From Cornell University , another one of the numerous studies that tries to make fracking (via wastewater products) look bad because it is claimed to cause small earthquakes as far as 30km away, which seems more than a bit of a stretch to me. There’s quite a bit of irrational hysteria and outright lies surrounding the issue, so much so that terrified eco-activists in my own county successfully got a ballot initiative on the Nov 4th election to ban fracking, even though there hasn’t been an oil/gas well drilled here in 25 years, making the ban pretty much a moot point. Meanwhile the fracking process is set to help the U.S. overtake Saudi Arabia, so one wonders if the inconvenience of small quakes might be acceptable.
Oklahoma quakes induced by wastewater injection, study finds
ITHACA, N.Y. – The dramatic increase in earthquakes in central Oklahoma since 2009 is likely attributable to subsurface wastewater injection at just a handful of disposal wells, finds a new study published in the journal Science on July 3, 2014.
The research team was led by Katie Keranen, professor of geophysics at Cornell University, who says Oklahoma earthquakes constitute nearly half of all central and eastern U.S. seismicity from 2008 to 2013, many occurring in areas of high-rate water disposal.
“Induced seismicity is one of the primary challenges for expanded shale gas and unconventional hydrocarbon development. Our results provide insight into the process by which the earthquakes are induced and suggest that adherence to standard best practices may substantially reduce the risk of inducing seismicity,” said Keranen. “The best practices include avoiding wastewater disposal near major faults and the use of appropriate monitoring and mitigation strategies.”
The study also concluded:
- Four of the highest-volume disposal wells in Oklahoma (~0.05% of wells) are capable of triggering ~20% of recent central U.S. earthquakes in a swarm covering nearly 2,000 square kilometers, as shown by analysis of modeled pore pressure increase at relocated earthquake hypocenters.
- Earthquakes are induced at distances over 30 km from the disposal wells. These distances are far beyond existing criteria of 5 km from the well for diagnosis of induced earthquakes.
- The area of increased pressure related to these wells continually expands, increasing the probability of encountering a larger fault and thus increasing the risk of triggering a higher-magnitude earthquake.
“Earthquake and subsurface pressure monitoring should be routinely conducted in regions of wastewater disposal and all data from those should be publicly accessible. This should also include detailed monitoring and reporting of pumping volumes and pressures,” said Keranen. ‘In many states the data are more difficult to obtain than for Oklahoma; databases should be standardized nationally. Independent quality assurance checks would increase confidence. “
Top marks though to Cornell researchers, who made their data and SI available here, along with the paper. Contrast that to NOAA/NCDC that puts their papers behind the paywall of the AMS.
Download the study, data, and SI: https://cornell.box.com/okquakes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Darren Potter says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Darren, what matters is the truth. It is known that injection wells can cause micro-seismic events. It is not really fair to call them earthquakes. It is also known that earthquakes in Oklahoma are a naturally occurring event. There is no evidence that either injection wells or fracking events trigger damage-causing earthquakes. So if I lived in Oklahoma I would want to know that damage-causing earthquakes are naturally occurring so that I could take precautions, such as reinforcing my chimney, rather than trying to ban fracking which has nothing to do with a magnitude 5.6 earthquake.
Darren Potter says:
July 6, 2014 at 11:39 am
Darren, your facts are false. Link to the USGS web-site for a primer on earthquake history in Oklahoma. The only recent major earthquake was a magnitude 5.6 in 2011. Others of note:
M 5.0 in 1918
M 6.0 in 1929
M 5.5 in 1952
M 6.0 in 1953
M 6.0 in 1956
M 6.0 in 1959
M 5.0 in 1961
M 6.0 in 1968
M 4.6 in 1969
M 4.2 in 1995
M 4.6 in 1997
The summary ends in 1976 (the year the article was published) but it seems there were no 5.0 or greater magnitude earthquakes from 1969 until the one in 2011.
Your point about Oklahoma not needing construction methods to earthquake codes is busted as the area has experienced five magnitude 6 or greater earthquakes since recording in the area began in the early 1900s.
In 1952 there were a total of 7 earthquakes and aftershocks greater than magnitude 4.0. Thus far in 2014 there have also been 7 earthquakes greater than 4.0. Note that today earthquakes are automatically recorded by instrumentation. I’m not sure when this started in Oklahoma but unlikely in 1952.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/oklahoma/history.php
Meet SASOL, a South African fracker, investing 21 Billion dollars into a mass industrial startup in Louisana, USA. Foreign investors, hmm.
First link, Sasol’s website for this project.
Second link, Mother Jones website article, and point of view.
I don’t think it is such a wise idea to frack along fault or stress fractures and I don’t think that anyone here does either, think that it would be wise.
Check out the greenhouse gas emissions in the Mother Jones article, wow.
Welcome to Sasol’s Project Website
http://www.sasollouisianaprojects.com/
Sasol, an international integrated energy and chemical company, is a world leader in the commercial production of liquid fuels and chemicals from natural gas. From transportation fuels, paint and medical lasers to perfumes and detergents, Sasol’s products provide far-reaching benefits to people’s lives around the globe.
…With plans to make significant investments in Southwest Louisiana, Sasol is proposing the construction of a world-scale ethane cracker and gas-to-liquids (GTL) facility at its Westlake site in Southwest Louisiana. This innovative complex will not only benefit our nation’s energy independence, but will also be a tremendous economic stimulus to the region………………………….
A Massive Chemical Plant Is Poised to Wipe This Louisiana Town off the Map
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/sasol-mossville-louisiana
SASOL’s proposed facility may spell the end for a 224-year-old community founded by freed slaves.
By Tim Murphy
Thu Mar. 27, 2014 6:00 AM EDT
…The project, spearheaded by the South African chemical giant SASOL, will cost as much as $21 billion, but stands to benefit from more than $2 billion in incentives (including $115 million in direct funding) from the cash-strapped state budget. It has the backing of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered a likely 2016 presidential candidate, who traveled to the outskirts of Lake Charles for the official announcement of the plan in 2012. The state thinks it’s an economic slam dunk. One study from Louisiana State University projected that it would have a total economic impact of $46.2 billion. It is the largest industrial project in the history of Louisiana. And after a community meeting on Tuesday, it’s one step closer to realization.
But that massive plant will come with a steep environmental price. It will produce more greenhouse gases than any other facility in the state. And the project will almost certainly spell the end for the 224-year-old settlement of Mossville, a poor enclave that has been forced to play host to industrial facilities no one else wanted in their backyard.
An analysis conducted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in February determined that the new project “will result in significant net emissions increases” of greenhouse gases, promethium, sulfur oxide, nitric oxide, and carbon monoxide. By its calculations, the plant will spew out more than 10 million cubic tons of greenhouse gases per year. (By contrast, the Exxon-Mobil refinery outside Baton Rouge, a sprawling complex that’s 250 times the size of the New Orleans Superdome, emits 6.6 million tons.)…………………………………….
Darren:
You sure like to post a lot of nonsense and then claim it as science. Steve from Rockwood already proved most of your claims as false, which I believe leaves me just two.
Oklahoma is known for earthquake swarms. Historical fact. I already posted links to the evidence in my previous comments above, direct from USGS; but I guess you don’t bother with the science research part.
Oklahoma’s Meer fault is listed on the National seismic hazards map; quakes in Oklahoma are neither unusual nor uncommon. Getting listed on the national hazards map means there is significant history of quakes at the fault.
The USGS search engine requires rectangle or circular searches. California is not easily searched without a lot of fiddling; so the search only includes about 75% of California but includes everything but the panhandle of Oklahoma.
In 2011 Oklahoma had 63 earthquakes greater than 3.0
In 2011 California had 92 earthquakes greater than 3.0
In 2012 Oklahoma had 34 earthquakes greater than 3.0
In 2012 California had 69 earthquakes greater than 3.0
In 2013 Oklahoma had 98 earthquakes greater than 3.0
In 2013 California had 109 earthquakes greater than 3.0
If you switch to quakes greater than 2.0 California far outranks Oklahoma in sheer number of earthquakes.
If you’d bother to actually read the various research papers all of the supposed correlations linking fluid injection sites to earthquakes are strictly judgmental and use that tired rationale of “it’s the only reason we can think of…”
It is not research and it definitely is not science; nor is it a surprise that this so-called finding occurred during this particular anti-fossil fuels administration.
There are thousands of wells without any local earthquakes.
There are thousands of earthquakes without local fluid injection sites.
The fact that a simple Venn diagram places earthquakes in proximity to fluid injection sites is not proof of anything except that some earthquakes occur near fluid injection sites.
latecommer2014 says: Please review item number seven in this list of Earthquake Myths…
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/earthquakes/Pages/qh_earthquakes_myths.aspx
You and some others are changing horses mid-stream. The claim is that they ” reduce the severity of potential quakes.” – not prevent them.
Is there any question that there has to be potential energy present in order for an earth quake to happen? Is there any question that releasing that potential in small steps is preferable to having it release all at once?
About 40 years ago, they conducted experiments on a remote section of the San Andreas to try and use water injection to trigger small quakes. Lots of small quakes do no damage, but a single big one can do lots of damage. After about a decade they abandoned the experiment without managing to trigger any quakes.
Could y’all explain to me why putting back what you took out of the ground is a bad thing?
chuck says:
Please review item number seven in this list of Earthquake Myths.
Chuck – please note that item number seven on that list is a simple statement, provided with no supporting information or references. It carries the same weight as the statements made by those arguing differently.
I would be quite interested in seeing actual supporting evidence for both sides of this particular debate.
*headshaking* to the following comment:
“Is there a reason that the study uses kilometers instead of miles”
All the scientific world uses SI-units, that Americans still use an out-dated system is always making me shake my head. And that people populating scientific sites still don’t know that, is just sad…
Yet no earthquakes in PA or Ohio?
USGS ran an animation on Oklahoma. Of course, over time the little dots all bundle up and looks scary. Of course, their series starts in the last ten years and not before then. I flipped through other states and didn’t find the same animation.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/region.php
Animation Oklahoma:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceus/products/OKeqanimation.php
Major fracking ALL over Louisiana, nothing for earthquakes
Major fracking in Arkansas, only a few earthquakes in tip within the New Madrid Fault area
I think people are using an animation to scare people…bumper stickers are easier to read and so are cartoons.