Good information in The New Yorker piece, unlike the continuing coverage I have been reading in Bloomberg, which uses fracking as a refrain with minimal information attached.
This is about disposal of waste water from watered-out fields, not about fracking. The New Yorker correctly points out less than 10% of the water going down these disposal wells is from fracking operations. So why does Bloomberg (and not just Bloomberg) keep raising the fracking bogey-man?
Wastewater injection wells, contrary to popular press, are not used primarily for the disposal of fracking fluid or other drilling waste products. Produced water is, by far, the largest component going into wastewater injection wells.
When you get oil and gas out of the ground, a lot of salt water comes with it. Sometimes, especially in Oklahoma, there can be 10 times as much water as oil. This "produced water" is used for injection into other wells to displace oil, but there's enough left over to require wastewater injection wells for its disposal.
If everything else went to zero, sure. But if everything else went to absolute zero, there are bigger problems than running out of reserves in Cushings, right? Technically if all other input was completely unavailable, I imagine it would have to be some root cause which would probably make the oil in these tanks unmovable as well.
I've read the strategic reserves are more a political play, and a impressive engineering feat, but actually drawing them down doesn't provide nearly the economic value versus just the fact we have them.
If you think Cushing storage of 3 days is massive, you will be shocked with Strategic Petroleum Reserve maintained by US govt, that covers a large swath underground below Texas and Louisiana states, and only holds about 30 days of consumption.
Actually, Cushing storage is not that much. Unlike SPR, it is mostly short term storage in between transit. Cushing is a transfer point between different pipelines that connect at Cushing which also later became a delivery point for oil and gas futures traded in futures market.
The role that fracking plays in the rise of earthquakes has been hugely controversial in Oklahoma, where one in five jobs is tied to the oil and gas industry.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
Since 9/11, the threshold for being considered national security has gone down significantly, too much paranoia. Of course the private businesses, in this case O&G companies, trading exchange and trading firms, benefit from certain assets being declared of national security importance as the cost of securing get transferred to the government and taxpayers.
Yeah, whatever. Let's see the US run out of oil, then let's wait 30 days or so, and then you try telling me (if you're still alive) that it's not a national security issue.
Oil is sold through OPEC, the US won't run out of oil in isolation (and of course it won't run out at all).
Oil is also distributed all over the earth at various costs to extract, so oil would rise in price as a commodity decades before it actually runs out. It would gradually price itself out of different uses.
Given the resistance to equate increased earthquake activity elsewhere, it is interesting to see fracking stopped due to earthquake concerns at the oil reserves. I suspect this could be a strong argument to use in other cities experiencing previously-rare earthquakes, like Plano, TX.
The Denver Rocky Flats injection quakes of the 1960s stopped within months of halting injections. I dont think ending oil production is politically platable, so they will have to find alternative waste treatment.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picher,_Oklahoma