Is fracking causing earthquakes

[tupac chopra]

Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection

Large areas of the United States long considered geologically stable with little or no detected seismicity have recently become seismically active. The increase in earthquake activity began in the mid-continent starting in 2001 (1) and has continued to rise. In 2014, the rate of occurrence of earthquakes with magnitudes (M) of 3 and greater in Oklahoma exceeded that in California (see the figure). This elevated activity includes larger earthquakes, several with M > 5, that have caused significant damage (2, 3). To a large extent, the increasing rate of earthquakes in the mid-continent is due to fluid-injection activities used in modern energy production (1, 4, 5). We explore potential avenues for mitigating effects of induced seismicity. Although the United States is our focus here, Canada, China, the UK, and others confront similar problems associated with oil and gas production, whereas quakes induced by geothermal activities affect Switzerland, Germany, and others.

 

[none]

I heard the USGS was saying some of the seismic activity is from coal mining too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Frack in a seismic zone and what do you expect to happen?

Note, however, that it has been proposed as a means of earthquake protection--it doesn't create any more energy, it just causes it to be released more frequently--and more smaller quakes do less damage than fewer bigger ones.

 

[tupac chopra]

Frack in a seismic zone and what do you expect to happen?

Note, however, that it has been proposed as a means of earthquake protection--it doesn't create any more energy, it just causes it to be released more frequently--and more smaller quakes do less damage than fewer bigger ones.

Hmmm...who was it that proposed this?

 

[barbos]

I was under impression that these quakes were quite tiny. And yes, I can see how fracking could actually be helpful in releasing the stress in seismology-active regions.

 

[none]

From what I've read about the unexpected seismic activity it is occurring in non seismic zones.
I don't have sources but I remember reading something from the USGS at some point a few years ago about the coal mines.

 

[SimpleDon]

From what I've read about the unexpected seismic activity it is occurring in non seismic zones.
I don't have sources but I remember reading something from the USGS at some point a few years ago about the coal mines.

What we are finding is that there is no such a thing as an earthquake free zone, only areas where earthquakes are less frequent.

My daughter is a structural Engineer who deals with seismic designs nearly every day. She is a forensic engineer, she deals with other engineers' bad designs. She is of the opinion that at sometime in the future all of the US will be considered as a seismic zone. Probably a zone 1 or 2A, which don't involve any great extra expense, but require attention to details.

Fracking doesn't provide enough energy to create earthquakes where none have occurred. The very best that you could blame on fracking is that it might trigger an earthquake slightly earlier than it would have otherwise been. We are talking about geological time, so "slightly earlier" might be 10,000 years.

Loren is right, the most dangerous earthquakes are those where is no activity for thousands of years, an earthquake free zone, where the stresses build up until they are released in one huge earthquake. It is better if there are multiple small earthquakes rather than one big one. Fracking might help this, but I doubt it.

Most likely the earthquakes where there were none before are due primarily to the fact that people are now looking for earthquakes in places where they haven't been seen before with more sensitive instrumentation.

 

[SimpleDon]

The biggest man made factor that triggers earthquakes isn't coal mines or fracking, it is a large, heavy dam.

 

[credoconsolans]

Trouble is, seismic activity happens in geologic time, not human time.

My area is now subject to earthquakes where entire generations going back centuries have never felt any before.

But those couple of centuries, is just a blip in geologic time.

We can blame fracking because as we say and we do "Earthquakes never happened before they started fracking" but that is in our time, which is nothing.

For all we know, earthquakes have always happened in our area, hitting in clusters for millions of years, and after a long - in our POV - time, the clusters are starting up again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Frack in a seismic zone and what do you expect to happen?

Note, however, that it has been proposed as a means of earthquake protection--it doesn't create any more energy, it just causes it to be released more frequently--and more smaller quakes do less damage than fewer bigger ones.

Hmmm...who was it that proposed this?

It wasn't specifically about fracking, but injecting water into seismic zones to lubricate the faults.

 

[Axulus]

Anti-fracking propaganda plays into Putin's hands:

Russia’s most surprising allies, however, are probably Europe’s Greens. They are opposed to shale-gas fracking and nuclear power—as is Moscow, because both promise to lessen Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels. Mr Rasmussen has accused Russia of “sophisticated” manipulation of information to hobble fracking in Europe, though without producing concrete evidence.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...part-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation

 

[bilby]

Frack in a seismic zone and what do you expect to happen?

Note, however, that it has been proposed as a means of earthquake protection--it doesn't create any more energy, it just causes it to be released more frequently--and more smaller quakes do less damage than fewer bigger ones.

Hmmm...who was it that proposed this?

Are you implying that the value of a proposal is dependent on the identity of the proposer? Because it isn't.

 

[bilby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%80%9312_New_Madrid_earthquakes

A series of big earthquakes in an 'earthquake free zone' of the USA; Probably not caused by fracking, as fracking wasn't invented in 1811.

 

[bilby]

Fracking started in Oklahoma; then Earthquakes occurred in Oklahoma. Proof that fracking causes earthquakes? No. It isn't even strong evidence that fracking causes earthquakes. But it IS a very effective way to persuade people that fracking causes earthquakes, because human beings are VERY prone to drawing that kind of erroneous conclusion from limited data.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/

 

[Archimedes]

Hmmm...who was it that proposed this?

It wasn't specifically about fracking, but injecting water into seismic zones to lubricate the faults.

That's exactly the kind of non-answer people have come to expect from you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It wasn't specifically about fracking, but injecting water into seismic zones to lubricate the faults.

That's exactly the kind of non-answer people have come to expect from you.

It's an idea that's been around for quite a while, I don't recall who proposed it and I don't see that it matters.

 

[bilby]

That's exactly the kind of non-answer people have come to expect from you.

It's an idea that's been around for quite a while, I don't recall who proposed it and I don't see that it matters.

Well, this is a discussion board. If you make an assertion, and then provide no information at all about the source of that assertion, then there is nothing to discuss - we can't tell whether what you are saying is relevant; we can't tell whether it is true; and we can't move the discussion forward from that point. You are essentially asking other people to do your homework, by declaring that something exists which might (or might not) be evidence for something which might (or might not) be relevant to the topic under discussion. What is missing from your response is a reason why anyone should care about your statement.

Presumably you think we should care, otherwise you wouldn't have posted in the first place; but if you don't care enough to provide some details as to why your post is relevant, it seems unreasonable to expect anyone else here to care enough to dig out those details and to make your argument (whatever that might be) for you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trouble is, seismic activity happens in geologic time, not human time.

My area is now subject to earthquakes where entire generations going back centuries have never felt any before.

But those couple of centuries, is just a blip in geologic time.

We can blame fracking because as we say and we do "Earthquakes never happened before they started fracking" but that is in our time, which is nothing.

For all we know, earthquakes have always happened in our area, hitting in clusters for millions of years, and after a long - in our POV - time, the clusters are starting up again.

In areas of question, the quakes started after the injections and ended when injections were stopped. That isn't conclusive, but it certainly is suspicious.

 

[Archimedes]

That's exactly the kind of non-answer people have come to expect from you.

It's an idea that's been around for quite a while, I don't recall who proposed it and I don't see that it matters.

Yup, that's the kind of non-explanation people have come to expect from you.

 

[Archimedes]

It's an idea that's been around for quite a while, I don't recall who proposed it and I don't see that it matters.

The idea that MMR vaccines causes autism is an idea that's been around for quite a while. I don't recall who proposed it and I don't see that it matters.

Anyone can play that stupid game and make dumb claims that have no basis in fact because "they don't recall who proposed it" and "don't see that it matters". Somehow I pegged you for being more intelligent and rational minded than to fall for that kind of lame-brained thinking, but it seems that when it comes to your own pet subjects, you're as rational and factually minded as the most rabid conspiracy theorists and political fanatics out there.