Fracking: Sizing Up the Quakes That Come from Hydraulic Fracturing

Sue Ogrocki / AP
Sue Ogrocki / AP
A house damaged in a pair of earthquakes that struck Sparks, Okla., Nov. 6, 2011, in less than 24 hours. Scientists have connected fracking to quakes, but it's less certain how severe they will be.

We already know that hydraulic fracturing—the process of injecting millions of gallons of water and chemicals deep into the earth to exploit the natural gas trapped inside rock—can likely help cause earthquakes. The British energy company Cuadrilla Resources admitted earlier this year that fracking operations caused a series of small quakes in Lancashire, and scientists have raised concerns about an unusual number and strength of quakes that hit this fall in Oklahoma, a state that has long embraced fracking. Environmentalists are already worried about the risk of water contamination and air pollution from fracking and shale gas drilling—do we need to fear quakes as well?

(MORE: Could Shale Gas Power the World?)

Probably not, at least according to a new model presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last week. Arthur McGarr, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in California, presented a paper that outlined a method to calculate the highest magnitude earthquake that fracking might be able to induce. McGarr and his team studied several cases of earthquakes apparently induced by fracking and other methods that involved injecting fluid into the ground, including a shale gas operation in Oklahoma and a geothermal-energy project in Switzerland.

The researchers found a proportional relationship between the volume of fluid injected into the ground and the strength of the resulting quake, as McGarr told Nature:

“If you inject about 10,000 cubic metres, then the maximum sized earthquake would be about a magnitude 3.3,” says McGarr. Every time the volume of water doubles, the maximum magnitude of any quake rises by roughly 0.4. “The earthquakes may end up being much smaller, but you want to be prepared for the worst-case scenario,” says McGarr. The relationship is straightforward, but it is the first time that anyone has quantified it, he adds.

It’s worth noting that 20,000 cubic meters of fluid would be about 5 million gallons—that’s roughly how much fluid is used in an average frack in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale. So it seems unlikely that fracking for shale gas would cause severe quakes. But McGarr’s formula only calculates how strong a frack-induced quake would be—not how likely it is to occur. That would depend on other factors, including the depth of the frack and the strength of the rock layer.

But probability is what we really need to understand in order to calculate the local risk of fracking—and that’s not something we have yet. Still, while frack-induced quakes might be a worry, the growth of shale gas has bigger environmental concerns.

MORE: Contaminated? EPA Says Fracking “Likely” Affected Groundwater

Bryan Walsh is a senior writer at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME

Related Topics: disasters, earthquakes, fracking, natural gas, shale gas, Natural Gas
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

blog comments powered by Disqus