seismograph blue
Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Residents of Youngstown, Ohio, received an extra surprise on Christmas Eve and again on New Year's Eve—earthquakes, measuring 2.7 and 4.0 on the Richter scale, respectively. No one was injured and only a few cases of minor damage were reported after the Dec. 31 event.
Scientists have quickly determined that the likely cause was fracking—although not from drilling into deep shale or cracking it with pressured water and chemicals to retrieve natural gas. Rather, they suspect the disposal of wastewater from those operations, done by pumping it back down into equally deep sandstone.
Fracking is part of a nationwide boom in the production of natural gas, which is a ready replacement for home heating oil and could lessen dependence on foreign fossil fuels if vast underground shales could be hydraulically fractured. Opposition to fracking has arisen mostly out of fear that the technique could potentially contaminate drinking water supplies.
Nine small earthquakes had already occurred between March and November 2011 within an eight-kilometer radius of a wastewater injection well run by Northstar Disposal Services. Because quakes are otherwise rare in the Youngstown area, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in November asked Columbia University's Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) to place mobile seismographs in the vicinity to better determine what was going on. John Armbruster from LDEO installed four seismographs on November 30.
By triangulating the arrival time of shock waves at the four stations, Armbruster and his colleagues needed only a day or two to determine with 95 percent certainty that the epicenters of the two holiday quakes were within 100 meters of each other, and within 0.8 kilometer of the injection well. The team also determined that the quakes were caused by slippage along a fault at about the same depth as the injection site, almost three kilometers down.
Although LDEO scientists are not saying that the pumping caused the quakes, injection fluids have been implicated in other strike-slip earthquakes close to deep-injection wells. In essence, the fluids can act as lubricants between two abutting rock faces, helping them to suddenly slip along the boundary. The scientists did say that subsequent quakes from the Youngstown injections, which had been underway for a year, could continue to occur for up to another year, even if no more fluids are added. Ohio lawmakers have asked Northstar to stop operations until a full investigation is complete; the company has agreed but is not talking publicly about the events.
For the latest science and debates about fracking, including the unlikely chance that the practice caused a magnitude 5.6 temblor on November 14 near Oklahoma City, see our ongoing Storify file, which is updated weekly. News in New York State is picking up again because the deadline for public comments about proposed fracking rules is January 11, and regulations from the state's Department of Environmental Conservation that would allow fracking are likely to follow.
Photo of seismograph courtesy of domesticat on Flickr
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentThe solution is simple: waterless fracking, Gasfrac has already done over a 1000 fracks with gelled propane, no water is used, no waste water is produced and thus no need for injunction wells, and on top of that oil and gas production is enhanced with their method; it is a win for the industry and a win for the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEliminate the need entirely by switching to Hydrogen gas, extracted from water catalyzed by titanium dioxide, using solar energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128165212.htm
Wow, fracking can destroy groundwater AND cause earthquakes if not done properly. So, why did the government approve widespread fracking operations before we knew all this information? Could it be that some corporations place profits above people's health and wellbeing while the people running our government either have to play along nicely or get forced out of office by a flood of ampaign cash to their opponent and a barrage of negative attack ads funded by anonymous corporate donors?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, as far as I'm aware, every state has drilling regulations. Plans for each well to be drilled must be approved by the state before drilling can commence. I encourage you to visit the states regulatory website and read the rules oil and gas companies are required to follow for yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I still find it incredibly hypocritical that people are up in arms about possible ground water contamination by drilling when many of these same areas have been drenched by trillions of tons of pesticides and herbicides by farmers for decades.
It is more likely that the effects of fracking were not apparent at the time the permits were given. Now is when the effects are showing up and a lot of these permits should be reexamined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, I do not think that it will be easy to identify sites that are not near faults simply because we cannot detect most of these hidden faults until they are revealed by injecting lubricating fluids in their vicinity.
Evidence continues to mount that fracking is not a good idea, even though it may be a profitable one in the short run. It is a pity that the need for profit outweighs the wisdom of action. Doing what is right is usually not profitable.
Well I don't think the farmers were right to do what they did. It's illogical to justify fracking with such an argument. Both were/are dangerous and wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDevil's advocate here... Perhaps it is actually beneficial to slip these faults now when they have lower yields. My understanding of these kind of faults is that they build up pressure over time. The more time the bigger the quake, roughly. Maybe they are actually doing you a favor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe head line of this article is somewhat misleading but better than others (Slate, Huffington Post) that directly said fracking casued the quakes. It should be injection well caused quakes. Makes for more dramatic news to add "fracking" into the headline. There are over 170 injection wells in Ohio. Many have been in operation under the State Underground Injection Control (UIC) program since the 1970, long before fracking. Would it haev been as dramaitic news if the wells was disposing of steel mill wastes? The State did the right thing and immediately shut down the well. Sci Am should do the right thing and use more accurate headlines. Then I do recall the dangers of fracking artilce in an ealrier addtion that could ahve come right out of the Sierra Club magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Geek Status regarding relieving stress on all minor fault lines. I'm not sure wether the San Andreas is a candidate for "injection well stress release"!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust like how since it was Northstar Disposal Services and not the gas company itself that did it, hydraulic fracturing/the petroleum industry can not be blamed for any subsequent problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToxic or hazardous by-products of an industry belong to that industry, regardless of which shell company was used to shield the principals from liability.
Could something like that be of any help with the continuing Christchurch earthquakes (New Zealand)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne big problem is liquefaction. Every time they have just cleared up one lot, another earthquake brings up huge amounts of it, like fracking in reverse.
Would pumping in something that would solidify work, or would it just make it worse?
This is from an industry site re: Fracking and Earthquakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPredicting the Size of Fracking Earthquakes
http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/predicting-the-size-of-fracking-earthquakes-3981
'Small earthquakes are a recognized risk of hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking', a procedure in which companies unlock energy reserves by pumping millions of litres of water underground to fracture shale rock and release the natural gas trapped inside. Researchers now say that they can calculate the highest magnitude earthquake that such an operation could induce — though it won't determine the likelihood of a quake occurring.'
This is not the first time there have been quakes that have been linked to hydro-fracturing and gas extraction is not the only process that uses 'fracking' and injection.
I suppose the benefits of 'relieving pressure' may be seen a bit differently by those who have to live with them. If the companies actually mean to do anyone a 'favour' (tongue firmly in cheek), it doesn't seem that the companies are too willing to admit it, or pay for the damage. I somehow don't think it was intended. The quakes seem to be just another by-product of the process, that it seems they have known about for quite some time.
Rocky has it right. There are over 182 class 2 annular disposal wells in OHio. If this was near a fault such activity from my understanding can occur. THe author, Mark Fiscetti, does a diservice to the publisher since the site is not a "Fracking site" and just fans the flames of the extremists. Common sense prevailed and the State of OHio acted properly for this site. It is poor logic and bad science to conclude base on this one anomoly that fracking causes earthquakes. Its best to review scientifically and make recommendations on locating and manageing these disposal sites. Learn from it and move on. I detest knee jerk reactions to anything and that's what you get from the misinformed environmental extremest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo wrongs don't make a right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRocky770 has it right and the editor of Scienticfic Am. should chastise Mark Fischetti for an inexcusable headline that is misleading. Ohio has over 180 Class 2 annular disposal wells which have not been a problem. Ohio also did the right thing in shutting these down for review and analysis. Lets see one out of 180 thats a problem on 1/2 of 1% of these DISPOSAL WELLS. Most likely too close to a previously undiscoverd fault. The activiy was not fracking. There are two many chicken littles and NIMBY's in this world on every locational item across the spectrum of human activity from chicken farms to locating a new mine or Wallmart. Cooler heads based on science and common sense should prevail. Mr Fiscetti's article just stokes the BS fires unnessarily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt IS possible to clean wastewater from fracking operations. Eureka Resources, a wastewater treatment company located in Williamsport, Pa., can recover up to 80% pure distilled water from frack water and is the only company that can classify its water as dewasted upon return to the drill pad. Wastewater treated by Eureka meets requirements to be discharged legally and safely to Pennsylvania’s waterways, and total dissolved solids levels of Eureka-treated wastewater exceed requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI take great issue with both the title and the author’s wording of the referenced article. It is clear from the comments that have been posted to your website and from the wording of the article itself that the authors are taking advantage of the current furor regarding hydraulic fracturing. The fact that an earthquake occurred near this water disposal well has nothing whatsoever to do with hydraulic fracturing. The source of the water is of no consequence, as water has been injected down disposal wells in Ohio and throughout the US for many decades prior to the advent of horizontal drilling, modern hydraulic fracturing methods and the search for unconventional resources. I am a petroleum geologist with over 30 years of experience in both conventional and unconventional oil and gas exploration and am sick and tired hearing the bias media slant regarding this subject. Please do us all a favor and keep the bias out of your journal. I do understand that the general public is far from being fully informed on this issue, but it makes no sense for your journal to stoke the fire. Without the processes of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, we would be importing at least 25% more of our oil from countries who do not have the best interest of the US in mind and the price of natural gas would probably be over $10.00 per MCF.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no "away". By now we should have gotten over the concept of "throw away". The contaminated fluids should be decontaminated. If an industry starts a process with clean water they should be required to finish with clean water. Anything else should be unacceptable. There are ticking time bombs all over our planet where we have "thrown away" toxic materials. Sooner or later they will all revisit us, i.e. Love Canal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat idea! (as long as no one smokes)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got to be kidding me. They're actually disposing of something that can be easily treated and reused into the ground...why oh why....who came up with this one...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi guys, just wanted to let you know that The Energy of Word, an international media competition aimed at journalists writing about energy issues, will start accepting applications in February 2012. Please spread the word: http://www.globalenergyprize.org/en/request/pen/new
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is absolutely correct. If we could only get Americans to over come their incorrect fear of hydrogen we could honestly solve our energy problem. The majority of people falsely think hydrogen is dangerous and going to kill then easier that any other flammable gas and that's false, it just needs to be treated in a safe manner like any other gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right and there is a very easy solution to this problem TERM LIMITS, That way the politicians could not be swayed or controlled. If they didn't need to worry about reelection and just be concerned about doing the right thing we could control the corporations instead or them controlling policy. To the politicians that may read this you know it's true and we know that you will NEVER vote for term limits, Americans are not stupid and we should be smart enough to figure out how to get term limits passed. Any ideas out there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's one idea, just make it known that any politician that does not vote in favour of term limits will be voted out of office? Then we just need to follow through. We need to remind them that we are their employer and they will what we tell them or their fired!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must be careful to understand research statistics, and know the difference between correlation and causation. I would like to see the data, how it was collected, the true P-value and its corresponding T-scores before exclaiming significance of the data as it relates to any tentative conclusion(s). That is following proper evidence-based, empirical science protocol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurious to know what hydrogen cost as compared to a gallon of gasoline? If a gallon of gasoline cost $3 and that gallon takes my car 35 miles how much would it cost for the hydrogen that would take my car the same distance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismaybe its time we stop digging in the ground and destroying our planet, and look to the sky for energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this