10 ms·

And what are the consequences to the environment from doing this? Sounds similar enough to fracking.

foobar1962 7y ago
Not fracking, more like the draining of the terrestrial mineral water resources. Impacts include the failure of natural springs, land subsidence, and huge profits to the companies that get to them first.
- tomglynch 7y ago
  Fair enough - all pretty substantial risks. The issue with new discoveries like these is that precise regulation is unlikely to exist so companies have the potential to act with a focus on profit over sustainability or safety.
  - hn23 7y ago
    As soneone else said: It is 2019. We have learned nothing. Why should a fucking company be allowed to do potential irreparable harm at global scale. Even if these are in US territory - we only have one planet for all of us. Such caverns could collapse. You cannot press saltwater into them like it is done into oil caverns.
- FrozenVoid 7y ago
  Not really, it requires huge investment to drill underwater and associated infrastructure to transport water. Besides it still requires desalination, on which it will compete with on-shore desalination plants and continental aquifers(until they run out, the cheapest option).
- nightwing 7y ago
  > failure of natural springs this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. > land subsidence in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. > huge profits to the companies that get to them first also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Aren't sea levels predicted to rise causing damage and altering coastlines? So seafloor subsidence should be great, let have more of it! (yes, I realize it likely won't be much)
    - chr1 7y ago
      Unfortunately this particular method of creating seafloor subsidence won't help because we'll be moving water from under the sediment layer over it, so the sea level should stay the same. I wonder however if moving water into aquifers of deserts would help.
      - schiffern 7y ago
        Sadly the current economic incentives seem to reward removing water from aquifers. Obviously there's direct pumping, but moreso land use changes that stop groundwater infiltration: losing wetlands and forests to pavement, roofs, poorly-designed agricultural drainage, and even regularly-mowed grass which develops subsoil hardpan. Any would-be groundwater is diverted into flash flood runoff and overloaded storm sewer systems. The ultimate end to this poor land/hydrology management is desertification, where ~zero water is stored on the land and all water immediately drains off in a torrent.
      - mythrwy 7y ago
        "Subsidence" means sinking. In this case, with the fresh water below removed (thus nothing holding it up) the sediment layer between salt and fresh would sink (or subside). At least that's what happens on land. With the weight of the salt water on top, the effect may be even larger. But likely we won't be pumping out enough water to make a measurable difference so it's not a "real" suggestion.
        chr1 7y ago
        After removing the water and using it, the water will come back into ocean so sinking (or subsiding:) of the sediment layer won't change the water level. The same water that was under the sediment layer will simply move above it. So there won't be any effect independently from the amount of pumping.

foobar1962 7y ago

Not fracking, more like the draining of the terrestrial mineral water resources. Impacts include the failure of natural springs, land subsidence, and huge profits to the companies that get to them first.

tomglynch 7y ago
Fair enough - all pretty substantial risks. The issue with new discoveries like these is that precise regulation is unlikely to exist so companies have the potential to act with a focus on profit over sustainability or safety.
- hn23 7y ago
  As soneone else said: It is 2019. We have learned nothing. Why should a fucking company be allowed to do potential irreparable harm at global scale. Even if these are in US territory - we only have one planet for all of us. Such caverns could collapse. You cannot press saltwater into them like it is done into oil caverns.
FrozenVoid 7y ago
Not really, it requires huge investment to drill underwater and associated infrastructure to transport water. Besides it still requires desalination, on which it will compete with on-shore desalination plants and continental aquifers(until they run out, the cheapest option).
nightwing 7y ago
> failure of natural springs this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. > land subsidence in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. > huge profits to the companies that get to them first also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Aren't sea levels predicted to rise causing damage and altering coastlines? So seafloor subsidence should be great, let have more of it! (yes, I realize it likely won't be much)
  - chr1 7y ago
    Unfortunately this particular method of creating seafloor subsidence won't help because we'll be moving water from under the sediment layer over it, so the sea level should stay the same. I wonder however if moving water into aquifers of deserts would help.
    - schiffern 7y ago
      Sadly the current economic incentives seem to reward removing water from aquifers. Obviously there's direct pumping, but moreso land use changes that stop groundwater infiltration: losing wetlands and forests to pavement, roofs, poorly-designed agricultural drainage, and even regularly-mowed grass which develops subsoil hardpan. Any would-be groundwater is diverted into flash flood runoff and overloaded storm sewer systems. The ultimate end to this poor land/hydrology management is desertification, where ~zero water is stored on the land and all water immediately drains off in a torrent.
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      "Subsidence" means sinking. In this case, with the fresh water below removed (thus nothing holding it up) the sediment layer between salt and fresh would sink (or subside). At least that's what happens on land. With the weight of the salt water on top, the effect may be even larger. But likely we won't be pumping out enough water to make a measurable difference so it's not a "real" suggestion.
      - chr1 7y ago
        After removing the water and using it, the water will come back into ocean so sinking (or subsiding:) of the sediment layer won't change the water level. The same water that was under the sediment layer will simply move above it. So there won't be any effect independently from the amount of pumping.