Print 73 comment(s) - last by wongmama.. on Apr 2 at 4:08 PM

  (Source: Shutterstock)
National study suggests that 5.7-magnitude quake was caused by wastewater injection (manmade)

A report by a team of prestigious scientific experts has rebuked an Oklahoma state-sponsored report claiming that wastewater injection over the last few decades had nothing to do with a record-setting earthquake centered in Prague, Oklahoma.

I. Paid-Off State Officials: Injection is Harmless

Fracking and pressurized injections of wastewater from traditional wells in Oklahoma's Wilzetta oil fields began in the 1990s.  The controversial resource extraction technique involves injecting pressurized sand, water, and chemicals into shale formations, triggering the release of oil and natural gas that otherwise would be hard to extract.

Energy giants like Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK), OGE Energy Corp. (OGE) Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE), and Devon Energy Corp. (DVN) have made billions in revenue from the process.  However, critics -- including some prominent scientists -- have criticized the process, claiming it creates seismic instability and may contaminate local water supplies.  Those claims seemed prophetic when Oklahoma, a top fracking/wastewater injection state, was hit with a rash of uncharacteristic earthquakes which culminated in a magnitude 5.7 earthquake in 2011 which destroyed 14 homes.

Still, Oklahoma politicians and state-appointed scientists have defended the process.  In a 2011 report entitled "Response to Attacks on Hydraulic Fracturing", the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) defend the process of fracking/wastewater injection.  

And in a separate study, dubbed the "OGS Prague Statement" [PDF], they directly address claims that pressurized injections into sealed wells caused the quake, suggesting instead that it was caused by a segment of the Wilzetta Fault which was "favorably orientated for earthquakes."  They cite other studies suggesting that such "swarms" of earthquakes are often naturally occurring along fault lines.

II. Following the Monetary Stench

But state politicians who appoint the OGS scientists and OCC officials may have a bit of a vested interest.  Chesapeake Energy, OGE Energy, Devon Energy, and others have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to roll both state and federal Republicans in Oklahoma into office.

Thanks in part to their deep pockets, Republicans own a healthy majority in Oklahoma's legislature.  And the oil industry's "hired help" appears eager to repay the favor.

U.S. Rep. James Lankford received $24,300 USD from Devon Energy, $22,250 USD from OGE Energy, and an additional $113,800 from other oil and natural gas extraction companies, according to OpenSecrets. Sen. James M. Inhofe received a whopping $537,750 USD from oil and natural gas firms.


Here's the contact info for those gentlemen:

U.S. Rep. James Lankford:
Local Phone 405-234-9900 / D.C. Phone 202-225-2132
U.S. Sen James M. Inhofe
Local Phone 405-608-4381 / D.C. Phone (202) 224-4721

Here's a summary of the special interest payouts to the top state-level politicians from the Republican majority:

Oklahoma state republicans
(Click to enlarge)

Notice that every major leader in the state house and senate was paid off by the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Assoc. (OIPA)-- a pro-oil industry group -- and every politician also received healthy contributions from several other oil and natural gas firms.  (Source:

Here's the contact info for those gentlemen:
Sen. Brian Bingman (R, president pro tempore)
Local phone (405) 521-5528 / State capital phone (918) 227-1856
Sen. Mike Schulz (R, majority floor leader)
Local phone (405) 521-5612 / State capital phone N/A
Rep. T.W. Shannon (R, speaker of the house)
Local phone (405) 557-7374 / Asst. Phone (405) 557-7374 
Rep. Mike Jackson (R, speaker pro tempore)
Local phone (405) 557-7317/ Asst. Phone (405) 557-7317

The OIPA's mission statement basically acknowledges that its mission is to pay off polticians, writing:

The OIPA is committed to promoting the interests and welfare of independent oil and gas operators, working interest owners, royalty owners, and those businesses who provide services for the energy industry. Specifically, the association strives to provide its members with outstanding legislative and regulatory representation. 

In a recent post it gripes, "Since President Obama’s election to office in 2008, the nation’s oil and natural gas producers have faced constant scrutiny from the federal regulatory agencies under White House control."

III. Unbiased Research Contradicts Oil-Industry Funded Findings

So the oil companies paid the politicians, and the politicians hired scientists and appointed officials who were willing to claim fracking/wastewater injection is safe.  But what do unbiased national scientists say?

The answer came in a peer-reviewed study published [abstract] in the journal Geology, which rebukes the biased reports from state-sponsored researchers.  The new article entitled "Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence' was written by Prof. Katie M. Keranen of the Univ. of OklahomaProf. Heather M. Savage and Prof. Geoffrey A. Abers of Columbia Univ., and Dr. Elizabeth S. Cochran of the US Geological Survey (USGS).

It finds:

We use the aftershocks to illuminate the faults that ruptured in the sequence, and show that the tip of the initial rupture plane is within ∼200 m of active injection wells and within ∼1 km of the surface; 30% of early aftershocks occur within the sedimentary section. Subsurface data indicate that fluid was injected into effectively sealed compartments, and we interpret that a net fluid volume increase after 18 yr of injection lowered effective stress on reservoir-bounding faults. Significantly, this case indicates that decades-long lags between the commencement of fluid injection and the onset of induced earthquakes are possible, and modifies our common criteria for fluid-induced events. The progressive rupture of three fault planes in this sequence suggests that stress changes from the initial rupture triggered the successive earthquakes, including one larger than the first.

In other words, it traces the earthquakes to sealed well sites near their epicenter, which were injected with toxic pressurized wastewater from the oil extraction process.  

The study finds that wastewater injection-- injecting pressurized liquid to extract deep oil/natural gas deposits -- destabilizes local sediments and likely caused seismic activity.

Note, that while the study does not directly implicate fracking (which involves fluid injection as well), it does raise concerns about the the process, as it implicates similar wastewater injections in creating seismic activity.

The authors determined that the volume of the sealed wells changed over time, causing stress that appears to have triggered at least two quakes of magnitude of 5.0, and then the biggest quake -- a magnitude of 5.7.  These quakes were felt in 17 states.

Fluid injection in the wastewater wells began after 1993, according to the current paper and the authors suggest the risk could have been adverted if the well owners had followed the criteria for injection established by Davis and Frohlich (1993), which suggests locating injection wells away from seismic faults.

The findings correspond to a previous 2011 report [PDF] by the US National Research Council (NRC), which showed that fracking caused smaller quakes (although failing to definitively show whether or not it caused larger quakes).  A 2012 USGS report also links fracking to earthquakes.

Note that the difference between fracking injection and wastewater injection is that fracking typically injects the pressurized fluid deeper under the ground, so more research is needed to determine just how much commonality in seismic risk there is between the two practices.

IV. Lawsuits, Legal Challenges to Future Fracking Loom

The study raises serious questions.

First, given the blatant payouts to state politicians by oil and gas interests, it seems pretty interesting that an unbiased team of experts would come to the conclusion that wastewater injection did cause the earthquakes, while a team of state-sponsored researchers whose pay is dependent on politicians paid by special interests would claim that it wasn't the cause.

Aside from questions of scientific integrity regarding the researchers at the OGS/OCC, the report also raises questions of liability.  If the quakes were indeed directly correlated to the wastewater injection processes and the causative mechanism was properly determined in the new report, then homeowners or business owners whose properties were damaged could (in theory) sue NextEra Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Exxon Mobil, Devon Energy, OGE Energy, et al. for damages.

Fracking regions
Fracking projects are being considered in a number of states.
[Image Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency]

Of course don't be surprised if state politicians try to author some sort of legislation to exempt their energy industry "sponsors" from such litigation, given that they already appear to have tried to cover up the damage done.

The report is also of keen interest as various other states, such as Illinois and Pennsylvania are considering new fracking or wastewater injection projects or expanding existing ones.  Overseas in England, fracking/wastewater injection is also a major topic of debate, where special interests are similarly trying to sway the discussion.

The new study is critical as it's the most definitive, clear, and detailed document to date indicating that fluid injection can cause seismic activity.  Citizens in states with fracking or wastewater injection projects should consider this carefully.  

If earthquakes occur, consider suing your local oil and gas companies for damages -- science supports you.  And in the meantime look into (on VoteSmart or other sources), which of your local politicians are taking money from big oil and gas companies -- the results may surprise and disturb you.

In all though, this shouldn't be terribly surprising -- a recent University of Kansas School of Business study [PDF] revealed that for $1 given to a federal politician as a business, you get $243 USD in kickbacks -- either indirectly (via lesser taxation) or directly siphoned off citizens taxes.

An earlier version of the story erroneously refered to the wastewater as being from fracking, where as the wastewater that researchers suggest caused the quakes was, in fact, from traditional drilling.  Several other publications -- including a Wired piece on the topic make similar errors or offer somewhat ambiguous statements -- and remain uncorrected.  

Nonetheless, the issue of cash payments to state legislators to allow injection/fracking remains, as does the issues surrounding special-interest endorsed research that suggested the quakes to have occurred naturally (when they appear to be energy-industry/wastewater caused).

Sources: Geology [abstract], VoteSmart, Opensecrets [campaign funding info], OCC [PDF]

Comments     Threshold


RE: You are pathetic
By JasonMick on 3/28/2013 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 4
You'll be lucky not to be sued over that bit of libel.
Maybe you can use your wannabe superpowers to next investigate how many members of congress took payments from Big Pharma and insurance companies to get the health care bill passed.
Cash for legislation is an effective payment. If you want to try to censor my Constitutionally protected free speech as a journalist and sue me, feel free to.

I will look forward to the national media attention you will bring to my publication and the issue at hand; I am confident in my rights and that the court system will uphold them if someone tries to censor me.
Sure... your point being?

My opinion is that virtually every politician on a federal scale is corrupt. I have yet to research a politician on a federal level who has not accepted what appears to be campaign contribution cash for votes on special interest issues (or pork amendments to bills).

The scale of corruption on a state and federal level in this country is stunning.

Your deflection does little to change the fact that the issues raised in this article are valid.

I commend you for pointing out other instances of corruption, but don't stick your head in the sand to protect your favored party.

Face it -- both sides are corrupt. And they are such because the masses and mass media allow them to be. I'm working -- to the best of my capacity -- to change that.

Perhap's you'd enjoy my recent piece where I suggest President Obama be impeached for similar payola more favorable?

Don't be mad, friend.

RE: You are pathetic
By retrospooty on 3/28/2013 5:26:15 PM , Rating: 5

The scale of corruption on a state and federal level in this country is stunning."

Exactly. and they have the dull masses fighting over "left vs. right" and "Liberal vs. Conservative", when they are all in it together and robbing us blind.

RE: You are pathetic
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: You are pathetic
By ebakke on 3/28/2013 6:01:10 PM , Rating: 2

RE: You are pathetic
By GotThumbs on 3/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: You are pathetic
By Darksurf on 3/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: You are pathetic
By retrospooty on 3/28/2013 7:37:10 PM , Rating: 4
"When corrupt Republicans run the show, things go smoother."

Smooth like 2000-2008? Dood, they are all the same crap. Both sides are spending our money like it comes from an endless fountain. How well things went under Clinton and how massively badly they fell apart under Bush kind of blows that theory out of the water. I think we both agree Obama is worse than both Clinton and Bush combined, but they are all the same. Complete and total BS.

RE: You are pathetic
By Armageddonite on 3/28/2013 7:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Case in point, regarding Retro's comment about taking sides and fighting blindly. You can't even pretend to be fair and unbiased can you? The facts of the matter include: (1) a number of Republican politicians are on record as having received money from the oil/gas companies, and (2) those same Republicans are advocates on those companies' behalf, sponsoring their efforts and helping to hide the negative aspects using their paid experts.

Once again, I must point out that one person's misdeeds do not justify anyone else's; bringing up the whole "but the other guys do it too" thing is childish.

And as I recall, budget cuts and slack regulation were what made the country "turn to crap" most recently. Under the watch of a Republican president, I might add.

RE: You are pathetic
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: You are pathetic
By Armageddonite on 3/28/2013 8:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing in this story that involves Democrats being directly involved, so I can't blindly defend them the way you do the Republicans. Not that I would, because I place blame where blame is due. And the blame in this case rests rather squarely on the Republicans who were directly involved in promoting these fracking efforts and then fabricating false science to cover it up. It has nothing to do with the president, whose current shame-game politics are reducing our global dignity, or the Democratic congresspeople who shy away from upholding their philosophical ideals based on Twitter trends.

And bravo for dredging up as many Conserva-quips as you possibly could in your thoroughly enlightened response. Is there a website with an algorithm that generates these cute terms you so thoroughly enjoy? It takes a lot of Kool-Aid to see the world in terms of soundbites and slogans.

RE: You are pathetic
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/13, Rating: -1
RE: You are pathetic
RE: You are pathetic
By croc on 3/29/2013 12:05:01 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it would be good if you clarified what your working definition of corruption is.

