CONVERSATE:

“What do you think about all this fracking?”

“Yes, I do like the sound of the ducks on the pond. All that quacking.”

“Not ‘quacking.’ ‘Fracking.’”

“Oh, that. A real problem. I read about it all the time in the papers. It’s all over the news. Nothing’s sacred anymore. Thieves can hack into anything.”

“Not ‘hacking.’ See my lips. ‘Fracking.’”

“I can see the breeze. Yes, it is a very good day for sailing. The marina’s not far. Tacking into the wind, with the wind in our hair. There’s nothing quite like it. You have a good idea.”

“You need a audiologist.”

“What did you say?”

“Oh, brother.”

“Quite right. That’s what I tell my wife all the time. ‘Don’t bother.’ My hearing’s just fine.”

“Oh, brother.”

“We agree. This has been a good conversation.”

 

POSTSHAKE:

You can’t see an earthquake, but you can feel its effects.

In Oklahoma, before 2008, on average, there were fewer than five (5) recorded earthquakes above magnitude 3.0 per year. That’s it . . . per year . . . 5 . . . about that . . . no more. In 2008, there were only two (2). Last year, 2014, there were 584 earth shakes measuring at least 3.0. That is a big crash-bang-jump in frequency and feelocity.

To re-quake, in the twelve months of 2014, folks in Oklahoma felt the earth move under their feet almost three hundred times more than in 2008. That is not exactly what Carole King was thinking and singing in 1971 with her mainstream hit, but perhaps some parallels can be drawn. Carole’s lyrics jump and pop with her longing remembering of feeling “the earth – move – under my feet” and “my heart start to trem-b-ling.” As yet, in Oklahoma there is not Carole’s other line: “the sky tum-b-ling down – tum-b-ling down.” There, at least, is a certain comfort. Still, there is the feeling of the earth moving more, and more hearts are trembling. The shakes do seem to be growing in frequency and intensity. Perhaps it is time to look up and ask the question: What is this all about?

Quacks? They are in the air and on the pond, but seldom found underground. I think this is an effect we can duck.

Hacks? I suppose this could be. They do find their way into everything, and they are very disruptive, but they usually loot hard data not unlock hard rock.

Tacks? Even in permeable rock with the Beach Boys on deck, it would be hard to navigate the Sloop John B through the subsurface. If there is a slosh down there, it is not one to float a boat.

One of our list does remain.

To frack or not to frack is a long debate.

Fracking introduces fluids under pressure into the subsurface to crack the rock formation, which opens the way in one direction for otherwise unrecoverable oil and gas molecules to flow out and up to reach the surface and be utilized in our cars, homes and businesses; and fracking can also provide the openings in the reverse direction for the used fluids to be introduced back into the subsurface and managed out of sight and harm to the surface environment.

Fracking is an innovative, original, dynamic, cost effective, job producing and energy enhancing technology.

And, it raises questions.

What are its effects and where?

And, on balance do the benefits outweigh the costs?

To frack or not to frack is the question.

And, questions are always good.

It’s those pesky answers.

They’re difficult.

 

Quack? Hack? Tack? Frack?

That is the question.

What is your

Answer?

 

Grandpa Jim