Quickening quakes

Increasing seismic activity calls for new strategies

"The rate of earthquakes in Oklahoma has increased remarkably since October 2013 —by about 50 percent—significantly increasing the chance for a damaging magnitude 5.5 or greater quake in central Oklahoma...”

— USGS-Oklahoma Geological Survey Joint Statement on Oklahoma Earthquakes 

“Small earthquakes offer the best chance of detecting changes precursory to large earthquakes.”

— Leonardo Seeber, Doherty Senior Research Scientist 

Do you like being in tornado alley?

How about living in a place where nearly torrential rains and sudden crippling winter storms are a big part of our reality?

It's all just Oklahoma weather, just Sooner State dramatics, right? 

Well, mounting evidence suggests these two phenomena are being abetted by galloping climate change dynamics, but that's a matter for another column. Today my thoughts are on another arguably existential crisis that has literally shaken the state in recent years. This spring, on at least three occasions, I experienced the jarring sensation of seismic tremors while in Oklahoma City. And it was scary.

Crisis of energy?

But what's the nexus between new gas and tight oil production—both of which are on huge volume increase trajectory in Oklahoma and elsewhere in the region—and earthquakes?

The U.S. Geological Survey, which is the golden portal for monitoring quakes, indicated recently that 145 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or higher have occurred in the state so far this year, compared with 109 for all of 2013. A recent New York Times article, quoting data from the USGA, said the increase in quakes “have rattled nerves but caused little damage. But the increase makes it more likely that a quake of magnitude 5.5 or higher could occur, the scientists said, although they did not quantify the increased risk.”

Is there any real evidence that ties the fracking revolution to quake city? According to Dr. Bernardo Seeber of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a leading expert on this nexus, quakes induced via human doings is hardly a new phenomenon. In talks, several published pieces, and some direct email exchanges with me, Seeber and his colleagues at Columbia have identified dam building and operations, mining extraction and detonation projects, nuclear weapons testing in the U.S. and elsewhere, and humongous toxic waste injection programs (undertaken by the U.S. military and by our National Science Lab operations) as direct sources for seismic events in the last 70 years in the U.S. and abroad.

“While statistically there is very little doubt that the hydrocarbon recovery operations are triggering earthquakes, it is generally difficult to prove it for individual earthquakes,” Seeber told me in an email exchange. “Liability concerns by powerful commercial entities are promoting a state of denial about the issue of triggering earthquakes. This is rather unfortunate because it prevents use of available knowledge and more research to understand the processes involved and to minimize the hazard from these triggered earthquakes.”

In early May, the Times profiled in detail the new report jointly issued by the USGS and Oklahoma Geological Survey suggesting we are experiencing much more than a shocking increase in the frequency of minor quakes The report suggested strongly that a “big one” may be afoot.

Imagine a monster quake event costing billions of dollars in human and economic damage, and forestalling new gas/tight oil extraction operations, not only in Oklahoma but across the U.S. Arguably, an event of this kind would have all the devastating political and economic consequences of 9/11 plus the convulsive, multi-year financial impacts of the events leading to the recession of 2008.

Real problems

So our fabulous new fossil sourcing revolution has created an unexpected problem. Earth scientist and geologist Dr. Bruce Langus, is an energy professional with massive experience in oil and gas and environmental policy, is a longtime Tulsan who moved to one of the other epicenters of the fossil fuel world—North Dakota—about eight months ago. Lingus believes that “new gas” is our best fossil fuel, a vital bridge to a clearer energy portfolio. 

Lingus shared some of his thoughts on the Times piece and the USGS report in a recent email exchange.

“It seems to be quite clear that moderate quakes are increasing in frequency,” he said. “It also seems clear that the quakes are increasing in magnitude. As the authors admit, they cannot say where the trends are headed. What is the endpoint here? 7.0-magnitude quakes between Oklahoma City and Stillwater every month? The fact that the authors can't put a magnitude to the quakes within the next ten years is hardly reassuring.

“These quakes—no matter their origin—will create problems when industry wants to locate injection wells, pipelines, refineries, etc.  Can we imagine the stance of the EPA to an application for a new nuclear power plant in Stroud? Oklahoma is now faced squarely with new restrictions on its activities.”

Possible solutions

Langus and other keen observers imagine that we will eventually switch to an energy mix with a huge role for renewable and alternative energy sources. But, like a growing set of energy industry pros, he feels that a failure to attend to a range of increasingly evident challenges might crash “new gas” and quash our march to a better energy future.

It’s possible an engineering solution can mitigate quakes sparked by fracking, according to blogger David Biello of Scientific American.

“Scientists have long dreamed of ways to predict and even protect regions from such devastation,” Biello wrote. “Now a group of French scientists hopes to help, building on work that showed how light can be manipulated to make objects invisible. The cloaking technique renders an object invisible by bending light of specific frequencies around the target. In theory, the same principles might be used to deflect incoming seismic waves. 

“A precisely tuned array of boreholes around a city or a nuclear power plant that resonate at the frequencies characteristic of quakes could thus dampen the vibrations and shield objects. The French team’s small demo with acoustic waves in soil worked, deflecting the incoming energy around the target area. That research is in the journal Physical Review Letters. Of course, that energy still has to go somewhere. Should this work pan out, the trick will be to find a way to absorb the massive energy of a major earthquake—or find a better place to send it.”

But arguably we need to take aggressive, tangible actions to forestall induced earthquakes now. Langus and other T-Town energy pros who preferred not to be named suggested some near term actions:

• Smart regulatory efforts such as drill site digital monitoring, and making seismic data from these sensors available to national, state and local officials and environmental and community groups.

• Energy industry actions to build richer earthquake history data sets for all drilling sites, especially those with fragile seismic properties—including investment in paleoseismicity, a nascent method for reconstructing quake histories from ancient archaeology, sedimentary rock sets and biotic remnants at existing and promising new sites.

While some very serious folks will not concede it yet, what’s needed is a “gas revolution” that doesn't consign us to a tectonic hell. The question then becomes: Can we craft agile regulatory policy and clever incentives that would make extensive production of new gas/tight oil fully consistent with forestalling a big quake? Perhaps more important than “Can we?”—“Will we?”