USGS Suggests Connection Between Seismic Activity and Fracking

First time accepted submitter samazon writes "According to a recently proposed abstract by the United States Geological Survey, hydraulic fracturing, or more specifically the disposal of fracking wastewater, may be directly correlated to the increase in seismic activity in the midwest. Results of the paper will be presented on April 18th, but the language of the abstract seems to imply that there is a connection. After years of controversy regarding hydrofracking including ground water contamination and disclosure of chemical solutions, the results of the study, if conclusive, could influence the cost of natural gas due to increased regulations on wastewater disposal." The actual language of the abstract leaves a fair amount of wiggle room: "While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production."

Comments

Oh Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason for some people to reinforce their belief that science is anti-business and that scientists should be dismissed, if not stopped.

Re:Oh Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Until there is 100% conclusive evidence that can be reproduced"

We should stop burning oil just in case carbon emissions really are causing global warming

"Until there is 100% conclusive evidence that can be reproduced"

That there was a big bang we should switch of the LHC

"Until there is 100% conclusive evidence that can be reproduced"

That the earth is round we should stop sailing ships towards the horizon

"Until there is 100% conclusive evidence that can be reproduced"

That humans can survive in space we should stay here on this rock

Humans have believed a great many things that have turned out to be complete bunk. In the early days of the railways people were convinced that people would suffocate above 20 mph. Cars were deemed so dangerous that a man with a flag had to walk in front of them, because there was no " 100% conclusive evidence" that their suggestions could be proved on way or another

You on the other hand have provided /. with "100% conclusive evidence" that you're not nearly as clever as you'd like to think you are

Re:Oh Great.

[Ihmhi]

I would say the great thing about science is that the repeatability of an experiment is the best fact-checker in the world.

In your scenario, one of three things would happen:

1) The experiment is repeated. Turns out that maybe fracking isn't all that harmful. It's not 100% sure but it adds more weight to the argument that fracking is safe.

2) The experiment is repeated. The results come out quite differently via multiple independent re-tests. Dismissed as a load of bullshit.

3) No experiment protocols are published. Dismissed as a load of bullshit due to inability to verify the experiment.

Re:Oh Great.

[TubeSteak]

The political right, instead of doing what they are supposed to do (countering the lefts heavy handed statist approach with a different political solution to the problem by using the market) are pretending the problem doesn't exist,

Without regulation and oversight, the free market will externalize as much of its costs as possible.

Re:Oh Great.

[mikael]

Simple experiment to conduct. Select ten, twenty or more sites that would be suitable for fracking. Set up seismographic equipment to locate the origin of earthquakes in all cases. Choose half the sites for fracking. Leave the other half as a control. Now you can gather results. This will give you a 2x2 table of fracking/no-fracking vs. earthquakes/no earthquakes. It could be extended to amount of fracking vs. strength of earthquake.

Re:Oh Great.

[professionalfurryele]

I agree, I'm on the political left. There is however a distinction between someone on the right who, due to different values to me, wants to try to fix only some of the problem with as little intervention as possible, and someone on the right who pretends nature is not as it is. You and I tolerate a little intervention by the state to prevent excessive externalisation, a person on the right tolerates a little externalisation to prevent intervention by the state. We have different values and that is what politics is about.
The issue I have with the anti-science perspective of the right is that they are pretending the universe doesn't work the way it does because they want their fantasy land ideas to be true. I have no problem attacking the political right over this because the attitude is now so pervasive it is representative, but at the same time I'm not going to suggest that being on the right of the political spectrum automatically invalidates someone's opinion.

Strong Correlation...

[gstrickler]

... but can't yet prove causation. Still, the correlation is significant enough to justify significant caution in the continued use of fracking, and to merit further study on causation. As others have noted, this has the potential to be useful geoengineering, but like many discoveries, it has the potential to be very dangerous. A healthy dose of caution is warranted.

Re:Wiggle room indeed

[cusco]

IIRC, two thirds of those quakes were within a half mile of drilling sites. Seems significant to me, anyway.

Re:They recently lost their court case

[Omestes]

How exactly is a relatively small amount of water being pumped into the ground supposed to destabilize TECTONIC PLATES...

Except no one has ever claimed that it will destabilize plates, since earthquakes can occur for thousands of other reasons that don't directly involve plates. There are still earth quakes in the central continent caused by the lack of glacial pressure, there are earth quakes caused by hot spots, there are earth quakes caused by compression pressures, there are... you get the point. There are areas of the continent completely peppered with faults, far from the nearest plate boundary, this includes vast swaths of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, this is due to compression and expansion, this causes the "basin and range" effect that defines their geography. There are huge amounts of faults in the middle of the old continental core caused by glaciation, and the easing of pressure. Areas are dying lakes generally have tons of faults, for the same reasons. If you Googled a fault map of the US, you'd noticed that we're pretty much completely covered in them, everywhere.

Fracking in increasing the local pressure, which can jar, or lubricate existent faults. This can lead to localized disturbances.

Re:Translation?

[NeutronCowboy]

As opposed to what - the problem is solved, so let's decrease funding? The science is settled, so let's not study this anymore?

I swear, some people sound like they think everything should be funded via unicorn farts and rainbows. Yes, research costs money. Pay up, or end up in the dark ages. Of course, if that does happen, you'll find someone or something else to blame but your own shortsighted smugness that automatically equates every human endeavor with your own base motivation: more money.

Insightful my ass.

Re:Translation?

[MiG82au]

Are you retarded? You're clever enough to realise "it's fucking obvious" but not enough to realise that "it's fucking obvious" is only the first step of the scientific method, and has been wrong many, many times (do you need examples of "common knowledge" and "common sense" that have been wrong?).

You reckon enough has been studied, but in terms of outcomes there's a big difference between reservoir depletion causing earthquakes, and fracking causing earthquakes. One is a complete cessation of extraction, and the other is a change of method.

Re:Can it prevent large earthquakes?

[rahvin112]

Don't be silly. Fracture the crust? Are you insane? We can't drill that deep. The Crust is 50 MILES thick. We've NEVER directly sampled the mantle because it's not possible to drill that deep with current technology. We can't even drill 1/4 of the crust thickness. Maximum drilling depth is on the order of 5 miles or 1/10 the approximate crust thickness.

These are minor quakes, they are settlement and movement of sediment layers, not fault shifts. They happen anytime you drill at depth and push or pull material from the drill hole. They aren't anything to worry about, they've been happening for as long as we've been drilling (more than 100 years). I swear you east coasters feel a little shake and freak out.

Re:Can it prevent large earthquakes?

[mikael]

Actually, scientists have been able to drill down to the mantle or at least magma chambers where the crust is thinnest.

  http://www.livescience.com/6959-hole-drilled-bottom-earth-crust-breakthrough-mantle-looms.html