Oklahoma Earthquakes Are a National Security Threat (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Bloomberg article makes the case that the U.S. must consider the earthquake situation in Oklahoma a national security threat. The town of Cushing, OK is small — fewer than 10,000 people. But enough oil is stored there at times to eclipse the entire U.S. daily usage. "The oil in Cushing props up the $179 billion in West Texas Intermediate futures and options contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange." In the wake of the September 11th attacks, government officials posted guards near the giant storage facilities; they're that important to the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, the rising seismic activity in Oklahoma is putting those tanks at risk. The article argues that if a terrorist attack would threaten national security, so must an equally devastating natural disaster. This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade. "Last month the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees oil and gas, ordered wells within three miles to shut down entirely and those between three and six miles from the town to reduce their volume by 25 percent."

Comments

Classic anti-energy lobby technique

[Applehu Akbar]

A large oil tank farm is an example of infrastructure that can be threatened by a number of disasters, from tornados to terrorism. But as soon as you say "fracking", the swarms of small earthquakes that lubrication of shallow rock strata can create suddenly become much more important than other threats that are historically worse in the region. You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique

[Rei]

Why did you include two links neither of which have to do with earthquakes?

Anyway, this isn't entirely accurate:

This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade.

It's actually wastewater injection that's tied to increasing numbers of earthquakes. Now, fracking often uses wastewater injection. But other types of oil production sometimes do as well, and fracking doesn't always involve it. It's important to keep clear on just what the problem is.

Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique

[PolygamousRanchKid]

But as soon as you say "fracking", the swarms of small earthquakes that lubrication of shallow rock strata can create suddenly become much more important than other threats that are historically worse in the region. You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

. . . and there I was, thinking that I could get rich with "Nuclear Fracking"

. . .

Seriously though

[Ol Olsoc]

I stopped reading after the September 11th introduction.

Its a problem. A big one.

But are we going to start arresting earthquakes and sending them to Gitmo now?

Re:Oh the Irony..

[rmdingler]

The tanks are holding 3 days worth of US oil consumption at their peak storage value of 60 million barrels, so no, the amount there is not a a large part of the oil that is produced by the process.

Fracking may or may not be of negative environmental consequence, but it is the reinjection of production water into formations through SWD (salt water disposal) wells that is being blamed for the uptick in small earthquakes.

The floating top tanks are surrounded by earthen dams and the pipelines can be shut down almost instantly, so a disaster from earthquakes is pretty much FUD> don't panic.

Re:Error in summary

[Ol Olsoc]

This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade.

This isn't true. Even the EPA has been forced to admit that freaking is safe.

Pumping the used fracking water into wells might not be. When they do the drilling and fracking, they put chemicals in the water - some to make it slippery to aid in the fracking. There's no reason to believe they don't retain the same properties. Lubricate a fault line, don't be too surprised if it moves.

Fracking is almost certainly pretty safe. What I mentioned above might pose a problem. We've been doing fracking for a long time, and I think the big push now will be to research more environmentally safe or easily recyclable fracking fluid. Injection wells are just accidents waiting to happen.

Side note: After WW2, there was a lot of napalm left over, and they used it as a lubrication agent in fracking solutions for some time. I suspect a blowout could be pretty exciting.

Re: Actually, a Global Threat

[tlambert]

Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'
Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'
Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'