Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Seismological Society of America Claims Fracking Reactivated Ohio Fault 168

Posted by samzenpus from the whole-lot-of-shaking-going-on dept.
eldavojohn writes There have been suspicions that fracking has caused minor earthquakes in Ohio but last year seismic data recorded by the Earthscope Transportable Array was analyzed by the Seismological Society of America using template matching and has resulted in a new publication and press release making the statement that Hilcorp Energy's fracking in Poland Township in March of 2014 "did not create a new fault, rather it activated one that we didn't know about prior to the seismic activity." The earthquakes occurred in the Precambrian basement and lead the researchers to posit that further unknown faults may be activated by fracking. The press release ends with urging for "close cooperation among government, industry and the scientific community as hydraulic fracturing operations expand in areas where there's the potential for unknown pre-existing faults."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seismological Society of America Claims Fracking Reactivated Ohio Fault More

Seismological Society of America Claims Fracking Reactivated Ohio Fault

Comments Filter:

  • Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @12:49PM (#48746267) Homepage

    Despite there being no published science about its safety, and despite evidence that it is actually polluting wells and ground water ... it will keep happening.

    Because government officials are all paid heavily by the oil and gas industry to make damned sure they can do anything they want to, right up to tearing up private property because they want to.

    These short sighted clowns only care about profits, and don't give a damn about anything else.

    I can't imagine government is going to start reigning in corporations any time soon ... which means all laws and policy will continue to be so skewed in favor of corporations as to be laughable.

    America is nothing but an oligarchy these days.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ganjadude ( 952775 )
      I could have sworn that the video of burning sink water was proven to be a fake. not in the sense that it didnt actually happen, but on the basis that it had nothing to do with fracking??

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Oligonicella ( 659917 )
        You are correct. That water had gasses in it before the fracking started.

      • To be clear, none of what you're talking about is really related to the pollution of the ground water.

        The pollution of groundwater is from the actual chemicals used in some fracking and isn't tied to the whole "burning sink water" thing. Quantifying burning sink water as being tied to fracking will not happen, but quantifying what's in the water and when? That has occurred.

        Likewise, quantifying increased seismic activity to fracking has occurred.

        • as for the water issue, i dont know enough to weigh in on that. as for the seismic activity, are not a few smaller quakes much better than the large one that will be coming??

          • That was my first thought. If there was a fault line that is being activated, then they're effectively settling the tectonic mass before it can buckle any further, effectively giving us a few small harmless quakes now instead of a big highly destructive one later.

          • The big question is how "small" are the quakes now and how long would the large one have taken had they not started fracking in that area?

            If the small quakes cause property damage and the big quake would have taken place a couple thousand years from now, then I doubt that this would be considered a good trade-off.

        • Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aaron4801 ( 3007881 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:26PM (#48746695)
          Increased seismic activity, sure. But has there been any documented seismic damage? A bunch of 2-mile-deep 2.0 earthquakes are not even going to be felt by more than the most sensitive equipment. If there is a larger fault in the area, then frequent, small releases of energy are good for man-made structures on the surface by not letting the fault store up too much energy. It's when fault stops moving that you should get scared.
          • Frackers expose themselves to potential legal battles against property owners should seismic activity increase and cause even minor property damage. I think the problem will solve itself by keeping oil prices low.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        In the industry paid-for response TruthLand they admit that it was due to fracking, but claim that the particular well in question was not properly protected with a concrete barrier. They claim that it should not happen elsewhere if the wells are constructed properly and steps are taken to avoid contamination.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawkfish ( 8978 )

          In the industry paid-for response TruthLand they admit that it was due to fracking, but claim that the particular well in question was not properly protected with a concrete barrier. They claim that it should not happen elsewhere if the wells are constructed properly and steps are taken to avoid contamination.

          Fortunately, that doesn't cost anything. And even if it did, the nice people in the fossil fuel industry are always willing to pay extra for public health.

    • Re:Good luck with that. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @12:55PM (#48746335)

      "America is nothing but an oligarchy these days."

      When was it not? The few people in power have always controlled everything, not just in America, but everywhere. And it will always be like that.

    • And the best part is that the taxpayer is now heavily subsidizing an industry that isn't profitable anymore.

    • i absolutely disagree. america is also a kleptocracy.

      • and in the sense you are talking so is every other form of government ever but much more so.

        • agreed. but at least we can look back upon the good old days, where they actually made at least a half-assed effort to pretend it wasn't so

    • As a society, we need to know the true costs of using our technology. This means we need to know under what conditions, if any, hydrolic fracturing causes earthquakes.

      Fracking also provides many benefits. First and foremost it's given us energy near-independence decades sooner than other methods would have. This has potential spillover effects in foreign policy, particularly when it comes to dealing with other oil-rich nations. For example, if there had been a revolution in Saudi Arabia that threatened

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

        Fracking is almost 100 years old. Saying it's an unknown is a lie.

        • Physics is almost 14 billion years old, but parts of it are still unknown. Just because we've been doing something for 100 years doesn't mean we understand it completely.

    • despite evidence that it is actually polluting wells and ground water

      For somebody claiming existence of evidence, you are citing remarkably little of it... (No, I will not do the googling for you — you make the claim, you provide citations.)

      Because government officials are all paid heavily by the oil and gas industry

      While the taxpayer-funded scientists would never attempt to inflate their own importance to direct more grant-monies in their direction... Especially now that the hysteria of "global warmi

      • You're the Worst (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because government officials are all paid heavily by the oil and gas industry

        While the taxpayer-funded scientists would never attempt to inflate their own importance to direct more grant-monies in their direction... Especially now that the hysteria of "global warming" is settling down — and a new boogeyman, which, conveniently, can be neither measured nor confirmed nor denied with any certainty, is needed.

        One makes the laws that allow them to be bribed during campaign years without anyone knowing where or who that money came from and accept positions at the very companies they benefit after they "retire." And the other, well the other publishes peer reviewed research that is open for everyone. They then host a forum for the community to comment on it. And I should mention that the SSA is a an international community and a non-profit organization [seismosoc.org]. But, go ahead and attack the scientists or whatever Murdoc

    • Goes both ways (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

      Despite there being no published science about its safety

      At this point there is enough evidence to know it's generally safe. Even in the case of this unknown fault, the worst earthquake was 3.0 - and it was only one well corresponding to activation of the fault, the other nearby wells were fine (read the link).

      despite evidence that it is actually polluting wells and ground water

      What "evidence"? To date all claims have been proved false.

      I can't imagine government is going to start reigning in corporations

    • Re:Good luck with that. (Score:4, Funny)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:22PM (#48746641)

      New York State had put a stop to Fracking. And NY is about the most political state out there.

      However we need unbiased science on the effect. In the meantime, if they want to Frack, fine... However if something goes wrong, they will be responsible and will need to pay to clean it up, for the next hundred years. The Fracking companies should happily agree to these terms because their method is so clean and safe. That there should be no risk in giving the citizens the extra protection.

      • Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:44PM (#48746935)

        They (the owners of the company, not the pseudo-person company itself) would happily agree to those terms, knowing that they are protected by investor and bankruptcy laws, and eventually their own deaths and inheritance laws. Those terms are thus meaningless. Long-term environmental protection must be done through preventative regulation, not through post-damage punishment, as the time scales ensure those responsible cannot be adequately punished.

        I'm not making any claim as to whether fracking causes long-term environmental damage (though I'm happy it's not happening under my house), just pointing out that if it did, reactive punishment wouldn't stop it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

          Mandatory insurance. If you want to do something that can potentially cause very expensive problems you need to insure your actions.

          Unfortunately, I doubt any insurance company would be willing to take on that kind of liability.

      • However we need unbiased science on the effect. In the meantime, if they want to Frack, fine... However if something goes wrong, they will be responsible and will need to pay to clean it up, for the next hundred years.

        The problem is, it's actually literally impossible to clean it up with our level of technology. We cannot even survey the extent of the damage. So no, it's not fine; the cost to clean up the damage is effectively infinite.

  • "Don't install a basement" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I told the Precambrian family not to install a basement. But did they listen? Noooooo.

  • Less chance of dangerous quake now (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't the mini quakes release energy from the faults more safely?

  • what if (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @12:54PM (#48746319) Homepage
    what if causing a number of small earthquakes prolongs the release of a large one. Less energy is being pent up so the slippage should do less damage

  • But ... but ... gas is below 2 bucks man! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @12:54PM (#48746321) Journal
    Why blame government officials? Gas is below 2 bucks a gallon. A significant majority of the Americans would support fracking even if you prove fracking is adding carcinogens in their cereal and in the baby formula. They would think it is a price worth paying to get gas below 2$. You and I might disagree. But we would be in the minority.

    We seem to have done a piss poor job of explaining the benefits of clean air and clean water to our fellow citizens.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ganjadude ( 952775 )
      well, gases is cheaper because the middle east is dropping prices to put the american frackers out of business. so.... yeah, take what you will from that

      • Re:But ... but ... gas is below 2 bucks man! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:01PM (#48746419) Homepage

        The middle east producers are most certainly NOT dropping prices.

        The prices are dropping because there's a lot of it around, and because whatever vagaries in the market say the price goes down.

        What the middle east producers are doing is refusing to cut outputs in the face of dropping prices, because they have tons of cash and don't care if it puts American producers out of business.

        OPEC doesn't set the price, just output levels.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TheSync ( 5291 )

          OPEC doesn't set the price, just output levels.

          For a long time, it has been unclear that OPEC can actually "set output levels". Cartels are notoriously hard to keep together when every member can do better for themselves by cheating.

        • No. They've done this (pump like crazy and drive the price down) every time prices got high. Classic price squeeze to protect a market.

          This time it won't work.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TWX ( 665546 )
          I'm kind of wondering if the Saudis are attempting themselves to hurt Russia, or if they're playing-ball with the rest of the world in attempts to isolate Russia. They've stated, despite the low prices, that they do not intend to reduce production. If the Saudis are concerned that Russia is a threat to them then that would help explain the economics of producing something when it brings no more profit than a reduction in production would also bring. Or, they could see the upcoming electric-car and batter

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dj245 ( 732906 )

            I'm kind of wondering if the Saudis are attempting themselves to hurt Russia, or if they're playing-ball with the rest of the world in attempts to isolate Russia.

            My pet theory is that the US government made a deal with them- The US will deal with ISIS so the Saudi's don't have to get their hands dirty. The US will make sure that Saudi Arabia doesn't get too many refugees dumped on their border- a phenomenon which is quite concerning given that Lebanon's population is now around 20-25% refugees. In return for this help, Saudi Arabia helps put the squeeze on Russia.

          • The Saudis couldn't care less about Russia, they just want to destroy Iran's economy. Iran is their neighbor and biggest rival / enemy by far, and is vulnerable due to sanctions and an oil-dependent economy.

        • OPEC doesn't set the price, just output levels.

          I was under the impression there is a relationship between supply and demand; now you say maintaining supply in the face of falling demand has no effect on price?

          Or are you simply playing with words? "Set the price" being a function of "set the supply," I think even that argument fails.

          • Re:But ... but ... but (Score:4, Informative)

            by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:36PM (#48746817) Homepage

            was under the impression there is a relationship between supply and demand

            There's a relationship, but like all commodities it's more complicated than that. But the futures markets and all sorts of stuff completely unrelated to supply and demand also are huge factors.

            It is long past the point where these things happen in isolation.

            I seriously doubt even this [economist.com] comes close to explaining it:

            The oil price is partly determined by actual supply and demand, and partly by expectation. Demand for energy is closely related to economic activity. It also spikes in the winter in the northern hemisphere, and during summers in countries which use air conditioning. Supply can be affected by weather (which prevents tankers loading) and by geopolitical upsets. If producers think the price is staying high, they invest, which after a lag boosts supply. Similarly, low prices lead to an investment drought. OPEC's decisions shape expectations: if it curbs supply sharply, it can send prices spiking. Saudi Arabia produces nearly 10m barrels a day--a third of the OPEC total.

            Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya--two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined--has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the worldâ(TM)s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.

            I'm not playing with words at all. I'm saying that modern economics is FAR more complex than "when demand goes up price goes up". Modern economics is full of vagaries, speculation, collusion, and other bullshit.

            Despite claims to the contrary, economists don't know much more about how the economy works than you or I ... because economics is at least 50% ideology.

            You look for, and see, the outcomes you believe in.

            What economics is not, is an objective natural law. It's a series of observations which may or may not extend as far as people who use it claims, and whose premises may or may not be reliable.

            Economics is NOT a real science. There's a lot more voodoo in it that people admit.

            • There's a relationship, but like all commodities it's more complicated than that. But the futures markets and all sorts of stuff completely unrelated to supply and demand also are huge factors.

              Isn't the futures market just a set of predictions on future supply/demand? So it's not completely unrelated, but perhaps prone to large errors. (since predicting the future is a risky business)

        • No. The prices are going down because USA wants to appreciate the dollar, which is closely tied to the oil price. And they also want the ruble to go down, in order to discipline Russia. Saudi Arabia's regime is just being held by the US, so whatever the puppet master in the West wants the oil price to be, the puppets in the East will dance to.

        • You are partially correct,

          that the Middle East doesn't set prices, but Saudi Arabia has increased output:

          http://www.businessweek.com/ar... [businessweek.com]

          and many analysts believe the increase in production is to make the price of other extraction technologies unprofitable. They may become profitable again, but when fuel prices are this cheap, it makes it difficult.

      • For the common American, fracking was the reason gas is cheap. Either fracked oil reduced the price or it forced the "arabs" to reduce the price. Either way, fracking is the reason. It is possible Saudis are trying to drive the frackers out of business. If the Saudis succeed in bankrupting the frackers, are we going to thank Saudis for it?
        • no because as soon as they do, the prices will be right back in the 100$ a barrel

        • That won't work, because it's much easier to mothball existing equipment, then bring it back online, than it is to invent, design, and build that equipment in the first place. Saudi Arabia would have to hold the price low indefinitely (increasing supply to keep up with increasing demand) or the price would creep back up until fracking is profitable again. And the cost for fracking will go down when you can recommission old equipment instead of buying new. (I doubt you can buy used equipment today because

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        What we have right now is a perfect storm of multiple factors.

        1. US aggressive foreign policy against Russia, Venezuela and now IS. This is seen in situation in Georgia, Ukraine et al against Russia and with Cuba against Venezuela and is an extremely important tool. Timing of fracking's peak in US is a little too perfect to have been intentionally arranged, but it's certainly helpful to the extreme and is receiving significant political support from military wing of governing forces in the country.

        2. Gulf s

  • At worst, it can release stress that is already there. So they can "cause" an earthquake. But it's the big motions of the ground that we have no influence over that really puts stress in the ground.

    Isn't it true that stress that builds up over time would get released anyway, SOMETIME? (Unless the forces that caused the stress in the first place reversed so as to release it....)

    I mean, the release of chemicals, water pollution and consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions are all reasonable charges to make against fracking, but as far as earthquakes, weren't they inevitable anyway?

    Also, wouldn't triggering an earthquake cause a quake of less magnitude than would occur if allowed to build up and release naturally?

    --PeterM

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by digsbo ( 1292334 )
      That's a strong claim to make. As strong as that made in TFA. But it's just as possible that the fracking is breaking a strong section of rock, putting more stress on a weaker section of rock. It's conjecture. It can't really be tested in a controlled environment.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mothlos ( 832302 )

        We want to transfer load to weaker faults as they break under less load creating more small earthquakes instead of a few large ones. Bad loading scenarios certainly can occur, but they seem to be less probable than scenarios where fracking is reducing system load and thus reducing risk to lives and structures.

      • But it's just as possible that the fracking is breaking a strong section of rock, putting more stress on a weaker section of rock. It's conjecture. It can't really be tested in a controlled environment.

        It's not conjecture. It's the First Law of Thermodynamics - energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is conserved. If fracking were the source of the energy released in these quakes, then the fracking process must have put as much energy into the ground as was released in the quake. Clearly the fracking

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by digsbo ( 1292334 )
          I'm not anti-fracking, and I'm not trying to argue that moderate earthquakes are anything to get up in arms about, but I think you're really reaching here. You're completely ignoring (or simply not considering) potential energy. You can roll a bowling ball off a table with a micro-newton of force, and release a hell of a lot of energy. In any number of cases you'll see the same thing with fracking. There's already a lot of stress on the rock; adding a small fraction of the existing energies held in potentia
    • it also depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rizole ( 666389 )
      This being where it is, let's try a car analogy:
      Isn't it better to cause several smaller controlled crashes, releasing the energy and thus slowing a car, than one huge one where the energy is released in one go, especially if the crash was inevitable? After all the energy is already built up in the momentum of the car, crashing it gently doesn't PUT that energy there. Obviously, not all cars will crash but if we release the energy in cars with small controlled crashes, where's the harm?......hmmm.....could
  • In other words, anywhere they want to say so.
  • Everyone knows fracking is perfectly [theenergycollective.com] safe [businessweek.com].

    It's on the internet [davisvanguard.org] so it must be true [townhall.com].

  • Given that the price of oil is now around threepence ha'penny a barrel, isn't this all rather academic? Surely fracking is no longer economically viable?

    • But once you have the infrastructure setup you can be in the situation where you lose less money if you keep on producing - when you have fixed costs that still have to paid even if you produce nothing.

  • Funny how convenient the timing is. This from a society where ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company ( http://www.seismosoc.org/insid... [seismosoc.org] ) is a corporate member. Not that I endorse fracking, but my internal conspiracy theorist is making loud noises in my head.

  • The worst that could happen (Score:3)

    by Mr_Blank ( 172031 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:17PM (#48746585) Journal

    Break up solid rocks deep in the ground, suck out the oil, and then fill the hole with a water slurry. What could go wrong?

  • Well it has bee nice knowing you guys (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @01:31PM (#48746747)

    because as soon as fracking triggers the yellowstone caldera we are all done.

    • It's not going to. At least not likely. Yellowstone is a hotspot caused by the subducting Farallon plate. If anything's going to cause Yellowstone to blow big, it's probably an increase in the rate the remnants of the Farallon plate subduct, namely Juan de Fuca, Explorer, and Gorda plates. Or if the Pacific plate starts subducting under the North America plate.

      Fracking (to our knowledge) lubricates old fault lines, weakening or outright breaking the structures that keep them from being active. That won't ca

  • When will Hollywood wake up and give us a movie featuring an imminent earthquake cause by fraking and a team of brave scientists that buck the public denials and create a fantastic plan to stop if and save our planet!!
  • It sounds like these seismologists are relying almost entirely on template matching, which is nothing more than a pattern recognition algorithm. These kinds of algorithms are no substitute for intelligent analysis, especially in the absence of reliable statistics. They can be used and abused like any other engineering tool if they aren't properly understood.

  • Maybe the Seismological society didn't know... (Score:3)

    by yodleboy ( 982200 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @03:38PM (#48748319)
    Maybe the Seismological society didn't know about it, but I find it hard to believe that the drilling company didn't. Wife works as exec assistant to head geologist at an oil/gas company. They spend hours pouring over seismic data, logs, 3d maps etc of the underground structure before anything else ever happens. And this is at a small company (100-200 emp). I'd love to see the data the company in Ohio has and if this unknown fault is clearly seen in it.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close