The most severe recorded earthquake in Oklahoma history may also have been the most severe earthquake ever linked to a certain oil and gas drilling operation.
By Francie Diep Posted 03.28.2013 at 2:00 pm 13 Comments

Earthquakes In Oklahoma Between 1973 And 2011
Earthquakes In Oklahoma Between 1973 And 2011 The yellow dots show earthquakes before 2009. The orange dots show earthquakes between 2009 and 2011. The red dots show earthquakes after November 5, 2011. For a full explanation, visit the USGS. USGS

In 2011, a series of earthquakes hit central Oklahoma, destroying six houses, damaging an additional 14, and bringing down a turret at the 700-student St. Gregory's University. Among the series was the largest earthquake ever recorded in the state of Oklahoma. And, some scientists say, the quakes may have included the largest earthquake ever triggered by the injection of wastewater from oil and gas drilling deep inside the Earth.

A team of U.S. geologists has published a paper in Geology that argues that wastewater injection triggered the magnitude 5.0 earthquake near Prague (pronounced with a long A), Oklahoma, on November 5, 2011. That quake then broke fault planes to the south, triggering more than 1,000 aftershocks, including a 5.7 quake November 6 and a 5.0 on November 8. "I think this should raise awareness for the potential for larger events that could be induced," Elizabeth Cochran, a geophysicist from the U.S. Geological Survey in California and one of the authors of the new paper, tells Popular Science.

The Oklahoma Geological Survey disagrees. The agency posted a statement on its website three days before the Geology publication, laying out its arguments for why survey scientists think those earthquakes were natural.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey says evidence is mounting that the American Midwest and East have seen increasing seismic activity since 2009, alongside increased wastewater injection. The increased quakes are generally small, of magnitude 3, which don't cause damage but which people can feel. Cochran tells Popular Science that her team's findings of larger induced quakes call for increased monitoring of areas where drilling occurs. However, there are no federal or state laws requiring companies to assess an area for earthquake potential before injections--nor to hold companies liable for earthquakes that occur afterward.

Illustration of an oil and gas wastewater injection well
Illustration of an oil and gas wastewater injection well:  EPA

The practice of wastewater injection has proliferated over the past 60 years in the U.S. because it is a relatively inexpensive, swift way to get rid of oil and gas drilling waste, ProPublica reported last September. There are about 144,000 such wells in the United States. They're classified in such a way that they're under less stringent regulation than waste wells from the pharmaceutical, chemical or other industries. The ProPublica report mainly pointed to the wells' potential to contaminate nearby water supplies, but recent geological studies suggest that earthquake potential could also be a greater problem than previously thought.

Geologists have agreed-upon criteria for deciding whether an earthquake was triggered by human activity. One of these criteria is proximity, and the Prague earthquakes fit the bill. The first quake occurred about 200 meters, or little more than a tenth of a mile, away from an active injection well.

Another indicator of triggering is if a quake occurs soon after some drilling activity, sometimes within 24 hours. The Prague quakes don't fit that second category, as wastewater injection began in the area decades ago, in 1955. Cochran and her team argue, however, that the quakes began now because the pumping pressure increased recently. Jean-Philippe Avouac, a geologist at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved in the paper, found their argument convincing. "They have a reasonable explanation for this delay," he tells Popular Science.

On the other hand, the Oklahoma Geological Survey argues that pumping pressure increased too long ago, in 2004. The survey also argues that a naturally induced 5.7 quake wouldn't be unheard of for the area, even if it is generally more seismically stable than, say, California.

"Because Oklahoma has naturally occurring earthquakes, we can start with the assumption that the earthquakes are natural and then when we have enough data, we can challenge that idea," says Oklahoma Geological Survey seismologist Austin Holland. "There's no data that really challenge the idea that the earthquakes are naturally occurring."

The Oklahoma Geological Survey has previously determined earthquakes were human-caused. Earlier in 2011, Holland determined that quakes of magnitude 1.0 to 2.8 in south central Oklahoma were triggered by the injection of fluid into the Earth for hydraulic fracturing. After two injecting sessions, however, the drilling company didn't need to inject any more fluid, so it stopped.

Whether or not the Prague quakes are ultimately determined to be human-triggered, geologists such as Bill Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey and the folks on Cochran's team--including geologists from the University of Oklahoma and Columbia University--say the trend of increased earthquakes around wastewater injection wells is real. (U.S. Geological Survey studies have not linked hydraulic fracturing to the increased number of earthquakes.)

The geologists were reluctant to give their opinions on whether more regulation is warranted, however. Holland makes a cautious argument similar to what many geologists told me. "We're not a regulatory authority and I'd be stepping on someone's toes if I made any recommendations," he says, "but certainly there's room for improvement on existing regulations."

Did You Feel It?
Did You Feel It?: A map of the shaking and damage that people reported to the U.S. Geological Survey's "Did You Feel It?" website after the magnitude 5.0 earthquake near Prague, Oklahoma, on November 5.  USGS

13 Comments

Link to this comment
adaptation
03/28/13 at 2:35 pm

I just want to point out that earthquakes are caused by internal stresses generated by tectonic moment. Human activity is extremely unlikely to reach the point where we could cause that kind of stress, only two activities would come close; mining and damming up a river to create a lake.

Triggering an earthquake is very different. As stresses build to the point of release any thing could trigger an earth quake including me stomping my foot on the ground. It appears that injecting liquids is an extremely effective method to trigger earthquakes.

Stresses continue to build until they are released, an earth quake today is better than one next year or next decade. Companies who do the service of revealing stress early and frequently should be commended not persecuted. In some areas for the public good we should attempt to intentionally trigger earthquakes.

I also support boring tunnels into some volcano's to release pressure and reversing the effects of the azolla event there by restoring earth to its paradisaical state.

Link to this comment
brian144
03/28/13 at 2:37 pm

Eh. I look at it as avalanche control. Unless they want to insinuate that a deep-oil pressurizing created the pressure wave with the power of a 5.0 Eathquake... then the only conclusion is that they "triggered it". And they say as much.

Far as I'm concerned, that Earthquake would've occurred eventually. This likely put it past the tipping point without the energy building up to a 6.0 Earthquake. And I assert this based on little more than conservation of energy and an amateur knowledge of plate tectonics. But the first of those is pretty hard to disagree with.

I think this is a great new power of mankind - to prematurely trigger earthquakes to lessen their destructive power. It is the 21st century, after all.

Link to this comment
Mister Thomas
03/28/13 at 3:19 pm

Then how come the entire middle east oil fields haven't collapsed into one massive sinkhole?

Link to this comment
Scythelord
03/28/13 at 3:21 pm

I can agree with that brian. There's absolutely no physical way that a pumping operation could pump any where near hard enough to create a 5.0 earthquake where one wasn't already building up naturally. The energy release in a 5.0 earthquake is similar to that of an atomic explosion. No doubt if it hadn't been triggered then, it would have happened later with much more power and could have actually been devastating.

Link to this comment
bobbyg
03/28/13 at 9:08 pm

Lies.
There is a zero chance that these quakes were caused by waste water injection any more than a dripping faucet caused the latest sinkhole.
This politically motivated BS the PopSci is engaging in as a way of promoting anti oil and global warming mythology needs to stop before the editors lose the minuscule amount of credibility they have left...
Left? Did I say Left?
Right, sorry about that.

Link to this comment
trewuuiosdf
03/28/13 at 10:06 pm

in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone
http://al.ly/4RK

http://al.ly/4RK

http://al.ly/4RK

http://al.ly/4RK

http://al.ly/4RK
dsghjkuykty

Link to this comment
ppss1
03/29/13 at 3:54 am

@ bobbyg

To say PopSci claims these quakes were human-caused shows you didn't read the article well. They said the USGS study claims this, they also share the opposing view by the Oklahoma Geological Survey which disagrees. The second to last paragraph states:
Whether or not the Prague quakes are ultimately determined to be human-triggered, geologists such as Bill Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey and the folks on Cochran's team--including geologists from the University of Oklahoma and Columbia University--say the trend of increased earthquakes around wastewater injection wells is real. (U.S. Geological Survey studies have not linked hydraulic fracturing to the increased number of earthquakes.)

Also on your comments concerning ,"...global warming mythology..." do you not believe in rulers, thermometers, overwhelming scientific evidence supporting global warming as fact by leading independent scientists from countries all over the world. Do you really believe when standing behind the exhaust pipe of a diesel truck that the said exhaust just evaporates into space leaving behind no trace of itself. And when you do the math and add all the diesel engines, all the gasoline engines, all the factories, refineries and factor in deforestation do you really believe it to be impossible that we humans have no lasting effect on the environment? Really?
I am not saying I myself am innocent. I drive a gasoline powered car, I use electricity, build with wood, burn wood, use a charcoal grill and indeed do have a carbon footprint, but I am not blind to the consequences of my actions and I don't ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming simply because my life would be easier just by saying it is all lies. Please bobbyg save the minuscule amount of credibility you yourself have left as viable commenter and open your eyes, your ears and you mind to the fact that our(human beings) actions breed consequences that are too obvious for us to ignore. At least entertain the possibility in the body of your future comments so that the lefties out there don't just shrug your comments as being posted by someone who is simply disgruntled, uninformed (and lazy). Put down that bag of doritos too

Link to this comment
nandrews73
03/29/13 at 10:35 am

@ ppss1,

Excellent points. Well done. You would assume that folks who bother to read Popsci would actually spend the effort to READ the articles prior to mindlessly casting aspersions on the professionalism and ethics of the authors.

Low credibility is being generous. More accurate to say, NO credibility.

The actual extent and cause of the documented Global Warning Trend is still not completely clear. However,Something is definitely happening. There are measureable effects within our climate.

I don't see how it is healthy to either run around like Chicken Little or stick our collective heads in the sand. We need to continue to observe, investigate, and thoughtfully mitigate negative outcomes.

TGIF!!

Love, Peace & Soul

Link to this comment
Mister Thomas
03/29/13 at 10:47 am

The headline, "Study: Wastewater Injection Caused Oklahoma's Largest-Ever Earthquake" sets the tone of the entire article, and as such, advocates this opinion from the start.

It's possible that another headline could have been presented as this: "Scientists refute claims that natural Oklahoma earthquakes were caused by the oil corporations." But of course, you would never see such a headline here.

Or maybe a completely neutral headline could have been chosen. But that's not what happened. What does happen all of the time from people with an agenda of their own is to present the conclusions or opinions that they agree with into the headline and beginning of the report. Then bury any contrary conclusion that do not support their opinion - many paragraphs down, Where it have less impact.

It's not a fair presentation of both sides of a disputed theory, when one side is given preferential treatment.

Link to this comment
ppss1
03/29/13 at 10:53 am

@ Mister Thomas

Point Taken, no argument here, however it is an article about the study, not an opinion piece.

To you and nandrews73, TGIF have a great weekend. And you too bobbyg!

Link to this comment
examples262
03/29/13 at 3:09 pm

In my understanding, the reduced friction from the water pumped into the area causes the plates to shift.

Link to this comment
Mister Thomas
03/29/13 at 3:43 pm

So .... Pump out oil from the layers of rock deep under ground - replace it with water - instant earthquake, because of reduced friction. Okay, sure. Why not.

Link to this comment
mike13323
03/30/13 at 4:27 pm

I have nothing against green technologies and saving the world but I agree with some of the things people have written above. I am getting tired of reading these simple little blog posts and half hearted one sided articles. This isn't the worst one I've read but as Mister Thomas mentioned above "It's not a fair presentation of both sides of a disputed theory, when one side is given preferential treatment."
As a man of science I want to look at both sides of the argument, I cannot take something serious when it is almost totally one-sided.
I would be happy waiting a week for a well written, well researched article rather than these hastily completed blog posts.


140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.



Popular Science+ For iPad

Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page



Download Our App

Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing



Follow Us On Twitter

Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed


April 2013: How It Works

For our annual How It Works issue, we break down everything from the massive Falcon Heavy rocket to a tiny DNA sequencer that connects to a USB port. We also take a look at an ambitious plan for faster-than-light travel and dive into the billion-dollar science of dog food.

Plus the latest Legos, Cadillac's plug-in hybrid, a tractor built for the apocalypse, and more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor:Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif