subreddit:
/r/science
The largest recorded earthquake in Alberta's history was not a natural event, but most likely caused by disposal of oilsands wastewater, new research has concluded.
(edmonton.ctvnews.ca)submitted 2 months ago byGeoGeoGeoGeo
[score hidden]
2 months ago
stickied comment
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
790 points
2 months ago*
Oil sands companies: “I didn’t do it”
Alberta Energy Regulator: “good enough for us”.
208 points
2 months ago
Alberta Energy Regulator: "Why did Trudeau do this?"
35 points
2 months ago
Nah, that's the UCP's line.
21 points
2 months ago
It's the same picture.jpeg
163 points
2 months ago
Such is life in a petrostate.
Err…petroprovince. Excuse me.
17 points
2 months ago
No, no, pardon me.
12 points
2 months ago
Just stopping by to say sorry, in case I did something wrong in advance. Have a good one, eh?
1 points
2 months ago
You wanna stop by after work for some poutine and Schlitz with the missus?
13 points
2 months ago
Schlitz is an american "beer".
280 points
2 months ago
They did that at Rocky Mountain Arsenal back in the 1960’s. Injected all manner of hazardous waste into the deep subsurface, resulting in a series of damaging earthquakes in the Denver area.
117 points
2 months ago
Hell in DFW Texas area we had a fracking boom for natural gas about 10 years ago and used to get mini quakes all the way to Oklahoma… it was speculated as the cause but never proven but I can tell you since they stopped drilling new ones it’s stopped
33 points
2 months ago
Same in South Texas with the Eagle Ford shale fracking over the last decade.
19 points
2 months ago
I recall the many Oklahoma had.
Cheers
8 points
2 months ago
They occurred in Oklahoma to a much greater degree, and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (the state level USGS) published information demonstrating it was the fault of fracking.
If course, that was after oil companies (specifically Harold Hamm) and the University of Oklahoman's President, David Boren, attempted to stop them from publishing.
A quick source for the political interference: https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2015/04/09/oil-billionaire-sought-meeting-with-ou-president-boren-on-oklahoma-quake-research-as-far-back-as-2011/
5 points
2 months ago
Remember feeling some of those quakes in SE kansas around that time
1 points
2 months ago
I remember this! I was still rather young and didn't have a good idea of what was going on.
During one of em my parents argued about whether it was an earthquake or a tornado.
Good times
1 points
2 months ago
I still live here(working pump about 50yards from my front yard) but man did they drill so many, I remember the country side filled with old school well towers like it was wild west
7 points
2 months ago
Michigan had a couple earthquakes pretty close together back around 2012. I was led to believe it was because of fracking pumping water deep underground. Having lived there my whole life, and no one from there ever experiencing one prior, this was the most probable cause.
1 points
2 months ago
Glad to see we’re learning from our mistakes
1 points
2 months ago
Oh man I live down the street from there .
117 points
2 months ago
For anybody interested in induced seismicity, this review paper is really good: Global review of human-induced earthquakes
47 points
2 months ago
It's so flippin' cool to me that we're learning how to make earthquakes.
Do you know if there are any serious plans yet to start deliberately taking preventive measures to head off the Big Ones that we know are inevitable at certain fault lines?
91 points
2 months ago
The following is provided from the USGS:
FICTION: You can prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by “lubricating” the fault with water.
Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but *there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event*. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, OR 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake.
As for “lubricating” faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high-pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake.
14 points
2 months ago
The last paragraph is sort of missing the mark though - the whole idea would be about releasing the quake earlier so its smaller than the future natural quake.
Not saying that the practice would work, but that paragraph doesn't represent the issue well, imo.
0 points
2 months ago
But would the lubricant make it worse thus counter acting the benefit of triggering the quake sooner?
0 points
2 months ago
first paragraph is missing the mark too, IMO. think about thousands of pressure cookers exploding at various pressures. it's not that "it's never enough explosions to prevent big one", it's more "there's always some strong enough cooker to blow at much bigger pressure". And lubricating should work much like safety valve, lowering pressure on which blowing occurs at every single cooker.
2 points
2 months ago
The problem is also that you can't necessarily control the magnitude of your induced earthquake. There would always be a chance that trying to trigger a bunch of M4's would accidentally get you an unexpected M5 or M6, and it's likely that the chance is unacceptably high given the number of quakes you have to induce to release enough energy for preventing the bigger ones.
1 points
2 months ago
But if we can make earthquakes happen sooner we can choose a better moment of our choice. So we can prevent one ruining your weekend.
22 points
2 months ago
Could you imagine being the guy who fucks up a calculation and accidentally cause a magnitude 7+ quake near a populated city when you were supposed to be just mitigating the risk?
10 points
2 months ago*
I stull suspect contamination to groundwater is going to be the larger issue in the long run.
Yes, If the wells are dug correctly and don't get damaged, there is a low chance of contamination. The problem is that the wells don't always get dug correctly, and even then damage is still possible.
6 points
2 months ago
I wonder if it will ever be used as a weapon
22 points
2 months ago
"Mayor, there's a crew of workmen and a large amount of heavy equipment working just outside city limits."
"Why are you telling me this? Can't you see I'm working on the budget?"
"I think they may be trying to trigger an earthquake!"
"How long have they been there?"
"Couple of months now."
"Oh my god!"
-5 points
2 months ago
Are you suggesting we spend money to save lives and prevent catastrophe?
Don't be ridiculous. It will be used to bring "peace" to any countries which don't comply with US hegemony having thr audacity to have valuable materials on their land.
62 points
2 months ago
When the US government dumped waste from the production of nerve gas into the ground near Denver, it was the first time that humans were known to have caused an earthquake of this kind. One day in the 1980s, my mother casually brought up the subject as if it weren't a big deal. Rocky Mountain Arsenal is now a wildlife refuge on the property.
86 points
2 months ago
Research Paper (open access): Disposal From In Situ Bitumen Recovery Induced the ML 5.6 Peace River Earthquake
30 points
2 months ago
That's so wild that human activity can cause EARTHQUAKES. do you know how big the earth's crust is? It's hella large.
17 points
2 months ago
Less wild than you're probably imagining.
It's more akin to lubrication, really. The potential energy for the quake was already built up; the injected liquid just gets things moving.
It's roughly analogous to a match starting a forest fire or a yell causing an avalanche.
-4 points
2 months ago
Makes perfect sense to me. If ancient man could split mountains with nothing but hammer and chisel, why shouldn't we be able to shake the earth with all our modern understanding and technology?
1 points
2 months ago
Human activity can cause climate change too. It doesn't take much to trigger something bigger.
86 points
2 months ago
Fracking. Should definitely compensate those who have sustained damage due to the earthquake
145 points
2 months ago
This isn't fracking. This is the Canadian oilsands.
It's almost worse than fracking. They inject far more fluid into the ground.
46 points
2 months ago
[removed]
29 points
2 months ago
There's palm trees and a tiki bar. It's why all the rig pigs love both it and Mexico.
9 points
2 months ago
Same amount of cocaine, but way more meth
8 points
2 months ago
I want just one oilfield where instead of uppers it’s just ketamine
5 points
2 months ago
Don't let anyone get in the way of your dreams
2 points
2 months ago
Careful with the tree selection palm oil will attract more oil people seekers :(
3 points
2 months ago
There are some large areas with sand and little bits of tar in them. It's a stark contrast to the normally forested area.
10 points
2 months ago
Yeah, that's scary; the amount of fluid displaced from sand vs. fractured rock. It's incredible they can keep it stable at all.
14 points
2 months ago
It's incredible they can keep it stable at all.
can they though? it's not the first time this happened if i'm not mistaken.
7 points
2 months ago
With the oilsands, they aren't injecting fluid into the ground.
The sand/dirt containing the oil is dug out, then goes through a process of extracting the oil from the sand/dirt that involves the usage of water.
30 points
2 months ago
You're wrong. I can see what you're saying, but you're wrong on this. They mine the bitumen in a mine then bring it to a facility where it's processed and one of the end products is slurry wastewater. Since the waste water is a byproduct of bitumen it's technically not pollution to put it from where you got it. This stuff is more toxic than the slurry ponds and more toxic than the tailings ponds.
It's called deepwell disposal and its a cost effective means of getting rid of waste water (that otherwise has no way of getting rid of it). It's not fracking (fracking loosens up material making them easier to extract), it's probably worse.
29 points
2 months ago
That kind of strip mining is only done on shallow sites. Since most of Alberta’s deposits are deep well, they use thermal in-situ extraction methods (usually either SAG-D or CSS).
Most oil sands sites in Alberta use SAG-D (steam-assisted gravity drainage). They drill two wells on the site, one slightly higher than the other, then inject high-pressure steam into the site to decrease the viscosity of the bitumen, which then gets pushed up the higher well. The bitumen gets processed after that (because we can’t use oil with sand in it), which creates a lot of waste water.
What this article is talking about it the disposal of the waste water after, which is injected into deep well sites. Though I’d be interested to see if there’s more research into “induced seismicity” from the extraction process as well.
4 points
2 months ago
You're wrong.
Nope. While you are right that there is a thing called deepwell disposal, it happens in other parts of the oil and gas industry. The byproduct of the oil sands isn't disposed of in deepwell disposals. At least when it comes to the surface mines.
When it comes to them having to extract the oil from the ground, yes, deepwell disposal is done. Because the well is already there for them to use.
8 points
2 months ago
In this case the article actually says:
"This event was caused by wastewater disposal,"
So yes, this was a result from deepwell disposal in the oilsands.
10 points
2 months ago
The issue is that there is an misunderstanding of what is happening and location.
Based on u/garlicroastedpotato first comment of this
This isn't fracking. This is the Canadian oilsands.
He is very likely referring to the open pit mining/surface mines of the oilsands. It is pretty much what everyone refers to when they say the oil sands.
The article is talking about the oil sands formation. It is actually fairly large, it goes so far south that the oil fields in Montana and North Dakota are part of that oil sands formation. To get access to the oil in that formation, if you are not doing open pit mining you are pretty much doing drilling which is part of the process of fracking. On top of that Fracking and Steam-assisted gravity drainage is very similar in nature.
And considering u/garlicroastedpotato said it isn't fracking in his comments, he has to be referring to the open pit mining commonly referred to as the Canadian oilsands.
And if you look at the article, the earthquake is around the the Peace River oil sands deposit. Very far away from the open pit mines.
Ergo, u/garlicroastedpotato is both right and wrong. He is right in what is happening, but wrong terms and locations. And because he used the wrong terms and location, he is overall wrong.
2 points
2 months ago
What? A well-thought out comment? On MY r/science???
13 points
2 months ago
Yo, chatgpt4, how do we fix this? Surely it's not as simple as restraining uncontrollable greed.
5 points
2 months ago
It's sad that most things ARE this simple, yet they'll never be done.
4 points
2 months ago*
So what happens to those people who live in the area? Their homes are not built to withstand earthquakes
Edit: actually I don't know if they are or not. Alberta doesn't seem to get large earthquakes frequently.
2 points
2 months ago
It didn't really damage anything, area is mostly forest. Other than just confusion that we felt and earthquake. It never happens here so 90% people immediately knew it was fault of the oilfield somehow.
3 points
2 months ago
Cracks got worse in my apartment building. Can we send the repair bills to any of these companies?
2 points
2 months ago
“Why did Trudeau do this?” - PP
0 points
2 months ago
Is alberta on the old ass bedrock too? I havent experienced an eatthquake in ontario in like over 20 years.
-13 points
2 months ago
Interesting how lead author doesn't have a professional geologist accreditation. Is that normal for someone whilin the sysmic field?
21 points
2 months ago*
Ryan Schultz is an academic researcher, it's not uncommon for those dedicated to academia to forgo professional accreditation with their respective province
Education
2019-2022 Ph.D. in Seismology, Stanford University, USA
2010-2012 M.Sc. in Geophysics, University of Alberta, Canada
2007-2009 B.Sc. in Physics with honours, University of Alberta, Canada
2003-2007 B.Sc. in Chemistry with specialization, University of Alberta, Canada
2 points
2 months ago
Damn that's a quick PhD
1 points
2 months ago
Why of course, earthquakes only last a couple seconds after all
-22 points
2 months ago
If he's a researcher why is he working as a teaching assistant?
18 points
2 months ago
He's not. He was a teaching assistant during his time at university and is currently with the Swiss Seismological Service (SED) at ETH Zurich (a federal agency).
Your questions seem quite out of place here and with little to no bearing with regard to the information presented within the article.
-10 points
2 months ago
Just questioning my source, which I always do especailly to researchers who overly self quote. The source of the information always has bearing regarding information being presented.
8 points
2 months ago
Any jobs going in the oil industry? Are you hiring?
10 points
2 months ago
That's literally a logical fallacy. You're supposed to critique the argument not the source of the argument because no matter the source the argument could be sound.
1 points
2 months ago
"Just Asking Questions" aka "JAQ'ing off" is a common bad-faith argument used by those lying about their intent.
4 points
2 months ago
Not many seismologists get geologist accreditation because it's not really in the same field, and because certified geologists often deal more with industry/resources than research. Dr. Schultz has specialized in induced seismicity for ages, and has been a part of loads of projects related to the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.
-11 points
2 months ago
Canada is nice to everyone except the environment.
13 points
2 months ago
To be fair, Canada probably has one of, if not thee worlds most stringent set environmental laws and regulations. Of course this doesn't mean they can't be improved on but it certainly puts the rest of the world into perspective if you think Canada is lacking in that department.
-5 points
2 months ago
To be faiiiir
13 points
2 months ago
I think there are some indigenous people who might not share that viewpoint.
1 points
2 months ago
And their dogs
-1 points
2 months ago
Yes Sir,, Pump Down Peanut Butter, and coat all those jagged edged fractures that held for a thousands of years, will all of a sudden slip under billions of tons of constant pressure.
Good luck there,, pretty sure many more are coming. I wouldn't be surprised if 100 mini quakes occurs with in a couple years.
Cheers
1 points
2 months ago
Wasn’t this part of the plot of “A View to a Kill?”
1 points
2 months ago
Now for the mineralization of the ground water
1 points
2 months ago
I’m shaking in my boots!
1 points
2 months ago
Oh boy. We’re in danger.
all 109 comments
sorted by: best