Shaken Up About "Fracking"

In a 1970 report, the USGS identified an apparent correlation between Colorado earthquakes and the deep injection of wastewater 12,000 feet deep into the earth’s crust at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, beginning in 1962.  According to the report, very few seismic events were reported in Colorado in the 100 years prior to 1962, but over 1,500 tremors, light earthquakes, and significant earthquakes occurred in the decade following the deep wastewater injection.  Most of these were not strong enough to be noticed by the public, but dozens of events caused varying degrees of damage and were relayed in the news.  There are numerous correlations of this kind throughout the U.S. over the last 50 years, most notably in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas, and Colorado, evidently related to deep wastewater injection.

Although the coincidence of earthquakes associated with deep wastewater injection appears inarguable, there is a misnomer when the press relates deep injection to “fracking”.  The two are not the same.  Deep wastewater injection is usually done at a depth of more than 10,000 ft., and it involves the permanent injection of fluids where they are able to cause an increase in seismic activity.  Conversely, hydraulic fracturing typically occurs at the depth of 3,000 to 6,000 ft., and involves the temporary injection of fluids.  A majority of these fluids are subsequently removed, leaving sand in the cracks.  According to most theories, this has the effect of reducing and absorbing seismic energy rather than causing it to radiate.

These key differences are rarely made clear by the media.  Although a measurable amount of wastewater from the energy sector is disposed through deep wastewater injection, it is not done during the “fracking” process.  Strangely, many of the news stories involving seismic risk tend to blur the line between "fracking" and injection, despite the fact that all reports about seismic risk are tied only to deep wastewater injection.  The two activities are easily confused, and the media is not making an effort to alleviate confusion as they jump on the bandwagon to hype up negative news about gas exploration.

One significant purpose for deep wastewater injection is the sequestration of carbon in the “clean burning” coal process.  Carbon is rinsed from coal and trapped in large quantities of water.  The water is then injected into deep wells to prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere.  This process, which ultimately increases seismic activity, is just another black mark against the coal industry.  Without the “clean burning” process, and deep wastewater injection, coal is 7 times more carbon emitting than natural gas.  As major power companies plan for the inevitable requirement to reduce carbon in the power generation process, most are converting coal plants to natural gas.  The fuel source is less expensive, and the process is far less involved than the "clean burning" of coal.

I’ve written several posts in support of hydraulic fracturing and retrieval of methane.  One flaw in the gas network is the frequency of gas leaks, which release powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  The industry and lawmakers are working together to tighten regulations on leakage for this reason.  Although the process is not perfect, it is still far cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels.  The capturing of methane is identified by the EPA as our best short term solution to reducing greenhouse gases.  As more power plants and vehicle fleets continue convert to natural gas, our methods of capture and distribution also improve to create a cleaner natural gas network.  In my recent post, “No Alternative”, I made the case that alternative energy is also deeply flawed, so we must embrace the lesser of evils in our quest to reduce greenhouse gases.

That said, the potential for increased seismic activity due to deep wastewater injection may be an issue worth getting shaken up about.  So, please inform your friends and write your politicians about your opposition to deep wastewater injection, but be careful not to confuse it with hydraulic fracturing.  They are not the same.

Tony F.  2013