Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma's Earthquakes Linked To Fracking
An anonymous reader writes Oklahoma has already experienced about 240 minor earthquakes this year, roughly double the rate at which California has had them. A recent study (abstract) has now tied those earthquakes to fracking. From the article: "Fracking itself doesn't seem to be causing many earthquakes at all. However, after the well is fracked, all that wastewater needs to be pumped back out and disposed of somewhere. Since it's often laced with chemicals and difficult to treat, companies will often pump the wastewater back underground into separate disposal wells. Wastewater injection comes with a catch, however: The process both pushes the crust in the region downward and increases pressure in cracks along the faults. That makes the faults more prone to slippages and earthquakes. ... More specifically, the researchers concluded that 89 wells were likely responsible for most of the seismic activity. And just four wells located southeast of Oklahoma City were likely responsible for about one-fifth of seismic activity in the state between 2008 and 2013."
Apparently, estimates of the distance that the wastewater travels from the SWD were off by nearly an order of magnitude.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The weakest part of the whole fracking operation is really sloppy treatment of the wastewater. There have been large spills in some places, and the disposal is often questionable (as seen here). The fracking process itself gets the most scientific scrutiny, because it's what's technically new about fracking, but good ol' wastewater handling is a mess, just as it was in the mining days.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Companies have been pumping water (usually wastewater or seawater) down wells since the start of the latter half of the 20th century, to restore pressure in oil reservoirs. So how is this anything new and anything connected with fracking?
Also, I don't unerstand why people make such a big deal out of these minor earthquakes which are general to small too feel even if you're paying attention for them. The amount of energy they're dealing with is only in the ballpark of these tiny quakes; compared to a large earthquake, it'd be like a mouse trying to push a boulder off a cliff. Either the boulder is ready to go or it's not, the mouse makes essentially no difference.
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
It's really interesting to see the lengths that fracking companies put between themselves and wastewater, basically outsourcing the wastewater manage process to entirely separate companies explicitly for the purpose of no longer being responsible for the wastewater. They've done this pretty much from the start, too.
At the beginning it was most likely to give themselves a buffer when the environmental problems or health problems arose due to all those unclassified chemicals of dubious safety used in fracking that remain in the wastewater. Now it may provide them another buffer when it comes time to blame a party for the cause of these earthquakes.
Much like the GMO argument, it is the strange and suspicious actions of the companies that raises concerns rather than what they are doing. I'm sure more ethical businesses could frack and dispose of wastewater safely; none do. Just as I'm sure Monsanto could make GMO products without such bizarre legal actions that leverage their product to punish farmers.
People wouldn't bat an eye if the fracking or GMO industry had transparency, honesty, and responsibility rather than endless misdirection and threats.
Regulation will happen when most of the resources that fracking allows us access too have been used up.
...
You know what 'fracking' refers to, right? Hydraulic fracturing?
The rocks are being purposely stressed by high pressure liquids and crack under the pressure, releasing oil/gas that was previously trapped and irretrievable.
So what this has to do with fracking is that they thought that just pumping fluid back in would hold things up, but clearly that's not true. The integrity of the final rock/fluid combination is inferior to the original. Old wells were like sticking a straw in a drink and sucking it up. It's not really the same (though old oil wells have been known to sink and collapse as well, so it's not like that was risk free either).
Is it a real problem? Well, I don't live there, so I don't know. I don't think it's wise to tinker with geology that we clearly don't understand well yet, however.
That makes the faults more prone to slippages and earthquakes.
If my meager understanding of earthquakes is correct, these small slippages release in small bits the tectonic stress that could otherwise build up until a bigger quake happens. So, frack away?
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
A majority of them are too small to be felt, but we have had 5.9's and 4.0's before. Even a 3.5 can easily be felt if the epicenter is close enough (of which, my house is only about 3-4 miles away from the epicenter of quite a few of them). The big deal is that it's starting to damage buildings. My house is developing a few cracks here and there, and some people are even getting serious enough as to having some foundational issues. When did it all start? When they started fracking. When did it stop? When they paused fracking for a while. When did it start up again? When they started fracking again. I know correlation does not equal causation but damn if that doesn't provide at least some necessitation to investigate.
"fracking" refers to the whole process. and that process as it is right now seems to cause earthquakes. if that is because the company owner have godlike powers or because they pump water back in causing issues is irrelvant.
*nod* one of the issues is that buildings on the east coast are not built with earthquakes in mind like west coast ones, so it takes much smaller quakes to do economic damage. And once you start to see damage (and the economic impact of repairs) you get into the classic sore point of 3rd parties paying a price for industry profits, which pisses people off.
They're nice enough to put their numbers and charts online. Which is great. https://cornell.app.box.com/okquakes/1/2137038978/18684174734/1
Unfortunately, their own charts show a bit of a problem. Specifically Figure S1.
The increase in earthquakes over time is definite. And it's NOT generally where the actual injection wells are. Sure, there's a few quakes recorded in the middle of the injection well area, but they're not consistent, and they don't map with time.
The earthquakes do map well with one thing, though: they seem to swarm around active seismic stations that aren't near fracking disposal wells. Which seems to either show that seismometers create earthquakes, or that they have some instrumentation issues.
One of these days, Fracking is going to cause an earthquake so large that it is going to cause Oklahoma to separate from the continental united states and drift off to sea.
That's weird, I found unknown shoes in my closet this morning and now everything tastes blue.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So what this has to do with fracking is that they thought that just pumping fluid back in would hold things up, but clearly that's not true.
That's not at all how it works. The fluid exists to create hydraulic pressure. They put sand or tiny ceramic balls in the water to fill the voids created by the fractures to "hold things up."
This article relates to what they do with all the water after it returns to surface. They go find another well that doesn't produce anymore (or drill a new one into a non-producing zone) and pump the water in. HOWEVER, salt water disposal (SWD) is an operation that has been going on for decades. It's not new or unique to fracturing in the slightest making this article just more incorrect bullshit, and your post only adds to that. Please stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about as this only adds to the incorrect info that surrounds this issue.
buildings on the east coast are not built with earthquakes in mind like west coast ones
TIL: Oklahoma City is on the east coast.
I'm not clear why it should. If you have geological structures under stress, there is already considerable energy in the system, and it may only take a small amount of additional energy to release the much larger amount being pent up.
If you have a bowling ball balanced at the top of a cliff, the energy released by it falling and hitting the ground far below is far greater than the energy required to push it over the cliff.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oil company employee finds no problem with oil extraction. News at 11.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Reproducibility is a key element in scientific research. I've think you've demonstrated a pretty strong case for it right there.
Also: Occam's Razor. You didn't have earthquakes before and they started when the practice of crumbling the foundational geology beneath you. And this is happening in many places where they never previously experienced earthquakes. As if we even need a scientific study commissioned to determine this? The repeated, consistent anecdotal evidence is overwhelming proof enough on its own.
Standard denialist garbage. What amount of fact is enough to convince you? Think about that for a moment. What data would you have to see, to be convinced that fracking is causing earthquakes?
As to proof, how do you know anything is real? We might be living on a roughly spherical shaped object lit by a much larger nearby roughly spherical object, or we might not. We could be living in a giant simulator that is so good, supernaturally good, that we can't tell it apart from reality. God could have created the universe in 7 days. How can we tell? We can't! We understand that we can make good conclusions from observable reality, no matter whether it is real or not. To the best of our knowledge, what we observe is real, but we understand there could be a deeper reality. Whether there is or not does not affect our work.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
So what this has to do with fracking is that they thought that just pumping fluid back in would hold things up, but clearly that's not true.
That's not at all how it works. The fluid exists to create hydraulic pressure. They put sand or tiny ceramic balls in the water to fill the voids created by the fractures to "hold things up."
And the interesting part is that there are quakes and there are QUAKES.
Not just energy but location. The serious risk of quakes involves some darn
deep structures. Deeper than any well and with vastly greater risk to
life and property.
Hydraulic fracturing and pumping waste to include CO2 into deep wells
can be expected to generate measurable seismic events. Some might
be felt without instruments.
Recall the coal fire and collapse in Utah generated a 3.9 on the Richter scale.
http://www.seis.utah.edu/Repor...
This is a far cry from the New Madrid quakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...
with magnitudes of 7.0 to 8.1.
The seismic risk of the central US is not well understood and is not well considered in
building and construction codes. Also no large quake is well considered in disaster
planning. Worse the impact of a large mid-west quake has much larger geographic
reach than a similar quake in Alaska or California.
Sadly the fracking fools will take this as a reason to stop fracking at any depth.
Most of the New Madrid seismicity is located between 3 and 15 miles (4.8 and 24.1 km) beneath the Earth's surface.
Most fracking in OK is shallow by comparison (1-2 miles).
Some believe that shallow releases of energy is a good thing and minimizes the
size and impact of deeper quakes. I am of the opinion that injecting fluids
does not increase the energy of natural quakes but might alter the
timing and energy dispersal profile. My opinion like most is not supported
by experimental facts and is just that opinion.
Hidden in the report is a disclosure of many seismic sensors and
plans to obtain funding for more. More science is good but the
social media and news outlet ignorance is being manipulated by
a plethora of interests one of which is network ratings where facts
are not an issue.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
A majority of them are too small to be felt, but we have had 5.9's and 4.0's before. ..... ......
The big deal is that it's starting to damage buildings.
Historic building codes in OK are not seismic risk aware.
Only recently have the codes in the hot spot around New Madrid
been partly addressed. In Calif there is a major industry
retrofitting buildings. It is costly and it is being driven by
an industry that profits from it. It is a good thing to reinforce
buildings, it is less good when the invoice arrives.
The cost of seismic retrofit in the Midwest could bankrupt
many states... and for the same reason tornado shelters
are not part of all schools, offices, shopping malls and homes
are not going to happen over night.
First building codes for new construction need to
be considered. Trailer houses like many single
story wood frame houses have less risk from quakes
than they do from tornadoes.... I hope regulators do
not bankrupt the Midwest....
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
How about peer-reviewed data with a peer-reviewed statistical correlation?
Is that really that unfair of a requirement?
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
Is peer-reviewed data with a peer-reviewed statistical correlation really that unfair of a requirement?
Maybe. If that's demanded for proof that the sky is blue, water flows downhill, the sun rises in the east, 2+2=4, or God exists, then it is an unfair requirement. Don't ask for proof for simple conclusions that anyone can reach with Occam's Razor. Don't demand proof for the unprovable. Raising those aren't expressing honest doubts, it's playing politics, using doubt to block further inquiry, delay remedial action that might impact someone negatively.
Rather, ask for proof of the counterintuitive. It makes sense that messing with the underground will cause changes in the underground that manifest as earthquakes, and also contamination of underground waters. Prove that fracking does not cause earthquakes. Peer review the proof. I suspect it can't be done, because fracking can and does cause earthquakes.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
You do realize that making patronizing statements with "standard denialist" in your litany is actually counterproductive to any sort of rational debate, don't you? Either facts stand on their own in the face of dissent or they don't. And the "facts" of today might not be the "facts" of tomorrow, assuming we are continually collecting data (defined as the result of scientific measures/experiments).
As for "masses of anecdotes resulting in data," I would point you to all the "we can light our tap water on fire because fracking" people, some of whom have neighbors with recorded family history of flammable tap water going back into the 19th century.