|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fracking and Quaking | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I've been following this story for a while; I think it's time I got some input from the experts!
quote: Is there really a connection between fracking and earthquakes? If so, what is it about Oklahoma's geology that makes the connection possible. As far as I am aware, other areas in the U.S. where the practice of fracking has grown have not seen increases in earthquake frequency. Are environmentalists just putting up a fuss, or is there reason for real concern? Edited by Jon, : Remove msg. to adminsLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
One thing that I've been trying to figure out with this is why this is confined to Oklahoma. Fracking goes on in many parts of the U.S., but I am not aware of any earthquakes that have been caused.
Is this related to the geological character of Oklahoma? Is the disposal method for waste water unique to the fracking methods used in Oklahoma? People who try to argue that the earthquakes aren't caused by fracking, I think, typically point to the fact that there aren't earthquakes anywhere else where fracking occurs. Figuring out why Oklahoma seems unique in suffering earthquakes while other frackers remain immune seems a good avenue for research.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Well that sounds extreme.
I like my lights. And getting to work. And eating. And... There is a solution for transitioning from FF to other forms of energy that doesn't involve major disturbances to our way of life and still helps save the planet. But I won't go into this here, since this topic is about fracking.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
A quick google on the subject turns up lots of articles discussing a relationship between fracking and increased small earthquakes. I am not going to suggest that all of the articles are valid science, but I am curious about your claim not to have seen any increases in frequency. Have you decided that those claims are bogus or does "as far as I am aware" mean 'with an ostrich eye view I see nothing'. I guess I read an article from a North Dakota newspaper discussing the Oklahoma quakes and their absence in North Dakota, where fracking also occurs. I don't live in any fracking areas, so I don't have personal experience. I also recall a map that shows very little earthquake activity in the U.S. outside the usual zones (California, for example), except that in Oklahoma the frequency of earthquakes, and their magnitude, has increased rapidly since the introduction of heavy fracking in the state. Here is a map of U.S. seismic activity, first image from a Google search:
This increase has not been seen in other states leading me to conclude there is something different about the way fracking occurs in Oklahoma, there is something different about Oklahoma geology, or fracking is not at all to blame for the increase in earthquakes. Or, perhaps there is way more fracking taking place in Oklahoma than I am aware of and so comparisons aren't necessarily valid. A lot of articles tend to repeat one another and there usually isn't much in the way of real scientific discussion in them. I figured EvC is a better place to explore the issue in more depth than to hopelessly hunt for news clippings. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As I just posted upthread, according to what I read today, the problem in Oklahoma is not with fracking, but with fluid injection of wastewater - of which more comes from traditional drilling than fracking. The oil still accessible in Oklahoma comes up mixed with about ten parts water for about one part oil. We now have technology to extract the oil economically, making Oklahoma's oilfields a going concern again where they hadn't been since the '90s, but all the waste water needs to be disposed of, which is done by pumping it back in to the earth. This, according to the USGS, is the cause of Oklahoma's earthquake boom. So the method is somewhat different, at least in as much as it might concern the amount of wastewater involved? Is there a reason the waste has to be shot back into the ground? It would seem that if there were any concerns, the easiest solution would be to just toss the junk somewhere else. IS there nowhere else for it to go?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The map you provided does not show increases in activity. It just shows total earthquake activity from 2008-2012. Is the indicated activity for say Ohio or Texas normal or is it fracking enhanced? Is the activity shown for Wyoming normal? Your map gives no fracking basis for reaching a conclusion. I was mostly focusing on the difference between Oklahoma and North Dakota (as the subtitle suggested).
Note that the government is saying what others have said: that the primary culprit is oil and gas production. Fracking has some effect but tends to be associated with smaller seismic activity. Yes; I'm pretty sure that all the fiddling underground is to blame. But the issue I'm trying to understand is why some areas see so much more fracking-induced seismic activity than other areas equally as involved in fracking. I think this is a legitimate question. Answering it also closes up a line of defense for those who believe fracking isn't to blame for Oklahoma's increase in earthquakes.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
According to this site, the injection of wastewater is "similar" in North Dakota, which has not been hit by anything approaching Oklahoma's level of quake activity. (A few seismic events have been reported, at least one in the middle of the Bakken region, but the situation is nothing like in Oklahoma.)
quote: There is obviously something different about what's going on in ND and OK. Is it related to the amount of waste water disposed? The geology of North Dakota vs. Oklahoma? I'm not expecting anyone here to have all these answers, but I figured that making some of my questions public might help get them some answers. I've done plenty of googling, but there just isn't a lot of science out there on why North Dakota has been relatively stable while Oklahoma shakes like a leaf.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As has been discussed, fracking also involves waste water but in smaller amounts. The article you linked to is about fracking and indicates a tenuous or no link between earthquakes and fracking. The article discusses earthquakes of magnitudes of less than 3 being associated with fracking. Or maybe not associated if the article is to be believed. ... So it is no help with showing an anomaly with things not happening in North Dakota if the oil production there is primarily fracking. The part I quoted was specifically about wastewater. The claim was that wastewater injection in Oklahoma and North Dakota are similar. Yet North Dakota doesn't see the earthquakes Oklahoma sees. What's different about the operations in ND?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So where are you getting this information from that the injection of wastewater in ND is different than in OK?
A few possibilities have been put forward already, including a different geology, and a difference regarding wastewater injection. Of course conjectures are helpful, but I was hoping to find a sure answer backed by verified evidence.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
It seems to me that the issue is that the amount of such water slurry material has increased dramatically with the newer fracking wells... That might have something to do with it. Earthquakes are starting to be reported in small numbers in North Dakota where, perhaps, they are switching to using some of the techniques in use in Oklahoma.
plus they are doing it closer to places where people live, again making it more noticeable. I think any relevant earthquakes would make it into the literature as I believe geologists pretty much have the whole country monitored for any seismic activity simply as a matter of data collection.
Is it a problem in itself? probably not. Is it something to be ignored? probably not. It does have the tendency to knock peoples' houses down . As you mention, too, there is the possibility of contamination. It's made even worse by the fact that the equipment isn't constructed to withstand earthquakes, making it possible for the piping to break underground if the earth moves too much.Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024