Earthquakes Correlated With Texan Fracking Sites

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."

Comments

Oh - FRACKING

[jasnw]

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

Re:Oh - FRACKING

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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!"

Re:Oh - FRACKING

[SecurityTheatre]

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?

Re:Oh - FRACKING

[shutdown -p now]

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.

While...

[msauve]

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

Re:While...

[avandesande]

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

Re:While...

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

Re:While...

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:While...

[ichthus]

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.

Re:While...

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:While...

[pastafazou]

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.

Re:While...

[SecurityTheatre]

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.......

Re:While...

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:While...

[Chuckstar]

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.

In other news...

[Troyusrex]

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

Re:Correlation is not causation!

[msauve]

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."

Re:Correlation - Causation?

[Mitchell314]

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

Re:Stats Fail

[Hatta]

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.

Re:And yet nothing will be done in the long run

[h4rr4r]

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?

Re: A car analogy...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.