|
Policy Director
As International Rivers' Policy Director and before, the coordinator of a Swiss NGO, I have advocated for human rights and the environment for more than 20 years. When I'm not at work, I spend time with my family, hike, and visit the opera. My favorite river is the Albula in the Swiss Alps.
“If you are interested in environmental public policy on a global scale, Peter Bosshard’s blog is the way to go,” the Policy Police recommends. Happy reading! You can also follow me on Twitter @PeterBosshard.
Categories
learn more about:Join us! |
China Earthquake a Dam-Induced Disaster?
Wed, 02/04/2009 - 5:56pm
By: By Peter Bosshard![]() Sichuan earthquake of May 2008 (mike at bloggin-ads.com) The devastating earthquake in Sichuan, which took at least 69,000 lives in May 2008, may have been unleashed by the huge Zipingpu Dam. New scientific evidence suggests that the filling of the Zipingpu reservoir may have activated a dormant fault line near the dam site. This is all the more worrisome because the Chinese government plans to shift the center of its dam-building efforts into seismically active regions.
It is well established that large dams can trigger earthquakes through what is called reservoir-induced seismicity. Scientists have produced evidence linking tremors to the raising and lowering of reservoirs for more than 70 dams around the world. Reservoirs can increase the frequency of earthquakes in areas of high seismic activity, and can cause earthquakes to happen in areas that were thought to be seismically inactive. ![]() Zipingpu Dam (AP Photo/GeoEye Satellite Image) Christian Klose, a geophysical hazards researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, found that the fault line that triggered the Sichuan quake had not been active for millions of years. Klose presented his research at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December 2008. According to Klose, “the ensemble of geophysical observations suggests that the root cause of triggering the M7.9 Wenchuan earthquake may have stemmed from local and rapid mass changes on the surface.” In January 2009, a news article on Klose's findings in the journal Science elaborated, “the added weight [of the Zipingpu reservoir] both eased the squeeze on the fault, weakening it, and increased the stress tending to rupture the fault. The effect was 25 times that of a year’s worth of natural stress loading from tectonic motions. (…) When the fault did finally rupture, it moved just the way the reservoir loading had encouraged it to.” In a separate paper in the Chinese journal Geology and Seismology, Lei Xinglin, a geophysicist at the China Earthquake Administration in Beijing, and four colleagues produced further evidence for the seismic impacts of the Zipingpu Dam. According to the paper, “some clear correlations were verified between the local seismicity and stress change, thus we concluded that the impoundment of Zipingpu clearly affected the local seismicity and it is worthwhile to further study if the effect played a role in triggering the Wenchuan earthquake.” [In November 2009, after this blog was first published, a group of Chinese-American scientists provided further evidence on the link between the Zipingpu Dam and the Sichuan earthquake.]
More research into the cause of the Wenchuan earthquake is needed. What is clear is that the tremor almost broke Zipingpu and other dams. During the quake, the fault line slipped up to seven meters upward. In a story in New Scientist, Fred Pearce describes that “as the tight valley sides juddered, the [Zipingpu Dam] structure was squeezed and ended up to 18 centimeters downstream, and 70 cm lower. The concrete was ripped apart but the core of the dam survived.” According to China’s Ministry of Water Resources, 69 dams were in danger of collapse after the earthquake in Sichuan Province alone, 310 were at “high risk,” and 1,424 posed a “moderate risk.” Peter Bosshard is the policy director of International Rivers. He blogs at www.internationalrivers.org/en/blog/peter-bosshard and tweets @PeterBosshard For more relevant information, see below:
Subscribe to Peter Bosshard's blog via email |
Comments
If the Zipingpu, a dam on
If the Zipingpu, a dam on the Min River (a tributary of the Yangtze) which is merely 156 meters high can cause such a devastating earthquake, imagine what might be in store from the world's largest dam-- now under construction along the Yangtze. The Three Gorges Dam, approx. 185 meters high and 1.6 km wide, produces a reservoir nearly 600 km long. If the Chinese ignore the seismic risk and continue to build the Three Gorges dam, I fear we must be prepared for a much more deadly earthquake along this newly activated fault line.
Earthquake Triggers
A trigger is a device that sets in motion a sequence of actions that result in an explosive discharge. The explosive discharge is powered by chemicals, which in the presence of some catalyst (substance or applied energy) change into other chemicals, and cause the explosive discharge. For that reason, the hydrostatic pressure caused by the water impounded by the dam is aptly called a trigger. Unfortunately, many may assume the "trigger" produced the earthquake, when in fact, pent up stress in the earths crust was the energy source that the "trigger" actuated. Very similar to the powder in the bullet casing exploding causing the gun to fire when the trigger causes the hammer to fall on the detonator. In this region, the movement of tectonic plates continues to build up stress in the earths crust, the release of that stress at this point in time as a result of the hydrostatic pressure may have released stress that could have continued to build to even higher levels before it released and resulted in an even greater magnitude earthquake. In a way, "triggering" earthquakes that otherwise would not have occurred may serve to protect an area from even more devastating earthquakes in the future.
Some years ago scientists were contemplating using hydrostatic pressure along the San Andreas fault in California. The concept was to reduce the hydrostatic pressure at two points some distance apart along the fault line, "locking up" the fault and increase the hydrostatic pressure between the two points, "triggering" a small earthquake in that part of the fault as the hydrostatic pressure acted as a lubricant allowing the rocks on either side to move past each other more easily. Continue the process by leapfrogging along the fault triggering small earthquakes all along the fault. This process would relieve the strain building up as the northwest-bound North American plate moved past the southeast-bound Pacific plate in small segments at a time, avoiding the great earthquake an extensive rupture could cause. In view of the potential cost of failure in such an experiment, it seems to have been put on a back burner.
Triggering vs. Induced
It's true many scientists prefer the term triggered, vs. induced, which may more realistically reflect most RIS/RTS cases worldwide (where reservoir loading sort of pushed the stress level past the breaking point, rather than providing the energy for the earthquake). Whichever term you use, it seems important to remember that no matter how direct of an impact human activities can have on seismicity, it's unquestionable that there will be unforeseeable costs regardless of whether we caused an earthquake, or just sped up a "natural one" (or in this case, according to Klose, produced an effect that was 25 times that of a year's worth of natural stress loading).
In terms of triggering earthquakes to prevent the next big one, here's what I found on the USGS site: "Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, and 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes — to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake."