Slashdot Mirror


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."

14 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Oh Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Oh Great. by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Putting aside the possible implication that you think science should censor politically unsavory findings and renege on its mission, this won't be like other warnings from scientists. Climate is a big impersonal force that's hard to grasp. It unfolds slowly and is hard to really "experience" first hand. A tripling of the number of earthquakes in the midwest is, shall we say, slightly more visceral.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:Oh Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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

    3. Re:Oh Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wasn't attempting to imply that anyone should be censored, much less good science. I build equipment for scientists in the life sciences industry - I fall in the "ignoramuses be damned, let the science proceed" camp.

      In our current political divide in the US, it seems that some people are becoming more automatic in their dismissal of evidence if it contradicts their beliefs. There was a survey I read about (I'm too lazy to look it up) which said that amongst those people who did not agree with AGW, a large percentage said they were not interested in new facts. Reading that... it's hard not to despair a bit.

      I know it won't be long before someone hoists this study up complaining about scientists wanting to take away jobs. And I die a little everything that kind of BS happens.

      Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

    4. Re:Oh Great. by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh Great. by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sorry but that is just a big crock of shit. It isn't scientists fault that the right of the political spectrum is too stupid and blinkered to ask the right questions or adjust their views enough to accommodate reality.

      A scientists job in this context is to present the facts they have gathered and the conclusions they have drawn in a politically neutral manner. Why do you think they all sound like Vulcans on CSPAN.

      If the political right wants scientists to say that the breaking of a continent in two due to fracking is incredibly unlikely I'm certain (since that statement is bloody obviously true) that you can find a reputable geophysicist willing to say that. Most scientists are happy to provide their advice (free of charge), to public institutions. The reason the political right wont do that is because the next question they are going to be asked by the gentleman with the blue tie is "how much does this increase the chances of a 7.0+ earthquake near a population centre".

      Why didn't the right invite a scientists to testify about the Nebraska pipeline? It is within their power to request it, so why not? The media doesn't give a crap what scientists say so if the political right wants to champion a science led perspective on policy they're are going to have to use their media pull to promote it.

      The reason, in this context, that the political right has not provided the soap box scientists need to counter these claims is because they know that once it is all tied down the moral implications of this kind of work is that either certain extraction techniques should be prohibited or (and here is where I fall on the issue) they need to be taxed higher to offset the additional costs incurred in terms of insurance, first responder preparations, etc. 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,

    6. Re:Oh Great. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. The ancient Greeks suspected that by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They attributed quakes to Zeus and Hera fracking.

  3. Re:Wiggle room indeed by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm no geologist, but I have learned a bit of stats.

    In Oklahoma, the rate of M >= 3 events abruptly increased in 2009 from 1.2/year in the previous half-century to over 25/year. This rate increase is exclusive of the November 2011 M 5.6 earthquake and its aftershocks.

    A twenty-five-fold increase, that excludes the largest outlying event, in the number of earthquakes would seem to be statistically significant of something.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  4. Re:Can it prevent large earthquakes? by estitabarnak · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, for a number of reasons. Even if smaller quakes simply "relieved stress," preventing larger quakes, the Richter scale is logarithmic so it'd take many small quakes to prevent a large one. USGS agrees: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/megaqk_facts_fantasy.php

  5. I'm more concerned with the groundwater by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The earthquakes are all minor but groundwater being poisoned in areas without back up supplies is serious. They keep talking about how there's a layer of rock protecting the groundwater but the fracking shatters that layer of protective rock. It's hard to argue with tap water being flammable. Great we get 10 to 30 years of natural gas and the residents get to shower with bottled water for the next few hundred years. Some of the chemicals used are cancer causing so guess who gets stuck with that bill? Not the gas companies. If it's safe prove it's safe before you frack half the country. This got rammed through with zero oversight. Everyone can say who cares about the midwest but guess what that's where much of your food is grown. Also one of the hottest ares for potentially fracking is the very place New York City gets much of it's water from. Cheap gas may end up as very expensive water. This is about the rich getting richer, period. They were already getting plenty of gas out of the fields this is about getting 3X to 4X as much thus increasing profits. Who gets stuck with the environmental costs in the end? The tax payers. Which do we need more, water or natural gas? Well you can't raise corn and wheat or drink natural gas so I have to come down on the side of water. The gas companies don't care about groundwater because they make their money off gas and not groundwater. If they could charge a $100 a barrel for groundwater it'd be a very different story.

  6. Re:Wiggle room indeed by cusco · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  7. Re:Translation? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  8. Re:Can it prevent large earthquakes? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.