Oil Recovery May Have Triggered Texas Tremors 172
ananyo writes "First came reports of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing and the reinjection of water during oil and gas operations. Now U.S. scientists are reporting tremors may have been caused by the injection of carbon dioxide during oil production. The evidence centers on a sudden burst of seismic activity around an old oil field in the Permian Basin in northwest Texas. From 2006 to 2011, after more than two decades without any earthquakes, seismometers in the region registered 38 tremors, including 18 larger quakes ranging from magnitude 3 to 4.4, scientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The tremors began just two years after injections of significant volumes of CO2 began at the site, in an effort to boost oil production. 'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection,' says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in Austin, who co-authored the study."
"Can never prove correlation is causation" (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's a philosophy of science tangent, but this quote caught my attention. I mean in a strict sense, nothing is "proven" in science, so it's technically true. However, to the extent to which concepts can be "scientifically proven", the difference between correlation and causation comes down to one factor: controls. In experimental science, we control for variables by limiting the systems in play directly. In observational science, that's done with statistical controls on other known (and possible) factors. With enough data, that can be done in a manner that is robust enough to be called science.
I don't think it's fair to take a benign assertion like "correlation is not causation" and extend it to an absolutist position.
Re:"Can never prove correlation is causation" (Score:1, Interesting)
Which, indeed, they did not: 'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection.'
In fact, they took the very valid point that coincidence (not even correlation, as CrimsonAvenger correctly notes that other seemingly similar cases do not display the same coincidence) does not imply causation, and then decided to breeze past it and declare that "certainly" that causation is the "most plausible explanation". In other words, coincidence --> correlation --> causation. I don't dispute that observation could be used to prove this causation, but where are those observations?
Possibly (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the 1960's this was brought up with wastewater wells.
Geologists are not sure if the small quakes prevented a larger one, or lead up to a larger one.
On a somewhat related note, if you want to see why wastewater wells near fault lines are bad, ask Oklahoma with 300+ earthquakes in just a few years.
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/ [usgs.gov]
Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh, from what I've seen of previous cases, like tobacco or DDT, you eventually end in a state of relatively safe regulation, a few long-running whiners whose neo-liberal idealism won't let them shut-up decades after the science is settled, and life goes on.
Then again, there's also cases like "wind-mill disease" where the science is decidedly not on the side of the "little people". Taking the absolute position that corporations are always in the wrong will not set you on the course to righteous accuracy.
Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget, there are just as many chicken littles as there are big business coverups. For every "smoking isn't bad for your health" there's a "vaccines cause autism." Both scenarios can lead to terrible things. In the particular case of fracking, the studies I've seen tend to lean my opinion toward the chicken little side of things. Even assuming all those studies are nothing but frauds paid for by corporate interests, fracking is already in widespread use.
If it's really half as terrible a danger to the drinking supplies as it's made out to be, where are all the cases of environmental catastrophe and illness that should be endemic by this point? Putting out fake studies are one thing, but it'd be hard to suppress that kind of event for such a hot button issue in this day and age.
And forgive me if I'm not overly worried about potentially causing earthquakes up to a 4.4 magnitude.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort of.
They're not saying that the simple presence of CO2 causes earthquakes. They're saying the mechanical stresses involved may well have dislodged things.
But you apparently didn't read TFA.
Re:From TFA (Score:0, Interesting)
He is absolutely correct. Whenever fossil fuels can be recovered cheaper, the prospects of solar and the like go way down, including real business factors like investment and government programs. They only really get any traction when the cost of oil recovery is high enough to justify the increased cost of alternative energy, because that's how the economy works. Meanwhile it is the fact that these fossil fuels are worse for the environment that keeps green concerned people hating them despite this. So your counterclaim is simply stating a part of what is needed for his comment to be true.
Re:seems like we have an identifiable pattern. (Score:4, Interesting)
> it's already been proven that in some cases the solutions have found their way into water supplies.
Citation needed.
As far as I am aware there has never been a case of fracking fluids contaminating a water supply.
Senate hearings on the Nat Gas industry earlier this year did not reveal any such cases.
Re:Doesn't matter anyway. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a matter of fact, Dick Cheney and his hand-picked cronies made damn sure that they are indeed [edcnet.org] exempt [wikipedia.org].