Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fracking and Quaking
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (755389)
04-08-2015 12:46 AM


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

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by caffeine, posted 04-08-2015 1:24 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2015 2:36 PM Jon has replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 04-08-2015 10:19 PM Jon has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 37 (755400)
04-08-2015 4:55 AM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 3 of 37 (755422)
04-08-2015 11:12 AM


I am not a geologist and I don't even play one on TV, but this has been my take on this from the start:
(For the sake of the following point, we're assuming that there is a connection between fracking and earthquakes - a point I'm not convinced has been proven, but of course it's possible.)
Earthquakes are simply stress relief in the crust. This crust is moving and stress is going to build and then be released. The stress itself is not man made. Anything man can do to lubricate the crust and make it build up less stress would be a good thing, not a bad thing. If fracking causes quakes to be small and numerous rather than large and devastating, that would be a good thing.
Lubrication can't make an earthquake bigger -- only smaller.
But what do I know?
JB

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 4 of 37 (755436)
04-08-2015 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-08-2015 12:46 AM


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?
By odd coincidence, I just read an article about this today. The concern in Oklahoma is not with fracking - it says that in what you posted. The concern is with pumping left over wastewater back into the ground, and in Oklahoma this is produced mostly by normal drilling, not by fracking. The drills pull up about ten times as much water as oil in Oklahoma at the moment, the majority of which is pumped back into the ground.
The people kicking up a fuss include the US Geological Survey, so I don't think it's just whiny environmentalists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 12:46 AM Jon has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 5 of 37 (755451)
04-08-2015 2:27 PM


All Fossil Fuel Industry must immediately HALT!!!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 2:38 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 37 (755452)
04-08-2015 2:35 PM


Why Just Oklahoma?
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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 04-08-2015 10:56 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (755453)
04-08-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-08-2015 12:46 AM


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.
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 know my question seems fairly dismissive, but shouldn't this be something you would check before posting?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 12:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 2:49 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 37 (755454)
04-08-2015 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by xongsmith
04-08-2015 2:27 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by xongsmith, posted 04-08-2015 2:27 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 37 (755457)
04-08-2015 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
04-08-2015 2:36 PM


ND vs OK
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2015 2:36 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 04-08-2015 2:59 PM Jon has replied
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2015 4:41 PM Jon has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 10 of 37 (755458)
04-08-2015 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
04-08-2015 2:49 PM


Re: ND vs OK
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 2:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 3:16 PM caffeine has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 37 (755461)
04-08-2015 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by caffeine
04-08-2015 2:59 PM


Re: ND vs OK
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 04-08-2015 2:59 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by caffeine, posted 04-08-2015 3:38 PM Jon has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 12 of 37 (755464)
04-08-2015 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jon
04-08-2015 3:16 PM


Re: ND vs OK
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?
It can't be dumped in the water supply, as it's a long way from being clean. The idea of dumping it deep underground is to avoid it contaminating fresh water supplies. Purification technologies are exist, but they are expensive, and completely uneconomical without the amount of water we're talking about.
Please bear in mind that my 'expertise' on this matter is based on one afternoon's reading, so that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 3:16 PM Jon has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (755470)
04-08-2015 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
04-08-2015 2:49 PM


Re: ND vs OK
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.
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 figured EvC is a better place to explore the issue in more depth than to hopelessly hunt for news clippings.
A cursory search will turn up reports of fracking related earthquakes in Ohio, Texas, and Oklahoma. I suppose that since this is a discussion group, you might just as well ask as to do the slightest bit of homework on your own.
At any rate, here is a relevant gubmit comment on the issue
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/
quote:
A team of USGS scientists led by Bill Ellsworth analyzed changes in the rate of earthquake occurrence using large USGS databases of earthquakes recorded since 1970. The increase in seismicity has been found to coincide with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells in several locations, including Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Ohio. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed and approved for this purpose.
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, does not appear to be linked to the increased rate of magnitude 3 and larger earthquakes.
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.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 2:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 5:23 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 37 (755478)
04-08-2015 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
04-08-2015 4:41 PM


Re: ND vs OK
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2015 4:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 04-08-2015 5:33 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 37 (755479)
04-08-2015 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
04-08-2015 5:23 PM


Re: ND vs OK
Maybe it is a reading comprehension issue. It has been stated a number of times on this thread that it is not a fracking issue. In ND there is a lot of fracking. In OK there is a lot of oil being pumped with out fracking. The production of oil also produces a lot of waste water from the wells. This water is then pumped back deep into the earth.
The inability of people to do basic research before they post astounds me.
LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 04-08-2015 5:23 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024