Fracking and Quaking

I've been following this story for a while; I think it's time I got some input from the experts!

quote:

---

"Energy's New Risk: Quake Lawsuits" from The Wall Street Journal:

​

Oklahoma, with a history of mild-to-moderate seismic activity, experienced 585 earthquakes of 3.0 or greater magnitude last yearbig enough to be felt indoorsaccording to the Oklahoma Geological Survey. That's more than the state had in the previous 30 years combined and the most of any state in the contiguous U.S.
...

​

Most of the focus isn't on hydraulic fracturing, which involves shooting a slurry of water, sand and chemicals into wells to let oil and gas flow outand which helped touch off the recent U.S. energy boom.

​

Instead, researchers say the most serious seismic risk comes from a separate process: disposal of toxic fluids left over from fracking and drilling by putting it in wells deep underground. Geologists concluded decades ago that injecting fluid into a geological fault can lubricate giant slabs of rock, causing them to slip. Scientists say disposal wells are sometimes bored into unmapped faults. The practice isn't new, but has proliferated with the U.S. drilling boom.
...

​

Days later, the journal Geology published research concluding a sequence of quakes including the 5.6-magnitude shock was related to two disposal wells nearby. Last March, a Journal of Geology Research study found injecting wastewater triggered a 5.0-magnitude temblor that set off the larger quake.

---

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 admins

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.

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.

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.

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?

I was mostly focusing on the difference between Oklahoma and North Dakota (as the subtitle suggested). 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.

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:

---

"Link Between Fracking and Earthquakes Remains Tenuous, Say Experts" from The New American:

​

He added that there are similar wastewater disposal wells in North Dakota without any reported increase in earthquake activity there.

---

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.

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?

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.

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. 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. 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.