When things go wrong . . . Part 3

This is the final post in the "When things go wrong series . . ." Click to see Part 1 and Part 2. 

Italian Scientists Found Guilty

WHAT: On April 6^th, 2009, there was a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy. The region has a long history of earthquakes and the citizens of L’Aquila usually sleep outside during times when there are small tremors. However, for this earthquake people stayed inside and 309 people died. The community had heard reports from the nation’s scientists that it was unlikely a large earthquake would occur. Six Italian scientists and one ex-governmental official were put on trial and recently found guilty of manslaughter. All of them were from the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks.

Read the BBC’s coverage of the story HERE. 

WHERE: L’Aquila, Italy, a town located in a fault rich area of Italy.

The location of the 6.3 earthquake that hit Italy in 2009.

Damage of homes in L'Aquila, Italy.

HOW: There were tremors occurring in L’Aquila and the citizens were becoming concerned that a large earthquake could be coming. The National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks calmed the citizens down by stating that it was unlikely that a large earthquake could strike. Because of the advice of the Commission many residents stayed in the area and in their homes.

WHY: This is an important case because it is putting the communication of science on trial. There is no way to accurately predict a major earthquake but the geophysicists failed to communicate that effectively to the people of L’Aquila. The people believed that there was no risk because the scientists said an earthquake was unlikely. The scientists knew that there was still a chance that a large earthquake could occur but wanted to calm the citizens.

WHO: This story is very sad and unfortunate. I think many people, especially the survivors in L’Aquila, are trying to find the people they should blame. Who should be held responsible for the deaths? The court has ruled that the scientists did hold some of that responsibility (although the decision is being appealed). For me, it seems clear that the seven people from the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks failed at their job. The main failure is the lack of risk communication. None of the citizens of L’Aquila should ever have heard a message of stay inside. This story shows how critical it is that scientists be able to communicate with the public without just dumbing down the science.

Do you think the scientists are guilty? Who is to blame? What should the Italian government do to avoid another tragedy like the L’Aquila earthquake?

This concludes the "When things go wrong . . ." series. Let me know if you would be interested in hearing about a particular subject in geophysics. Thanks for reading!

When things go wrong . . . Part 2

This is Part 2 of “When things go wrong . . . “. If you missed Part 1 click here.

Water Contamination in Pavillion, WY

This is the story of water contamination in the small town of Pavillion, WY thought to come from hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has been studying the area for about 3 years and released a draft of their results at the end of 2011. The gas industry responded by questioning the results.

There are some great petroleum engineer students in our class that did a nice summary on the events and concerns in Pavillion, WY. Being petroleum engineer students, they understand the mechanical working of fracking much better than I do. Check out their posts on the topic: What was going on in Pavillion, WY and More on Pavillion, WY.

I’m going to look at the controversy from a different perspective and take a step back from the technical problems to look at the broader issues. But first, a summary of the events:

WHAT: Possible drinking water contamination in a town that had producing gas wells that had been hydraulically fractured. The EPA composed a draft of their investigation that was released for public comments on December 8, 2011.

WHERE: Pavillion, WY, a small town of less than 300 people in the western half of Wyoming

The sign marking the entrance into Pavillion, WY.

A Pavillion, WY resident standing in front of a natural gas storage tank.

HOW: As the petroleum engineers explain in their blog posts Pavillion, WY is a special case. The wells are very shallow (~300m) and it is extremely uncommon to preform hydraulic fracturing that shallow. The EPA has confirmed that open pits of flowback (fracking fluid that comes back up out of the well) definitely contributed to shallow aquifer contamination but the deeper contamination is much more complex and does not have as clear of a connection to fracking. There is evidence that fracking did play a role in the contamination that occurred at a deeper level. To read the full EPA report go HERE.

WHY: There have been other situations where a fault in a well (poor construction usually) has led to contamination. The situation in Pavillion, WY was a big deal because it occurred at a time when fracking was a hot issue. There were many fears from the public that fracking could contaminate drinking water but there was no proof. Pavillion, WY was the first real indication that hydraulic fracturing had possibly caused contamination. The questioning of the results by industry only added to the controversy around fracking.

WHO: The case of water contamination in Pavillion, WY is important for scientists. The main lesson to learn is that the context matters. The subject of hydraulic fracturing was already a big issue when the EPA reported its results. Thus the results of an EPA study that might not have received any media attention previously was in the news for weeks. The history and background of a topic, issue, tool, whatever matter. In research, we usually conduct a literature review to summarize previous treatment of the method or topic. When communicating in the public sphere, scientist need to take the same action. Scientists need to take a moment to understand what's going on from a perspective different from their own.

What do you think of the situation at Pavillion, WY? What do think is the main message for scientists? For society?

Tomorrow I'm moving away from the energy issues in America to earthquakes in Italy. Stay tuned! 

When things go wrong . . . Part 1

 Geophysics is exciting, interesting, and useful – most of the time. Geophysicists (me included) focus on how to make images sharper, seismic records clearer, and inversions run better. We forget how our field interacts with society – especially when something goes wrong.

Now geophysics usually is not a cause of controversy. But because geophysics is involved in the industries where disasters occur, we are grouped with those industries when the finger pointing starts. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. We should be held accountable for the work we do and understand how that work helps make decisions.

I am going to do a mini-series on three different controversies that involve geophysics in one way or another. Today I’m going to talk about the BP Macondo well disaster. Tomorrow we’ll explore what happened in Pavillion, WY. And Friday we’ll investigate why six Italian scientists might be headed to jail. These all raise important questions for both scientists and society to answer.

BP Deepwater Horizon disaster

WHAT: It was April 20^th, 2010, when an explosion occurred on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig. The rig caught fire and sank two days later. Eleven men died. The explosion and fire where caused by hydrocarbons (oil) coming up out of the well onto the rig. The well was severed and spilled oil into the Gulf for 87 days.

WHERE: Out in the Gulf of Mexico.

HOW: The committee that investigated the disaster concluded that the main failure was in the cement barrier that let the hydrocarbons flow upward and onto the rig.  The committee states:

The loss of life at the Macondo site on April 20, 2010, and the subsequent pollution of the Gulf of Mexico through the summer of 2010 were the result of poor risk management, last minute changes to plans, failure to observe and respond to critical indicators, inadequate well control response, and insufficient emergency bridge response training by companies and individuals responsible for drilling at the Macondo well and for the operation of the Deepwater Horizon.

Go HERE for the full report.

A cartoon illustrating the parts of the well.

WHY: The lesson to learn from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is that for as much as we think we know about the processes involved in drilling for oil there are still unknowns and we are all human. The crew on the rig that night were about to head home after two weeks working on a tough well. When a well pressure test didn't make sense the engineers decided it was a rare phenomenon and didn't raise alarms. We take great risks to get to oil that is deep under water and earth.

WHO: We take great risks in many things that we do but with the large impact the BP oil disaster had on the coastal communities, it makes me wonder who said its OK for the oil companies to take those risks? The government? Geophysicists are usually upfront about the limits of their methods but this disaster makes defining the extent of our knowledge important.

What do you guys think about the disaster? What do think is the one take away for scientists? For society?

Tune in tomorrow for Part 2! Click HERE to go to the second part!