Page added on July 12, 2013
Powerful earthquakes thousands of miles away can trigger swarms of minor quakes near wastewater-injection wells like those used in oil and gas recovery, scientists reported on Thursday, sometimes followed months later by quakes big enough to destroy buildings.
The discovery, published in the journal Science by one of the world’s leading seismology labs, threatens to make hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which involves injecting fluid deep underground, even more controversial.
It comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducts a study of the effects of fracking, particularly the disposal of wastewater, which could form the basis of new regulations on oil and gas drilling.
Geologists have known for 50 years that injecting fluid underground can increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more likely to slip. The result is an “induced” quake.
A recent surge in U.S. oil and gas production – much of it using vast amounts of water to crack open rocks and release natural gas, as in fracking, or to bring up oil and gas from standard wells – has been linked to an increase in small to moderate induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and Colorado.
Now seismologists at Columbia University say they have identified three quakes – in Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas – that were triggered at injection-well sites by major earthquakes a long distance away.
“The fluids (in wastewater injection wells) are driving the faults to their tipping point,” said Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, who led the study. It was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Fracking opponents’ main concern is that it will release toxic chemicals into water supplies, said John Armstrong, a spokesman for New Yorkers Against Fracking, an advocacy group.
But “when you tell people the process is linked to earthquakes, the reaction is, ‘what? They’re doing something that can cause earthquakes?’ This really should be a stark warning,” he said.
Fracking proponents reacted cautiously to the study.
“More fact-based research … aimed at further reducing the very rare occurrence of seismicity associated with underground injection wells is welcomed, and will certainly help enable more responsible natural gas development,” said Kathryn Klaber, chief executive of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
‘DYNAMIC TRIGGERING’
Quakes with a magnitude of 2 or lower, which can hardly be felt, are routinely produced in fracking, said geologist William Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey, an expert on human-induced earthquakes who was not involved in the study.
The largest fracking-induced earthquake “was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk,” he wrote in Science.
But van der Elst and colleagues found evidence that injection wells can set the stage for more dangerous quakes. Because pressure from wastewater wells stresses nearby faults, if seismic waves speeding across Earth’s surface hit the fault it can rupture and, months later, produce an earthquake stronger than magnitude 5.
What seems to happen is that wastewater injection leaves local faults “critically loaded,” or on the verge of rupture. Even weak seismic waves from faraway quakes are therefore enough to set off a swarm of small quakes in a process called “dynamic triggering.”
“I have observed remote triggering in Oklahoma,” said seismologist Austin Holland of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, who was not involved in the study. “This has occurred in areas where no injections are going on, but it is more likely to occur in injection areas.”
Once these triggered quakes stop, the danger is not necessarily over. The swarm of quakes, said Heather Savage of Lamont-Doherty and a co-author of the study, “could indicate that faults are becoming critically stressed and might soon host a larger earthquake.”
For instance, seismic waves from an 8.8 quake in Maule, Chile, in February 2010 rippled across the planet and triggered a 4.1 quake in Prague, Oklahoma – site of the Wilzetta oil field – some 16 hours later.
That was followed by months of smaller tremors in Oklahoma, and then the largest quake yet associated with wastewater injection, a 5.7 temblor in Prague on November 6, 2011.
That quake destroyed 14 homes, buckled a highway and injured two people.
The Prague quake is “not only one of the largest earthquakes to be associated with wastewater disposal, but also one of the largest linked to a remote triggering event,” said van der Elst.
The Chile quake also caused a swarm of small temblors in Trinidad, Colorado, near wells where wastewater used to extract methane from coal beds had been injected.
On August 22, 2011, a magnitude 5.3 quake hit Trinidad, damaging dozens of buildings.
The 9.1 earthquake in Japan in March 2011, which caused a devastating tsunami, triggered a swarm of small quakes in Snyder, Texas – site of the Cogdell oil field. That autumn, Snyder experienced a 4.5 quake.
The presence of injection wells does not mean an area is doomed to have a swarm of earthquakes as a result of seismic activity half a world away, and a swarm of induced quakes does not necessarily portend a big one.
Guy, Arkansas; Jones, Oklahoma; and Youngstown, Ohio, have all experienced moderate induced quakes due to fluid injection from oil or gas drilling. But none has had a quake triggered by a distant temblor.
Long-distance triggering is most likely where wastewater wells have been operating for decades and where there is little history of earthquake activity, the researchers write.
“The important thing now is to establish how common this is,” said Oklahoma’s Holland, referring to remotely triggered quakes. “We don’t have a good answer to that question yet.”
Before the advent of injection wells, triggered earthquakes were a purely natural phenomenon. A 7.3 quake in California’s Mojave Desert in 1992 set off a series of tiny quakes north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, for instance.
Now, according to the Science paper, triggered quakes can occur where human activity has weakened faults.
Current federal and state regulations for wastewater disposal wells focus on protecting drinking water sources from contamination, not on earthquake hazards.
7 Comments on "Study raises new concern about earthquakes and fracking"
Arthur on Fri, 12th Jul 2013 11:24 am
It is not just fracking that causes earthquakes. One of the worlds largest natural gasfields is located in the north of the Netherlands (which is the main reason why we in Holland unfortunately are so low on the renewable pecking order in Europe) and is being exploited to the max since the sixties and is one of the major hidden subsidies of the Netherlands, next to the very favourable location at the mouth of the Rhine river, controlling most of the traffic to the entire European hinterland, as well as located precisely at the center of gravity between the three major European bullies: Germany, France and Britain. The extraction of all that gas is causing all sorts of prolapses and damage to buildings:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/earthquakes-hit-gas-rich-groningen-province-in-the-netherlands.html
The estimates vary but most likely the total soil subsidence in the Groningen province will be around a staggering 42 cm, in an area which is already below sealevel:
tinyurl . com / lqtuk4e
If the West-Antarctic icecap would break-off, as many fear, this would cause an increase of sealevel of three meters, which would mean the end of the Netherlands (the dikes can handle 1 meter max.), at least of cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague, a development quite a few conservative Dutch would actually applaud. I am living at a comfortable +20m in the east of the Netherlands. đŸ˜‰
BillT on Fri, 12th Jul 2013 1:59 pm
True, Arthur. If you take something out, something else will fill the void. It may no happen when the withdrawal is made but eventually. Maybe all of those big pockets will be filled with the water that we need to live someday? Imagine if all of the aquifers started to replace all of that oil and natural gas, placing it all miles deep in the earth. Then imagine not enough energy to pump it back up for use.
Then too, when you lubricate even rock, something is going to slip. The earth’s crust is constantly moving and it is usually in fits and starts, not smooth. Over the 3+ billion years it has existed, it has all been recycled into the liquid mantel a large number of times, maybe as many as 6 or more. And in a few hundred million years, nothing will be left of this civilization, not even the nuclear waste.
Arthur on Fri, 12th Jul 2013 4:28 pm
“The earth’s crust is constantly moving and it is usually in fits and starts, not smooth.”
There are two Canadians with pennames Flem-Ath (see amazon.com), who plug the theory that the earth’s crust can move as one whole over the mantle, obviously creating a global catastrophe. The last time it is said to have happened was 13,000 years ago. That theory comes from a prof Hapgood, and Einstein showed interest in the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis
I find it compelling or at least extremely interesting.
This story offers an alternative explanation for ice ages, namely that there were none. Instead, places covered with ice (like Holland) were at the time closer to the North-Pole. The ‘ice age’ ended after an integral earth crust displacement.
It also explains the persistent stories from the Great Deluge, refered to for instance in the Bible.
The blockbuster movie “2012” is based on this scenario.
Plantagenet on Fri, 12th Jul 2013 4:39 pm
A “frack” is a small earthquake. So what? Small earthquakes don’t do any damage at all at the surface.
baptised on Fri, 12th Jul 2013 5:16 pm
I wonder what volume of voids have been put into the earth from the very first oil&natural gas was removed till present? Any number crunchers,got an idea? and under Saudi Araba.
Arthur on Fri, 12th Jul 2013 5:18 pm
“I wonder what volume of voids have been put into the earth”
1+ trillion barrel for starters.
Dmyers on Sat, 13th Jul 2013 1:33 am
What about those voids? No effects whatsoever? This is something no one ever addresses. I suspect they could cause a huge strain on a prior state of equilibrium.
“…If you take something out, something else will fill the void.” [quoting BillT’s comment] I’m going to take that as gospel, as they say. It’s really a fact against which no argument can be made.
We have created a great void where once was a massive weight and volume of oil. So, not only is there a void of three dimensional content but also a void of weight and physical support. The great (re)filling of that void will not likely be a human friendly event or process.