Number Of Earthquakes Increases Sharply In Texas

The chart above uses information from the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas. It shows that the number of magnitude 3 earthquakes (or greater) more than doubled in Texas in 2021 (from slightly less than 100 to more than 200). Texas has never been a hotspot for earthquakes, but the oil companies are changing that by their use of fracking.

The following is part of an article by Erin Douglas in The Texas Tribune:

More than 200 earthquakes of 3 magnitude and greater shook Texans in 2021, more than double the 98 recorded in 2020, according to a Texas Tribune analysis of state data maintained by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin.

The record-setting seismic activity is largely concentrated in West Texas’ Permian Basin, the most productive oil and gas region in the state. Scientific studies show that the spike in earthquakes is almost certainly a consequence of disposing huge quantities of contaminated, salty water deep underground — a common practice by oil companies at the end of the hydraulic fracturing process that can awaken dormant fault lines.

During hydraulic fracking, oil companies shoot a mixture of fluids and sand through ancient shale formations, fracturing the rock to free the flow of oil. But oil isn’t the only thing that’s been trapped underground for millions of years: Between three and six barrels of salty, polluted water also come up to the surface with every barrel of oil.

The cheapest, and most commonly used, way to dispose of this “produced water” is to drill another well and inject it into porous rock formations deep underground.

For years, oil companies have loaded those formations with hundreds of millions of gallons of the black watery mixture — which contains a slurry of minerals, oil and chemicals used in fracking — every day, slowly increasing the pressure on ancient fault lines. An analysis by Rystad Energy provided to The Texas Tribune found that the amount of wastewater injected underground in the Permian Basin quadrupled in a decade, from 54 billion gallons in 2011 to 217 billion gallons last year.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Texas found that the vast majority of seismicity since 2000 near Pecos — a city roughly 100 miles southwest of Midland — was likely triggered by increased wastewater disposal. State regulators, too, have found that an increase in seismic activity most likely occurs as a consequence of saltwater disposal.

“The cumulative volumes [of water] increase the pressure, and that is the force that triggers the fault to slip,” said Alexandros Savvaidis, a research scientist at the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT-Austin.

The result is that communities like Gardendale, where Bock lives, as well as the bustling cities of Odessa and Midland — which many oilfield workers, engineers and service workers call home — are experiencing not only more frequent earthquakes, but stronger ones.

Between 2018 and 2020, Texas recorded nine earthquakes above magnitude 4, almost all of them in the western half of the state. Last year, Texans were shaken by 15 earthquakes above magnitude 4 — including a 4.6 magnitude earthquake in late December that rattled homes from an epicenter about 30 miles northeast of Midland.

"Fracking" Is The Likely Cause Of Texas Earthquakes

(This image is from napavalley.edu.)

Fracking is the pumping of huge amounts of water, sand, and dangerous chemicals into the ground to cause or increase fractures in the rock, which releases natural gas. There is a heated debate going on about the safety of this fracking. Gas companies claim it is a safe procedure. Many others disagree, claiming it poisons the earth around it and the water many communities depend on.

Now there are claims that this fracking is having another negative effect. That it is causing earthquakes in Texas (and Oklahoma) -- areas that have been earthquake-free for eons, but having been experiencing them since 2008 (when fracking became common in the area).

Is this true? Very likely. Now there is some scientific evidence that those earthquakes, some as large as a magnitude 4, are being caused by fracking. Here is part of an excellent article on this by Anna Kuchment in the Dallas Morning News:

Scientists presented new evidence this week suggesting that all five North Texas earthquake sequences, including those in Dallas, have been triggered by humans.   

Until now, researchers have not commented on the cause of the Dallas-Irving quakes or the 4-magnitude quake that struck Venus, 30 miles south of Dallas, in May.

While scientists believe that high-volume injection wells may have triggered the quakes in Venus, they have not yet worked out a specific mechanism behind the Dallas and Irving quakes.

“We don’t think they’re natural,” SMU seismologist Heather DeShon told The Dallas Morning News.  “But we don’t understand the subsurface physics surrounding the Irving earthquake sequence, so we’re still considering all causes.”

DeShon’s comments came during the annual American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, where she and her colleagues presented their latest research on North Texas ground shaking. The research has not yet been independently vetted and published.

“Any discussion of causation for the Dallas-area quakes is premature, and more speculative than scientific,” said Steve Everley, a senior advisor for Energy In Depth, a program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “But the SMU team has helped advance our understanding of the conditions that can ultimately lead to induced seismicity, so we’re eager to see what they will publish about the seismic events near Dallas.”

Evidence that human activity is behind the Dallas quakes includes a new analysis showing that the faults beneath Dallas and Fort Worth had been dormant for hundreds of millions of years until 2008, the year felt earthquakes first began rumbling through the area. . . .

Earlier this week, SMU seismologist Beatrice Magnani compared North Texas faults with those known to have produced earthquakes over geologic time. Active faults have visible ruptures, while the small faults that the SMU team has mapped in Azle and Venus have barely perceptible ones.

Unlike historically active faults, those in North Texas also do not extend into the uppermost layers of sediment.  Faults that have been active over hundreds of millions of years typically disturb the uppermost layers of the Earth’s crust, said Magnani.

“Those faults are dead, and they have just been rejuvenated. That is the most reasonable conclusion,” said Magnani, referring to the faults beneath North Texas. . . .

DeShon and her colleagues pointed to the absence of earthquakes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area prior to 2008 as additional evidence that recent tremors are caused by industrial activity. Since 2008, North Texas has had 200 earthquakes large enough to be included in the U.S. Geological Survey’s catalog. Thirty-one quakes have been larger than 3-magnitude.

Magnani said the state’s earthquake rate is on track to be a factor of 20 greater than historic levels. That pales in comparison to Oklahoma, which has seen a 600-fold increase in quakes. Oklahoma’s geological survey said in April that its quakes are triggered by the injection of wastewater from oil and gas operations into deep wells. Studies have found that pressure from the injections can, in rare cases, disturb deep faults. . . .

EPA Finally Admits "Fracking" Pollutes Drinking Water

It looks like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally coming to realize something that most people with half a brain already knew -- that the gas production method called "fracking" does pollute ground drinking water sources.

Here is the conclusion reached by the EPA study:

Through this national-level assessment, we have identified potential mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing could affect drinking water resources. Above ground mechanisms can affect surface and ground water resources and include water withdrawals at times or in locations of low water availability, spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and chemicals or produced water, and inadequate treatment and discharge of hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Below ground mechanisms include movement of liquids and gases via the production well into underground drinking water resources and movement of liquids and gases from the fracture zone to these resources via pathways in subsurface rock formations.

24. We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more of these mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The cases occurred during both routine activities and accidents and have resulted in impacts to surface or ground water. Spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and produced water in certain cases have reached drinking water resources, both surface and ground water. Discharge of treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater has increased contaminant concentrations in receiving surface waters. Below ground movement of fluids, including gas, most likely via the production well, have contaminated drinking water resources. In some cases, hydraulic fracturing fluids have also been directly injected into drinking water resources, as defined in this assessment, to produce oil or gas that co-exists in those formations. 

(NOTE -- The image above is from green-4-u.com.)

There's much more, and although the EPA tries to downplay the effects somewhat (probably to placate the giant oil and gas companies, and their GOP lackeys in Congress), it's a really scary assessment. Fracking DOES affect our drinking water, and the more it happens, the more water will be affected.

Support For "Fracking" Has Cratered In The Last 20 Months

This chart was made from information contained in a new survey from the Pew Research Center. The survey was conducted between November 6th and 9th of a random national survey of 1,353 adults, and has a margin of error of 3.1 points. The numbers represent the difference between those who support fracking and those who oppose it. A positive number means more support it than oppose it, and a negative number means more oppose it than support it.

Let's take the numbers for all adults as an example. In March 2013, all adults supported fracking 48%-38% (giving it a positive 10). But by November 2014, all adults opposed fracking 41%-47% (giving it a negative 6) -- a significant move of 16 points. Note that when we break this survey down demographically, every single group shows less support for fracking than they did 20 months ago -- and that reduction in support for all groups is statistically significant (exceeding the margin of error).

The only groups showing strong support for fracking are men and Republicans, and the support has dropped even in those groups -- men by 9 points and Republicans by 5 points.

This shows us that the fight against the ground pollution posed by fracking has been very effective. Environmental activists have been able to move public opinion significantly in the last 20 months -- and that's a very good thing for our environment (and the health of our children and grandchildren).

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that any action will be taken legislatively to stop fracking in the next couple of years. That's because the Republicans control the U.S. Congress and far too many state governments -- and they long ago sold out to the giant oil & gas companies.

Why Does Water-Poor Texas Allow "Fracking" ?

There may be many states in this country that do not have to worry about water -- but Texas is not one of them. Many parts of the state are still in the throes of a severe drought, but that is not the main cause of Texas' water problems -- that has only added to those problems. Those water problems existed before the drought, and they will continue to exist after the drought has ended.

The sad fact is that Texas cannot sustain its current population with clean water far into the future -- and since Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, population growth makes the problem worse each year. A conservative estimate says that by 2060 Texas will be short by 1.1 trillion gallons of water of what would be needed to sustain its population. A more realistic estimate is that Texas will be 2.7 trillion gallons short.

The legislature threw a few million dollars at the problem in the last legislative session, but no one thinks it was anywhere near enough to solve the growing water problems. Even the State Comptroller, Republican Susan Combs, admits we are not doing enough to solve the problem -- and she calls for more spending on all fronts -- conservation, desalinization, water projects, and the development of new technology to extract and clean more water.

To me, this brings up a question. With the water problems being faced by this state, why is it not doing more to protect the ground water we currently have? Specifically, why do we continue to allow the gas companies to engage in fracking (the pumping of water and poisonous chemicals into the ground to force hard-to-get natural gas to the surface)? While all tracking operations may not poison or pollute ground water reserves, we know for a fact that many tracking operations do damage ground water (sometimes polluting them so much that the water can produce a flame when lit with a match).

The gas companies have engaged in a huge campaign and lobbying effort to disguise what they are doing with their fracking operations -- getting laws passed to hide what chemicals are being used and denying that those chemicals can possibly get into the ground water. But common sense and past pollution due to fracking tells us otherwise. Why then is Texas, a state with widely recognized water shortage problems, continuing to allow the giant gas companies to engage in fracking -- putting our precious reserves of ground water in danger of pollution?

The question, of course, is a rhetorical one. Anyone with even a passing familiarization with Texas politics knows the answer. Texas government has long depended on money from gas and oil production, and too many Texas politicians, especially the Republicans (who control the state government), get huge campaign donations from the companies doing the fracking.

Those politicians know Texas has serious water problems, and they know that fracking endangers the ground water in Texas -- but they have made the greedy and stupid decision to support the giant corporations instead of protecting the ground water resources we currently have. They have put their own desire for campaign dollars over what is in the best interests of the citizens of Texas.

This will not change as long as the Republicans control the state government. They never met a corporation they wouldn't support -- even those who pollute the air, soil, and precious water of Texas. We need to fix this in November -- by voting the GOP out of power.

(NOTE - The image above was found at the website texasceomagazine.com.)

Green Party Says "Fracking" Is Neither Inevitable Nor Unbeatable

Energy companies, and to a large extent federal and state governments, have been touting "fracking" as an answer to the energy problems facing this nation. (Fracking is the injection of water and dangerous chemicals into the ground to force natural gas to the surface where it can be harvested.) Unfortunately, those chemicals are believed to be poisoning both the earth and the ground water where it is being used, and it also wastes millions of gallons of water in areas of the country (like Texas) where water is a scarce resource.

But the problems of fracking have been covered up or glossed over in many areas, in the name of short-term corporate profits -- and as we know, in our corporate-controlled economy short-term profits are the only thing that matters (regardless of what that does to our environment or long-term economic outlook). But all may not be lost -- at least not yet.

The Green Party is now speaking out on the subject, and they say with a little effort that fracking may not be either "inevitable or unbeatable". Here is how Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Steve Breyman (pictured above) describes the party's position in an October 3rd memo:

High-volume hydraulic fracturing (better known as “fracking”), the process by which more and more oil and gas in the United States is produced, is good at some near-term things. It’s brought down natural gas prices for consumers. It’s resulted in several boom-towns across America’s shale formations. It’s brought back to life old wells uneconomical to pump through other means. It’s generated significant funds for gas companies and some lucky leaseholders. It’s created thousands of jobs. It’s plowed much needed tax revenues into a few state and local government coffers.

But that’s the problem—fracking is all about now. Fracking is the latest example of short-term political-economic thinking: boom and bust, get-rich-quick. It’s the present moment’s version of the same-old same-old extractive, penetrative, violent resource exploitation model that’s reigned for most of U.S. history. The same model that has us prop up the Saudi royal family, regularly foul our oceans, coastlines and rivers, clear cut forests, carve years off the lives of millions from dirty air, blow the tops off of mountains, spend several hundreds of billions annually on sea lane protection and ‘stabilization operations,’ and load the atmosphere with carbon.

Natural gas is hardly “the bridge [fuel] to the future,” as described by the Obama administration and other proponents. Its current abundance and relative affordability—barring full-cost accounting—postpones the transition to a green energy future. Fracking for gas fragments forests, poisons nearby air and the people who breathe it, threatens scarce fresh water aquifers, crowds rural roads with particulate spewing trucks, and spreads STDs, among other predictable delights.

Fracked gas corrupts state legislators and the Environmental Protection Agency (which does its darnedest to cover up fracking’s effects on ecosystem and human health). It leads to calls for LNG export facilities. Fracking unfairly competes with wind and solar to generate electricity (because, among other reasons, the practice is exempt from the several federal environmental laws which would restrict or make it illegal). Fracking requires a giant network of new pipelines and compressor stations, results in an extraordinary volume of toxic and sometimes radioactive waste water (sure to come back to haunt us no matter how deeply we inject it into the earth), stimulates earthquakes in the most unlikely of places, and divides communities.

Fracking corrupts scientists (and their university-housed minions) on gas company payrolls, tempts corporate-affiliated national environmental groups to back it, justifies cowardly “all of the above” energy policies, and stunts non-fossil fuel research and development. Fracking in Texas’ Barnett Shale—in the midst of a drought of biblical proportions—has several towns literally running out of water. Fracking for oil in North Dakota leads to the flaring of natural gas, a gross waste and major cause of disintegrating air quality. Fracking in floodplains brings us the spectacle of drowned wells and untold toxic chemicals on the loose in Colorado after three months of rain fell in twenty-four hours (an extreme weather event made more likely by burning natural gas and other dead dinosaurs).

Fracking is inherently sneaky and dishonest. Land men work their magic to swindle country folk out of a fair return for their mineral rights, and make it very difficult to ever get out of a contract (even after its expiration). Oil companies secretly frack for oil in the Santa Barbara Channel (location of the infamous 1969 spill), hiding the activity from regulators and the public. Fracking firms refuse to divulge the full contents of the frightening cocktail known as frack fluid. No one (including the U.S. Geological Survey) can say with a high degree of certainty how much gas actually lies buried in one-time biomass, subject to sedimentation, volcanic activity and pressure of hundreds of millions of years. Gas companies spoil drinking water wells then force victims to sign confidentiality agreements as part of settlements (enabling the firms to continue to lie about their records). Emergency room physicians in Pennsylvania are barred from explaining to patients that fracking was the likely culprit for their acute or chronic ailments.  Fracking is so seductive that even California—laboratory for nearly every good energy and environmental policy of the past half century—is unable to pass legislation that ensures environmental health.

Fracking is not, however, inevitable or unbeatable. The fierce and growing resistance in New York to pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals under extraordinary pressure thousands of feet below the surface has stayed the hand of a governor (with presidential aspirations) otherwise eager to say yes. A recent poll in New York found opposition to fracking at a historic high. Earth First!ers stage tree sits to stymie further destruction in the Keystone State. The University of Tennessee failed to solicit a single bid for the right to plunder its thousands of acres of forest. Smart investors are selling leases and otherwise getting out before the inevitable bust. Fracking has likely already peaked. Intensified public pressure on elected and appointed officials must make sure of that.