I have seen reports that Mexico City is sinking due to removal of ground water for drinking and irrigation. If we pump more water in than oil removed will the terrain rise?
let me ask our resident expert something, lets put this in simple terms everyone will understand, especially me.
Lets use an apple as an example of the earth, if we continually pump water from a needle into it the interior of the apple will take it for a while, then as you keep pumping fluid into the apple eventually the outside of the apple will rupture as well as the inside, the core only has so much room for things to be added to the inside of said apple, right expert? So eventually things will start braking, little paths will open up to other parts of the apple, earth. and like that if you have wells of water inside the apple they will get contaminated by whatever you are pumping into the apple, earth. So just because it hasn't caused any damage, Yet doesn't mean the continual pumping of fluids into the earth isn't going to do bad things, like contaminate water wells, oceans, and everything else underground.
I mean there is only so much we can pump into the earth without it doing something now is there.
Steve
That makes some sense Steve, but the thing is whatever they pump in is not restricted like pumping water into a balloon. Its leeching out into the surrounding area too. I had one place that the drains went out into a big steel container buried in the ground. It was full of like 1" holes. In 10 years, it never filled the container up with water.
ever? I suppose you do understand, that the place you are describing doesn't exist, and hasn't since the time Earth was just a gaseous clump? It's akin to asking someone to prove dinosaurs existed but dis-allowing all fossil and DNA evidence.
Ok, let just say somewhere that hasnt had a quake in 200 years.... Id even be OK with just 100 years.
I have seen reports that Mexico City is sinking due to removal of ground water for drinking and irrigation. If we pump more water in than oil removed will the terrain rise?
Not likely, unless it is done as the hydrocarbons are removed, but removal of groundwater relatively near surface, is a lot different than removal of hydrocarbons deep underground. I probably should not have brought groundwater subsidence into the conversation. With oil/gas well drilling, there is almost always an overbearing strata to support the surface--with water well, not so much. Fresh/potable water bearing sands are much shallower than oil and gas bearing formations for the most part and most water found down near oil and gas will be salt water that comes from centuries of salts being leached from rock or from the times that the same area was an ancient sea--or both. The oil rich area of west Texas/Southern NM known as the Permian basin/Delaware basin was once part of a vast inland sea, and the Permian and Capitan reefs are located there. All sedimentary formations left over from the Pangea era.
Houston too is sinking due to decades of groundwater removal for industrial and residential use.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-11-2015).]
That makes some sense Steve, but the thing is whatever they pump in is not restricted like pumping water into a balloon. Its leeching out into the surrounding area too. I had one place that the drains went out into a big steel container buried in the ground. It was full of like 1" holes. In 10 years, it never filled the container up with water.
And you think that is like fracking?? Was it buried in shale or dirt? This is shale--it looks, feels, weighs and is hard--like a rock because it IS rock.
This is dirt--do you 2 "geologist wannbes" see the difference? Ever sit a smooth bottomed container like a glass down on a slightly tilted smooth surface? It will sit there forever. Ever set the same glass down on the same slightly tilted smooth surface that is wet? It will move--often all on it's own. That's what fracking does in tectonic like formations--the fluid molecules add lubricity and separation between the rock masses and movement occurs.
Pretty sure most rock is porous too, granted not as much as dirt. But then compacted dirt does pretty good as earthen dams. Water seeps even thru concrete.
My father in law remembers earthquakes in dallas in the 70, his dad remembers them when he was a kid. But these earthquakes must be new and it has too be from fraking......... .......I still haven't felt a quake.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 01-12-2015).]
Nothing related. Im an expert body/ paint man and ex-USAF fighter/ commercial pilot. Ive done a lot more, RV and specialty vehicle manufacture, Semi car-hauler driver, raced boats and stock cars, fiberglass boat/ RV repairs. Working on oil wells dont make someone an earthquake specialist. Ill just be ignorant about the relationship between fracking and earthquakes unless someone can undeniably prove it to me. They fought it in court about 100 miles from me for last 5 years, and no one could, so they went back to fracking again. Im sure with all the government interference in anything they can, if they could prove it...they would have stopped it everywhere.
Yeah, nothing related.
I'm not an earthquake specialist, but I write programs for fracking everyday so I'm the closest thing this forum gets to a fracking specialist. I understand geology because I studied geology and because I look at well logs literally every single day. You don't. So you telling me what you think of fracking and earthquakes is hilarious.
quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison:
Legally in the criminal trial, he didnt. Different answer in the other one where they found him responsible.
Everyone here anymore yells for absolute proof of anything. The proof for me would be finding a place with absolutely NO history of earthquakes ever, then fracking some wells that results in quakes right afterward....thats proof. All the experts couldnt prove it in NE Ohio, so they lost. Im pretty sure the witnesses there know much more about it than anyone here.
Firstly, good luck finding a place with no history of earthquakes ever. I'll wait for you.
Secondly, fracking can lead to earthquakes only when there is a nearby fault that's already under stress. It's going to release that buildup. You don't know what you're talking about.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123:
let me ask our resident expert something, lets put this in simple terms everyone will understand, especially me.
Lets use an apple as an example of the earth, if we continually pump water from a needle into it the interior of the apple will take it for a while, then as you keep pumping fluid into the apple eventually the outside of the apple will rupture as well as the inside, the core only has so much room for things to be added to the inside of said apple, right expert? So eventually things will start braking, little paths will open up to other parts of the apple, earth. and like that if you have wells of water inside the apple they will get contaminated by whatever you are pumping into the apple, earth. So just because it hasn't caused any damage, Yet doesn't mean the continual pumping of fluids into the earth isn't going to do bad things, like contaminate water wells, oceans, and everything else underground.
I mean there is only so much we can pump into the earth without it doing something now is there.
Steve
Okay, you are confused.
Fracking just injects fluids for a short amount of time. It fractures the rock nearby and then the well starts draining.
Water injection is continuous injection. And no, it's not like you're describing. When we do water injection, it's typically to push the hydrocarbons towards other wells. We aren't just pumping a bunch of water to the point where the earth will explode (or whatever you're proposing).
Fracking just injects fluids for a short amount of time. It fractures the rock nearby and then the well starts draining.
Water injection is continuous injection. And no, it's not like you're describing. When we do water injection, it's typically to push the hydrocarbons towards other wells. We aren't just pumping a bunch of water to the point where the earth will explode (or whatever you're proposing)..
Now you are beginning to sound like Lord Kelvin: "This is the Royal Academy of Science! We don't have to prove anything!" In the Jackie Chan movie around the world in 80 days
And you are absolutely positive about that because of what, that they told you this in school? Sorry but we have only been doing this for a few dozen decades and something's take time to happen. Hey we always thought that nuclear power was safe to, but that isn't working as well as they thought decades ago now is it, or that coal was a safe way to produce electricity as well, but now what a few decades later we are learning it isn't so safe. What are we to do when a few more decades go by and they find this is contaminating water wells, fracturing the earth surface. This type of things are common a few decades or centuries later to be found dangerous now haven't they?
It has happened in the past with just surface ponds making nearby water wells toxic, think the PG&E scandal made famous by the Erin Brockovich movie. And those were just surface ponds, not injected oil wells that already are in the ground. So what makes you so sure there is no way those oil well injections can never do any damage to the human water supply or the earths surface?
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 01-12-2015).]
You have so much to learn. Do know why the natural gas and crude oil doesn't just come flying out of the ground on it's own without even having to drill for it?
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123:
And you are absolutely positive about that because of what, that they told you this in school? Sorry but we have only been doing this for a few dozen decades and something's take time to happen. Hey we always thought that nuclear power was safe to, but that isn't working as well as they thought decades ago now is it, or that coal was a safe way to produce electricity as well, but now what a few decades later we are learning it isn't so safe. What are we to do when a few more decades go by and they find this is contaminating water wells, fracturing the earth surface. This type of things are common a few decades or centuries later to be found dangerous now haven't they?
It has happened in the past with just surface ponds making nearby water wells toxic, think the PG&E scandal made famous by the Erin Brockovich movie. And those were just surface ponds, not injected oil wells that already are in the ground. So what makes you so sure there is no way those oil well injections can never do any damage to the human water supply or the earths surface?
Steve
quote
Sorry but we have only been doing this for a few dozen decades and something's take time to happen
A few dozen decades? Do the math Steve. ONE dozen decades would be 120 years. (year 1895) TWO dozen decades would be 240 years.(year the American revolution began-1775) A FEW dozen decades (3-4 dozen) would be somewhere around the years 1535-1655.
Fracking first began in 1947. Shale fracking is much much younger than that.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-12-2015).]
And you are absolutely positive about that because of what, that they told you this in school? Sorry but we have only been doing this for a few dozen decades and something's take time to happen. Hey we always thought that nuclear power was safe to, but that isn't working as well as they thought decades ago now is it, or that coal was a safe way to produce electricity as well, but now what a few decades later we are learning it isn't so safe. What are we to do when a few more decades go by and they find this is contaminating water wells, fracturing the earth surface. This type of things are common a few decades or centuries later to be found dangerous now haven't they?
It has happened in the past with just surface ponds making nearby water wells toxic, think the PG&E scandal made famous by the Erin Brockovich movie. And those were just surface ponds, not injected oil wells that already are in the ground. So what makes you so sure there is no way those oil well injections can never do any damage to the human water supply or the earths surface?
Steve
Steve, I do this every day! What more do you want? You aren't using geologically consistent ideas. You're not using any science!
Yes, we can damage water supply by casing failures. That has happened. I have never denied that. You are trying so hard to discredit me - just because I'm more educated than you - that you fail to use your own common sense.
Do you see me try and tell Nick how to weld? Or bmwguru how to work on cars? Do you see me telling you how to do your job? No. But I know my own job pretty damn well. For you to assume that you know more... it's ridiculous. You sound mental. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You asked a question and I answered, politely. I said Roger was the idiot here. I didn't name you. But both of you are equally dumb. I have already spent way too much time and energy trying to educate you, and I have only commented a handful of times. You are so ****ing infantile it is astounding! Bask in your ignorance. Go tell the world how smart you are and that the crust is going to explode because we are fracking. Lmao. I'm done here.
Yes, we can damage water supply by casing failures. That has happened. I have never denied that. You are trying so hard to discredit me - just because I'm more educated than you - that you fail to use your own common sense.
This is the main issue I have with fracking. However if fraking ever moves out of my home town however It should drop property values and I might be able to get a super sweet deal. I'll just have to invest in water filtration.
I don't buy the other bs about fraking, just a bunch of bs screaming the sky is falling because the ground shook and blaming it on the pre determined villain.
This is the main issue I have with fracking. However if fraking ever moves out of my home town however It should drop property values and I might be able to get a super sweet deal. I'll just have to invest in water filtration.
I don't buy the other bs about fraking, just a bunch of bs screaming the sky is falling because the ground shook and blaming it on the pre determined villain.
It's not fracking that's the issue really - just bad casing. It only happens with small companies that cut corners where they shouldn't. I wouldn't worry about it too much. With how much it's being looked at and scrutinized, everyone is practicing very safe practices.
So was BP with their off shore drilling. So was Exxon with their shipping in Alaska, I could go on but no matter what is said I will never trust anything the oil companies say.
I don't believe it, even after a well is shut down and the fluid is pumped out there is still residue in the ground. If it's in the ground it can get in water supplies.
Here's a test, get some fracking fluid put it in a cup. Tell someone what it is who knows everything about fraking and thinks it's safe for ground water. Dump it in front of them, fill the glass with fresh water in front of them and ask them to drink it.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 01-12-2015).]
Steve, I do this every day! What more do you want? You aren't using geologically consistent ideas. You're not using any science!
Yes, we can damage water supply by casing failures. That has happened. I have never denied that. You are trying so hard to discredit me - just because I'm more educated than you - that you fail to use your own common sense.
Do you see me try and tell Nick how to weld? Or bmwguru how to work on cars? Do you see me telling you how to do your job? No. But I know my own job pretty damn well. For you to assume that you know more... it's ridiculous. You sound mental. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You asked a question and I answered, politely. I said Roger was the idiot here. I didn't name you. But both of you are equally dumb. I have already spent way too much time and energy trying to educate you, and I have only commented a handful of times. You are so ****ing infantile it is astounding! Bask in your ignorance. Go tell the world how smart you are and that the crust is going to explode because we are fracking. Lmao. I'm done here.
OK lets get into it and why I say some people with an education are not always right, but they can never accept that fact.
I have not gotten personal with you yet as a kid with an education you are doing it again, is it possible that 50 or 100 years down the road some of that crap they taught you in school was wrong ?
Was what I said about nuclear energy wrong? Was what I said about coal wrong ?
They were both considered safe in the beginning now weren't they. They were both decades later found to be very, very dangerous to us and the environment weren't they. That is all I am saying is that there is the possibility that all we think now about this fracking can be wrong even if it is taught in schools. hey it was just a few hundred years ago they taught in school the world was flat, things change over time, we, hopefully learn from our mistakes.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: It's not fracking that's the issue really - just bad casing. It only happens with small companies that cut corners where they shouldn't. I wouldn't worry about it too much. With how much it's being looked at and scrutinized, everyone is practicing very safe practices.
Ayup they are, just like that company in the gulf that had the well blow out was safe and look what happened there, accidents happen, science is not always correct and can and has changed over history now hasn't it.
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 01-12-2015).]
OK lets get into it and why I say some people with an education are not always right, but they can never accept that fact.
Politics. You see what I did there? One word explains it. Why is your huge agreement not valid? Because if scientists where playing politics as they do with global warming to earn their grant money, they'd be coming up with bogus studies about fracking causing earthquakes.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 01-12-2015).]
I don't think people are reading what TheBDub has said. He has emphatically said: 1. Yes, fracking can and does cause small earthquakes. 2. Yes, if a bad casing or cement) job is done, contamination of ground water can happen--and probably has.
But, the same is true for any conventional well, including oil wells AND water wells in residential areas.
But, the fact remains, (and this is what people don't seem to understand) that IF the casing and cement jobs are done right, there is almost zero chance of frack fluid contamination of human usable water bearing zones. Almost all pollution of ground water comes from what everyone of us does on TOP of the ground--the heavy metals, the chemicals, the biologicals, and even the bacteria. Why? Gravity. This is why there is so much opposition to Keystone--a break in a pipeline pollutes soil and streams above ground and some of that polluted water migrates (gravity) down to fresh water sands.
On top of that, I've never heard of a oil/gas well that didn't produce some salt water--salt water that is thousands or millions of years old, left over from a time when the Earth's surface was much more covered in seas and oceans. If it were a natural process for liquid to come UP, there would be zero fresh water bearing formations anywhere--it would all be contaminated with salts, sulphur and other undesirable and often toxic natural elements. Why doesn't it come up? impermeable (in spite of what Roger might believe) rock formations almost always lie between the hydrocarbon/salt water bearing formations and the fresh water zones relatively close to the surface. Gravity is a wonderful thing and the most amazing part about it is that it is everywhere on the planet.
(and btw--the salt water from way below the surface smells TERRIBLE--nothing at all like the pleasant odor coming off the water at your favorite seaside beach)
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop:
I don't believe it, even after a well is shut down and the fluid is pumped out there is still residue in the ground. If it's in the ground it can get in water supplies.
Here's a test, get some fracking fluid put it in a cup. Tell someone what it is who knows everything about fraking and thinks it's safe for ground water. Dump it in front of them, fill the glass with fresh water in front of them and ask them to drink it.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-12-2015).]
Hey we always thought that nuclear power was safe to, but that isn't working as well as they thought decades ago now is it,
Actually, it is. Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly and safe way available to produce electricity. No one in the United States has died as the direct result of exposure to nuclear radiation from a reactor. If you study the chart at Wikipedia, you find people dying of electrocution and equipment falling causing 6 out of 11 deaths at nuclear plants in 69 years. In the Three Mile Island accident, the lawsuit brought against Metropolitan Edison was dismissed because the plantiffs could not prove exposure to sufficient radiation to cause any health problem.
If you have nothing to do for a week, here is an analysis of risk, explanation of radiation, consideration of cost analysis for decision making, and more: http://threemileisland.org/science/pdfs/3rs.pdf
Actually, it is. Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly and safe way available to produce electricity. No one in the United States has died as the direct result of exposure to nuclear radiation from a reactor. If you study the chart at Wikipedia, you find people dying of electrocution and equipment falling causing 6 out of 11 deaths at nuclear plants in 69 years. In the Three Mile Island accident, the lawsuit brought against Metropolitan Edison was dismissed because the plantiffs could not prove exposure to sufficient radiation to cause any health problem.
If you have nothing to do for a week, here is an analysis of risk, explanation of radiation, consideration of cost analysis for decision making, and more: http://threemileisland.org/science/pdfs/3rs.pdf
Fukushima has proven that nuclear power is safe, nuclear energy will be so cheap that you won't need a meter, and they already have a safe long term disposal method for the waste. "sarcasm" We used to get washington water power for 3 cents per kilowatt and then they wasted millions of dollars on nukes before giving up. Now it costs triple.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 01-12-2015).]
Fukushima isn't the United States, and building a nuclear reactor in an area you know is subject to earthquakes isn't good planning, is it? None of which changes anything I posted.
Actually, it is. Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly and safe way available to produce electricity. No one in the United States has died as the direct result of exposure to nuclear radiation from a reactor. If you study the chart at Wikipedia, you find people dying of electrocution and equipment falling causing 6 out of 11 deaths at nuclear plants in 69 years. In the Three Mile Island accident, the lawsuit brought against Metropolitan Edison was dismissed because the plantiffs could not prove exposure to sufficient radiation to cause any health problem.
If you have nothing to do for a week, here is an analysis of risk, explanation of radiation, consideration of cost analysis for decision making, and more: http://threemileisland.org/science/pdfs/3rs.pdf
Do a search about the first reactor in the US. All the operators of the plant died. No civilian deaths, they were military. That's why you always see "no civilian deaths" when that's brought up.
What does that have to do with reactor design today? Cars in the fifties and sixties killed lots of people in low speed crashes because they had sharp edges everywhere in the interior and no seatbelts. Designs are different now.
Do a search about the first reactor in the US. All the operators of the plant died. No civilian deaths, they were military. That's why you always see "no civilian deaths" when that's brought up.
]
That would be E. Fermi's Chicago Pile 1. A completely non-shielded experiment under the squash court of Univ of Chicago. I was unaware Enrico Fermi was in the military---what rank was he and which branch did he serve in?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-12-2015).]
Just more ways that facts can be stated, the first electrical plant was an army experimental, killed everyone on site. We also have a navy vet buried 30mis from me in a lead coffin. Sub reactor non civilian. Would you really like all the waste buried in your back yard? PS Fermi was working under military contract.
[This message has been edited by tebailey (edited 01-12-2015).]
You didn't say first electrical plant--you said "reactor". Pile 1 wasn't the world's first reactor to go critical, but it was the world's first man made reactor to do so.
Originally posted by heybjorn: Actually, it is. Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly and safe way available to produce electricity. No one in the United States has died as the direct result of exposure to nuclear radiation from a reactor. If you study the chart at Wikipedia, you find people dying of electrocution and equipment falling causing 6 out of 11 deaths at nuclear plants in 69 years. In the Three Mile Island accident, the lawsuit brought against Metropolitan Edison was dismissed because the plantiffs could not prove exposure to sufficient radiation to cause any health problem.
If you have nothing to do for a week, here is an analysis of risk, explanation of radiation, consideration of cost analysis for decision making, and more: http://threemileisland.org/science/pdfs/3rs.pdf
At least 56 nuclear reactor accidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2] The most serious of these U.S. accidents was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Davis–Besse Nuclear Power Station has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.[1]
While there may have been no deaths just how many people became sick from the Accidents, extremely sick !
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 01-12-2015).]
1. Motor vehicle crashes Deaths per year: 43,200 2. Falls Deaths per year: 14,900 3. Poisoning by solids and liquids Deaths per year: 8,600
T 4. Drowning Deaths per year: 4,000 5. Fires and burns Deaths per year: 3,700
6. Suffocation Deaths per year: 3,300 7. Firearms Deaths per year: 1,500
8. Poisoning by gases Deaths per year: 700 9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures Deaths per year: 500 10. Machinery Deaths per year: 350
Even if you were to include the Kystym disaster (Soviet plutonium weapons processing plant) there have been far fewer recorded radiation caused deaths thru out history world wide, than in a single modern year just in the US by automobiles or falls. (not including the 2 WW2 bombs dropped on Japan.)
Just because there hasn't been a fukushima in the US doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. The Price Anderson act was because no private insurer would step up to the plate. Didn't eliminate the risk, just put a cap on what the builders would have to pay out. GE was the designer of the Fukushima plants. Still no permanent waste disposal. My rocket scientist nephew suggested sub dermal induction, but when I researched it it didn't sound remotely feasable. The one that they had put their most hope in was Yucca mountain. Big problems with that one.
At least 56 nuclear reactor accidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2] The most serious of these U.S. accidents was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Davis–Besse Nuclear Power Station has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.[1]
While there may have been no deaths just how many people became sick from the Accidents, extremely sick !
Well. Steve, just how many? You have the same access to Google I do. I can't find a single article listing any threat to anyone in Ohio from anything that happened at Davis Besse, not a single one. There has been no release of radiation into the atmosphere, no contamination of groundwater, no threat to the environment from anything that happened there. No increase in anything that could be called radiation related deaths. Same thing at Three Mile Island. None.
The best reactor designs available now embrace the lessons learned in the last 70 years. Prove otherwise.
1. Motor vehicle crashes Deaths per year: 43,200 2. Falls Deaths per year: 14,900 3. Poisoning by solids and liquids Deaths per year: 8,600
T 4. Drowning Deaths per year: 4,000 5. Fires and burns Deaths per year: 3,700
6. Suffocation Deaths per year: 3,300 7. Firearms Deaths per year: 1,500
8. Poisoning by gases Deaths per year: 700 9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures Deaths per year: 500 10. Machinery Deaths per year: 350
Even if you were to include the Kystym disaster (Soviet plutonium weapons processing plant) there have been far fewer recorded radiation caused deaths thru out history world wide, than in a single modern year just in the US by automobiles or falls. (not including the 2 WW2 bombs dropped on Japan.)
Nothing has the potential to kill as many people unintentionally as a nuclear power plant. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it can't. The Fukushima story isn't over yet and I can see worse accidents being possible.
Just because there hasn't been a fukushima in the US doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. The Price Anderson act was because no private insurer would step up to the plate. Didn't eliminate the risk, just put a cap on what the builders would have to pay out. GE was the designer of the Fukushima plants. Still no permanent waste disposal. My rocket scientist nephew suggested sub dermal induction, but when I researched it it didn't sound remotely feasable. The one that they had put their most hope in was Yucca mountain. Big problems with that one.
Just because there hasn't been a fukishima, yellowstone caldera event, large body comet/asteroid impact, super earthquake, cataclysmic cyclonic event, nationwide biological pandemic, invasion by [China/NKPA/extraterrestrials/Russia], ignition of the Earth's atmosphere, unprecedented charged particle solar bombardment-------- doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
quote
Nothing has the potential to kill as many people unintentionally as a nuclear power plant.
Nothing? you might want to think about that a bit dratts. Since 2004, over 1/4 million people have been killed by just 2 tsunamis. Should such an event happen on the Gulf Coast, the upper East coast, or the Calif coast, the fatalities would be in the millions.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-12-2015).]
So If I understand, there is no where on earth that hasn't had an earthquake in the last 100 years.....? Now, that is hilarious. In 60 years, and all around the country ive never felt one, except for the one time that was 1000 miles from any fracking.
Id even be OK with just 100 years.
