Oklahoma's Earthquakes Linked To Fracking 154
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."
If it's the process of putting the wastewater back (Score:1, Informative)
Perhaps companies that do fracking should be regulated to treat wastewater like nuclear waste and prevent them from dumping it back in. It would stop the earthquakes and save them from the impending lawsuits that would follow. a Win Win aside from the cost of storage which should be less than a class action. Also who's to say it wouldn't be easier to treat the water a couple of decades from now to the point where it could then be poured out.
Re:Okay, so this has what to do with fracking then (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Okay, so this has what to do with fracking the (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:A good thing (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Well, that's why a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. The problem is that they are pumping wastewater back into the area they just fracked thinking they can use the same mediocre methods of disposal and stability management used in non-fracking well processes. What we are seeing is that the hydraulic fracturing used to release the oil and gas from inside pockets of shale that are trapped inside other geologic strata. If the fracturing only affected the shale there may not be so much issue, but the fracturing is doing enough damage to the surrounding strata that just pumping wastewater into the area where the oil or gas was is not enough to stabilize the surrounding rock. Think of it this way. When a house is new it takes time to "settle" on its foundation. The new weight of the house on the disturbed soil causes the structure to sink, sometimes irregularly causing structural damage. When the rock strata is fractured and millions of years of stresses redistributed the ground is going to move in response to that as it settles. Just like the house you really have no idea how things will settle, and in some cases if they settle without causing damage. Where the examples differ is in the scope of the consequences. Fracking has the potential to cause an unimaginable amount of damage to land, water and life. It should be stopped. We have a sufficient number of studies and real world examples to say this is not a good thing and should be scrapped.
Re:A small problem... (Score:4, Informative)
If you look at the charts again, you'll notice the earthquakes occur generally near the fault line, which is not surprising, is it? And the stations are near the fault line too, which probably is a good idea, don't you think?
Re:seems to be a common theme (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, nobody has ever done a single environmental impact assessment or a performed an inspection related to a fracking operation.
Why bother? There's no point to it. The oil and gas companies have explicit exemptions and exceptions to most EPA oversight.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemptions_for_hydraulic_fracturing_under_United_States_federal_law [wikipedia.org]
It matters not a whit how damaging their actions are to the environment when there is no possible recourse available.
Re: seems to be a common theme (Score:3, Informative)
They could (and can) clean and recycle the water. Oil companies are very skilled at water purification - having needed to separate oil from water from steam, or detergent, injection processes. It is more expensive - so they won't do it unless water is scarce or regulation requires it.
Lies! (Score:1, Informative)