Amazon.com Widgets

A new paper conducted by the Geological Survey of Canada found more than 90 percent of large earthquakes in western Canada were triggered by fracking operations. Do you think fracking should be permitted?

A new paper conducted by the Geological Survey of Canada found more than 90 percent of large earthquakes in western Canada were triggered by fracking operations. Do you think fracking should be permitted?
  • No big deal.

    According to the site, there is a connection between fracking and earthquakes but what it does not say is how minor these quakes are. According to another site, http://earthquaketrack.com/p/canada/recent, the vast majority of the quakes have been minor ones (3 - 3.9 mag.) or less. Clearly these weak ones have little to no effect but reap great rewards.
    If anything, fracking may help prevent stronger and more damaging quakes. You see, they may trigger small quakes that help relieve stress points. If the small quakes didn't happen, the stress could build up and when a quake does happen, it would be much worse.

  • OP -- Have you read any articles on this that contain actual facts and quotes?

    First, the Geological Survey of Canada, only supplied 1 of the 13 authors of this paper - this is hardly grounds for saying they conducted it as opposed to participated in. Secondly, could you state the actions performed and resulting data sets backing and affirming this 90% assertion being made? No, there is none, because this paper was created using "statistical analyses". Analysis sf what you ask? Well, a few unproven and baseless theories the group of 13 college employees agreed on, opinions, personal feelings, etc. Actually, the only facts used were the locations of fracking facilities and basic earthquake data. Here are a few facts, straight from the authors, about this paper: The only seismic data considered was that from directly on the properties which fracking takes place. If an event was recorded in the region, no investigation was done into the other parts of the region. They speak on no uncertain terms about how bad fracking is and how they have proven that fracking is causing all of these large earthquakes. Later in the paper, they quickly state that of the 12,289 frack wells looked at, only 39 (0.3%) were in locations who experienced seismic activity a minimum of one time since 1985 which may have warranted public notification although almost no person would feel it. They state they have no proof that any seismic event is caused by or even remotely connected to fracking; continuing on to state that they have no knowledge of the geological makeup below fracking wells including the plate tectonics and possible fault lines which very well could be the source of the seismic activity. And what runs up and down the West Coast of North America? The Pacific and North American plate boundary...You know that big ol' crack in the ground San Andreas Fault line? Yeah, that's evidence of said boundary. Funny thing is, U.S. geologists recently found the fault runs much further south that previously known...And it can't be seen. Oh, and the Pacific Plate is currently forced deep underneath the NA Plate, trying to pull apart, and as the pressure has been growing over the past 20 years or so, we have experienced periodic releases...Or earthquakes in places we normally would not. This should be a good start for you to research on yourself moving forward if you wish.

  • I say its worth it.

    In order for society to progress, some really nasty stuff needs to happen. Fracking may hurt some, but it saves more lives than it ends. Logic over morality. Think Marx. This truly drives innovation by letting others do what they need to do efficiently. If you dont like it, boycott it, but PLEASE DONT RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE!

  • Tolerate it pansies

    All yall canadians up there dont live in murica so you dont know what a real hurricane feels like. Fracking is one of the sole things you canadians are good at. Keep it up my northern oily seal clubbing kemosabes. America america america land of the free land of my country

  • Fracking is not the problem

    I watched a clip from 60 minutes all about earthquakes caused from the oil industry in Oklahoma. The main problem is the waste water biproduct that gets disposed of deep in the ground. All of this water has built up and has caused a lot more earthquakes in areas that normally don't have very many earthquakes. Other than that, I'm kind of on the fence with this. We need to find another power source so we don't need to have these issues.

  • The earthquakes are really minor.

    Fracking provides a very large amount of clean energy, and the earthquakes caused by it are very minor. Please look here: http://earthquaketrack.com/p/canada/recent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • Definitely Not ever!

    Fracking is dirty. From the very beginning of clearing a site for drilling, through extraction, transport and delivery of finished products, fracking poses significant risks to our air and water and to human health. People who live and work near fracking sites are at greater risk for respiratory and neurological diseases.

    Oil and gas industry spokespeople routinely maintain that the risks of fracking can be minimized by best practices and appropriate state regulation. Not only is this false – fracking is harmful even when drillers follow all the rules – but drillers also regularly violate essential environmental and public health protections, undermining their own claims. A look at recent data from Pennsylvania, where key industry players pledged to clean up their acts, illustrates the frequency with which companies still break the rules.

  • It will boost our economy and make us rich.

    Fracking is not proven to damage the mantle, and it could easily make this country an uncontested super power. By fracking we will all become richer and as animals of the world, it is in our nature to alter the world around us for our needs. To say that it is unnatural is false, we make our own habitat just as beavers cut down trees or just as bees ruin a field with holes.

  • Fracking is the opposite of energy progress, should not be allowed.

    Fracking has ruined hundreds of towns/cities and has damaged millions of lives, as countless documentaries on YouTube and elsewhere will reveal. Poisons tap water, causes birth defects, can causing breathing problems, causes low fertility rates, and destroys the environment along with causing earthquakes. JUST SICK. Natural gas isn't even clean energy, so it contributes to global warming as well. So in conclusion, it should certainly be banned as the bad effects definitely outweigh the positive energy gain.

  • Depends on where the fracking in question was committed.

    If fracking in the U.S. was causing earthquakes in Canada, the U.S. should have to pay for the costs to repair the effected area. If not, it should be up to Canada to restrict fracking. I think a better solution would be to temporality hold off on fracking until the cause of these earthquakes is discovered and proven to be frackings' fault. 'Innocent until proven guilty."

  • Fracking is just another way to kick the can down the road.

    Regardless of how it's obtained, oil and our entire petrol economy is unsustainable and limited - and not "some distant time in the future" limited. We've essentially got two choices (with variances and degrees between): Accept that the western standard of living is unsustainable and work to wean ourselves off of it or ignore the resource costs of our standard of living and be hit by the catastrophe when one day there's no gas at the pump or food in the supermarket.

    I say this because at the moment (and foreseeable future), no combination of renewable energies can beat oil for cost. But that isn't an argument to pull more out of the earth; that's an argument to use less.

  • Fracking Is the Shit

    If you dont support fracking you're an annoying environment freak. Get your head out of your tree loving ass and enjoy what the world has to offer. After all, fracking gets us a shit ton of eenergy. Does everyone think we can get energy from loving trees? No, we get energy from extracting shit from the ground. Whoever doesnt like fracking can fuck off and move to pussy ass canada eh.

  • Drawbacks are Larger than Advantages

    Fracking does not only trigger earthquakes. Habitat destruction can also occur from the process of fracking, from setting up the drilling site or from building roads. Also, methane can leak into the atmosphere during the process, resulting in an increase of greenhouse gases. Fracking is greatly detrimental to our environment.

  • We don't know the effects well enough to determine whether it's safe

    In true human fashion, we are leaping before we actually look. The few studies that have been done show that without a doubt fracking creates instability in the ground that didn't exist before the fracking occurred. In other words, fracking causes earthquakes that would have never happened. It doesn't matter if said earthquakes are small or not. The fact of the matter is that we've caused a measurable change. We have no idea what will happen in 20 years. Maybe that small earthquake becomes the epicenter for something catastrophic. No one knows because no one f***ing cares enough right now to make sure that there won't be long term consequences.
    And, to those who think that fracking is somehow a clean energy source, it is no cleaner than any other fossil fuel extraction. There are still countless chemicals introduced into the environment that have no purpose being there on their own not to mention completely open air waste water pits and the running of whatever industrial processes needed to make it a sufficient end use product. The fact of the matter is, no fossil fuel will ever be the 'best' option for human beings in the long run. We require something sustainable that doesn't rely on ever depleting supplies of fuels derived from ancient bio matter. We will use it faster than the earth will make it.
    P.S. I love how the OP specifically stated a 90% increase in Canadian earthquakes and then provided a US map! :) LOL

  • It is dangerous to us humans and animals

    Fracking for those of you who don't even know, it is when a oil company like Shell opens and widens rocks below Earth's surface by injecting chemicals at high pressure for oil, this of course creates earthquakes if you couldn't tell by now and what happens in the event of an oil spill huh? Marine life gets killed, oil goes deeper in the Earth's surface creating MORE earthquakes and these earthquakes could be massive enough to tip the oil rig, killing marine life or even bigger than that, COULD KILL HUMAN! So yeah Mr.Trump or Mrs. Clinton, BAN FRACKING NOW

  • It happens all around the world!

    In Groningen earthquakes happen often because of fracking. In the '50s the Dutch found lots of gas under the ground.

    See this website: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/shell-exxon-gas-drilling-sets-off-earthquakes-wrecks-homes.

    We can find new gases to fill the gaps but that strikes me as very illogical, it's like putting the gas back where you got it from and wasting a lot of money.

  • Fracking is shit

    Fracking pollutes groundwater and the environment. Peoples water is being destroyed by this and its unacceptable. If the situation is that bad that we need to destroy our most valuable natural resource to get at Fossil fuels that harm the environment even farther. Now that its causing Earth quakes it should be banned and discontinued

  • Harms people and animals.

    Fracking should not be permitted because it contaminates drinking water and this contaminated water can harm people and animals. Fracking also cause earthquakes, and the earthquakes will destroy infrastructure and will cost the government a lot of money to fix and then the government will start to raise taxes because it needs more money to fix the destroyed infrastructure cause by fracking operations. Therefore, fracking should not be permitted.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
zookdook1 says2016-03-31T11:05:58.920
The article you linked seems extremely biased. Can you provide another source which is preferably less biased?
neutrino6626 says2016-04-30T21:50:50.013
This article is not really good and really swings OP's question. First off there isn't even a link to the "report." I mean anyone can BS some "report" on the internet, and I refuse to take a stance before a better source can be found, thanks!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.