Slashdot Mirror


Oil Recovery May Have Triggered Texas Tremors

ananyo writes "First came reports of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing and the reinjection of water during oil and gas operations. Now U.S. scientists are reporting tremors may have been caused by the injection of carbon dioxide during oil production. The evidence centers on a sudden burst of seismic activity around an old oil field in the Permian Basin in northwest Texas. From 2006 to 2011, after more than two decades without any earthquakes, seismometers in the region registered 38 tremors, including 18 larger quakes ranging from magnitude 3 to 4.4, scientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The tremors began just two years after injections of significant volumes of CO2 began at the site, in an effort to boost oil production. 'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection,' says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in Austin, who co-authored the study."

101 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Plausible Explanation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Graboids!

    captcha: "bedrock".. Lol.

    1. Re:Plausible Explanation? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Good, another link to Kevin Bacon is making that game easier all the time.

  2. Doesn't matter by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Had profit.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can bet a lot of people's insurance policies will be damaged one way or another...higher rates or no coverage for earthquake damage.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. From TFA by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nor is it clear why nearby oil fields that have also been injected with CO2 have not experienced similar seismic activity.

    Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:From TFA by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.

      Or that rocks will break and fracture in ways that aren't necessarily predictable.

      It can be the cause in one well, and still not have caused the same problem in another well just simply by the local rocks and what's already happened to them.

      I don't think anybody is suggesting "inject CO2, cause earthquake" ... but that the rocks might fracture (or whatever) in ways you don't really have a way to predict very well.

      If it was pumping in the high pressure stuff that lead to unexpected mechanical failure of rock structures, you're never going to get a 100% result on something like that.

      But I do think it highly likely there's more complexity going on than they're capable of knowing or controlling.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It awoke the Balrog. CO2, they hates it.

      captcha: penance

    3. Re:From TFA by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nor is it clear why nearby oil fields that have also been injected with CO2 have not experienced similar seismic activity.

      Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.

      And it couldn't be the Texas drought for the past three years... I mean what would drought have to do with land settling?

    4. Re:From TFA by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obliterates?
      So this magically deals with all the pollution burning that stuff causes?
      Tell us more.

    5. Re:From TFA by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Nor is it clear why nearby oil fields that have also been injected with CO2 have not experienced similar seismic activity.

      Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.

      This of course would take cooperation on the part of the oil/gas companies - something unlikely.

    6. Re:From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't let science get in the way of your ideology. I guess you're right, I'm a fan of clean air, clean water, and leaving things better than I found them, especially when it could affect a bunch of other people. I guess responsible energy production that thinks of more than just immediate need that makes me a dirty hippy.

    7. Re:From TFA by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think anybody is suggesting "inject CO2, cause earthquake"

      Well, anyone except the scientist at the University of Texas and the entire article. But other than that, no one else.

      Sort of.

      The data suggest that there is a previously unidentified fault running through the area, and that the CO2 injections effectively lubricate that fault, enabling slippage. (Scientists documented a series of earthquakes in the area from 1975 through 1982, but those tremors were linked to water injections, also intended to boost oil production.)

      They're not saying that the simple presence of CO2 causes earthquakes. They're saying the mechanical stresses involved may well have dislodged things.

      But you apparently didn't read TFA.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:From TFA by h4rr4r · · Score: 3

      No, I was trying to point out that current economic forces are externalizing some costs and therefore the market cannot act correctly.

    9. Re:From TFA by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until you can figure out why cigarettes causes lung cancer in on person, and not his neighbors who smoked similar amounts, it seems rather more likely that it wasn't the cigarettes that had anything to do with the cancer.

      Frankly, I am not informed enough to have an opinion in this matter. However, even someone as ignorant in the matter as myself can see that your fact does not prove your conclusion. It doesn't prove that there is no link; it only proves that it isn't an absolute direct causation. It could mean that it affects probability and that different results were the luck of the draw. It could mean that there are other contributing factors (that we don't understand).

    10. Re:From TFA by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until you can figure out why cigarettes causes lung cancer in on person, and not his neighbors who smoked similar amounts, it seems rather more likely that it wasn't the cigarettes that had anything to do with the cancer.

      Yes, that's absolutely correct. And then studies were done that showed significant statistical correlations between smoking and lung cancer. If it turns out that 80% of the areas where this was done have sudden increases in seismic activity, then there is probably a connection. A single data point is not enough to draw conclusions.

    11. Re:From TFA by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until you can figure out why cigarettes causes lung cancer in on person, and not his neighbors who smoked similar amounts, it seems rather more likely that it wasn't the cigarettes that had anything to do with the cancer.

      Yes, that's absolutely correct. And then studies were done that showed significant statistical correlations between smoking and lung cancer. If it turns out that 80% of the areas where this was done have sudden increases in seismic activity, then there is probably a connection. A single data point is not enough to draw conclusions.

      I would bet every penny I own that such a study would prove at least probable causation. I grew up in Oklahoma (bordering Texas) and for 30 years I never experienced an earthquake there, until 2009 when they started happening on a very regular basis. Coincidentally, most of the epicenters happened to be located near drilling operations.

    12. Re:From TFA by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      But it could be a lubricant for the fault, making those thousands of pounds, or even just the weight of the earth itself, cause the earthquakes.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    13. Re:From TFA by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The pressures that they use to fracture rock are in the THOUSANDS of pounds, the pressures they're injecting CO2 at are in the HUNDREDS.

      The CO2 isn't fracturing the rock.

      Depends on how the rocks are sited and where the CO2 is injected. A pressure of "hundreds of pounds" doesn't guarantee that no rock crushing forces are generated. Bad luck could result in rocks being configured in such a way that when you injected the CO2, it pushed them together in such a way that unexpected movement occured.

      If you inject 100psi of well contained CO2 under a large 50ft by 50ft slab of rock it's going to generate about 36 million pounds force on that slab. In comparison, a 50ft cube of granite weighs around 21 million pounds

    14. Re:From TFA by cusco · · Score: 1

      No, the CO2 is moving shit around underground. That was the purpose of doing it in the first place, although of course they just wanted to move the oil around. It seems odd to me to find people on a science/technology-oriented web site assume that moving thousands of tons of liquid and gas around from one place to another will NOT cause things to stress unpredictably.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:From TFA by sjames · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first data pointing in that direction. It certainly suggests that we should be looking at it further and that the flat denials of any potential for harm (and there are plenty of those) are not really on solid ground (so to speak).

    16. Re:From TFA by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree that anyone completely denying the possibility is either a complete idiot or has an agenda. It's definitely something that should be investigated more.

    17. Re:From TFA by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first data pointing in that direction. It certainly suggests that we should be looking at it further and that the flat denials of any potential for harm (and there are plenty of those) are not really on solid ground (so to speak).

      Flat denials of any potential for harm are wishful thinking

      They fear so much, that people will think it's causing harm, and call halts on drilling, that they will go to great lengths to assert it must be harmless

      Hoping the more times they say it; that makes it more true, and less likely for people to be concerned about the drilling operations

    18. Re: From TFA by Mitsoid · · Score: 1

      The more they say it... The more they believe it... This is why political parties and interest groups "own" news organizations (indirectly)

      The nice lady on the morning news had been saying X for 3 months... She even read the cue cards stating supporting "facts" supplied by interested parties... It must be true, I don't need to research it...

    19. Re:From TFA by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      The article suggests an undocumented fault line and the CO2 is lubricating it allowing nature to work its course sooner rather that later.

      If that is the case, i would think this actually lessens the probability of a catasrophic earthquakein the future due to stress being relieved over time in smaller amounts instead of one large event. But i'M only guessing.

    20. Re:From TFA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And of course logging in to post would have solved the chances of anyone pretending to be someone else or you thinking it too.

      SLashdot has seen a lot of poor form recently.

    21. Re:From TFA by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Um, are you refering to GAS drilling, which did start around 2006-2010, or OIL drilling, which is what the article is refering to. OIL drilling has been taking place in Texas for about 100 years.

      http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/business/oil-and-texas-cultural-history

      TFA also says that these earthquakes started in 2006, although it peaked in 2009 to 2011.

      The article also says

      The data suggest that there is a previously unidentified fault running through the area, and that the CO2 injections effectively lubricate that fault, enabling slippage. (Scientists documented a series of earthquakes in the area from 1975 through 1982, but those tremors were linked to water injections, also intended to boost oil production.)

      What the article seems to suggest isn't that drilling causes earthquakes, but rather there was an unidentified fault in this area that seems to be set off from injecting water and / or CO2 into the drill site.

      There have been several tremors in North Texas over the recent years that seem to be related to fracking, but many of the tremors reported on the news are under a 3.0. Most people don't even notice, and there is a known fault in the area

      http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message121527/pg1

      So, to summerize, what I am gathering from the original article is NOT that drilling is the issue, or drilling on a fault line is an issue, or injecting water / CO2 is an issue - what seems to be an issue is drilling with the injection of CO2 / water on a fault line. Truthfully, this sounds like a DUH study to me.

    22. Re:From TFA by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems to me that you arent grasping his point, nor are you grasping basic forces.
      its not just "hundreds of pounds". its hundred of pounds.....per square inch.

      we arent talking about simple hundred of pounds of force.
      we're talking about hundred of pounds of pressure per some unit area.
      the bigger the area, the greater the net force applied by that pressure.

      as the man said, even on a not particularly large rock cavity of say 50x50 feet of bearing area, that mere "hundred" pounds of pressure eqautes to 30E6 pounds of net force being applied to that surface. depending on that rock's configuration, its internal stresses, support from surrounding rock, etc, that force can be redirected and concentrated (stress concentration), such that it leads to failures in the internal structural integrity of said rock or nearby rocks.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    23. Re:From TFA by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Now now!
      If you'd been reading The Oklahoman paper like a proper okie, you'd know that there is "no proven link" between fracking and earthquakes. The "science isnt settled". Just like it's not proven "that burning fossil fules causes global warming", as the paper likes to remind us regularly.

      (For those not in on the joke: The Oklahoman newspaper is owned by a oil/gas billionaire)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    24. Re:From TFA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It might be if anyone's house had been damaged but that doesn't seem to be the case.

      Of course you are guessing on the 70 million years too. It could be 20 or 70 years, we have no way of knowing. But i bet california might have rather had several small quakes that the big on in the 90's. And yes, that is a guess too.

  4. "Can never prove correlation is causation" by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's a philosophy of science tangent, but this quote caught my attention. I mean in a strict sense, nothing is "proven" in science, so it's technically true. However, to the extent to which concepts can be "scientifically proven", the difference between correlation and causation comes down to one factor: controls. In experimental science, we control for variables by limiting the systems in play directly. In observational science, that's done with statistical controls on other known (and possible) factors. With enough data, that can be done in a manner that is robust enough to be called science.

    I don't think it's fair to take a benign assertion like "correlation is not causation" and extend it to an absolutist position.

    1. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by haggais · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Which, indeed, they did not: 'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection.'

      In fact, they took the very valid point that coincidence (not even correlation, as CrimsonAvenger correctly notes that other seemingly similar cases do not display the same coincidence) does not imply causation, and then decided to breeze past it and declare that "certainly" that causation is the "most plausible explanation". In other words, coincidence --> correlation --> causation. I don't dispute that observation could be used to prove this causation, but where are those observations?

    2. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Funny

      Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

      -Randall Munroe

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wasn't even concerned with the specific assertions in question. I just saw the "never" and my scientific absolutist alarms went off. Correlation is one of the most useful tools in the data collection toolbox, and to assert it has not intrinsic empirical value was bothersome to me.

      It does need to be used responsibly, with controls and awareness of uncontrolled variables. It doesn't lack value for "proving" things. Certainly the summary and abstract didn't give sufficient detail about what might have been considered in this particular case.

    4. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You didn't read more than the title of my post did you? I was quoting the article, then I described my problems with its reasoning. Your post doesn't even begin to address the key idea of mine: controls. And yet you phrase it like a rebuttal. That's not good argumentation.

    5. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Next time I'll add sarcasm tags. I was completely agreeing with him and mocking those who use the phrase too much.

      Satire is the most dangerous form of writing.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by FuzzNugget · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correlation may very well not prove causation, but when you don't have a control and all or a non-trivial number of the empirical data points are saying the same thing, you turn to Occam's razor.

      What is more likely...

      That earthquakes are just suddenly occurring where they previously never have and are occurring more frequently and violently where they normally have ... and that it's just pure coincidence that the times and locations are exactly aligned with the advent of the fracking boom?

      Or...

      That earthquakes, which we know are caused by instability in the Earth's crust, just might be result of recently punching massive holes and billions of fissures in the Earth's crust?

    7. Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
        - Damon Runyan

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  5. Doesn't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nothing stands in the way of oil profits. Not even lives.

    My personal favorite bit is that the fracking guys are exempt from the clean air and clean water acts. Thats some style there.
    Disgusting and sick.. But style. An evil you can remember.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh please. The earthquakes which *might* have been caused did zero damage to any property and took no lives.

      As to your claims about fracking, seems you are *assuming* that it's dangerous, when there is little factual evidence that indicates that it is.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by dex22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that fracking is a permanent change to the environment that can't be undone, EVER, I'd want to see some pretty compelling evidence that it absolutely can't cause harm, EVER, before being used widely across a bunch of different geologies.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone up for proving a negative?

      You think this is Climate Science or something?

    4. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Zero damage. This time.
      But go back a few years.. The tsunami that hit india might have been caused by deep well injection a thousand miles away.
      Lots n lots of damage that time.

      And the bit about fracking is true. Safety is irrevelant. They ARE exempt from the EPA clean air and clean water acts. Pretty much nothing else in the world can claim that.

    5. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Given that fracking is a permanent change to the environment that can't be undone, EVER, I'd want to see some pretty compelling evidence that it absolutely can't cause harm, EVER, before being used widely across a bunch of different geologies.

      Wasn't pumping any oil out in the first place a "permanent change that can't be undone ever"?

      Or were you planning on recovering all the oil that had ever been pumped, and putting it back somehow?

    6. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do the locals really give two shits about this?

      Let me see... Billions of dollars in income pumped out of the ground? Jobs created? Taxes paid? Money spent and circulating in my area?

      Yep, this Texan has zero issues with a few quakes that shock some rattle snakes and sand while it damaged nothing. I say, keep drillin and pumpin yall.

      Don't mess with Texas!

    7. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by Unordained · · Score: 1

      As a local in Oklahoma, which has also seen its share of quakes recently (and some studies have pointed to their statistical relationship to injection wells,) yes, some of us are concerned. Not all such sites are in the middle of nowhere and easily ignored -- there's a lot of oil & gas activity in and around cities, right in the middle of parking lots, behind neighborhoods, really anywhere it's profitable. Midwestern communities may not be as dense as what you east and west coasters consider "civilization", but it's still home to a lot of people who don't appreciate someone else's potential irresponsibility affecting their life, limb, or property.

      It's not a fair deal to expect silence from the locals about safety just because oil & gas brought jobs to the area, while refusing to acknowledge the possibility of causation. That's not even a proper bribe.

      And if we don't tease out the underlying mechanisms, there will be no guarantee against unsafe practices in and around cities. That only farmland and small towns have been affected, so far, could be dumb luck.

      To the argument that these quakes would happen eventually anyway: yeah, maybe. Maybe not for thousands of years. Having them all happen now, while it might "get it out of the Earth's system", is no consolation to those affected in the here and now.

    8. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      They ARE exempt from the EPA clean air and clean water acts.

      No, they actually aren't.

    9. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by speederaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They ARE exempt from the EPA clean air and clean water acts.

      No, they actually aren't.

      As a matter of fact, Dick Cheney and his hand-picked cronies made damn sure that they are indeed exempt.

      "However, in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which arose out of Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force, Congress amended the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA to specifically exclude "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities."

    10. Re:Doesn't matter anyway. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Farming is a permanent change to the environment. So using this logic, we should all stop eating to save the environment. I propose that you stop first, and let me know the results six months from now.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  6. OK, Got it. by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation... we're going to run with it because it works for us.

    Got it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. Re:Spelling! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

    He meant as opposed to "outvironment" which is all that environment that's outdoors like birds and trees and shit. The "invironment" means his living room, and trust me, the natural gas leaks in there are no joke, especially with all the cheeto-based fracking.

  8. Perhaps its the simple explanation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    You've pumped oil out from under the ground. That leaves a big ass hole. Perhaps the hole is changing shape because it is no longer supported?

    1. Re:Perhaps its the simple explanation by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      You've pumped oil out from under the ground. That leaves a big ass hole. Perhaps the hole is changing shape because it is no longer supported?

      That is the purpose of pumping gas back in to the big ass-hole

      Of course, no one is pumping any gas back into the empty aquafers... I wonder if that could be related?

    2. Re:Perhaps its the simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular belief, it does not leave a big ass hole in the ground. The oil comes from tiny pores within the rock structure so even when the oil leaves it's still solid.

      http://www.geomore.com/porosity-and-permeability-2/

    3. Re:Perhaps its the simple explanation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      under the assumption that the hole that contained rather large molecules of oil will also contain a gas that can pass through much smaller gaps?

    4. Re:Perhaps its the simple explanation by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure the locals will appreciate a bunch of big assholes full of gas.

  9. But is this....bad? by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing I wonder as people talk about this. Now, I am no geologist but, my understanding of fault lines is that there are areas where tectonic plates cross, with one moving over the top of the other, pushing one down and one up. So far so good right?

    So the model I have understood is, the fault compresses over time as the plates move, and then an earth quake happens when the stress is suddenly released, allowing the plates to slip some amount, relieving the stress and starting the process over again from its new position.

    So now if this is an accurate enough description of the process, it seems to me like more frequent, smaller quakes are likely preferable to less frequent larger ones. So could this triggering of earth quakes actually be a....good thing? Is that question even being asked?

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:But is this....bad? by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...my understanding of fault lines is that there are areas where tectonic plates cross, with one moving over the top of the other, pushing one down and one up. So far so good right?

      Half right. Sometimes it cause by plates rubbing against each other but there are other ways to create earthquakes. Since Texas is far away from any fault lines that I know of I don’t think this is the case.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake

      So the model I have understood is, the fault compresses over time as the plates move, and then an earth quake happens when the stress is suddenly released, allowing the plates to slip some amount, relieving the stress and starting the process over again from its new position.

      So now if this is an accurate enough description of the process, it seems to me like more frequent, smaller quakes are likely preferable to less frequent larger ones. So could this triggering of earth quakes actually be a....good thing? Is that question even being asked?

      It has been asked and the answer is maybe. The energy of small earth quakes is trivial to that of large earthquakes. Small earthquakes might just transmit the stress down the fault line resulting in larger earthquakes later. The current models are not very good and this sort of stuff so no answers yet.

    2. Re:But is this....bad? by tgd · · Score: 2

      Now, I am no geologist

      Yes, that is certainly true.

      FWIW, what you called out is just one kind of fault -- and not the kind they're talking about here.

      In this case, the concern is that the process is creating new (or growing existing) faults that would've otherwise been stable. That's the reason for the statistics -- you can't see what is happening down deep, but you can certainly see statistically significant changes.

      That's why its so easy for both sides of the fracking debate to confuse the general public -- on something like this, you need to be in the sweet spot of the Venn diagram of geologist and statistician to really evaluate it.

      These sort of results are scientifically important because there isn't a lot of good science one way or another on the impact of fracking. Its a lot of statistics, not a lot of hard data, and a lot of unknowns. (Contrast that to the greenhouse impact of increased use of natural gas because of fracking -- that is well understood science, and thus not as interesting to those doing the actual work of science rather than the work of politics.)

    3. Re:But is this....bad? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Indeed: SO WHAT.

      It's the usual fearmongering: ZOMG EARTHQUAKES EVERYTHING FALLING DOWN!

      Except that tiny earthquakes aren't even felt by most people. When it is known that one happened, they are often described as being like a truck rolling by. So yeah, what's the big deal? Some rocks shift a bit, hundreds of feet below the surface. There's more effect here in Texas on building foundations from drought/rain cycles.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:But is this....bad? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That is how SOME/most quakes happen. There are not that many plate meeting places, but a lot of areas where there are earthquakes.

      I think the theory here is that the only factor that is building up pressure is the injection of gasses/liquids.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:But is this....bad? by mishehu · · Score: 2

      This. There is indeed a fault zone in Texas.

      Also there are different types of faults - convergent and divergent. For example, Mt. St. Helens lies on a convergent fault zone, and Hawaii lies on a divergent fault zone. Yep, volcanoes often form along fault lines.

    6. Re:But is this....bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The whole notion of fracking causing earthquakes is like a Rorschach test for political bias. Liberals will drone on about how this is just another example of oil and gas companies destroying the environment and leaving the locals with the cost (somebody above mentioned insurance).

      Conservatives will immediately begin attack the conclusion and the science. Because modern conservative politics has an anti-environmental stance (for some odd reason), they immediately take issue with the concept of anything man-made causing earth quakes. Only god causes earth quakes--directly, or through natural processes that are beyond our ability to manipulate.

      Libertarians will probably be all over the map on this one because there's no clear-cut group think involved on such issues.

      All the rest of us... the only thing we take away is, "CO2 injection possibly causing earthquakes? Cool! Let's find out exactly how, and then tell society our findings so they can make a normative judgment about causes and effects."

    7. Re:But is this....bad? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Oh man really? I hate that guy, he's a total douchebag; and of quite questionable upbringing.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:But is this....bad? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Half right. Sometimes it cause by plates rubbing against each other but there are other ways to create earthquakes. Since Texas is far away from any fault lines that I know of I donâ(TM)t think this is the case.

      The amount of energy added by injecting CO2 or whatever else is trivial. An earthquake it "causes" would amount to little more than a truck rumbling by. Any energy release greater than that has to have been from energy already there before the fracking. If the injection added enough energy to create the earthquake all by itself, they wouldn't be doing it because they'd be using more energy in the injection than they got back in any oil/gas extracted.

      I really doubt it's the injection causing the earthquakes. More than likely it's the (improper) removal of liquid and matter (sand, fractured rock). There was a story a few months back about how drilling had created a sinkhole. The injected water had dissolved the limestone, then as the water drained away it left a chasm, and when that collapsed you got a sinkhole. In that case, the removal of material lowered the potential energy floor. And the potential energy of all the rock sitting above the new chasm IS substantial enough to create an earthquake (or a sinkhole). In a regular uncapped oil well (e.g. Deepwater Horizon), that enormous potential energy of the rock and dirt above wanting to settle down is what's squeezing the oil up to create a geyser.

      That would also help explain why most injection wells aren't leading to earthquakes, while some are.

    9. Re:But is this....bad? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      I think you calling others "low-information" is rather ironic. You seem to be convinced that it could never ever cause any problems whatsoever.

    10. Re:But is this....bad? by trongey · · Score: 1

      Now, I am no geologist but...

      Well, I am a geologist, and I don't like tomatoes. It's not the taste that I don't like; tomato paste, tomato sauce, ketchup, those are all perfectly tasty. It's the texture. I just can't stand the way tomatoes feel in my mouth.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    11. Re:But is this....bad? by sjames · · Score: 1

      On that scale, rock compresses. Relieve the stress in one place and somewhere down the line, the stress increases. Whoever lives there might not appreciate it so much that you made the 1000 year earthquake happen now. They also won't appreciate the 20 year earthquakes happening at 5 year intervals.

    12. Re:But is this....bad? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy added by spraying WD40 on a stuck hinge isn't much either but suddenly the door opens freely.

    13. Re:But is this....bad? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Since Texas is far away from any fault lines that I know of I don’t think this is the case.

      http://legendsofgreenisle.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/texasfaultlines.gif

    14. Re:But is this....bad? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      whomever modded this troll has never read The Oklahoman. Owned by a oil/gas billionaire, it's always excusing the industry and only quotes science when its convenient an d supports the oil/gas industry. the rest of the time science is not to be believed.

      Stop abusing mod points.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  10. It is *not* fracking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Obviously God is punishing Texas

  11. seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    megacorps never listen.everything from cigarettes to global warming and fracking have all seemed to have this pattern:
    1. new technology or idea proposed with limited research. it gets pushed hard by megacorps who want cash.
    2. problems arise such as seismic disturbance, gas in the water supply, etc.
    3. industry reacts immediately and violently to the concerns of regular citizens. everything classified as an 'isolated event' and media is threatened with advertising boycott if they report too much about it.
    4. mounting evidence suggests new technology is dangerous and has negative consequences.
    5. industry responds insisting everything is OK.
    6. more evidence mounts, legislation gets proposed to curtail the technology and enact regulation
    7. industry pushes back with FUD and insists the effects are 'controversial' and 'unknown' with relation to the technology but that regulation is not the answer because jobs..
    8. deaths, major accidents, and environmental impacts are being seen.
    9. Industry starts gladhanding senators and congressmen to ensure interests are seen to. senators, as usual, are familiar with ignoring constituents with less than a million dollars.
    10. industry no longer formally responds to complaints. evidence consists solely of legislation they crafted and enacted to support their industry.
    11. industry pulls out after investment potential is exhausted or litigation expenses become annoying. pack up, move out, and assign a 'vacant trust' to the property to ensure superfund only kicks taxpayers in the beanbag.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Eh, from what I've seen of previous cases, like tobacco or DDT, you eventually end in a state of relatively safe regulation, a few long-running whiners whose neo-liberal idealism won't let them shut-up decades after the science is settled, and life goes on.

      Then again, there's also cases like "wind-mill disease" where the science is decidedly not on the side of the "little people". Taking the absolute position that corporations are always in the wrong will not set you on the course to righteous accuracy.

    2. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by BStroms · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't forget, there are just as many chicken littles as there are big business coverups. For every "smoking isn't bad for your health" there's a "vaccines cause autism." Both scenarios can lead to terrible things. In the particular case of fracking, the studies I've seen tend to lean my opinion toward the chicken little side of things. Even assuming all those studies are nothing but frauds paid for by corporate interests, fracking is already in widespread use.

      If it's really half as terrible a danger to the drinking supplies as it's made out to be, where are all the cases of environmental catastrophe and illness that should be endemic by this point? Putting out fake studies are one thing, but it'd be hard to suppress that kind of event for such a hot button issue in this day and age.

      And forgive me if I'm not overly worried about potentially causing earthquakes up to a 4.4 magnitude.

    3. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by Sarten-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other way, where people never listen, is what happened with nuclear power, seat belts, electronics on planes, and vaccines:

      1. New technology or idea proposed with significant internal research. It gets pushed hard by megacorps who see profit made in volume, but the technical research isn't widespread outside the industry.

      2. Problems arise such as cancer, different injuries, slowly-developing illness, etc. Rumors and blame spread as the public is scared into believing anyone with any claim of expertise.

      3. Industry reacts immediately to the concerns of regular citizens. Incidents due to operator error are reported to be 'isolated events' and media representatives are given the cold shoulder when their networks run stories spun to damage the industry.

      4. Mounting evidence suggests new technology is just fine, but mounting anecdotes from "concerned citizens" continues to claim it's dangerous and has negative consequences.

      5. Industry responds insisting everything is OK. Concerned citizens insist it isn't.

      6. More evidence mounts, legislation gets proposed to curtail the technology and enact regulation, responding to public pressure.

      7. Industry pushes back with their own research, while noting the gaps in what the research covers. Industry argues that regulation is not the answer because once enacted, regulation stops any further research into the issue, while wasting investment capital on certification costs.

      8. Deaths, major accidents, and environmental impacts are being seen, but still can't be directly attributed to the new technology. Rumors and accusations still fly.

      9. Industry starts pushing congressmen to ignore the panicking public. Congress, as usual, has already seen dozens of good panics in the last decade that didn't pan out, so this is unlikely to be different.

      10. Industry no longer need to formally responds to complaints. Evidence against the technology consists solely of anecdotes and control-less studies crafted and spread to support the movement rather than the truth.

      11. Industry pulls out after litigation expenses become threatening to the company, or simply accepts reduced profit until the unfounded controversy dies down and the technology is accepted as normal.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by kick6 · · Score: 1

      megacorps never listen.everything from cigarettes to global warming and fracking have all seemed to have this pattern: 1. new technology or idea proposed with limited research. it gets pushed hard by megacorps who want cash. 2. problems arise such as seismic disturbance, gas in the water supply, etc. 3. industry reacts immediately and violently to the concerns of regular citizens. everything classified as an 'isolated event' and media is threatened with advertising boycott if they report too much about it. 4. mounting evidence suggests new technology is dangerous and has negative consequences. 5. industry responds insisting everything is OK. 6. more evidence mounts, legislation gets proposed to curtail the technology and enact regulation 7. industry pushes back with FUD and insists the effects are 'controversial' and 'unknown' with relation to the technology but that regulation is not the answer because jobs.. 8. deaths, major accidents, and environmental impacts are being seen. 9. Industry starts gladhanding senators and congressmen to ensure interests are seen to. senators, as usual, are familiar with ignoring constituents with less than a million dollars. 10. industry no longer formally responds to complaints. evidence consists solely of legislation they crafted and enacted to support their industry. 11. industry pulls out after investment potential is exhausted or litigation expenses become annoying. pack up, move out, and assign a 'vacant trust' to the property to ensure superfund only kicks taxpayers in the beanbag.

      Except for the part where frac'ing isn't new technology. The oilfield has been frac'ing wells since before cigarettes were unsafe. Hell, we've been injecting CO2 almost that long.

    5. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > it's already been proven that in some cases the solutions have found their way into water supplies.

      Citation needed.

      As far as I am aware there has never been a case of fracking fluids contaminating a water supply.

      Senate hearings on the Nat Gas industry earlier this year did not reveal any such cases.

    6. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 2

      What you neglected to mention is that the "greenies" are the source of much of the fearmongering in those steps and are in many cases simply anti-corporation, except for new "environmental" companies that many have financial interest in, and mostly anti-science. These are groups such as Greenpeace, which its founder has tried to distance himself from because he actually cares about the end result for the environment.

      Now gas injection underground seems like a bad idea, but many greenies are in favor of deep underground heat extraction to power turbines, which if ramped up may be worse for the environment from similar problems and loss of efficiency being far away from people's homes and businesses. Who know, wind farms could be about the worst thing for the environment and people, as well as long standing communities that are divided by these things. Out at sea they if ramped up they might even change weather patterns. This is a new entriely unproven experiment unfortunately with little science to back up it being good for the environment. Damming for hydro used to be something that environmentalists blocked because it changes the ecosystem downstream forever.

      Environmentalist that have scientific backgrounds and care about the environment, its animals and its plants, should really separate from the scare mongering "greenies" that have directly led to these gas recovery efforts through their actions in the past through the processes described in the parent post. At least they feel good about themselves and have something to rile against.

    7. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by jriding · · Score: 1

      Care to drink the water down rivier from a fracking location?

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    8. Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      You left out the most important factor in all of this.

      MegaCorp pays huge bribe to politician, is given pass attached to some completely unrelated piece of legislation. Politician then tells supporters how evil megacorp is, filling their heads with all kinds of emotional nonsense, goes on all expense paid lavish vacation at megacorp's expense. Politician comes back, tells followers huge lies about the evil opposition party, who is then blamed for all of megacorp's crimes and misdemeanors. Supporters then fill message boards and comment sections with propaganda fed to them to by politician, without ever considering that politician has lied to them, and is, in fact in megacorp's pockets.

      This is the essence of crony capitalism. Both parties do it - but the Democrats have honed this far better than the Republicans. This is how they are able to outspend Republicans two to one, three to one, and more in election after election. The money... doesn't come from unicorns, or from individual contributors.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  12. Nope, not oil recovery what done it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Twas graboids. And you can take that to the bank.

    1. Re:Nope, not oil recovery what done it by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I concur.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  13. Are you sure about that? by CCarrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Graboids could have migrated to Texas.

    But that can't be! Kevin Bacon killed them all in the end...oh, wait...

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  14. Possibly by Joe+U · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in the 1960's this was brought up with wastewater wells.

    Geologists are not sure if the small quakes prevented a larger one, or lead up to a larger one.

    On a somewhat related note, if you want to see why wastewater wells near fault lines are bad, ask Oklahoma with 300+ earthquakes in just a few years.
    http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

  15. Indian Saying by koan · · Score: 1

    "When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money."

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Indian Saying by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      only then will we realize that one cannot eat money."

      That sounds to me like a technical challenge. Edible. Money.

      To be more precise, non-counterfeitable edible money which has a ... hmmm ... I haven't worked this out yet ... a nutritional value that is greater than or equal to the nutrition that could be brought with that much money. Otherwise, you'd end up with a loop one way or the other so that you could use money to buy food, then sell the food for more money. Or vice versae. The nutritional and counterfeiting aspects are technical, but setting (and keeping) the nutrition-to-money conversion rate is a fiscal problem. I don't know if that last is soluble.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  16. As a Californian... by drfred79 · · Score: 1

    I can attest that a 3 to a 4.4 is a sleep-through earthquake. On the other hand fracking is bring down the price of natural gas and helping poor people so the cost to benefit ratio is in fracking's favor.

  17. REcovery? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oil Recovery May Have Triggered Texas Tremors

    Makes it sound like the oil was always ours and the Earth stole it.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. I'm not racist but.... (insert racist comment) by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

    'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection,' says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in Austin, who co-authored the study."

    I would like to know what are the various possible explanations for the tremors, and the rubric used for evaluating the relative plausibility of those explanations, so that we can all evaluate Mr. Frohlich's opinion that gas injection is "certainly" the cause of the tremors.

    --

    Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    1. Re:I'm not racist but.... (insert racist comment) by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 1

      If you read this paper. It should give you the answer. Makes sense to me but I'm not sciencist and certainly not an expert. All I can say is it seems to me sense if you look at the timing from the point the seismic activity started and the gas injection.

  19. Re:Oh Hum by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

    No, the Wilmington Field (pdf) in Long Beach CA apparently generated sharp quakes in the late 40s, while the oil being extracted caused ground subsidence, trashing all sorts of man made structures in the process.

  20. Hell is a local call... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    If you ever go through West Texas, perhaps on the way to Arizona or Colorado, much of it is a barren wasteland. In some places, the only green growth was around degraded oil spills.

  21. Dark Humor by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 1

    "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I guess thats what they're saying !

  22. Re:Spelling! by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    The complexities of Trailer Parks are amazing.

  23. Funny Logic by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    "Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that correlation is equal to causation."

    There, fixed the quote...

  24. Two possible causes by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    1. The end of the world is nigh and the Big J is coming (oil/gas backers view)

    2. Fracking is causing this.

    Choose one. Because climate change is now, and sticking your head in the tar sands won't change that basic fact.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  25. the worse the result the better for us by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    if everything goes awry and they manage to destroy the area, this could become a cautionary tale. we can only hope politicians have the insight and backbone to act when it other shoe drops.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  26. Another Texan says keep on puming that oil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was actually kinda interesting the evening of the OKC quake that we felt here in north central Texas. The water in our swimming pool did a really cool sloshing back and forth number, the likes of which I'd never seen before.

  27. Uh oh, anther lawn chair fell over. by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Hold on tight a big ole 3.0 earthquake might almost be felt, or worse yet, knock over a lawn chair,if it's already leaning. The theory is shaky at best, but even if it were entirely true lubricating a fault would mean more frequent less severe earthquakes, I will take constant 3.0 earthquakes over a once in a lifetime 8 thank you.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  28. Dissolution? by uncwjason · · Score: 1

    I only have an undergrad degree in Geology, so I'm not an expert by any means.... But I could see that pumping in CO2 into a carbonate-rich environment such as the Permian Basin could possibly mix with groundwater or other interstitial water and form some carbonic acid which would eat away any of the limestone, especially at the cracks where the liquid could reach. For some reason, people get surprised when the land below them shakes and fractures because of pumping some type of liquid at high pressures. This basin has been around for 250 million years, settling over time. How can you not expect something to happen?

  29. Re:Spelling! by Meski · · Score: 1

    When you're going for first post, spelling takes a back seat.