<p>Your question uses the word "likely", so to that I would say no, it's not likely, but it can happen, depending on the tectonic setting and the state of the stress field.</p>

<p>In 2007 work on the <a href="http://www.geothermal.ch/index.php?id=94&amp;L=1">"hot rock" geothermal project in Basel, Switzerland</a> was stopped because hydraulic stimulation caused a series of small seismic events that were over a predetermined safe level of magnitude. Most of the seismic events were too small to be felt at the surface, or even recorded on "normal" seismometers. The project was located in an active fault setting, and in the centre of a city, and though the seismic activity was at most about 3 ML (Richter scale), the project was deemed unsafe for the city's residents and buildings and eventually canned.  </p>

<p>Some large dams are known to cause minor seismic activity as they fill up, again depending on the tectonic setting. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-18T01:34:07.343Z
2014-04-18T01:34:07.343Z
a different ben
<p>I suggest that all the relatively small earthquakes in Oklahoma that have done minor damage are the result of fracking.  I don't know much about earthquake history in Oklahoma but I would not expect the center of the continent to be that active (Cairo, Illinois area being an exception)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-03T22:48:10.490Z
2015-07-03T22:48:10.490Z
see you
<p>It's not too too likely, but it can happen. A few earthquakes have either been attributed to fracking, or the wastewater produced from fracking.</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/">the USGS</a> (for more information, visit that page):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Many questions have been raised about whether hydraulic fracturing —
  commonly known as “fracking”— is responsible for the recent increase
  of earthquakes. <strong>USGS’s studies suggest that the actual hydraulic
  fracturing process is only very rarely the direct cause of felt
  earthquakes.</strong> While hydraulic fracturing works by making thousands of
  extremely small “microearthquakes,” they are, with just a few
  exceptions, too small to be felt; none have been large enough to cause
  structural damage. As noted previously, <strong>underground disposal of
  wastewater co-produced with oil and gas, enabled by hydraulic
  fracturing operations, has been linked to induced earthquakes.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, indeed, the disposal of wastewater has been linked to earthquakes.</p>

<p><a href="http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract">This study in Geology</a> also came to the same conclusion that the wastewater of fracking caused earthquakes.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/11/ohio-earthquakes-fracking_n_5136110.html">An additional study produced by Ohio geologists</a> concluded that a few small earthquakes were due to fracking. I do wonder exactly what they concluded, but the news story doesn't say. It does say this, but it doesn't say exact what this study was, either:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A U.S. government-funded report released in 2012 found that two worldwide instances of shaking can be attributed to actual extraction of oil and gas, as opposed to wastewater disposal in the ground — a magnitude-2.8 quake in Oklahoma and a magnitude-2.3 quake in England. Both were in 2011.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-16T22:32:46.070Z
2014-04-16T22:32:46.070Z
hichris123
<p>Post Christchurch-2011 earthquake, there was much concern that fracking in the surrounding areas might lead to further quakes, as was rumoured to have happened elsewhere in the world.</p>

<p>Is there evidence that fundamentally validates or discredits this?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-06T22:41:47.687Z
Over at reddit, there was a [Q&A session](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2rjqad/science_ama_series_im_robert_skoumal_one_of_the/) with an author of a paper linking cracking to a specific quake. Lots of good info there, but I'm on my phone, so not sure if it's worth turning in to an answer.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-16T04:14:42.207Z
this question is similar, http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/73/can-mining-trigger-earthquakes
Neo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-16T08:39:32.577Z
In fact, Neo's answer there mentions fracking. I wonder if there is enough difference in the processes to require different questions?
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-16T14:12:35.757Z
I don't know enough, but the panic in NZ was definitely over the fracking technique where water is pressurised into cracks in the ground, forcing open small rifts, as opposed to just digging big holes.  But my knowledge is limited :/
Mark Mayo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-18T01:15:23.710Z
"**Induced seismicity**" is a term coined for this type of event.
a different ben
<geology><geophysics><earthquakes><seismology><fracking>
Is fracking likely to produce earthquakes?
Mark Mayo
# Is fracking likely to produce earthquakes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-04-16)

Post Christchurch-2011 earthquake, there was much concern that fracking in the surrounding areas might lead to further quakes, as was rumoured to have happened elsewhere in the world.

Is there evidence that fundamentally validates or discredits this?

**Tags:** geology, geophysics, earthquakes, seismology, fracking

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: this question is similar, http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/73/can-mining-trigger-earthquakes  
> **username_1**: In fact, Neo's answer there mentions fracking. I wonder if there is enough difference in the processes to require different questions?  
> **username_0**: I don't know enough, but the panic in NZ was definitely over the fracking technique where water is pressurised into cracks in the ground, forcing open small rifts, as opposed to just digging big holes.  But my knowledge is limited :/  
> **username_3**: "**Induced seismicity**" is a term coined for this type of event.  
> **username_1**: Over at reddit, there was a [Q&A session](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2rjqad/science_ama_series_im_robert_skoumal_one_of_the/) with an author of a paper linking cracking to a specific quake. Lots of good info there, but I'm on my phone, so not sure if it's worth turning in to an answer.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-04-16. Score: 19 | Accepted answer

It's not too too likely, but it can happen. A few earthquakes have either been attributed to fracking, or the wastewater produced from fracking.

According to [the USGS](http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/) (for more information, visit that page):

> Many questions have been raised about whether hydraulic fracturing —
> commonly known as “fracking”— is responsible for the recent increase
> of earthquakes. **USGS’s studies suggest that the actual hydraulic
> fracturing process is only very rarely the direct cause of felt
> earthquakes.** While hydraulic fracturing works by making thousands of
> extremely small “microearthquakes,” they are, with just a few
> exceptions, too small to be felt; none have been large enough to cause
> structural damage. As noted previously, **underground disposal of
> wastewater co-produced with oil and gas, enabled by hydraulic
> fracturing operations, has been linked to induced earthquakes.**

So, indeed, the disposal of wastewater has been linked to earthquakes.

[This study in Geology](http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract) also came to the same conclusion that the wastewater of fracking caused earthquakes.

[An additional study produced by Ohio geologists](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/11/ohio-earthquakes-fracking_n_5136110.html) concluded that a few small earthquakes were due to fracking. I do wonder exactly what they concluded, but the news story doesn't say. It does say this, but it doesn't say exact what this study was, either:

> A U.S. government-funded report released in 2012 found that two worldwide instances of shaking can be attributed to actual extraction of oil and gas, as opposed to wastewater disposal in the ground — a magnitude-2.8 quake in Oklahoma and a magnitude-2.3 quake in England. Both were in 2011.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-04-18. Score: 7

Your question uses the word "likely", so to that I would say no, it's not likely, but it can happen, depending on the tectonic setting and the state of the stress field.

In 2007 work on the ["hot rock" geothermal project in Basel, Switzerland](http://www.geothermal.ch/index.php?id=94&L=1) was stopped because hydraulic stimulation caused a series of small seismic events that were over a predetermined safe level of magnitude. Most of the seismic events were too small to be felt at the surface, or even recorded on "normal" seismometers. The project was located in an active fault setting, and in the centre of a city, and though the seismic activity was at most about 3 ML (Richter scale), the project was deemed unsafe for the city's residents and buildings and eventually canned.

Some large dams are known to cause minor seismic activity as they fill up, again depending on the tectonic setting.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-07-03. Score: -3

I suggest that all the relatively small earthquakes in Oklahoma that have done minor damage are the result of fracking. I don't know much about earthquake history in Oklahoma but I would not expect the center of the continent to be that active (Cairo, Illinois area being an exception)


---

