4 ms·

RICO investigation 10 years from now when we'll found out that the execs knew they were causing earthquakes, but continued to deceive the public?

by mtgx 9y ago

brian-armstrong 9y ago
RICO has very specific conditions to be invoked, so no. And to the wider question about liability - maybe? It seems more likely that it will be followed by civil suits where the standard of proving guilt is lower, and where each plaintiff can make their own case.
munk-a 9y ago
I strongly doubt there will be any investigation or any consequences, there's too much money involved.
- bloaf 9y ago
  I must have missed it, was there some multi-billions-in-damage quake caused by reinjection? I suspect the lack of consequences will simply be due to the fact that they haven't caused enough damage for it to be worthwhile. The reality is that quakes are treated by the anti-drilling lobby as a proof of "me am play gods"[1]. A sign from above/below that we're angered mother earth. I think the more sober minded should realize that the important numbers when talking about "consequences" is not how angry mother earth is, but the quakes' cost in terms of damage and human lives. http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/ http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    Well to be fair if you drill for a little while in an area and start experiencing earthquakes then one might naturally wonder whether more drilling will lead to even more problems. The roads in most of the fracking areas are terrible and its often hard to pinpoint whether damage was caused by heavy fracking trucks simply driving on these small roads frequently versus seismic activity versus something else. That doesn’t mean there isn’t damage, it’s just difficult to account for and externalized. More significantly, there are major changes inside the earth that occur. If you pump a bunch of poisonous fracking fluids into the ground and then drill out a bunch of shale, you’ve replaced a solid layer of shale with fracking fluids and air. Naturally things can mix more since there isn’t a tough layer of shale. The shale is normally pretty close to the aquifer layer which means you now have seismic activity mixing your fracking fluids and shale remnants with your drinking water. Just because the layman may not immediately see the consequences, doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And in most of the big fracking areas there are enough houses without drinkable water that people know something bad is happening even if they can’t pinpoint the exact mechanism. If you drive around those areas, you’ll notice many houses with what are known as water buffalo tanks outside to provide their house with drinkable water. Typically the gas company pays for these because the families in the area have threatened lawsuits or other action after their houses lost drinkable water.
jjeaff 9y ago
And what exactly will the damage claim amount to? I'm yet to find any evidence in reporting regarding any actual damage beyond some small cracks and broken plates.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  In areas with heavy fracking (e.g. northern Pennsylvania around Dimock) there are trucks from companies like GeoKinetics and Halliburton everywhere and they are purposely trying to create mini earthquakes to get access to the shale. It is pretty common knowledge that there have been more tremors and seismic activity since fracking started. As far as damage reports go, the gas companies (and I assume also the oil companies) ensure every settlement includes a nondisclosure agreement so that no one can talk about the damage if they want money. This is why so many homes no longer have safe drinking water, many people have fallen ill from cancers and similar ailments, and yet there is almost no reporting on it. Source: I ran a site for a while where people posted images and stories of how natural gas drilling had ruined their lives or caused environmental harm. We would try to get as much info from people as we could before they signed the NDAs for the settlement money and never talked about it again
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    Ah looks like the lobbyists came to share some downvotes for information they didn’t like (or maybe a normal user from oil country?) I can’t imagine why someone would downvote factual information that adds to the discussion. The downvote option wasn’t added so people could hide comments they disagree with. I’ve personally met dozens of people who’ve signed NDAs with natural gas companies but live in denial if you insist.
    - pickledpeppers 9y ago
      Original downvotes possibly because your source is your interpretation of information collected from laypeople who were about to take money for silence. That's not strong evidence. Further downvotes likely because your tone is defensive and you throw around wild accusations. In other words, you presented weak evidence then violated community norms in responding. However, I would love to check out your site, to see if there's useful information regarding this thread on it. Can you share a URL?
jayess 9y ago
What are the damages?
- mrgordon 9y ago
  It can vary. When earthquakes happen due to the drilling and reinjection, it can obviously displace the ground which could destroy the roads or buildings located there. Below the surface, the earthquakes and changes in pressure from adding and removing fluids/gas from the ground often cause the aquifer water to mix with the fracking fluids or shale gas causing it to be unusable.

RICO investigation 10 years from now when we'll found out that the execs knew they were causing earthquakes, but continued to deceive the public?

by mtgx 9y ago

RICO investigation 10 years from now when we'll found out that the execs knew they were causing earthquakes, but continued to deceive the public?

brian-armstrong 9y ago

RICO has very specific conditions to be invoked, so no. And to the wider question about liability - maybe? It seems more likely that it will be followed by civil suits where the standard of proving guilt is lower, and where each plaintiff can make their own case.

munk-a 9y ago

I strongly doubt there will be any investigation or any consequences, there's too much money involved.

bloaf 9y ago
I must have missed it, was there some multi-billions-in-damage quake caused by reinjection? I suspect the lack of consequences will simply be due to the fact that they haven't caused enough damage for it to be worthwhile. The reality is that quakes are treated by the anti-drilling lobby as a proof of "me am play gods"[1]. A sign from above/below that we're angered mother earth. I think the more sober minded should realize that the important numbers when talking about "consequences" is not how angry mother earth is, but the quakes' cost in terms of damage and human lives. http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/ http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
- mrgordon 9y ago
  Well to be fair if you drill for a little while in an area and start experiencing earthquakes then one might naturally wonder whether more drilling will lead to even more problems. The roads in most of the fracking areas are terrible and its often hard to pinpoint whether damage was caused by heavy fracking trucks simply driving on these small roads frequently versus seismic activity versus something else. That doesn’t mean there isn’t damage, it’s just difficult to account for and externalized. More significantly, there are major changes inside the earth that occur. If you pump a bunch of poisonous fracking fluids into the ground and then drill out a bunch of shale, you’ve replaced a solid layer of shale with fracking fluids and air. Naturally things can mix more since there isn’t a tough layer of shale. The shale is normally pretty close to the aquifer layer which means you now have seismic activity mixing your fracking fluids and shale remnants with your drinking water. Just because the layman may not immediately see the consequences, doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And in most of the big fracking areas there are enough houses without drinkable water that people know something bad is happening even if they can’t pinpoint the exact mechanism. If you drive around those areas, you’ll notice many houses with what are known as water buffalo tanks outside to provide their house with drinkable water. Typically the gas company pays for these because the families in the area have threatened lawsuits or other action after their houses lost drinkable water.

jjeaff 9y ago

And what exactly will the damage claim amount to? I'm yet to find any evidence in reporting regarding any actual damage beyond some small cracks and broken plates.

mrgordon 9y ago
In areas with heavy fracking (e.g. northern Pennsylvania around Dimock) there are trucks from companies like GeoKinetics and Halliburton everywhere and they are purposely trying to create mini earthquakes to get access to the shale. It is pretty common knowledge that there have been more tremors and seismic activity since fracking started. As far as damage reports go, the gas companies (and I assume also the oil companies) ensure every settlement includes a nondisclosure agreement so that no one can talk about the damage if they want money. This is why so many homes no longer have safe drinking water, many people have fallen ill from cancers and similar ailments, and yet there is almost no reporting on it. Source: I ran a site for a while where people posted images and stories of how natural gas drilling had ruined their lives or caused environmental harm. We would try to get as much info from people as we could before they signed the NDAs for the settlement money and never talked about it again
- mrgordon 9y ago
  Ah looks like the lobbyists came to share some downvotes for information they didn’t like (or maybe a normal user from oil country?) I can’t imagine why someone would downvote factual information that adds to the discussion. The downvote option wasn’t added so people could hide comments they disagree with. I’ve personally met dozens of people who’ve signed NDAs with natural gas companies but live in denial if you insist.
  - pickledpeppers 9y ago
    Original downvotes possibly because your source is your interpretation of information collected from laypeople who were about to take money for silence. That's not strong evidence. Further downvotes likely because your tone is defensive and you throw around wild accusations. In other words, you presented weak evidence then violated community norms in responding. However, I would love to check out your site, to see if there's useful information regarding this thread on it. Can you share a URL?

jayess 9y ago

What are the damages?

mrgordon 9y ago
It can vary. When earthquakes happen due to the drilling and reinjection, it can obviously displace the ground which could destroy the roads or buildings located there. Below the surface, the earthquakes and changes in pressure from adding and removing fluids/gas from the ground often cause the aquifer water to mix with the fracking fluids or shale gas causing it to be unusable.