Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Utah Desalinization Plant Causes Earthquake 62

Posted by Hemos from the ka-WHAM dept.
mknewman writes "A Utah desalinization plant which removes 260 gallons of salty brine from a river which feeds the Colorado river has caused a 3.9 on the Richter Scale earthquake, noticeable by people 60 miles away in Grand Junction. More information at http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/15/earthqu ake.wellpumpin.ap/index.html"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Desalinization Plant Causes Earthquake More

Utah Desalinization Plant Causes Earthquake

Comments Filter:

  • Acurate Reporting (Score:5, Informative)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:35AM (#10820135) Homepage
    Well, in the interests of refecting what the article actually said, mknewman might have posted:, "A Utah desalinization plant which pumps 260 gallons per minute of salty brine to a depth of 14,000 feet underground, is probably associated with an earthquake measuring 3.9 on the Richter Scale, and noticeable by people 60 miles away in Grand Junction. More information at CNN.com [cnn.com]

  • Think of the earthquake (Score:3, Funny)

    by TykeClone ( 668449 ) * <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:35AM (#10820139) Homepage Journal
    removing 261 gallons of brine would have caused!
  • "... which removes 260 gallons of salty brine from a river ..."


    Hmm.. Something's doesn't seem right about this measurement. I wonder what it could be!
    • Slash "editors" don't give a crap about accuracy. Make it sound tasty in a leftist sort of way, link it to a story on any web site not hosted with GeoCities, profit!

      Had Hemos done much looking into of this story, a more accurate and indeed interesting write-up would have been presented to the Slash readers.

  • Reminds me of... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by krymsin01 ( 700838 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:41AM (#10820190) Homepage Journal
    Reminds me of something I heard about a geothermal generator near Cloverdale, CA. They have at least one earthquake a week because the station pumps water down into the ground to create steam to power their turbines. Take a look at this [usgs.gov] earthquake map. It's a map of all earthquakes in the California/Nevada area for the past week. Check out the area around Cloverdale. There will ALWAYS be at least one quake per week in that area.

  • COOOOL (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:47AM (#10820241) Journal
    For someone who grew up with nuclear movies, in wich every problem was solved or involved nukes, this is very very nice.

    Just don't think it would make a good James Bond movie. "Ah yes Mister Bond I see you managed to find my secret water pump!".

    On a more serious note, it is known that taking gas or oil from the earth causes the ground above to sink. In the netherlands this is happening up north although the effects are of course very small according to those in power (and living above sea level).

    It also causes some small earth quakes. Nothing major. Last one had all the news channels trying to make a story out of some rooftiles that slid off. We don't get good disasters here anymore.

    If this causes a lot of earthquakes because it lubricates the faults might it not be used to untension high risk areas? Put some lubricant in the ground wich causes a lot of small earth quakes to take energy away from the ground so there is not enough left for a big one?

    I have no idea how lethal a 3.9 is but it must be a hell of a lot better for places like LA then a 8.

    What do you mean this is potentially very dangerous. You are talking about a city that got nuclear reactors in an earthquake zone. They like danger over there.

    • Re:COOOOL (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 )
      I have no idea how lethal a 3.9 is but it must be a hell of a lot better for places like LA then a 8.

      As someone who lives with earthquakes (Southern California), I think I can speak with a little bit of knowledge. A 3.9 is a, "huh, why is that light swaying?" earthquake. A few dishes that are sitting in a very precarious spot might fall and break, but no one is going to really notice. For those of us used to living with them, I wouldn't expect much reaction until at least a 5; a 6 which is close, or
      • tell this to thousands who died in Kobe, Japan (over 5k people dead); Izmit Turkey (around 30k people dead); Gujarat, India (around 200k dead), Bam, Iran (around 40k dead)... And the list goes on.

        When a big earthquake hits you, the chances are someone you know will die.

    • I have no idea how lethal a 3.9 is but it must be a hell of a lot better for places like LA then a 8.

      Hmm lets just say after an earthquake that hits 8 on the richter scale most of LA would not be standing.

      If you remember the 1989 earthquake in Loma Prieta, the one that dropped the tiers on the Bay Bridge and collapsed part of the Nimitz Freeway, well that one was a 6.9.

      Here's some more info [bbc.co.uk].

      • Re:COOOOL (Score:3, Informative)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        Also remember that Richter is a logrithmic scale- a 4 is 10 times as bad as a 3, a 5 10 times as bad as a 4, etc. It other words, this was 1/1000 of the quake that collapsed the freeway. Big enough to feel a shake, not large enough to do damage. It really needs to hit 5 or 6 to do so.

    • Re:COOOOL (Score:3, Interesting)

      by El ( 94934 )
      If this causes a lot of earthquakes because it lubricates the faults might it not be used to untension high risk areas? Put some lubricant in the ground wich causes a lot of small earth quakes to take energy away from the ground so there is not enough left for a big one? Well, yes. IIRC, there was a proposal to run down the San Andreas Fault pumping water into holes while simultaneously pumper water out of holes on either side; the theory being that this would let the fault slip a little bit at a time, and

    • Re:COOOOL (Score:3, Informative)

      by lothar97 ( 768215 ) *
      Just don't think it would make a good James Bond movie. "Ah yes Mister Bond I see you managed to find my secret water pump!".

      So I guess you missed the James Bond movie A View to a Kill. [imdb.com] In that movie, the evil Zorin wants to cause an earthquake that will destroy Silicon Valley. His method? Pumping massive amount of salt water into the faults, then blowing up part of the fault. So the plant in TFA wasn't blowing up faults, but their salt water did grease the faultlines- just like the movie in 1985 suggest

  • I knew about the caffeine ban . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:48AM (#10820251)
    . . . but I didn't realize that Mormons also got all shook up over plain old salt.

  • Good news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:50AM (#10820285) Homepage Journal
    The theory is that the water essentially lubricates the fault, making it easier for it to move. The pumping does nothing to create pressure. Instead, it reduces the amount of pressure that has to build up before an earthquake hits. This means we get a bunch of small quakes relatively frequently instead of a big bad one when we least expect it.

    So perhaps they should start similar pumping actions in California to allow for more smaller quakes to reduce the pressure buildup?

    • Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <(moc.rr.htuosdim) (ta) (mjb)> on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:59AM (#10820393) Homepage
      The pumping does nothing to create pressure. Instead, it reduces the amount of pressure that has to build up before an earthquake hits.
      I was thinking the same thing when I read that. Seems like over all a Good Thing[tm]. However, from the FA:
      That event, combined with two significant tremors in 1999, led government officials to reduce the amount of brine injected by a third.
      Perhaps reducing the the amount pumped in increased the likelyhood of bigger quakes. It seems like lubricating the fault line would be the thing to do.
      • I fully support this theory of lubricating the fault line by pumping - it seems the added benefit of releasing pressure build-up is nothing to scoff at either. The fact that government officials might notice significant tremors while the pumping is going on disturbs me to no end though - I didn't think the tremors would be that significant!

        Can anyone here verify this theory - oh, wait, nevermind. This IS slashdot, afterall.

  • A related article.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hustin ( 684493 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:52AM (#10820309)


    Wired had an article the other day regarding the environmental impacts of another desalination plant [wired.com], this one in Arizona.

  • It has happended before in the Denver area (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cruff ( 171569 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @12:15PM (#10820597)
    Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, there was some injection of water into wells in the Denver area (I forget if it was at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant or at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal nerve gas/pesticide site). It resulted in the same types of low level earthquakes. I recall one morning, while I was carrying my full bowl of cereal into the living room to watch the cartoons, a magnitude 4 (or thereabouts) earthquake struck. I had to stop to prevent my cereal bowl from spilling milk onto the floor. The water injection was stopped, but I don't recall if it was to prevent further earthquakes or some other reason.
    • Denver also had a problem with earthquakes from oil drilling with the shale industry in the 70s & 80s (before it went belly up in the mid/late 80s). Water was pumped down into the areas to help make slurry for transport.
    • http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/colorado/colorado _history.html

      "In 1961, a 12,000-foot well was drilled at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, northeast of Denver, for disposing of waste fluids from Arsenal operations. Injection was commenced March 1962, and an unusual series of earthquakes erupted in the area shortly after."

  • Why did we build this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @12:48PM (#10820960) Homepage
    What is the purpose of this desalinization plant? The article says "The process is intended to decrease the salt content of the Colorado River downstream..." but why would we want to do that? If the purpose was to remove it for human consumption, I would understand. But that doesn't seem to be the case if it is just removing the salt for the downstream river.

    This whole thing reminds me of the Rhine River [swipnet.se] which was straightened so it flowed faster, causing massive erosion and removing the natural process of detoxifing the water. Eventually, the river had to be un-straightened to fix the problem.
    • I seem to remember reading that the salt content of the Colorado is unnaturally high due to removal of desalinated water for irrigation and human consumption. I believe it was already higher than other US rivers because of the geology (saltier rocks?). Perhaps this is just to reduce the content back to natural levels so it doesn't kill vegetation or screw up the fish runs or whatever the ill effects of a lot of salt are.
      • Right... like the fact that the Colorado dries up before it ever reaches the ocean doesn't effect the fish runs any! No, this is purely to benefit the people downstream pumping water back out of the Colorado...

    • Re:Why did we build this? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mithras the prophet ( 579978 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:52PM (#10821646) Homepage Journal
      The downstream river is the sole source of water for, among other places, Las Vegas.


    • Try to irrigate your field with brackish water and after few years nothing will grow there.

      Ridiculous portion of Colorado water gets diverted upstream from Utah. Plus, some Utah tributaries have natutaly high salt content. So what flows down after Utah is more salty than it is acceptable for agriculture. Since they have no spare water to dilute it, they have to desalinate.

    • Because for nearly 100 years the US Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers embarked on a sort of war between one another to see who could build more dams (thereby "reclaiming" water) in America west of the Mississippi, which is largely one big desert (with some exceptions such as the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and parts of the SF Bay Area). There was-- seriously-- an attitude that if people just moved there and started farming that the weather would change. People even coined the

  • Well, on the good side, one would think it's releasing pressure, thus less danger of big quakes later on. On the downside, more smaller quakes. I guess they could get used to'm. And some people say that humans can't have an impact on their environment in the crust of the earth sense. Hehe... Now we get to not only mess up the atmosphere and the biosphere, but the crust too.

  • QUICK! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @02:17PM (#10821873)
    We better hurry up and give up some rights before the terrorists start pumping water underground and causing earthquakes.

  • I mean, you wouldn't want all that salt water eventually ending up in the ocean, now would you? Here's an idea: why not let all the people downstream pumping water out of the Colorado desalinate it?
  • Subsidizing the farmers and cities who are pulling H2O out of the river, raising the relative salt concentrations by using tax money to remove salt to try to reduce the relative salt level to "normal".

    Another "tragedy of the commons" caused by a lack of private property rights.

    Want to solve this whole problem? Salt-neutral use of the river. If you want it, take it and deal with the salt. If you put into it, treat it first so it's at least as clean as what you took out.

    Don't get me wrong, this same physic

    • it's natural salt (Score:4, Insightful)

      by klossner ( 733867 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @04:24PM (#10823171)
      Your argument would make sense only if the farmers and cities were distilling the water and returning the solids to the river. They're not, so there's no "tragedy of the commons" here.

      The salt in the Dolores River comes from natural underground salt formations. Ground water passes through a collapsed salt anticline and becomes brine. You can read the technical report at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri02-4275/ [usgs.gov] and see photos at http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~jeh/Photos/Captions/capday 4.html [mtu.edu].

      Natural salt water is not uncommon in this region. The Great Salt Lake formed long before the Industrial Age.

    • Your argument whilst superficially attractive seems to be based on jealousy greed and ignorance.

      For example, in related geographical, geological and political news

      http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www. a ntenna.nl/wise/570/5419.html [antenna.nl]

      It seems that the final cost of your national nuclear weapons defence program also offers you the choice of drinking radioactive water or paying your tax dollars to keep the Colorado river clean.

      To summarise

      "U.S. DOE announces plan to relocate Atlas Moab uranium
      • Your argument whilst superficially attractive seems to be based on jealousy greed and ignorance.

        False. If it were even superficially attractive, politicians would like it. The reason it's not superficially attractive is that it requires individual responsibility. People prefer to hide from the repercussions of their choices.

        Applying age-old, standard and proven property rights makes problems like pollution solvable. It places responsibility directly in the laps of the individuals whose choices create the

  • So This Is What You'd Call... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wildsurf ( 535389 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @05:12PM (#10823654) Homepage
    a Salt Shaker.
  • ...is that this is a cheap way of causing earth quakes. Why would you want to do that, you ask? Well, besides the obvious reason of being an evil villain in a Bond-movie, you could also do this to make small earthquakes to disperse the tension in the crust, thereby averting big buildups that evetually get released in big, disastrous earthquakes.

    Of course this would need to be tested somewhere safe. Are there any major fault lines in the antarctic?
    • You think nobody living there means it's safe? You're going to look pretty silly when half an ice sheet slides into the ocean, and even sillier when your city is inundated.
  • Or is the opposite true? I would think that in such a large volume, it could be part of the problem.

  • Not to flame or anything, but the post says salty brine, the definition [reference.com] of brine already implies that it's salty, just trying to spread knowledge. Brine or salty water would have been acceptable.

    On a separate note very interesting article, you do learn something new every day, or several things on /.

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close