Global Shaking: The seismic cost of fracking

Not shocked by what? That they released the report? Way to bury the lede, Zoombie.

By far the hardest-hit state, the report said, is Oklahoma, where earthquakes are hundreds of times more common than they were until a few years ago because of the disposal of wastewater left over from extracting fuels and from drilling wells by injecting water into the earth. But the report also mapped parts of eight other states, from Lake Erie to the Rocky Mountains, where that practice has caused quakes, and said most of them were at risk for more significant shaking in the future.

“Oklahoma used to experience one or two earthquakes per year of magnitude 3 or greater, and now they’re experiencing one or two a day,” Mark Petersen, the chief author of the report, said. “Oklahoma now has more earthquakes of that magnitude than California.”

Click to expand...

I'm not shocked, either. Lubrication increases slippage; that's basic physics, right?

What's always shocked me is the assumption that you can pump mega-water into the ground and expect it to have no impact.

Pumping waste water into the ground instead of cleaning it up is fundamentally no different than pumping it into the rivers or throwing trash out the window of your car. This is a cost socialization that's going to bite innocent people in the ass bigtime if it's not stopped. It's already done a hell of a lot of nibbling, and the next one could be a big chunk of butt.

How long will the cronies hold onto their legislative buddies and get away with this? Until Oklahoma City's a big pile of rubble?

Many scientific reports, published over decades, have said that pumping fluids into the ground at high pressure can set off earthquakes. But until fairly recently, energy companies and regulators in some energy-producing states insisted that the link was still in doubt.

Click to expand...

Privatising profits and socializing losses. It's what businesses do. The NAM, a big natural gas company in our country, has been pumping up gas in the north since the late forties, earning billions in profits. With increasingly damaging earthquakes as a result, especially since the eighties. The link between pumping gas and earthquakes was scientifically established back in 1993. The NAM remained silent.

Recently, an inquiry by the State has revealed that, according to internal NAM documents, the safety of the citizens was not important at all, let alone damage to property and houses. Claimants had to prove for each individual case, each quake, each house, that the pumping of gas was responsible, leaving the NAM in a position that easily let it dismiss all claims.

Now, finally, after decades of quakes, and over 30.000 claims, the NAM has been forced to prove the quakes aren't a result of their activities. Claims will rise, but the NAM still wants to pump the gas, consequences be damned. Even with the increased amount of claims, they'll still make a huge profit.

Privatising profits and socializing losses. It's what businesses do.

One wonders...when the robots replace us...will they allow corporations to be as reckless with the planet? One thing I am sure of, is that if AI becomes a reality before we destroy the planet, there will still be corporations...

Don said:

What's always shocked me is the assumption that you can pump mega-water into the ground and expect it to have no impact.

Pumping waste water into the ground instead of cleaning it up is fundamentally no different than pumping it into the rivers or throwing trash out the window of your car. This is a cost socialization that's going to bite innocent people in the ass bigtime if it's not stopped. It's already done a hell of a lot of nibbling, and the next one could be a big chunk of butt.

How long will the cronies hold onto their legislative buddies and get away with this? Until Oklahoma City's a big pile of rubble?

Click to expand...

I'd be fascinated to hear how the free market would prevent this, absent government regulation.

Amadan said:

I'd be fascinated to hear how the free market would prevent this, absent government regulation.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Acme's Insurance Company: "No way we're going to insure you against losses that might be caused by pumping massive amounts of polluted water into the ground, spreading across hundreds or thousands of parcels of property. A claim that big could bankrupt our company. You'll need waivers from all the potentially-impacted homeowners."

"Hello, I'm from Acme Oil. We're planning to pump massive amounts of polluted water into the ground, and since it will spread beyond our property boundary, we'd like you to sign this quit-claim contract, indemnifying us from any damage to your property such actions might cause."

"Get lost!"

Court system: "We find for the plaintiffs, and absent the previous government-granted limits of liability, and since you bastards can't go to your crony legislators and jury-rig a massive bailout to pay for your fuck-up, you're bankrupt. All assets to be sold at open auction, to be held on the following date."

Easy-peasy. No regulation required, just a basic legal system protecting persons and property from unlawful taking.

Oh, and how's the current system doing in preventing this problem? It's got a stellar record dealing with this crap, doesn't it?

Don said:

Acme's Insurance Company: "No way we're going to insure you against losses that might be caused by pumping massive amounts of polluted water into the ground, spreading across hundreds or thousands of parcels of property. A claim that big could bankrupt our company. You'll need waivers from all the potentially-impacted homeowners."

"Hello, I'm from Acme Oil. We're planning to pump massive amounts of polluted water into the ground, and since it will spread beyond our property boundary, we'd like you to sign this quit-claim contract, indemnifying us from any damage to your property such actions might cause."

"Get lost!"

Court system: "We find for the plaintiffs, and absent the previous government-granted limits of liability, and since you bastards can't go to your crony legislators and jury-rig a massive bailout to pay for your fuck-up, you're bankrupt. All assets to be sold at open auction, to be held on the following date."

Easy-peasy. No regulation required, just a basic legal system protecting persons and property from unlawful taking.

Click to expand...

Until you get to the part where the government has to enforce that judgment. Or the oil company simply saying "Yes, we pumped polluted water onto your property. What are you going to do about it?"

Oops.

Oh, and how's the current system doing in preventing this problem? It's got a stellar record dealing with this crap, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, the solution to a system that is not completely reliable is to replace it with no system.

Who said no system? I know few people who argue for total anarchy; that's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Free markets do not preclude some form of government; indeed, some form of dispute resolution is essential to any successful society.

Minarchists argue in favor of a government restrained along common law lines, tasked only with enforcing malum en se violations against persons and property and contract resolution. Anarcho-capitalists argue that such services could be better provided by competing agencies than by a monopolistic government system.

But I don't know anyone who argues that no system for conflict resolution is required in a civilized society.

You'll also note that in my original post I didn't say a thing about the free market; I simply pointed out that the existing system was doing a crappy job of handling this due to cronyism.

Free market supporters <> pure anarchists.

We're 2 miles away from the county featured in the "Gasland" documentary--Weld County.

Weld County has had several earthquakes in the last few years. This is flat grassland with no history of earthquakes. If you look on this map, cast your eye in the northeastern part of the state. No earthquakes!

Until a tremendous amount of fracking began in the last 5-6 years.

(Imagine 30 miles of straight country road with farms and large fields flanking your drive. And that there are probably fracking rigs approximately every quarter mile now.)

I was born, raised, and still live in California. Have been through many earthquakes. Sorry so many of you are experiencing them now. Just don't send us your tornadoes, ok?

As long as they don't frack on the New Madrid Fault, America probably won't explode.

c.e.lawson said:

I was born, raised, and still live in California. Have been through many earthquakes. Sorry so many of you are experiencing them now. Just don't send us your tornadoes, ok?

Click to expand...

Aww, come on! Live a little!

In Oklahoma, the legislature has finally reluctantly come to the conclusion that the increase in earthquakes, about 600 times greater than the historical average, is almost certainly being caused by oil and gas fracking operations.

In reaction, they immediately proceeded to pass two legislative bills that prevent any local municipality from banning or regulating drilling operations.

Jon Stewart, as usual, weighs in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cking-even-though-earthquakes-are-increasing/

I have an indirect interest in fracking: my husband is a minerals surveyor, with a lot of experience in mining and coal and gas extraction. I've seen a lot of reports and information about fracking over the last few years.

Don said:

I'm not shocked, either. Lubrication increases slippage; that's basic physics, right?

Click to expand...

Lubrication does: but when you're talking about rocks so far underground they're going to have water spread through them anyway; and the pressure they're under, and the weight of the rocks above and around them, is going to negate much if not all of the lubricant effect.

What's always shocked me is the assumption that you can pump mega-water into the ground and expect it to have no impact.

Click to expand...

Of course it has an impact: it frees shale gasses etc and allows them to be harvested. That's why it's done. However, the side-effects of fracking have been hugely misreported and many of the impacts which have been claimed for it (for example, the issue of flammable gasses splurting from taps in fracked areas) have been exaggerated or misrepresented.

Pumping waste water into the ground instead of cleaning it up is fundamentally no different than pumping it into the rivers or throwing trash out the window of your car.

Click to expand...

I think you misread the linked-to article. Waste water is not used for fracking, and I don't think it's pumped underground either. If it did, it would fill the fissures in the ground in the same ways that rainwater does, and it's unlikely to cause significant problems to the structure of the ground.

Teinz said:

Privatising profits and socializing losses. It's what businesses do. The NAM, a big natural gas company in our country, has been pumping up gas in the north since the late forties, earning billions in profits. With increasingly damaging earthquakes as a result, especially since the eighties. The link between pumping gas and earthquakes was scientifically established back in 1993. The NAM remained silent.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, the magnitude of the earthquakes concerned is so low that they are only detectable by very sensitive monitoring equipment, and most people would be entirely unaware that any quakes had happened; and also, the increase in earthquakes has not been confirmed (at least, not in the reports I've read). There has been an increase in seismic activity: but the increase might well be because it's now being monitored so quakes which were previously undetectable are now being recorded.

***

I'm not convinced that fracking is a good or a bad thing. All I know is that most of the press coverage I've read has misrepresented the true effects and techniques of fracking, and I don't think that helps anyone.

http://absolutewrite.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

c.e.lawson said:

I was born, raised, and still live in California. Have been through many earthquakes. Sorry so many of you are experiencing them now. Just don't send us your tornadoes, ok?

Click to expand...

You mean don't want a high-intensity blow-out without the need for a bar, or tipping the stylist?

Hippie.


(Also, as a current resident of an area without a lot of seismic activity, I can tell you first hand that the tremors are of sufficient magnitude that they can be felt. Not often, but we've had a couple. A few miles up the road, they've had more - basically low intensity rumblers with little to no shaking. We've got a fault line here in Texas, but it's usually stable.)

rugcat said:

In Oklahoma, the legislature has finally reluctantly come to the conclusion that the increase in earthquakes, about 600 times greater than the historical average, is almost certainly being caused by oil and gas fracking operations.

In reaction, they immediately proceeded to pass two legislative bills that prevent any local municipality from banning or regulating drilling operations.

Jon Stewart, as usual, weighs in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cking-even-though-earthquakes-are-increasing/

Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that, according to the USGS study, the large majority of those quakes are happening in northern Oklahoma. This is important because that's where well dewatering is happening, where you remove vast quantities of water from a well to get the very small amount of oil left in it. The production of this water and disposal of it is causing earthquakes, but has nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing at any point in its life cycle.

More info here, including standard industry denial of a problem. His argument is crap, because it's really well established that waste-water injection can cause earthquakes. They've conclusively demonstrated it in studies done in Texas, Colorado, western Canada, and now Oklahoma, and those are just the studies off the top of my head.

The devil is in the details on this, of course.

Figure 3C of the USGS study shows quake frequency over time in the different quake-prone areas. In there, the only areas where you see big post-2008 quake activity (over the modern fracking boom) are:

Arkansas (Guy-Greenbrier) -- I'm pretty sure this was related to waste-water disposal)

Colorado (Paradox) -- The Paradox area had a little shale-gas exploration, but was mostly "tight gas", where they'd drill vertical wells and use pretty small fracture treatments. I'd be willing to bet the quakes had to do with waste-water disposal, but that most of the waste water came from existing conventional-gas production.

Colorado (Greeley) -- the uptick is so small it's worth wondering whether this is related to oil and gas production or not. That being said, it's in the heart of Niobrara Shale country so it could be related to oil and gas activity.

Ohio (Youngstown) -- this has been definitively tied to to wastewater injection.

Oklahoma North and Kansas South -- drainage wells and disposal of wastewater is the likely culprit.

Oklahoma South -- here, it's probably tied to disposal of fracking wastewater.

New Mexico (Dagger Daw) -- given how this started well before shale-oil development started in New Mexico, I'd wager disposal of water from conventional oil wells or maybe CO2 injection as part of enhanced oil recovery.

New Mexico (Raton) -- this has been definitively linked to disposal of water from coalbed methane production.

Texas (all of them) -- probably some related to wastewater injection from hydraulic fracturing.

So, overall, it's complicated with lots of potential causes in the oil and gas industry. And it's why I hate when fracking is blamed for this because, in many areas, it isn't to blame (and the poster-child of this problem, Oklahoma, is largely because of drainage wells and disposal of that water).

Then there are the sizes of quakes. We know that quakes can get large enough to cause damage from waste disposal (a quake of magnitude > 4.5). They're not very common (in fact, they're pretty rare), but they can happen. Quakes directly caused by fracking? They happen, but tend to be pretty small (less than 3.5 on the Richter scale and usually much, much smaller; the largest one I'm aware of was 4 on the Richter scale in Alberta and that caused regulators to go berserk and tell operators if they get one that big again, they were to shut down everything).

Overall, the size of the quake is largely determined by the natural tectonic stress the fault is under, the direction of that tectonic stress, and the amount of wastewater that's injected (more water = bigger quakes). Finally, it must be said that only a small fraction of waste-water wells are problematic. That's not to say there can't be local problems, because there are, but we shouldn't get all panicky like every well is a ticking time bomb.

Sorry for any typos, but I haven't had time to proof read and must head out for dinner.

Looks pretty consensus-y to me.

From the New York Times article linked above:

In 2011, central Oklahoma experienced the most powerful earthquake recorded in the state, a 5.6-magnitude shock that scientists have also called the nation’s biggest human-induced quake. By comparison, the major quake that struck Los Angeles in 1994 measured 6.7, and the one that hit the San Francisco Bay Area in 1989 measured 6.9.

The highly technical report was a step toward predicting the risk from human-caused quakes, which it conceded was extremely hard to do. “Difficulties in assessing seismic hazard arise from a lack of relevant technical information on human industrial activity (that is, pumping data for injection wells),” the report said.

Mr. Petersen noted that wastewater disposal and related earthquakes “fluctuate year by year based on economic and policy decisions, which are very difficult to predict.” In fact, the report shows that in places where wastewater injection stopped, earthquake frequency fell to near zero — notably, in central Arkansas since 2011 and in an area north of Denver in the 1970s.

Predicting risk is also hard, the report noted, because there is no scientific consensus on just how powerful such quakes can be. The report estimated the effects of shocks up to magnitudes 6 and 7, while noting that some scientists have speculated that the catastrophic 7.9-magnitude earthquake in China in 2008 was caused by human activity.

“I’m not necessarily saying that we’re going to have a 7 in Oklahoma,” Mr. Petersen said. “But I don’t think we can rule that out.”

Scientists have also posited that human-caused quakes could lead to additional ones on naturally occurring faults nearby.

Click to expand...

From our friends across the pond -

As the US Geological Survey confirmed on Thursday, in the last seven years, geologically staid parts of the US have seen earthquakes like they haven’t seen for millions of years. And they were triggered by drilling for oil and gas.

The drilling – or rather, the process of injecting water deep underground – has been triggering earthquakes in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

The most obvious question is: what took you so long, USGS? Over those seven years, other scientists have speculated about whether this rise in earthquakes has anything to do with the injection wells used by the fracking industry to dispose of the water used in the process.

For the most part, the report does not pin the blame on fracking itself – pumping large volumes of water, sand and chemicals into rock formations in order to free oil or gas – but rather on the associated process of injecting wastewater deep underground using injection wells.

The rise of fracking after 2005’s Energy Policy Act slightly preceded and coincided with the rise in earthquakes.

Click to expand...

The referenced journal

One more, courtesy of Jon Stewart and Salon.

Prior to 2008, the state of Oklahoma experienced only an average of 1-2 earthquakes each year (with a 3.0+ magnitude). In 2015, it’s not uncommon for the state to receive more than two earthquakes of that size in just one day. Surely, this phenomenon is just the lord using the state as a shake weight, right?

Jon Stewart blasted the fracking deniers of Oklahoma on Thursday night’s “Daily Show,” providing hard-and-fast evidence that the uptick in industrial drilling is to blame for turning the great state into a “giant Brookstone massage chair.”

Click to expand...

Video is embedded on both the salon and washingpost article rugcat linked.


I live in a state that has always had earthquakes, but fracking is having a major impact here, too. The earthquakes are a concern, and so is the risk to our ever dwindling water supply.

I live in the mountains, with lots of inaccessible forest, and spring water that is not accessible to California's state water system. We have clean air and the best water I have ever tasted, except for when I was living in Fiji. I'm so grateful I moved here. The last home I rented, I was living ten minutes away, and the water was connected to the state water system. The water, while a lot better than other places I've lived in the state, wasn't anywhere near as good as it is in my current place. I'm saving money for a home, and won't be looking to buy anywhere else in the county.

The largest natural lake exclusively in California is twenty minutes from where I live. It's called Clear Lake, because apparently it used to be crystal clear. That was long before I was born. Now, when you eat outside by the lake, you hope you're not sitting downwind. Even when we were kids, no one wanted to swim in the lake. We swam in smaller lakes all the time, but who wants to swim in a lake that smells like a butt? That massive lake is toxic (it's been considered hazardous to eat the fish or swim in it for decades), and yet people living in Clear Lake were forced to use the lake water last summer. Did the state halt fracking so as to conserve and protect the water we have left? Of course not.

In case it isn't obvious, I'm against all fracking, everywhere. I believe it is a perfect example of playing with fire, figuratively and literally, lest we forget the flammable water issues fracking has also gifted people with.

Papaya said:

In case it isn't obvious, I'm against all fracking, everywhere. I believe it is a perfect example of playing with fire, figuratively and literally, lest we forget the flammable water issues fracking has also gifted people with.

Click to expand...

Papaya, this is a perfect example of the misinformation I spoke of earlier.

It was reported that people who lived in areas where fracking had happened discovered that gas was splurting out of their cold water taps, and that if they held a match to that gas, it would burn. You can find footage of this online. But it's a huge red herring.

The people whose taps produced flammable gas after fracking depended on bore-holes for their water supply.

In every case which has been appropriately investigated, those bore-holes were poorly constructed and had fissures in them, and that these fissures were allowing flammable gasses into the water supply; and those fissures existed before fracking began.

The householders held matches to their taps after fracking and found those flammable gasses: but if they'd held matches to their taps before fracking they'd have found those flammable gasses too. It was not caused by fracking.

However, the anti-fracking contingent continues to promote this myth. I assume because it does make good copy, and the video clips which are available are really interesting. But still. It's not caused by fracking. Much as many of the other alleged problems are not either.

Great post Old Hack! Thanks for exposing some of the reactionary ignorance surrounding the fracking industry.

jimmymc said:

Great post Old Hack! Thanks for exposing some of the reactionary ignorance surrounding the fracking industry.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but earthquakes aren't wonderful side-effects either. And them well documented. Frankly, the flammable tap water thing was introduced into a thread about fracking caused earthquake as a strawman argument to begin with.

CrastersBabies said:

We're 2 miles away from the county featured in the "Gasland" documentary--Weld County.

Weld County has had several earthquakes in the last few years. This is flat grassland with no history of earthquakes. If you look on this map, cast your eye in the northeastern part of the state. No earthquakes!

Until a tremendous amount of fracking began in the last 5-6 years.

(Imagine 30 miles of straight country road with farms and large fields flanking your drive. And that there are probably fracking rigs approximately every quarter mile now.)

Click to expand...

I live in Weld. Was surprised to receive an earthquake a few months ago.

jimmymc said:

Great post Old Hack! Thanks for exposing some of the reactionary ignorance surrounding the fracking industry.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe what I've heard as "reactionary ignorance surrounding the fracking industry": I'd describe it mostly as stuff put forward in good faith, by people who erroneously assume they've been told the truth.

Diana Hignutt said:

Yeah, but earthquakes aren't wonderful side-effects either. And them well documented. Frankly, the flammable tap water thing was introduced into a thread about fracking caused earthquake as a strawman argument to begin with.

Click to expand...

Much of the increased seismic activity which results from fracking is of such low intensity that it's not going to be noticed by anyone, let alone cause damage.

It's similar to a car driving down a street outside your house. A little bit of vibration is caused but it does no harm, because the material which is caused to vibrate can easily withstand it.

The trouble is, people see reports of increased seismic activity and assume this means earthquakes. When it really doesn't.

From what I've read, the quakes which have happened as a result of fracking have been so small that they won't have any effect. I can't recall having read any disclaimers about "except in exceptional circumstances". I'll take another look at the literature and if I find anything, I'll report back.