Earthquakes Correlated With Texan Fracking Sites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Earthquakes Correlated With Texan Fracking Sites

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday October 3, 2012 @07:14AM 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."

33 of 259 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh - FRACKING by jasnw · 2012-10-03 07:17 · 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 · 2012-10-03 07:26 · 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 MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-03 08:15 · 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)
3. Re:Oh - FRACKING by SecurityTheatre · 2012-10-03 08:19 · 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?
4. Re:Oh - FRACKING by sjames · 2012-10-03 08:33 · 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.
5. Re:Oh - FRACKING by deesine · 2012-10-03 08:46 · 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
6. Re:Oh - FRACKING by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-03 09:28 · 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.
7. Re:Oh - FRACKING by DeadCatX2 · 2012-10-03 10:25 · 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?
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
While... by msauve · 2012-10-03 07:17 · 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 · 2012-10-03 07:20 · 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 · 2012-10-03 07:24 · 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 h4rr4r · 2012-10-03 07:48 · 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.
4. Re:While... by ichthus · 2012-10-03 08:01 · 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
5. Re:While... by h4rr4r · 2012-10-03 08:06 · 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.
6. Re:While... by pastafazou · 2012-10-03 08:09 · 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.
7. Re:While... by Medievalist · 2012-10-03 08:17 · 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!
8. Re:While... by SecurityTheatre · 2012-10-03 08:21 · 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.......
9. Re:While... by h4rr4r · 2012-10-03 08:21 · 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.
10. Re:While... by Obfuscant · 2012-10-03 08:59 · 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?
11. Re:While... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-03 09:20 · 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
12. Re:While... by Chuckstar · 2012-10-03 12:26 · 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.
13. Re:While... by Chuckstar · 2012-10-03 12:37 · 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.
And yet nothing will be done in the long run by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 07:23 · 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 · 2012-10-03 08:53 · 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?
In other news... by Troyusrex · 2012-10-03 07:25 · Score: 5, Funny

There was a MUCH stronger association between employment and fracking sites.
1. Re:In other news... by fermion · 2012-10-03 07:39 · 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
Re:Correlation is not causation! by msauve · 2012-10-03 07:27 · 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
Re:Correlation - Causation? by Mitchell314 · 2012-10-03 07:28 · 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
Damn you greeny extremists!! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-10-03 07:31 · 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?
Re:Stats Fail by Hatta · 2012-10-03 07:47 · 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!
Correlation is not causation? Give me a break! by Lac · 2012-10-03 07:53 · 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.
Re:Stats Fail by sexconker · 2012-10-03 08:47 · 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
Re: A car analogy... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-10-03 12:40 · 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.