Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Earthquakes Correlated With Texan Fracking Sites

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-your-fault dept.

eldavojohn writes "A recent peer reviewed paper and survey by Cliff Frohlich of the University of Texas' Institute for Geophysics reveals a correlation between an increase in earthquakes and the emergence of fracking sites in the Barnett Shale, Texas. To clarify, it is not the actual act of hydrofracking that induces earthquakes, but more likely the final process of injecting wastewater into the site, according to Oliver Boyd, a USGS seismologist. Boyd said, 'Most, if not all, geophysicists expect induced earthquakes to be more likely from wastewater injection rather than hydrofracking. This is because the wastewater injection tends to occur at greater depth, where earthquakes are more likely to nucleate. I also agree [with Frohlich] that induced earthquakes are likely to persist for some time (months to years) after wastewater injection has ceased.' Frohlich added, 'Faults are everywhere. A lot of them are stuck, but if you pump water in there, it reduces friction and the fault slips a little. I can't prove that that's what happened, but it's a plausible explanation.' In the U.S. alone this correlation has been noted several times."

54 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Oh - FRACKING by jasnw · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a minute there I thought this was a gratuitous shot at The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.

    1. Re:Oh - FRACKING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Peer review of correlation. Wow. :-)

      Fracking probably accelerates seismic disturbance. But I just can't help thinking of yesterday's discussion thread: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/10/02/1930257/the-history-of-correlation-does-not-imply-causation

      "Yep! These sure appear to be co-incident, according to the data!"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Oh - FRACKING by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      You think maybe earthquakes cause frakking? Or perhaps an oil company exec's decisions cause both frakking AND earthquakes?

    3. Re:Oh - FRACKING by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Lone Battlestar State?

      Meh. That joke was olmos funny.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Oh - FRACKING by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In many cases, there are important metrics called the "strength of correlation". This is an important consideration when determining a causation. Additionally, there is the necessity of determining alternative causes. For example, when a school does better on some sort of testing after several teachers are fired, it COULD be because those teachers sucked that bad, or it could be directly related to the change in morale with the other teachers, or it could even be related to a change in management style, or a change in classroom size, or any number of other factors.

      When one considers that a series of earthquakes are seen that correlate with fracking sites (biggest earthquakes ever recorded, always within 2miles of the site in multiple sites), there is precious little else to consider as likely alternatives other than a very unlikely set of happenstance or coincidence.

      It's certainly possible that it's a coincidence, but a strong correlation tends to indicate that this is not the case. Understanding statistics at a deep level will ehlp you understand this more.

      ALL surveys show a correlation. Inferring a causation is simply trying to eliminate as many other co-correlations as possible and demonstrating that the original correlation holds up even when other possible causes are removed.

      Can you think of other causes for unusually strong earthquakes happening to cluster around fracking sites?

    5. Re:Oh - FRACKING by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it often points at it while waggling it's eyebrows meaningfully.

      Coupled with other things we know it sure suggests that we should be taking a careful look for causation.

    6. Re:Oh - FRACKING by deesine · · Score: 3, Informative

      The other possible causes are faults.

      You seem not to have read the last sentence of the abstract. Allow me: "Testing this hypothesis would require identifying geographic regions where there is interpreted subsurface structure information available to determine whether there are faults near seismically active and seismically quiescent injection wells. "

      --
      damaged by dogma
    7. Re:Oh - FRACKING by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Then you believe smoking to be safe? After all, the only evidence against smoking is correlation, and since that does not imply causation, then there's no evidence whatsoever that smoking causes cancer or other respiratory problems.

      Correlation *does* imply causation. It just doesn't prove it. In many cases, the correlated act was caused by the other. In others, they are correlated because a third, previously unknown, cause caused both. But again, there is a causal link, just not directly.

      Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it's usually significant, and dismissing it as "just correlation" is as intellectually correct as dismissing proper trials and experiments as "just data, not proof".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:Oh - FRACKING by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can you think of other causes for unusually strong earthquakes happening to cluster around fracking sites?

      One possibility (and this is knowing very little about fracking, so I don't know if this actually makes sense) would be that necessary traits of good fracking sites are themselves indicative of higher natural earthquake likelihood. In other words, fracking tends to be easier - and therefore done more often - in places where more earthquakes happen.

    9. Re:Oh - FRACKING by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's likely true that good fracking sites would be located in earthquake prone areas. However, what if you can show that the average number of earthquakes has gone up after fracking as compared to before?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:Oh - FRACKING by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      Earthquakes happen where fault is present. Frakking is done where the beds are accessible. Wouldn't one of the criteria for accessibility be depth? And wouldn't faults be where the beds were closest to the surface? If that is the case, faults could cause both earthquakes and frakking. Do we have a temporal correlation, with more earthquakes after frakking then before in the same area, or is there only spatial correlation?

  2. While... by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not defending fracking, per se, isn't it better to have a bunch of small earthquakes than one big one?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:While... by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, small earthquakes relieve stress in fault lines. They may actually be doing these communities a favor.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:While... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless, you're releasing a stable fault to freely move that wouldn't have otherwise. Not something I'd want drillers playing with without real data to know for sure.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:While... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be apologizing for "defending" fracking. There is nothing wrong with it any more than there is with a million other industrial or mining procedures on which the civilization depends and which would have been equally attacked had the environmentalist movement been around when they were invented.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:While... by msauve · · Score: 2

      What is a "stable fault?" By definition, a fault exists where there is earth movement. It's just a matter of how long it takes for enough forces to build to create a slip.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:While... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree it is just as terrible as mountain topping, and open pit mining that is not filled after use.

      I disagree that civilization must rely on these things. There are better ways, they just cost a little more since they tend to internalize costs.

      As we can see from your signature you are a hypocrite. Externalizing costs to the rest of society is no different than any other form of socialism.

    6. Re:While... by ichthus · · Score: 2

      It's good that you placed "Best" in quotation marks, denoting that it's not necessarily the best option. Just like not having controlled forest burns would not be the best option to avoid larger, more destructive forest fires.

      --
      sig: sauer
    7. Re:While... by ichthus · · Score: 4
      Wow. Let's take this piece-by-piece, shall we.

      What are you, Rush Limbaugh?

      That should be Who are you.

      I bet you denied Global Cooling before Global Warming came along.

      It's called climate change. Didn't you get the memo? And, this is just a wee bit off topic. Don't you think?

      Now you're trying to claim Global Shaking is a good thing?!

      Global? I don't know if this was an attempt at a straw man argument, or not. Regardless, if you actually read the GP's post, you'll see that his point is that maybe releasing mini earthquakes is a good thing. Just like having controlled burns in heavily wooded areas is a good measure to take to avoid wild fires later on. All he did was ask a question -- a valid question that merits an answer.

      Stop hyperventilating, and attempt to have a logical, rational discussion of the potential benefits or problems of various forms of energy production. Don't be so obtuse.

      --
      sig: sauer
    8. Re:While... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understand it fine. Here is the externality that occurred in my area:

      They fracked an old NatGas well, to do so they pumped water + some relatively safe stuff down the well. Then they pumped that stuff back up, it was now of course highly polluted with various hydrocarbons. Then they dumped the waste water off at a water treatment plant meant for human waste not industrial waste. The water was not properly treated and ended up in our reservoir that our drinking water comes from.

      What would you call that?
      What would you call the end result of abandoned open pit mine that is full of poisoned water? What would you call the result of mountain topping with the loss of headwaters of streams to both filling and what streams are left being too polluted for fish to live in?

      Modern mining practices are one exercise in externalizing costs after the other. They specialize in externalizing as much costs as possible.

    9. Re:While... by pastafazou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think you get the point. Their theory states that by lubricating the fault lines with the pumped in waste water, the fault lines are able to slip earlier than they would have without the water. The fault lines already exist, and they already have pressure being exerted as tectonic plates shift. But by lubricating them, they're able to slip with less of a pressure build up. Therefore, the earthquakes will be smaller and more frequent, thus relieving the build up of pressure that results in large magnitude quakes. And for the record, the discussion is about the correlation between fracking and earthquakes. It is not about a conspiracy theory of tap water igniting.

    10. Re:While... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I want power to be cheap, I want to be able to use as much electricity as a city now uses.

      I do not want to pollute the earth to the point were I cannot hunt or fish anymore. I do not want to pay to cleanup these sites after the companies leave.

      How about we use sources of power that per unit energy have less environmental costs? Maybe we even require these folks to clean the water instead of just dumping it.

    11. Re:While... by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      I do get the point: fracking enables earthquakes. The hubris is that they predict, small, trivial little, meaningless earthquakes without knowing about the rest of the system's capacity to be influenced by these events.

      Those teensy-weensy little earthquakes are just helping things!

      Yes: there's a correlation between fracking and earthquakes. Tell me you can vet any information relating to data suggesting that these iddy-biddy earthquakes are just, well, fine! The theory posited sounds like it's right out of a PR manual.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re:While... by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sometimes I think there's a group of people who just want power to be expensive

      We call them "Texas Oil Barons".

      For the cost of reinstalling the slave-holding tyrants of Kuwait, we could have instead built a sustainable, biologically derived methane infrastructure that would deliver more gas at less cost than fracking, while creating career jobs on American soil.

      But that would drive the price of Texas Oil down. Way down. Which cannot be allowed!

    13. Re:While... by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes I think there's a group of people who just want power to be expensive: they resent technology and the change it brings, and will look for any excuse to insist that cheap power is bad - not on the merits, but truely because they don't want to ever have to change their beliefs as the world changes.

      And sometimes you WANT to think other people's genuine motivations are somehow malicious so that you don't actually have to analyze the problems with your own.......

    14. Re:While... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Way to ignore what I said.

      Imagine you have a fault line 100 miles long, now with fracking 90 miles of it slip. The last 10miles are now bearing the loads that were on all 100 miles. Think that might cause a problem?

      I am no more a geologist than you, but calling it irrelevant to beneficial when no one knows is highly irresponsible.

    15. Re:While... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Sometimes the only proper relief from a bad thing is preventing it in the first place. There are somethings that winning multimillion dollar lawsuits can't make whole. Environmental damage often falls in to this category, and tax payers end up footing the bill when a corporation screws up large enough that it can't afford pay to fix its own damage. Privatized gains, socialized losses.

    16. Re:While... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Tell me you can vet any information relating to data suggesting that these iddy-biddy earthquakes are just, well, fine!

      Let's ask the people in Japan if they prefer a hundred small quakes or one Fukishima. "Just, well, fine" compared to the alternative.

    17. Re:While... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or perhaps a lot of little, benign microquakes that lead to a Fukushima..... or worse.

      A lot of microquakes cannot lead to a Fukishima, because a microquake simply cannot generate the energy to cause the tsunami that followed. I get the NWS quake/tsunami warning messages, and there are a LOT of small quakes going on all the time that don't trigger anything close to Fukishima sized events, or "worse".

      Nor will a microquake cause buildings to fall down and people to die. A thousand microquakes may cause incremental damage, but that can be fixed in between quakes and the final effect will be ... yawn.

      It's PR you're listening to, IMHO.

      No, it's common sense and an understanding that the effects of many small events can be much less than the sum total all at once. Want to loan me an iPhone for a demonstration?

    18. Re:While... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No I live in the USA, where the oil company hires a small local drilling company to do it, and the small company is responsible and off-shores their earnings in protected accounts. When the problems occur, they go out of business and declare bankruptcy before a judgment against them (to make sure they aren't trying to bankruptcy away a pre-existing judgment), and the mineral rights revert to the land owner (they were just leased), and the liability rests with a couple bankrupt guys with no identifiable assets. In China, the government accepts responsibility and steps in and cleans up things. In the USA, the wall street executives picket that they are getting less subsidies if their subsidies are diverted to help poor people dying from corporate malfeasance (they picket by hiring lobbyists to picket for them)
      br.Go the USA!!!

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    19. Re:While... by Chuckstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are only sort of right. Micro-quakes can allow a fault to shift in a way that triggers a big quake that might not have otherwise happened. These are non-linear dynamic systems. It is possible to both release a small amount of energy from the system while concentrating existing energy in the system into a narrow area.

      In addition, energy is injected into regional fault systems in a manner that is itself probably not constant and probably relates to the configuration of the regional system at any time.

      Put all together, we do not yet have enough information to tell how fracking may affect large earthquakes, whether positively or negatively.

    20. Re:While... by Chuckstar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Conservation of energy still applies.

      While true, this is immaterial in a non-linear system where energy can be transferred around quite easily. Quakes do not just release energy, they also shift the stresses around, allowing energy to shift between fault lines.

      Micro-quakes could simultaneously release energy, and spread the remaining stresses around such that energy cannot be built up into a single large quake. Alternatively, micro-quakes could simultaneously release energy and concentrate the remaining stresses such that even more energy is concentrated into a large quake than would have happened otherwise. Considering how small the energy releases are in small quakes, these second order effects should be much more important than the amount of energy released by the micro-quakes.

      Most likely outcome is that such micro-quakes do absolutely nothing of importance to the system. A few hundred or thousand micro-quakes simply would not make a huge difference compared to the amount of energy being concentrated then released in a major quake.

    21. Re:While... by Chuckstar · · Score: 2

      This isn't entirely true. The Richter scale is logarithmic for a reason. Small earthquakes (at least ones as small as they're measuring in these kinds of fracking studies) don't release enough energy to meaningfully change the energy in a large earthquake. But small earthquakes can shift around the stresses such that energy is concentrated into (or diluted away from) regions of a fault. Whether energy will be concentrated/diluted in such manners would be entirely dependent on the configuration of the fault, starting conditions, etc. The system is probably chaotic enough to be virtually impossible to predict.

      The most accurate answer to the question of how micro-quakes affect the incidence of major quakes will likely turn out to be "micro-quakes will affect the incidence of major quakes, but it is impossible to predict for any fault system whether major quake activity will increase or decrease in number or severity".

  3. Correlation is not causation! by AndyKron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Correlation is not causation! Oops, I read you're not supposed to say that anymore.

    1. Re:Correlation is not causation! by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Well, in this case, you have a strong case for cause.

      While the actual cause of the earthquakes is tectonic and geological stresses, the fracking provides lubrication for these events to occur. Without said lubrication, the quakes don't happen until stresses achieve sufficient strength to move without it. (Eg, major earthquake.)

      In this context, the lubrication does indeed incite movement, but the energy for the movement coms elsewhere.

      This sort of semantic argument reminds me of schoolkids saying "they didn't do anything!" After egging another kid to punch someone.

    2. Re:Correlation is not causation! by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But causation does require correlation, along with a reasonable basis for the cause. Maybe something like "if you pump water in there, it reduces friction and the fault slips a little."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  4. Reservoirs by busyqth · · Score: 2

    Reservoirs are associated with earthquakes too.

  5. And yet nothing will be done in the long run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh please, they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fracking, or some part of its process, causes earthquakes, there won't be the slightest change in procedure. After all, that oil's not going to sell itself sitting in the ground there.

    Does money ride on an action being taken? If yes, it's absolutely irrelevant what the effects are of it being done, it's going to be done.

    1. Re:And yet nothing will be done in the long run by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Talk about projection. No one thinks that simply except for you.

      Fracking is neither good nor bad, just poorly used and improperly regulated. Apply the cleanwater act and many peoples reservations about it would be greatly reduced. Force them to disclose what is in their fracking fluids and how they dispose of the hydrocarbon laced wastewater and even more folks would be put at ease. Force all hydrocarbon well operations to case the borehole the entire length and again objections would be reduced.

      Giving them a free pass on normal regulation, require no disclosure and allow them to select which holes are cased and which are not while shifting any environment cost onto the tax payer is what causes so many objections.

      Why is stating that natural gas is less bad than coal but worse than nuclear not true?

  6. In other news... by Troyusrex · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was a MUCH stronger association between employment and fracking sites.

    1. Re:In other news... by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      First,this result is not new. It has been suspected for a while that the water injection sites might cause small earthquakes. This paper is just another that provides evidence. It is not just a matter of correlation, there are physical paths to causation. It is not that the HIV virus just happens to be every AIDS patient. There is causation.

      As far as jobs, this is pretty selectively applied. Windmills will create many construction and long term maintenance jobs. Hydrogen fueling station will create many construction jobs. Niether requires us to pay for fuel at levels that support $70 per barrel, or condemn peoples property for a pipeline, or pollute. There are many ways to work. Some people, like hitmen, have no problems if the jobs are unethical. Others od.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:In other news... by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      That means employment causes earthquakes.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:In other news... by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Those people brought in don't buy things? Everything from houses to clothes to food? More people employed in an area means more economic activity, regardless of where the new employees come from. Your other points about violence, drug use, and other forms of crime are perfectly valid of course.

  7. Re:Correlation - Causation? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yet another believer in the big lie that earthquakes don't cause fracking. :P

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  8. Damn you greeny extremists!! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly, if we were just allowed to dump wastewater into local rivers and streams, none of these earthquakes would have had to happen. Why are environmentalists objectively pro-earthquake?

    1. Re:Damn you greeny extremists!! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I believe he was being sarcastic.

      Better question, why are they not required to treat the wastewater to the same standards as when they received it?

      Then they could dump it into rivers. The problem is they want to just dump this toxic water, which is polluted from the well.

      Is asking someone to pay to cleanup their own mess anti-progress? To me it sounds like personal responsibility.

  9. Re:Stats Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    > What is rule #1 in statistics? "Correlation does not equal causality."

    Yes, you do fail stats.

    When a man-made event clearly proceeds some other event, then correlation does imply causation. This is the entire basis of experimental science.

    Unless you can show that the earthquakes in the future are somehow causing fracking in the past, then it is causation. If that's the case, then I'm sure there are a couple of Nobel Prizes in it for your discovery of time-travel.

  10. Re:Stats Fail by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.

    So are you claiming that earthquakes cause fracking? Or are you claiming that some unknown third factor causes both earthquakes and fracking? If you don't have any plausible suggestions for either, causation seems like the most likely explanation.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. Correlation is not causation? Give me a break! by Lac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The people tagging this story with "correlation is not causation" are a perfect example of what Slate is talking about this week on how silly this meme has become. Ok, so are you saying that the frakking does not cause the earthquakes? What, is it the other way around? No, I'm guessing it's a mythical third factor causing both. Some mystery force is causing both the frakking and the earthquakes. Maybe birds. Who knows? But nothing something correlated!

    People, the correlation thing is nice and all, but can we please not forget Occam's rasor? The frakking causing the earthquakes really is the simplest explanation, digging out the correlation argument is just as logical as closing your eyes and singing la-la-la. Proving correlation does not prove causation, but it is a necessary step in doing so, not a logical no-no. Even the scientist quoted in the article is aware of the distinction. There is no "gotcha!" here.

    Thank you, Slate. I really had not realized how silly this had become.

  12. Re:Stats Fail by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    This case, the "third factor" DOES make sense. Hear me out here.

    Natural gas deposits (the reason for the fracking) form from decomposing organic deposits trapped between shale or salt layers. This gas formation creates pressure (the reason for the earthquakes.)

    So, the third factor is natural gas deposits.

    The incidence of earthquakes will positiviely correlate to natural gas deposits. The incidence of fracking will correlate to natural gas deposits.

    The result is a positive correlation between earthquakes and and fracking.

    A test of this 3rd factor is easily accomplished, by doing a frack drilling where there is no natural gas as a control. That will provide the needed resolution of causality between fracking and earthquakes.

  13. Re:Stats Fail by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    Earthquakes from natural gas do occur, and have been recorded from pre-fracking periods. The phenomenon has already been studied.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/uq662g4351676m63/

  14. Re:What if it was called... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Nope.
    The reality is the reason it needs defending is because it follows the standard practices of mining. Extract resources and leave the mess for the taxpayer to pay for.

    Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Sure they use the excuse that often these costs are individually quite low, filling in one headwater or poisoning one well, but in total we see the truth. Personal responsibility is not something the mining industry wants. Look at the BP spill for a good example. They tried to pawn off the problem and spread dispersal agents to make it look less bad.

    If they had immediately said "our bad" and then done everything they could to fix the problem and to compensate everyone impacted it would have been different. That is not how mining companies operate.

  15. Re:Stats Fail by sexconker · · Score: 3, Informative

    When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.

    Seems like 5 to me.

    A causes B
    B causes A and B is cyclical (or we're time traveling)
    B and A are both caused by C
    B is caused by C and A is caused by D, C and D are unrelated
    B and A self-contained events with no direct external cause and no relationship to each other

  16. Re: A car analogy... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing nobody seems to be realizing is that it may very well be ok to decide that this is a risk that's worthwhile.

    Occasional small earthquakes vs. massively cheaper natural gas with a thousand year supply and 30% lower emissions than coal? Sign Earth up, peeze.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.