"On the Fracking Frontline"

For anyone who found the controversy surrounding fracking an enthralling topic, I have linked a BBC podcast from the One Planet series. This covers discussions from both sides of the debate and focuses on how the problem has manifested in New York.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00k69ml/One_Planet_On_The_Fracking_Frontline/

Did Climate Change Cause The Haiti Quake?

No.

But some alarmists in the media like to think it did. Reports have been published that point the blame to a combination of deforestation and hurricanes. The far-fetched claim is that the huge deforestation schemes ongoing in Haiti have left hillsides vulnerable to erosion. Geologist Shimon Wdowinski of the University of Miami argues that Haiti’s hillside degradation is enough to destabilise the earth’s crust. He says that the quake was instigated when a large volume of eroded land mass was shifted to the Leogane Delta from the mountainous epicentre. Perhaps this degree of mass movement could trigger local tremors but I’m hesitant to accept it could wield enough power to unleash such slaughter.

A more convincing reason behind the destructive magnitude 7.0 quake lies in the simple fact that Haiti sits atop a an active transform plate boundary – where the Caribbean plate meets the North American plate in a system known as the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault. Media scaremongers display the fact that Haiti has not had an earthquake in over 220 years as proof that modern day climate change must be the culprit. Since earthquakes in Haiti are rare but not unheard of, surely this is merely the return period of seismic events in this region? Is it not likely that after two centuries of built up lateral stress the fault was ready to release the strain?

Fears About Fracking

Following on from my recent post that covered the effects of oil drilling operations, and after being prompted by Anson Mackay, I’d like to bring ‘fracking’ into the spotlight. Fracking – or hydraulic fracturing – is a method of extracting natural gas inside hard shale rocks. The process consists of drilling down to shatter underlying rocks and injecting into them a high-pressurised fluid (such as water, chemicals and also sand). This creates channels within the rock and enhances the extraction rate and complete recovery of fossil fuels (BBC, 2011).

The reason fracking is relevant here owes to the fact that there have been several small earth tremors recorded in the UK in the last year; and fracking is said to be the perpetrator. After a magnitude 1.5 and 2.2 earthquake struck Blackpool in spring 2011, the shale gas drilling operations where suspended until an investigation was completed. The outcome of this saw the accused energy firm Cuadrilla Resources admitting in a commissioned report that the quakes happened due to an “unusual combination of geology at the well site” and that it was “unlikely to occur again”. Needless to say, many were inclined to distrust the report and protestors from campaign group ‘Frack Off’ were reported to have climbed a drilling rig at Cuadrilla headquarters.

In a likely acceptance of their guilt, Cuadrilla terminated its shale gas drilling tests in June after a magnitude 2.3 tremor struck the Fylde coast in April and then reoccurred in May. This was recently reported by the BBC, which reiterated the ongoing clash between sceptical environmentalists and “hopelessly naïve” energy companies. 

The IPCC Response

It is only relatively recently that hazard events have been recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a scientific body that strives to provide assessments on the state and risk of anthropogenic climate change. Within the organisation, Special Reports are drawn up on various topics, one of which particularly interests me – the Special Report on Extreme Events (SREX).

The proposal was first introduced by Norway during the 29^th session of the Panel in Geneva, Switzerland in 2008. They had collaborated with the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) to prepare this report that focused on the risk management of extreme events. The IPCC were supportive and called for a revised edition to be presented to the Bureau at the 38^th session in November 2008 for further consideration. From then on, the Working Group II have organised meetings, determined objectives and produced papers in preparation for discussion with the Panel in April 2009 on whether the project would be endorsed. The Working Group II have since piloted the movement in anticipation of the SREX approval session which took place very recently in Uganda on 14-17^th November 2011. Yesterday it was reported that SREX was approved and accepted at this conference. 

This project – whose complete title is the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaption – is a beacon of success for scientists who have propelled hazard events into climate change discourse. For better detail into the report’s outline and contributors I suggest visiting this section of the IPCC website:

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/srex/srex.html

Yesterday, the summary for SREX was released which outlines the proposed procedures for policymakers when managing the risks and losses relating to future extreme events in conjunction with climate change. This report can be accessed via the link below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc34/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf

An Explosive Backlash

So, having unintentionally focused on earthquakes, I would like to turn my attention to volcanoes. The way in which volcanism forces climate is well studied and documented to the extent that geoengineers have formulated a way to harness the cooling effect of an eruption in order to counteract the onset of global warming. For a better insight into the mechanisms that drive volcanism as a climate forcing factor and these proposed geoengineering schemes I would like to recommend a recent post written by my friend and fellow climate blogger Tom Hallam.

Nonetheless, there is little evidence circulating that climate change could reciprocally alter a volcano’s eruption schedule. The cardinal premise on which this is based comes from the logic that a thaw of global ice caps will remove a vast weight allowing magma from immense depths to be unleashed. Freysteinn Sigmundsson – a volcanologist at the University of Iceland – has stated:

“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems… the end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.” (World Climate Report, 2011)

One particular recent eruption made headlines worldwide… but not for its link to climate change. The eruption of Eyjafjallojokull in 2010 was famed for producing the mammoth ash cloud that grounded flights across Europe and spread animosity to millions (including myself, whose ticket to Miley Cyrus’ film premiere was rendered useless when the singer’s plane was unable to fly!) Scientists have struggled to link this huge eruption to climate change, saying that the glacier on which in sits was too small and light to influence local geology. Whilst theoretically, the reduction in Icelandic ice thus far has not been significant enough to trigger either a large eruption or a greater frequency of any magnitude events, Sigmundsson believes this will change in the coming decades (Sigmundsson et al., 2008).


His 2008 report showed that since 1890, 10% of Iceland’s biggest ice cap Vatnajokull has melted (Pagli & Sigmundsson, 2008). This has caused land to rise approximately 25 millimetres, consequently adjusting geological stresses. Rocks under an ice cap are at such high pressures that they are unable to expand enough to turn into liquid magma even if the temperature is high. The pressure decrease when ice melts therefore allows magma to form. Such results lead to the conclusion that an estimated 1.4 cubic km of magma had formed in response to the thaw. Ultimately, the study concludes that melting ice is the principal way in which climate change can have an impact on geology.

Listen To Miley

Here's a quick case of theatrical embellishment of climate change found in today's pop music. Don't take this the wrong way... I like the song, I like Miley Cyrus and I can't dispute the lyrics. So if plugging sly publicity into the everyday school run gets young people actively involved in climate change then this song has done its job!

10 Minutes With Bill McGuire

I was very grateful to have had the chance to talk to the man who spearheaded the latest debate that climate change could govern the dynamics of the earth’s crust. I met Bill McGuire last week at UCL’s Hazard Research Centre to discuss his role in this debate and where it’s headed.

Having read a collection of Bill’s published articles in the field of volconology and other geophysical hazards, I was initially interested to discover how his research interests were broadened to integrate the geological consequences of climate change. He tells me that the process evolved naturally, beginning with the successful completion of his PhD that investigated the link between climate and the collapse of Mount Etna. Since then he says that “climate change is the greatest threat that the world has ever faced”, and therefore is a topic that anyone interested in the environment would be foolish to ignore. His stature at the pinnacle of his domain gives him opportunity to actively feature within the campaign to fight climate change, which he pursues out of concern for both the future and his family.

Admittedly, I had expected to leave the meeting resolutely swayed that the earth was prepped and ready to bring about colossal devastation at the hands of human ignorance. As it turns out, I learnt from Bill that scientists have received not one obvious signal globally that geological hazards are increasing in recent ‘anthropocene’ years, and it doesn’t surprise them! The debate that human-induced climate change will cause an increase in these events is purely rooted from theory and chronicled evidence. By this, I mean the well-established concept that sea level changed historically in accordance with glacial/inter-glacial cycles – in our discussion, Bill cites how in the past seismic events in Alaska and Greenland can be correlated to massive ice sheet removal of up to 30-50 km.

A valuable point made by Bill that I had previously not come across in my research was that way in which sea level rise can stabilise faults. Having written in a former post about how the Japanese tsunami has been linked to climate change in the media, I now endeavour to rebuke that statement given this fresh insight. In actual fact, Bill illuminates how it is more plausible that a greater weight of water lying on a fault at a subduction zone would increase pressure therefore stability. This mechanism operates at coastal regions and would decrease the frequency of tsunamis, which supposedly proves the Japanese tsunami was not a man-made hazard. Danger is not completely averted as when one section of the fault is strengthened, the instability can move further along the fault. Whilst rising sea levels can suppress the ‘big ones’, more earthquakes can be pushed inland (normally where major cities are situated) and potentially cause greater damage. Similarly, an influx of sea water at laterally moving faults – such as the San Andrea fault – would effectively unclamp the fault reducing frictional force and allowing it to slide easier.

Finally, Bill proudly explains how he instigated this controversial topic with a series of workshops that lead to a wave of academic papers including his compilation of articles for the Royal Society. Much of the progress made in this realm of science can be directly attributed to Bill McGuire; he organised a conference in 2009 and is planning another one for next year. A testament to the success of his work is the first ever inclusion of an ‘Extreme Events Report’ in the upcoming IPCC report released on 18^th November. Currently, Bill is reviewing the 5^th assessment for 2013/14 with the hope that a similar coverage of extreme events will be in the contents.

Needless to say, my meeting with Bill was a pleasure and I would like to thank him for both an informative discussion and for his generosity.

Don't Drill Too Deep

I have established that the earth’s crust reacts to a redistribution of stresses along its geological faults. This is precisely how drilling and mining can incur man-made earthquakes. For example, a greater frequency of tremors was detected subsequent to the commencement of oil drilling operations in the North Sea.

Looking forward, we would like to have confidence that geothermal energy development will offer cheap, clean renewable power. This venture has been rocked by reports from scientists and locals that drilling for naturally occurring heat could generate bigger earthquakes. Since its advent in the 1970s, the gradual intensification of geothermal drilling due to improvements in technology have been held responsible for successions of minor earthquakes that were felt thereafter. A particularly insightful example is the now infamous case of Switzerland’s geothermal project in Basel. In 2006, this resulted in a 3.4 magnitude quake after drilling three miles (4.8 kilometres) into the earth’s crust. The aftermath was covered by an article in the New York Times, stating that tremors shook the town and the operation was ceased.

Despite prevailing earthquake fears plus the knowledge of the aforementioned failed project in Basel, American company AltaRock have the intent to drill two miles deep into the San Franciscan ground using a similar method. The site had been chosen in the hope of tapping into the natural geothermal vents (nicknamed The Geysers) which are located approximately 90 miles north of San Francisco, near a town called Anderson Springs. Whilst AltaRock founder Susan Petty has maintained that all large faults will given a wide berth, doubts of the safety and rationality of this project are palpable amongst locals and geologists. A concerning point to make is that within the seismic impact report filed by AltaRock, they dodged the fact that an earthquake had been the cause of the Basal programme’s collapse. Instead, the company allege that the trigger of the quake was not fully understood, in spite of expert seismologists and project officials pleading its guilt. 

Geothermal energy has the potential to be a clean, renewable and reliable resource. However power companies have been limited to harnessing shallow steam beds, geysers and vents to prevent an earthquake risk (even though these projects can still induce very small tremors). Henceforward, tapping the heat from the earth’s core is the challenge faced by engineers. Certain advocates of geothermal energy believe the method adopted in Basel and by AltaRock [shown in the figure below] is the way forward. Obviously, greater earthquakes originate at greater depths so drilling to such  a distance carries a perilous risk. Seismologists insist that currently there is still major gaps in the scientific knowledge that prevent us from predicting with any certainty what will or will not shake the ground. 

The Era of "Techno-tonics"

I decided it was essential to affix some theoretical proof of cases where human activity has been accountable for causing geological hazards. To begin with, there are copious examples of how the construction of sizeable dams can be linked to seismic activity in recent years. For instance, the Great Quake of Sichuan in 2008 was responsible for the deaths of 80,000 people. However, many pass the blame onto the recently built Zipingpu dam, situated barely 5 kilometers from the epicenter. Dr V. P. Jauhari’s coins Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS) as being “… related to the extra water pressure created in the micro-cracks and fissures in the ground under and near a reservoir. When the pressure of the water in the rocks increases, it acts to lubricate faults which are already under tectonic strain, but are prevented from slipping by the friction of the rock surfaces.”

In spite of inexorable research, scientists are yet to negotiate a homogenous explanation for RIS that would help model diverse geological regions or predict where the phenomenon could manifest. However the following characteristics; found in the ‘International Rivers’ Factsheet; have been accepted:

• The most important factor controlling RIS is the depth of water in the reservoir. 
• Volume of water is also a critical variable that can instigate earthquakes.
• Additional factors include local geology and historic seismic stress patterns in the region.
• The construction of reservoirs can shift increased earthquake risk to areas with previously low frequency seismic activity.
• RIS cases show that the area within 10-15 kilometres of impounded reservoirs suffers an increased rate of activity.
• RIS can be rapid - noticed following the initial filling stages of the reservoir.
• Conversely the effect can be delayed until later in the life of the reservoir.
• Some minor cases have struck during the filling process. 

It is important to note that reservoirs themselves are unable to produce adequate seismic energy to induce an earthquake. Despite many case studies – Koyna, India (1967) and Xinfengjiang Dam, China (1962) – exhibiting evidence of a strong cause-effect relationship, this rarely occurs where the earth’s crust is not already at breaking point. Essentially, the reservoir can stir up an earthquake event, which would otherwise have bided its time for hundreds or thousands of years (Gupta, 2002). Unsurprisingly, the engineering community have been disinclined to accept the danger of RIS. Groups such as the International Commission on Large Dams have stubbornly insisted that RIS should only be regarded for reservoirs deeper than 100 meters.

Worryingly, many dams currently under construction or planning are to be located in the world’s most seismically active regions, an example being the Himalayas. This is why evidence suggests that the advancement in technology on a global scale could severely alter tectonic activity, potentially introducing an era of "techno-tonics". Major dam-building schemes are lined up for other seismic hotspots including Iran, Turkey, Patagonia, Mexico and Central America (see map below). In response to the Sichuan Quake, geological experts in southwest China have successfully appealed for the right to suspend approval of large dams in geologically unstable areas until the risk of RIS has been addressed (Kerr & Stone, 2009). 

The Day The Earth Would Not Stand Still

The idea of generating an increased frequency of high magnitude earthquakes is unnerving; optimistically however the simple truth is that there are no known faults capable of generating a “mega-quake”. Earthquake magnitude is determined by the length of the fault - plainly speaking, the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. Therefore, whilst an earthquake of magnitude 10 or higher is theoretically possible, it is convincingly argued that it is very highly unlikely. This has not discouraged American film director John Lafia from concocting not just an earthquake disaster movie, but a disaster of an earthquake movie.

10.5 is a disaster film originally aired as a miniseries for NBC in 2004 which answers what would happen if the United States was devastated by a series of earthquakes increasing in severity with seismologists becoming alarmed as they anticipate the next will surpass all historical records by reaching 10.5 on the Richter scale. Perhaps the more startling is when the team of USGS scientists formulate a plan to detonate nuclear bombs within the fault with the delusive hope that the heat will weald the fault closed. Unsurprisingly, numerous reviews of this science fiction have questioned whether the comedy element was intentional.

Besides wanting to share the triviality of this film, the reason for its mention is that beneath the vast layer of melodrama, its cryptic purpose is to send a wake up call that the forces of nature will always triumph over human sovereignty. Regardless of whether a movie should be an educational experience or pure entertainment, basing the plot on the use of science and technology adds credibility so audiences can have an affected view of reality. This is particularly true of 10.5, which allows viewers to witness notorious American landmarks reduced to rubble, advocating several popular misconceptions about earthquakes that scientists seek to refute. Unrealistic scenes include parts of California breaking away from the land and become islands, holes appearing in the ground at random and a giant crevice chasing a moving train. For some less informed viewers, this form of escapism evokes curiosity over what is fact and what is fiction. 

Whilst 10.5 is a nonsensical attempt to create a hard-hitting blockbuster, its message stems from the realisation that humans have a destructive influence of the planet. Although the film is purely fantastical take on anthropogenic geological hazards, I found it intriguing that filmmakers have inflated the threat with elaborate cinematics for the big screen. Thus far, the most intense earthquakes that have been attributed to humans have not exceeded magnitude 6. Ironically, whilst the human flair for using engineering to manipulate the Earth may be a cause of such catastrophic events, no degree of man made restraint could ever chain them up.