General Discussion

mia

(8,363 posts) Tue Apr 1, 2014, 09:00 PM Apr 2014

Chile's Previous 8.8 M earthquake was tied to fracking

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1404/S00011/deepwell-injections-cause-earthquakes.htm

Deepwell injections cause earthquakes

...According to a study published in the world renowned Science Magazine in July 2013, areas subjected to extensive DWI activities are especially prone to damaging earthquakes, triggered remotely by large, natural quakes. Since 2009, Oklahoma has recorded 40 times more earthquakes than in the last 30 years. The largest, at 5.7 magnitude in November 2011, has been tied to wastewater injection and an 8.8 M earthquake in Chile....

In the US, Arkansas regulators had shutdown four disposal wells in 2011 after a series of earthquakes, Ohio had banned injection wells in certain formations and insisted on seismic monitoring, and Oklahoma plans to tighten monitoring of injection pressure by well operators.

“In New Zealand, there is little research, monitoring or regulation to ensure that DWI is being carried out safely or that it can be up-scaled without serious consequences,” warned Cheung....

“Can we count on this sort of monitoring and regulatory regime to protect us from the likely dangers of DWI? With the onslaught for more oil and gas across NZ, the number of DWI sites will rise steeply to meet industry’s demand to dispose its drilling, fracking and production wastes. Why is the government pushing for such risky business when there are huge opportunities for safe, renewable energies and green economy?” concluded Cheung.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Chile's Previous 8.8 M earthquake was tied to fracking (Original Post) mia Apr 2014 OP

"tied to" as used in that headline does not mean "caused" or even "contributed to" cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #1

Is somebody really suggesting that there's fracking in the midst of the Pacific Ocean? longship Apr 2014 #2

fracking microquakes are not natural earthquakes Godhumor Apr 2014 #3

I'll bet my car that it wasn't. Throd Apr 2014 #4

Whoever wrote this should be fired immediately for being a total fucking moron. Gravitycollapse Apr 2014 #5

This is disingenuous towards the science that illustrates the correlation between microquakes Earth_First Apr 2014 #6

Fracking doesn't cause 8.8 magnitude earthquakes. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #7

The suggestion is the 8.8 Chile quake triggered one in the US 16 hours later muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #8

The odds are better on winning the lottery than a quake in Chile triggering a quake here. hobbit709 Apr 2014 #9

Well, you can take that up with the scientists who wrote the paper muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #11

Remote doesn't mean triggered by a quake 6000+ miles away. hobbit709 Apr 2014 #12

Well, it does in this case, doesn't it? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #14

And how many others? hobbit709 Apr 2014 #15

If you think you can show evidence against the paper, then send it to Science muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #16

Yes, the title is confusing. It has things backwards. LuvNewcastle Apr 2014 #10

Just like the Butterfly and Moth effect seveneyes Apr 2014 #13

Unlikely in the extreme. MineralMan Apr 2014 #17

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

1. "tied to" as used in that headline does not mean "caused" or even "contributed to"

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 09:05 PM

Apr 2014

When a big quake hits it causes destabilized ground to shift. So an 8.8 quake will hit smaller fracking areas and, due to them being made less stable, there will be collapses and shifts there.

...areas subjected to extensive DWI activities are especially prone to damaging earthquakes, triggered remotely by large, natural quakes

But there is no suggestion that fracking had a causal relationship with the 8.8 quake.

I really dislike sensationalism.

longship

(40,416 posts)

2. Is somebody really suggesting that there's fracking in the midst of the Pacific Ocean?

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 09:47 PM

Apr 2014

Because that's where this quake was centered.

Are people really that ignorant? Or are the just plain utterly stupid.

Earthquakes happen all over the earth, especially in the regions where there are continental plates in collision, like off shore of Chile, and in California (the entire west coast, actually), and Japan, and the Middle East, and Indonesia, and New Zealand, and, and, and, and.

Some people have fracking on their brains. Or have had their brains fracked. Not sure which.

Earthquakes are a natural event. It's what happens when one lives on a tectonically active planet. They happen all the time, fracking or not. Few of them are caused by fracking.

And no. I do not support fracking. I only support science.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)

3. fracking microquakes are not natural earthquakes

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 10:11 PM

Apr 2014

Fracking did not in any shape or form contribute to this quake.

Throd

(7,208 posts)

4. I'll bet my car that it wasn't.

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 10:23 PM

Apr 2014

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

5. Whoever wrote this should be fired immediately for being a total fucking moron.

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 10:26 PM

Apr 2014

And for thinking that the kind of earth quakes caused by wastewater injection are related to megathrust earth quakes.

Earth_First

(14,910 posts)

6. This is disingenuous towards the science that illustrates the correlation between microquakes

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 10:28 PM

Apr 2014

and their relation to hydraulic hydrofracking.

Sensationalizing headlines/articles sets back the activists using science to work towards moratorium in communities where hydrofracking poses extreme environmental hazards.

This article is junk.

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)

7. Fracking doesn't cause 8.8 magnitude earthquakes.

Reply to mia (Original post)

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 10:30 PM

Apr 2014

Much less 8.8 magnitude earthquakes on the ring of fire.

When you hear galloping at the Kentucky Derby, don't assume unicorns.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,368 posts)

8. The suggestion is the 8.8 Chile quake triggered one in the US 16 hours later

Reply to mia (Original post)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 05:36 AM

Apr 2014

What it suggests is that fracking makes areas vulnerable to being triggered into quakes caused by large natural ones at a distance.

"The fluids are driving the faults to their tipping point," said Nicholas van der Elst, coauthor on the study and postdoctoral researcher at Columba University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "The remote triggering by big earthquakes is an indication the area is critically stressed.
...
Looking specifically to some of the bigger events centred on areas where fluid has been injected into the earth, the team behind the study analysed correlations between distant events and activity at US fracking sites.

It linked an 8.8 magnitude quake in Chile in 2010 with a 4.1 magnitude quake near Prague, Colorado 16 hours later, the location of the aforementioned Wilzetta Fault quake. In that instance, a series quakes occurred, and continued, until the 5.7 magnitude that was earlier this year blamed on a buildup of pressure from the 90s. This same pattern of events was mimicked in Trinidad, Colorado (where wastewater was routinely injected from coal bed methane extraction), where earthquake swarms occurred after the Chilean quake up until a 5.3 magnitude event in 2011. The 2011 Japanese quake was also found to be linked to events in Snyder, Texas (used as a site to dispose of wastewater from oil extraction), where six months later a 4.5 magnitude quake hit.
...
The study states: "Sensitivity to remote triggering is most clearly seen in sites with a long delay between the start of injection and the onset of seismicity and in regions that went on to host moderate magnitude earthquakes within six to 20 months. Triggering in induced seismic zones could therefore be an indicator that fluid injection has brought the fault system to a critical state."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/12/manmade-earthquakes

Now, this is still saying that fracking can cause problems; but it's in the area where the fracking happens, and it's not saying it causes 8.8 magnitude earthquakes. "Triggered remotely by large, natural quakes" is the important phrase here; I think your thread title could be misleading.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)

9. The odds are better on winning the lottery than a quake in Chile triggering a quake here.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 05:39 AM

Apr 2014

muriel_volestrangler

(101,368 posts)

11. Well, you can take that up with the scientists who wrote the paper

Reply to hobbit709 (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 05:54 AM

Apr 2014

If you have AAAS membership, you can read it here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/164.abstract

A recent dramatic increase in seismicity in the midwestern United States may be related to increases in deep wastewater injection. Here, we demonstrate that areas with suspected anthropogenic earthquakes are also more susceptible to earthquake-triggering from natural transient stresses generated by the seismic waves of large remote earthquakes. Enhanced triggering susceptibility suggests the presence of critically loaded faults and potentially high fluid pressures. Sensitivity to remote triggering is most clearly seen in sites with a long delay between the start of injection and the onset of seismicity and in regions that went on to host moderate magnitude earthquakes within 6 to 20 months. Triggering in induced seismic zones could therefore be an indicator that fluid injection has brought the fault system to a critical state.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)

12. Remote doesn't mean triggered by a quake 6000+ miles away.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 05:56 AM

Apr 2014

muriel_volestrangler

(101,368 posts)

14. Well, it does in this case, doesn't it?

Reply to hobbit709 (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:41 AM

Apr 2014

The 2010 Chile 8.8 quake is in the paper.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)

15. And how many others?

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:43 AM

Apr 2014

muriel_volestrangler

(101,368 posts)

16. If you think you can show evidence against the paper, then send it to Science

Reply to hobbit709 (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:53 AM

Apr 2014

in a form suitable for publication.

LuvNewcastle

(16,858 posts)

10. Yes, the title is confusing. It has things backwards.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 05:48 AM

Apr 2014

The 8.8 earthquake caused a chain reaction in fracking areas; the fracking wasn't a cause of the 8.8 earthquake. Fracking doesn't seem to cause earthquakes, but when natural shifts happen, the fracking seems to make the areas more susceptible to quakes. The article isn't really that bad, but the title is just all wrong.

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)

13. Just like the Butterfly and Moth effect

Reply to mia (Original post)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 06:36 AM

Apr 2014

If only my windshield had squished that last Butterfly, one of those destructive Cat 5 hurricanes could have been avoided. And just as the Nevada underground nuke testing did not make Cali fall into the sea, making such bold fracking statements will generate an illumination that will bring on the Moths.

MineralMan

(146,333 posts)

17. Unlikely in the extreme.

Reply to mia (Original post)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 09:29 AM

Apr 2014

Truly.

Reply to this discussion