Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (832923)	1/27/2015 9:00:41 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1578930

There isn't enough energy to do much. Yes, you might get some very small quakes that take really sensitive instrument to detect, but those large shakers over square miles, no. I suppose it is possible that if the liquid got injected into a fault somehow that could lubricate things enough to relieve some of the stress on the fault. But I don't know if this has ever happened. Not sure if it is a bad thing, either. How can relieving the stress on a fault be a bad thing? It is only going to happen sooner or later and the sooner the better. Because the stress is only going to increase. Fracking doesn't so much move stuff as it causes the rock to break up. The fracking fluid does contain sand which sort of props the cracks open, so there is some movement, but it is pretty small. Now injection wells are different. Fracking itself takes very little fluid, comparatively. Injection wells are often used to get dispose of fracking fluid after a well is tracked. And a single injection well is used to dispose of the effluent of more than one cracked well. So the volume is much higher. And high volume injection wells have been implicated in quake swarms before. So they are a different story.