August 6, 2012
‘Fracking’ for Natural Gas Is Linked With Earthquakes
![]()

Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas may increase the risk of earthquake, a new study finds. Photo via Wikimedia Commons/Richard Bartz
Hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. “fracking”) recovery techniques for oil and natural gas are a controversial business. The practice—in which a mix of water, sand and chemicals is injected deep into bedrock at high pressure to create fractures, allowing gas and oil to flow upward—was developed in the late 1990s and has become more and more common across the United States over the past few years, opening up geologic areas such as the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia to dramatic increases in gas production.
On the one hand, proponents argue that hydraulic fracturing increases the amount of energy that can be economically produced in the United States, making oil and gas cheaper and reducing our dependency on foreign imports. Opponents, though, note that fracking causes dangerous chemicals to leach into groundwater, releases known carcinogens into the air and increases our contribution to climate change.
Alongside these observed problems, though, a different sort of worry has emerged: the idea that hydraulic fracturing can trigger an earthquake. Scientists have known for decades that injecting fluids into the earth could cause quakes, but we were uncertain just how much of an increase widespread fracking might cause. This past spring, USGS scientists decided that the recent dramatic increase in the number of small quakes in the United States is “almost certainly manmade,” but were unable to conclusively tie it to this particular activity.
Now, the evidence is starting to pile up. A study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds a correlation between dozens of small earthquakes in Texas’ Barnett Shale region—the site of intensive hydraulic fracturing activity—and the locations of injection wells used to dispose of the wastes of this process. ”You can’t prove that any one earthquake was caused by an injection well,” says Cliff Frohlich, the University of Texas geologist who conducted the study, “but it’s obvious that wells are enhancing the probability that earthquakes will occur.”
To come to the finding, Frohlich analyzed two years’ worth of data from a network of extremely sensitive seismographs that was installed in the region in 2009. He discovered dozens of small earthquakes that had not been previously reported—and found that all 24 of the quakes for which he was able to establish an accurate epicenter occurred within two miles of an injection well.
One important distinction is that these wells were the disposal sites for waste fluids that had already used to fracture rock, rather than the original wells used to extract the gas. Although the actual gas extraction wells cause many microearthquakes by their very nature (they literally crack the bedrock to release gas and oil), these are far too small to be felt by humans or cause any damage. The fluid disposal wells, though, are more likely to cause earthquakes of significance, because they are sites of injection for a longer duration over time.
The waste fluids may trigger earthquakes by acting as lubricants in pre-existing faults deep underground, allowing masses of rock to slide past each other more easily and relieve built-up pressure. All of the wells that Frohlich found correlated with quakes were home to high rates of injection (more than 150,000 barrels of fluid per month). However, there were other wells in the area with similar rates of injection that did not correlate with increased seismic activity. ”It might be that an injection can only trigger an earthquake if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a nearby fault that is already ready to slip,” explains Frohlich.
The good news is that all of these earthquakes were still relatively small, with magnitudes of less than 3.0 on the Richter scale, unlikely to cause any damage on the surface. Seismologists, though, are concerned that fluid injection could cause larger quakes if the fluid migrates into older, deeper rock formations beyond the local shale, which are home to larger fault lines. A number of earthquakes that occurred in Ohio last year, including one with a 4.0 magnitude, were linked to disposal of fracking fluids.
Frohlich notes that much more research is needed to help us understand exactly why some wells are more likely to cause earthquakes than others. For those already concerned about fracking, though, his new research adds another major concern to a growing list.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

























I WONDER WHY THESE SCIENTISTS ARE SO SURPRISED BY WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH !!!!!,ITS BLATENTLY OBVIOUS THEY ARE SLOWLY DESTROYING THE PLANET !
I am sure Rep Gohmert and his likes (looking at you Inhofe) have a perfect explanation for this. How this is gods doing.
A bit of a nit-pick here…the fluids do not lubricate a fault (reduce friction). The increase in pore pressure lowers the pressure needed to have the fault fail. Basically, the walls of the fault are pushed apart by the pressure.
What about the earthquake in Italy (Emilia) last May? Local poptulation claimed it was related to some fracking investigations made by an oil company (they were complaining about this also before the earthquake). The company denied any link with their invstigations, and so did the government, but this news sounds scary now.
The bias in this article is rather disappointing. Especially where you say “proponents argue…” and “opponents note…”, which make it sound like one side is giving only opinions, the other facts.
The reality is that shale gas and oil development has definitely, unarguably, increased domestic oil and gas production, and has definitely, unarguably, lowered prices. These statistics are readily observable in any number of places, mostly concisely at the EIA website.
On the other hand, the claims of widespread environmental damage are either exaggerated or shown by thorough analysis to be utterly false. Despite trying really hard, the anti-development folks have yet to find a definitive case of fracking fluids contaminating potable aquifers, and the flaming faucets in certain films have been shown to be products of naturally-occurring shallow methane, or simple fabrication (one can buy “flaming faucet” kits on the internet.)
Furthermore, the earthquakes in question are thought to be caused by a tiny share of the tens of thousands of injection disposal wells in the country, and not oil and gas wells, which are usually far too shallow to affect seismic activity. You conflate the two types of well a bit too easily, especially in the title of this article.
I would expect science and not activism from a source like the Smithsonian.