you smoking them!!

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

cancer is not caused by the cigarettes, it's caused by you smoking them!!

At least you're consistent.

 

[JimmyBob]

Key word in that whole video was "expensive". It would be extremely expensive for us to change our injection well so that it disposed water in another zone besides the Arbuckle. Not feasible for some operators.

Nothing personal, but tough **** for those that can't handle the cost; it's a public safety issue that takes precedent.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The engineers will figure out a way to do it safer and eventually cheaper. Has someone been injured in an OK earthquake? I hadn't heard that.

 

[NeekReevers]

It may not be a "safety" issue so to speak given the magnitude of the quakes is fairly small but I would certainly think there would be a massive property damage liability issue. If, as a corporation, you take part in an activity that has been scientifically proven to cause earthquakes you deserve to get your *** sued off when the foundation of some farmer's house cracks in half....especially when your only justification for doing it is because of cost.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Nothing personal, but tough **** for those that can't handle the cost; it's a public safety issue that takes precedent.

It is personal. This is our livelihood as well as a dozen other families we employ. We get lumped in with the Devon's of the world and it's "tough ****" that we can't handle the cost? Ok.

 

[tcpoke]

It is personal. This is our livelihood as well as a dozen other families we employ. We get lumped in with the Devon's of the world and it's "tough ****" that we can't handle the cost? Ok.

I don't think it's tough ****. But I do think it's the cost of doing business. You either figure out a way to do it economically and efficiently or you get swamped by those that do/can.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Sure, there's always a cost to doing business. We've payed a high cost for a very long time and have never complained about it. It's the nature of the business we're in. And It's not as simple as adapt or get swamped.

 

[Orange Jennyslipper]

Thought you were a free market kind of guy.

 

[FMPoke]

Thought you were a free market kind of guy.

Free markets doesn't mean you can destroy other peoples property without being held responsible. Sorry but your job isn't more important then someone else's house.

 

[tcpoke]

Free markets doesn't mean you can destroy other peoples property without being held responsible. Sorry but your job isn't more important then someone else's house.

May be wrong, but I don't think he was directing that to those opposed to finding an alternative solution.