+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes (/showthread.php?tid=7006)
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 20th November 2016
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/town-files-lawsuit-after-largest-earthquake-in-oklahoma-history/
Well, about time. The science pretty conclusively shows a direct relationship between when wastewater injection started and when Oklahoma's earthquakes started. Only giant oil companies seem to be able to get away with literally destroying people's homes with their machines like some Crichton book. Apoligists like to talk about how Oklahoma "always" had earthquakes and that we sit on some fault lines. While that is technically true, those fault lines are pretty much extinct and the past earthquakes were so low in strength only specially designed machines could even detect them. These are different. I feel one of these things every few weeks now, and I've run out of the house into an open field on a few occasions just to keep a roof from collapsing on me. (If there's a plus to earthquakes in Oklahoma, it's that we're a plains state and have a lot of flat open areas to wait out a shake in, but on the minus side, the best way to avoid being hurt in an earthquake is the worst way to deal with a tornado, and should the two happen at the same time, it'll be pretty hard to come up with a viable survival strategy.) I've recently read that apparently running outside isn't recommended because in most Earthquake prone areas, the buildings are build to code so they don't collapse on you. I live in Oklahoma. We were never considered "earthquake prone" before. I was never taught any of that in school when they were doing the standard state required tornado and fire drills. Most people here have no idea what to do in an earthquake because there was never a reason to teach those drills in school. Further, not a single structure in Oklahoma is built to any sort of quake code. Not only are there no laws regarding building to resist earthquakes, not a single construction company ever considered that worth thinking about. This is why all these comparatively low level earthquakes are destroying houses and historic structures at their foundation. (Mind you, we SHOULD have had some sort of tornado code that required basements, and well, that didn't happen. As I've mentioned before, almost no building or house in Oklahoma is built with a basement, and the rare exceptions were usually custom built by the person who intended to live in it.)
As you might imagine, this whole situation looks pretty ridiculous to me. If someone built an outdoor firing range just outside my house with people firing in the direction of my house to hit the targets, I could justifiably get that place shut down almost immediately, even before one of them missed and actually hit me. No excuses of "well, if everyone just had perfect aim, you'd never be at risk" would fly. This is the same level of reckless endangerment, but somehow everyone in the state government is just fine with it.
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - A Black Falcon - 20th November 2016
Fracking definitely has some big negatives, but also positives. On the bad side, the water pollution element, from the stuff they're dumping in the wells to get the gas up, is a serious potential hazard for the future. The earthquakes fracking cause are also a definite concern, and it's nice to see someone actually try to do something about that here. But on the other hand, the rise of fracking has cut back coal use quite a bit in this country, and that's good for the environment since gas overall IS less bad than coal is, so... I'm not sure what I think of fracking on the whole; are the big drawbacks worth the benefit of reducing coal use? It's tough.
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 20th November 2016
EARTHQUAKES, ABF! Are you seriously saying that causing random death and destruction is a worthwhile tradeoff?! ABF, you really don't have to sit on the fence on this one and try to equivocate. Clearly they shouldn't be doing this, no matter what it offsets!
You know what else Oklahoma is known for besides plains? The wind that goes sweeping down them! Why not offset that coal use with some windmills?! I'm pretty sure those don't set up hurricanes as a byproduct or something. Geez....
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - A Black Falcon - 20th November 2016
So, here's the case for fracking: About ten-ish years ago, about 50% of American electricity came from coal. Now it's only 33%, I believe. That big decline is mostly thanks to natural gas, which mostly has expanded because of fracking. Natural gas on its own is a significantly less carbon-emitting fuel than coal is. I know that fracking itself causes some pollution as well, but still, overall I'm pretty sure it is a cleaner fuel than coal by a decent margin, and that's important because while the world as it is is probably kind of doomed thanks to climate change, we need to do everything we can to make it slightly less horrible. Natural gas over coal is a step forwards, since we aren't at a point where we could quickly build up wind and solar enough to replace fossil fuels yet. We need to be, but we aren't.
And that's why in the Democratic primaries I agreed more with Hillary's position on fracking (allow it but with strict controls on pollution, etc. that make it hard to do unless it's done right) over Bernie's (ban it all if possible). Yes, it's bad that fracking is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, and the state should implement controls on the amount of fracking to reduce that for sure, but we need to get natural gas from somewhere, that coal needs to stay in the ground!
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 21st November 2016
Well gee wiz Mr. Armchair politician, thank you so much for showing me that I'm wrong to be so afraid of the ground shaking! I sho do appreciate ya learnin' me right on this matta.
I can safely say you're talking from a privileged position of ignorance of what it's like to actually be LIVING here. Perhaps you should come on down and explain why the people who's homes were destroyed by the quakes are wrong for being so concerned about it, because hey, big picture!
Sorry, I'm obviously getting emotional here, but when you say that our state shaking everything, for years to come, in a situation where no one's homes are built to withstand it is a price worth paying for propane and propane accessories, yes, I get a little tiffy about it.
Okay look, I know you were a fan of Hillary, and frankly I think we'd certainly be better off if she won, but can you take a second to think of things from MY perspective (or even better, the perspectives of those at the epicenters of these shakes) and realize that maybe any pollution solution that causes damaging earthquakes is frankly unacceptable? Could you please? I've disagreed with you before on some things, but frankly I'm shocked at the callous disregard you are showing here.
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 21st November 2016
Calming down, I thought I'd address each of the claims in turn, aside from whether or not you value the sanctity of human life.
Firstly, the major cause of the earthquakes is less the fracking itself (which is at a shallower level) than the waste disposal process. If nothing else, we can both agree that throwing waste product away by forcibly jamming it deep into the earth's crust is probably not the best method of disposal.
Secondly, there's the matter of carbon emissions. Natural gas releases far less carbon than coal or oil. However, the process of extracting it also extracts methane. Methane is 34x as effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Frankly, methane is FAR worse than our current pollution. There is in fact a dangerous risk that our current carbon release is melting and defrosting a large amount of permafrost containing a massive store of methane, and if that methane all comes out of that permafrost, it'll cause far more damage than we've already done with carbon alone. Some studies give a range between 1 to 9 percent of total emissions from the lifetime of a fracking, which considering the 34x multiplier is something worth worrying about. The current math shows that methane emissions must be kept below 3.4% for there to be a lower effect to greenhouse from a natural gas power plant than a coal burning plant.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas#.WDNBiOYrJhE
So, yes, it has the potential to edge out coal, but frankly it doesn't seem like a good long term investment. Considering that the best solutions still involve things like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear (hopefully fusion might actually be sustainable in our lifetimes), then natural gas really seems like a poor choice to more yourself to.
Okay, back to that sanctity of human life thing, because frankly those marginal benefits do NOT come close to being worth the sacrifice in frackin' earthquakes. Also, no matter what your personal policy is, no matter what you may think in terms of cost/benefit analysis, they simply do not have the RIGHT to risk other's lives and livelihoods like this. It's the same reason that there are zoning laws preventing factories from being built within residential areas, only the "range" of this industrial practice's damage is far further.
Seriously ABF, this doesn't really seem like something you'd support normally. I mean, how is this any different than the people knowingly poisoning the water supply in Flint? (I didn't forget about you, Meet the Fockers!)
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - A Black Falcon - 24th November 2016
Well, I will admit I'm not invested in this like you clearly are -- we don't have fracking here, or any other kind of oil drilling either. If we did have it nearby maybe I'd be opposed too, that's entirely possible -- earthquakes aside, the potential for groundwater contamination certainly is a potentially big deal. But as it is, why should I completely oppose something which does reduce carbon emissions? And it does; that methane can be captured (yes, it isn't always, but it should be!) and the kind of emissions coal give off are some of the worst for the planet.
Or like, most people here in Maine have oil-burning furnaces for heat. (I've heard that in other parts of the country oil heat is less common, but here it's ubiquitous.) Natural gas is both cleaner and cheaper than oil, it's a good alternative where available. Most people can't afford to heat their homes on geothermal or something and electric heat is crazy expensive, so it's one fossil fuel or the other currently sadly...
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 24th November 2016
Around here, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single place I've been that uses oil based heating. As you might imagine, since most places in Oklahoma have full fledged central air (as opposed to just a single window unit), central heat comes with that package.
As to why you shouldn't "completely oppose" something that reduces carbon emissions, frankly the earthquakes, methane emissions, and ground water contamination (and the first one directly contributes to both of the latter ones, as in the case of the earthquake we just had centered on the biggest oil town in the US), well, just because something is "better" doesn't mean it's okay. I mean, really, just think about what you're saying. Sure, getting my pinky finger chopped off is better than getting my thumb chopped off, but I still completely oppose getting my pinky chopped off, because IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY! Considering Oklahoma "expendable" so long as you can get your precious Maine heaters on propane instead of coal is the height of privileged thinking, and yes, you SHOULD completely oppose waste water injection! I don't care WHAT it's better than, it's WORSE than a whole host of far superior options!
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - A Black Falcon - 27th November 2016
Central air doesn't heat itself, something has to heat it. Do you mean it's all electricity-heated there? Here that'd never happen, electricity is far too expensive to make that a sane option! (You must have cheaper electricity then...) Instead most people have oil furnaces in their basements. There are several ways of getting the heat through the house, including air ducts or radiators (for either steam or hot water), but you don't really need central air conditioning here most of the time so few houses have that.
Quote:Considering Oklahoma "expendable" so long as you can get your precious Maine heaters on propane instead of coal is the height of privileged thinking, and yes, you SHOULD completely oppose waste water injection! I don't care WHAT it's better than, it's WORSE than a whole host of far superior options!And this is why this is so hard -- what's better for one person is worse for another. There are multiple reasons why natural gas (not propane, which is a slightly different thing) is a good fuel to heat with:
- It's able to come in through pipe networks under the street, meaning that presuming you live somewhere with access you don't need that large, and very expensive to replace once it goes bad, oil tank in your cellar.
- Natural gas burns much cleaner than fuel oil, which means that it's better for the environment AND the furnace. Fuel oil furnaces need yearly cleanings, you see; the stuff does not burn too cleanly, so you've got to pay someone to clean it each year. With natural gas the problem is much less urgent, as the much cleaner-burning fuel means fewer cleanings are needed.
- Thanks to the boom of supply (thanks to fracking, yes) natural gas is very cheap now, so if you heat with gas it'll cost a lot less than fuel oil does.
On the other hand, if you already have a oil furnace switching over to gas (even if you have a gas line) costs a lot, so it'd take many years to see the benefit financially. But that'd be the case no matter what you switch to, of course.
Overall, of course switching over to something greener would be far better. We're seeing how awful global warming is already getting and it's going to get much, MUCH worse. However, with things as they are, what can you do? You can't heat a house with solar panels, people can't build their own wind-power windmills, and geothermal requires a good location and is very expensive. Electric heat costs even more than that, and a significant amount of that is fossil fuel-generated anyway. Considering that, what can most people do but choose between oil and gas?
(Oh, as for propane, it requires a tank on your property much like oil, except propane tanks are often outside instead of in the basement. As a heating fuel it's only for people who can't get natural gas where they are, pretty much.)
Quote: I don't care WHAT it's better than, it's WORSE than a whole host of far superior options!What are these far superior options? It's not fuel oil, that has all kinds of drawback too, environmental and otherwise (more so overseas than in the US, but it has them!). And until or unless we get prices down and renewables up, I don't see electricity as a great option either.
Look, as I said, I absolutely support stronger, stricter rules on fracking. There should be MUCH closer examination of everything they pump into the ground, and their claims that "the stuff is too deep down to get into water tables" definitely sounds sketchy at best. Methane emissions capture or reduction is also absolutely essential. There has been too much fracking without enough regulation. But on the other hand, natural gas has a lot of positives compared to all the other fossil fuels, and it is kind of needed. So yeah, I support more regulation, but not a ban on natural gas production.
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 28th November 2016
Get renewables up and provide competition in areas and prices on electricity WILL go down. In case you couldn't tell, that's exactly the solution I want. Oklahoma is ripe for renewable wind turbine energy. Maine, being next to the coast, may be ripe for tidal energy nacelles like they recently started rolling out in Scotland (That's right, you could tell people you are powered by the moon!). Unfortunately, we're also a major oil state, so wind has had a hard time getting a start out here. That's not to say we've got NO renewables here. There's at least a few small companies selling it here and there around the state, but it's small time compared to good ol' fashioned dino blood.
I really don't think our electricity is cheaper (we're in the same situation as a lot of places, where one electric company is basically the only game in town so they get full control of the prices on their own terms), but our heating needs are certainly a lot less than your's. During the transition from fall to winter, we turn off both the A/C and heating (I should point out that yep, central air does still need something to heat it, and that something is an electric heater, usually located right next to the internal part of the A/C), and just leave it all off until it actually gets cold enough that we really need the heater on. I do know some family and friends who love it hot, so they'll turn the heater on sooner than I will, but generally that's how it goes. Winter is when we save money on our electric bills. That said, summer is what kills us. Usually, I can look forward to drastically higher electric bills for about 3 months in the year. This year I've had about 6 months due to an unusually long summer (and yes, I define the seasons not as exactly cutting it up into specific "start" and "end" dates but rather the meteorological way of defining it by the weather, which is less precise but is actually USEFUL (what's the point of defining exact start and end dates if in the end you get seasons that don't actually tell you anything at all, in which case you might as well not even have seasons). Another factor might be that our houses are generally newer than the ones on the east coast, due to our having been "settled" much more recently. Due to that, our houses are built to more recent building code standards than your's. For example, I'm aware that most places in New York and so on still have those dangerous plastic dryer vent tubes, whereas in Oklahoma they're almost all metal. I myself am living in a very recently built place that's even got ethernet cabling in the walls already, and it holds in the temp pretty well. Not all our places are so lucky, but that might have a lot to do with things. That said, Oklahoma's building codes are still different, so then we go back to our general lack of basements or storm shelters around here, and, more recently, the lack of any structural reinforcement for earthquakes.
And we've come full circle. If your state has to pay for a slow rollout of electric heating down the line, I say that's the price I'M willing to pay to make Oklahoma stop shaking. You must understand the two are not equal. If it is any consolation, coal burning stoves and oil burning heaters aren't the greatest generators of greenhouse gasses anyway. That still goes to industry. They're the champs generating the lion's share of carbon, to the point that even if we switched all our cars to electric tomorrow, it would only put a small dent in total emissions. If industry isn't changed (for example, shutting down coal burning plants in favor of wind turbines and the like), we're doomed. You say that there's a cost to pay either way, but you can't equivocate like that. Sometimes, we really do need to say "this thing is absolutely worse than the other thing", and that's when these choices come up. This is a very obvious choice. Your power bill does NOT outweigh our desire to not be caught in earthquakes. This is an undeniable fact.
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - A Black Falcon - 1st December 2016
On the water contamination issue I certainly agree that it's a huge problem that should not have been allowed to get to this point. That's really bad.
But as for energy as it is, here in Maine, a few things:
Electricity is about 50% more expensive in Maine than it is in Oklahoma, according to this data here: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/index.cfm That's a significant difference. The Northeast in general has higher electricity costs than some other regions do.
So, when it comes to heating options here, electricity is rarely high on the list. This article: http://thesunriseguide.com/heat-of-the-moment/ goes through all the options we've got here, starting with oil (which again 70% of people have) and also natural gas, propane, wood pellets, cordwood, biofuel, electric baseboard heaters, electric heat pumps, solar, and geothermal. Yeah, there are a lot of options.
This chart from that previous article: http://thesunriseguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/heating-cost-graph.jpg shows comparative costs of the various options. For the electric options, the two main forms of electric heat you see here are not full-house heating systems, but something you put in a room or two that doesn't get enough heat from your main furnace. Electric furnaces would just be too expensive to be reasonable, I imagine. So, the two options are baseboard heaters, which are quite expensive but can be useful (They're the most common way you see electric heat here, and indeed though I have an oil furnace, I do have them in a few rooms.) Heat pumps apparently are much cheaper to run, though probably more expensive to install and are not a replacement for a furnace because apparently they are less efficient in cold weather, but I don't know much about them. It sounds like they are slowly growing in popularity though: http://www.centralmaine.com/2012/04/01/maine-rethinks-electric-heat_2012-03-31/
I see no mention of an electric-powered furnace replacement in that article at all, which says something -- that just isn't happening here, yet at least.
Quote:Another factor might be that our houses are generally newer than the ones on the east coast, due to our having been "settled" much more recently. Due to that, our houses are built to more recent building code standards than your's. For example, I'm aware that most places in New York and so on still have those dangerous plastic dryer vent tubes, whereas in Oklahoma they're almost all metal. I myself am living in a very recently built place that's even got ethernet cabling in the walls already, and it holds in the temp pretty well. Not all our places are so lucky, but that might have a lot to do with things. That said, Oklahoma's building codes are still different, so then we go back to our general lack of basements or storm shelters around here, and, more recently, the lack of any structural reinforcement for earthquakes.This is very true, yes. I've heard it said that Maine has the oldest housing stock [average house age, I believe] in the nation, and I believe it; most homes here are older. This house was built in the 19-teens, and college dorms excepted, the other two houses I've lived in in this state during my life aren't exactly new either -- both were built in the '50s, if I remember right. Post-WWII developments and such. There are of course some newer homes built in this state, and the Portland area has seen a lot of development recently, but it also has a lot of older houses.
So yeah, if Oklahoma houses are mostly more recent, that definitely would be a difference from here, and that does affect things like heating systems and energy efficiency. Highly energy-efficient windows? Ethernet in the walls? Hah, yeah right... I don't have those things, and nor do lots of people here. (But on the other hand, and basements are great. Awesome places to store stuff, among other things! You couldn't have a furnace without a cellar to put it in, either...)
Quote:If it is any consolation, coal burning stoves and oil burning heaters aren't the greatest generators of greenhouse gasses anyway. That still goes to industry. They're the champs generating the lion's share of carbon, to the point that even if we switched all our cars to electric tomorrow, it would only put a small dent in total emissions. If industry isn't changed (for example, shutting down coal burning plants in favor of wind turbines and the like), we're doomed. You say that there's a cost to pay either way, but you can't equivocate like that. Sometimes, we really do need to say "this thing is absolutely worse than the other thing", and that's when these choices come up. This is a very obvious choice.This is all very true, but unfortunately as the Obama administration shows, or Clinton before him back in the '90s, even when liberals are in charge, no one is willing to do the kinds of things necessary to REALLY take on climate change because it's just too expensive and people are incredibly short-sighted about things. And then Republicans win office and abandon even the not-nearly-enough efforts of the Democrats, and things get even worse and that's awful, but it's not like anyone is actually proposing the kinds of policies we actually need, because people would not support such things because of the massive short-term costs. That those things would have incredibly huge long-term benefits somehow just isn't something enough people can see, and that's why climate change keeps getting worse every year as we keep pumping out so much carbon emissions -- and yeah, industry does make the largest share of the emissions, very true. Things like houses and personal cars contribute quite a bit, but industry's the biggest share of it.
As for the earthquakes, yeah that's bad and should have been avoidable I'd think, but isn't your states' government high on the list of people responsible for that, given that they make many of the rules? Both state and federal governments have authority over fracking. (I'm sure your Republican government has their party's usual opposition to regulation, but still, they are to blame...)
Class action lawsuit over Oklahoma Earthquakes - Dark Jaguar - 2nd December 2016
Yes, Oklahoma state government IS responsible for it. That's a fact, and we just can't seem to vote those responsible out of positions of power. It would be better off if Oklahoma abandoned fracking entirely, but I'd take a complete ban on wastewater injection (by which I mean the second part, where they take the waste they get along with the precious oil and just shove it back into the earth when they're done, which appears to be the main source of instability leading to earthquakes). They are reducing it, which has resulted in a reduction in quakes already, but it isn't enough. There is no reason they should have to dispose of that waste water by just jamming it deep into the bedrock. They could bury it in mines dug into Black Mesa for all I care, but find some other way to get rid of it!