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."

6 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

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

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

  3. 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.