Fracking causes earthquakes

Hundreds of thousands of faults, most poorly mapped, just waiting for a bit of lubrication-

We all know what causes earthquakes — preexisting long cracks in rock layers (faults) and enough pressure to make them slip.  Most don’t slip very often though. Some will never slip because the pressure is just not, or ever will be great enough to overcome the friction between the two sides of the fault.

Here’s an interesting question. What if the two sides of a fault could be made less rough — slippery? Maybe some grease, oil, or water could somehow get into the fault.  That was mostly an academic question until recently. Such things would not get into a fault by natural means. This made earthquakes merely a matter of building pressure from forces in the Earth. Some places, such as near the margins of Continental plates, are subjected to great pressure, year and century-after-century.  Other places, such as the middle of a continent where no mountain building is happening, usually have much smaller built-up pressure — places like Ohio,  Kansas, Oklahoma

Even some mountainous places, such as Colorado, naturally have few strong earthquakes. Of course, underground California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington and Montana are another matter.

Along comes fracking-

“Induced hydraulic fracturing” (fracking) is the deliberate creation of fractures in a rock layer by introducing some kind of pressurized fluid. The purpose is to drive hydrocarbons (mostly petroleum-like substances or natural gas) out of the rock so it can be pumped to the surface. The discovery of large areas where such rock exists potentially greatly extends the amount of oil, and especially natural gas that might be recovered. More and more natural gas is being promoting as a “bridge fuel” to get us from today’s fairly dirty mix of energy sources to the Eden of renewable energy sources.

Cynics, or perhaps realists, doubt whether the government ever really intends to get off “the bridge.” Meanwhile a boom is underway, and the price of natural gas, which some inattentive folks seem to think is gasoline, is going down as its supply increases.

President Obama seems convinced it is a good fuel, superior to the toxic, thick, bitumen obtained from the huge open pit mines in the tar sands of Alberta. Republicans like it too, with the recent Idaho scandal not all that atypical of boom in fracking.

What about earthquakes?

Most concern about side effects of fracking has been about water pollution, but it is an easy thought process to suppose that injection of fluids to deliberately fracture rock might cause earthquakes. Of course, the amount of fluid injected is usually small, though there are exceptions.

What is not small is the amount of waste fluid injected down the deep wastewater wells near a fracking field. Already hundreds of small, and some moderate earthquakes have happened in otherwise seismically stable areas of Ohio, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.

Good analysis of the underlying rock of proposed fracking areas might minimize the potential of earthquakes. Some beds of rock have few faults while those just above or below a stable bed might have many. Knowing where to drill, not just to obtain natural gas, but to ascertain the effects of new fluid on the entire underground structure should be very useful. Some potential sources of gas might be too unstable to develop. In fact, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission has prohibited wastewater injection wells from an area of over 1000 square miles that sits atop productive shale deposits. This came after earthquakes started subsequent to the beginning of fracking.

Who will receive the benefits and who will bear the costs?

The development of natural resources is inherently political.  Much, maybe all of politics, is about who will pay and who will benefit from human activities, especially those that are side effects, not intended, and often negative. Mining, logging, diverting water, disposing of wastes by its nature creates conflict. If you are the beneficiary, and you make the laws, good for you. However, if you are the one who gets polluted out, what is your redress?  The ballot box is often offered as a solution.

Those folks who don’t perceive these basic facts are the same who are more likely to end up bearing the burdens. The deliberate withholding of information such as alleged in the case of Idaho state senator Monty Pearce is, if true, an abuse of office because unfair laws remain even if some punishment comes to the malefactor.

As the amount of money at stake increases, so will the political conflict. There will more places like Pavillion, Wyoming unless we have officials who believe those who get the benefits also must bear the full costs of their activities.

Many think so far we haven’t found many of the right kind of leaders. Worse, there is also an entire public relations industry working to confuse people, hide the costs, and obscure what is going on.

So far no one has sent a check for us to spin the facts.

Print Friendly