This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: U.S. Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes and Hydraulic Fracturing
Submitted by John Daly of OilPrice.com
U.S. Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes and Hydraulic Fracturing
On 5 November an earthquake measuring 5.6 rattled Oklahoma and was felt as far away as Illinois.
Until two years ago Oklahoma typically had about 50 earthquakes a year, but in 2010, 1,047 quakes shook the state.
Why?
In Lincoln County, where most of this past weekend's seismic incidents were centered, there are 181 injection wells, according to Matt Skinner, an official from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency which oversees oil and gas production in the state.
Cause and effect?
The practice of injecting water into deep rock formations causes earthquakes, both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Geological Survey have concluded.
The U.S. natural gas industry pumps a mixture of water and assorted chemicals deep underground to shatter sediment layers containing natural gas, a process called hydraulic fracturing, known more informally as “fracking.” While environmental groups have primarily focused on fracking’s capacity to pollute underground water, a more ominous byproduct emerges from U.S. government studies – that forcing fluids under high pressure deep underground produces increased regional seismic activity.
As the U.S. natural gas industry mounts an unprecedented and expensive advertising campaign to convince the public that such practices are environmentally benign, U.S. government agencies have determined otherwise.
According to the U.S. Army’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal website, the RMA drilled a deep well for disposing of the site’s liquid waste after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “concluded that this procedure is effective and protective of the environment.” According to the RMA, “The Rocky Mountain Arsenal deep injection well was constructed in 1961, and was drilled to a depth of 12,045 feet” and 165 million gallons of Basin F liquid waste, consisting of “very salty water that includes some metals, chlorides, wastewater and toxic organics” was injected into the well during 1962-1966.
Why was the process halted? “The Army discontinued use of the well in February 1966 because of the possibility that the fluid injection was “triggering earthquakes in the area,” according to the RMA. In 1990, the “Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” study of RMA events by Craig Nicholson, and R.I. Wesson stated simply, “Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.”
Twenty-five years later, “possibility” and ‘established” changed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s July 2001 87 page study, “Technical Program Overview: Underground Injection Control Regulations EPA 816-r-02-025,” which reported, “In 1967, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) determined that a deep, hazardous waste disposal well at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was causing significant seismic events in the vicinity of Denver, Colorado.”
There is a significant divergence between “possibility,” “established” and “was causing,” and the most recent report was a decade ago. Much hydraulic fracturing to liberate shale oil gas in the Marcellus shale has occurred since.
According to the USGS website, under the undated heading, “Can we cause earthquakes? Is there any way to prevent earthquakes?” the agency notes, “Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada.
The cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies. Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.”
Note the phrase, “Once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.”
So both the U.S Army and the U.S. Geological Survey over fifty years of research confirm on a federal level that that “fluid injection” introduces subterranean instability and is a contributory factor in inducing increased seismic activity.” How about “causing significant seismic events?”
Fast forward to the present.
Overseas, last month Britain’s Cuadrilla Resources announced that it has discovered huge underground deposits of natural gas in Lancashire, up to 200 trillion cubic feet of gas in all.
On 2 November a report commissioned by Cuadrilla Resources acknowledged that hydraulic fracturing was responsible for two tremors which hit Lancashire and possibly as many as fifty separate earth tremors overall. The British Geological Survey also linked smaller quakes in the Blackpool area to fracking. BGS Dr. Brian Baptie said, “It seems quite likely that they are related,” noting, “We had a couple of instruments close to the site and they show that both events occurred near the site and at a shallow depth.”
But, back to Oklahoma. Austin Holland’s August 2011 report, “Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma” Oklahoma Geological Survey OF1-2011, studied 43 earthquakes that occurred on 18 January, ranging in intensity from 1.0 to 2.8 Md (milliDarcies.) While the report’s conclusions are understandably cautious, it does state, “Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located.”
Sensitized to the issue, the oil and natural gas industry has been quick to dismiss the charges and deluge the public with a plethora of televisions advertisements about how natural gas from shale deposits is not only America’s future, but provides jobs and energy companies are responsible custodians of the environment.
It seems likely that Washington will eventually be forced to address the issue, as the U.S. Army and the USGS have noted a causal link between the forced injection of liquids underground and increased seismic activity. While the Oklahoma quake caused a deal of property damage, had lives been lost, the policy would most certainly have come under increased scrutiny from the legal community.
While polluting a local community’s water supply is a local tragedy barely heard inside the Beltway, an earthquake ranging from Oklahoma to Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas is an issue that might yet shake voters out of their torpor, and national elections are slightly less than a year away.
»
- 27634 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
North Dakota has been a buzz of fracking activity for the last 5 years, drilling thousands of wells. Last earthquake was in 1968.
Even Mother Nature can't find a good reason to go to ND. I do like your bank tho.
the nearest seismograph station to north dakota is so far away that an earthquake of magnitude 3.3 or greater would have to occur for an earthquake to be detected at all. earthquakes associated with fracking are of magnitude 2.0 or smaller.
you can't detect a small earthquake if the instruments needed to detect it are not present ( I got this information from the usgs website feel free to double check).
If the Earth quakes, and no one is effected, does anyone care?
Other than the guys trying desperately to justify their destrudo, of course.
This document (must download) says North Dakota has had earthquake stations installed since 2008:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmr.nd.gov%2Fndgs%2Fnewsletter%2Fwinter09%2FPDF%2FUSArray%2520seismic.pdf&ei=xx67ToTRLoHv0gGQytzeCQ&usg=AFQjCNFIYsn5JVcU0nTP-QQBJn3H_AW3Ww&sig2=U9DfF5ls_fgjQJbrn4xuqA
They have also been fracking the fuck out of Pennsylvania, too. No shakes in the Keystone State. Different geology?
"Different geology?"
Good question! Beats the mindset of the BROAD BRUSH.
Timmah /Jimmah junior is selling pizzas" , during the Europe Implosion? Ripleys' Bull Shit or Not?
Oh Jesus H Christ on a pony!! Either go back to horse and buggy or stop all the whining about fracking. Fuck the earthquakes and besides thats like saying a fart in the ocean could set off a tsunami.
Whos to say (assuming 300 horse deisel pumps could move tectonic plates) that the manmade quakes are all bad?
Maybe they releived pent up pressure thus saving future Okie lives from the big one?
We need the jobs worse than we need to worry about earthquakes, imo.
I used to worry about global warming because of that famous picture of the poor polar bear floating away stranded on a chunk of ice, until it occured to me that polar bears swim.
That poor polar bear just ate the seal that was sun bathing on that chunk of ice!
Well in that case I say I am all for nuking OK into small bits as that should relieve all the pressure on Cali.
sav cali kill an okie.
like it.
Wait a darn minute. maybe cali would slide toward OK.shit.
Thank you for your expert opinion Fazzie.
Try again, this time assume diesel, and thousands of horsepower, leveraged with hydraulic pumps. If they couldn't break rocks apart, they'd be of no use for fracking.
"Whos to say (assuming 300 horse deisel pumps could move tectonic plates) that the manmade quakes are all bad?"
Whos to say (assuming a 1 gram piece of straw could break a camel's back) that being without a camel in the desert would be bad?
I used to worry about global warming because of that famous picture of the poor polar bear floating away stranded on a chunk of ice, until it occured to me that polar bears swim.
And what is the natural state of the polar bear? I'm thinking that it's NOT aquatic. Your logic would suggest that removing all land wouldn't be an issue to birds either, because, well, birds fly! Never mind that these critters rely on comparably more stable environments in which to sleep and procreate.
Logic FAIL! (hoping that evolution will bring about more dynamic [functional] thinking in humans!)
once all the quake zones are nice and lubricated, there sould be less quakes ans the plates will glide past ea. other effortlessly.
That lubing only works between you and Velma.
The red flags were raised over 20 years ago, in the Fraggle Rock episode "Wembley's Wonderful Whoopie Water"
Hey I just thought of something. What if the government study is complete crap -- nonsense they made up over beers -- but they published it so that CONgress will panic and pass a law tomorrow to protect oil+gas fracking companies against earthquakes ... and any and all sorts of other unforseen natural shit. A legal pre-emptive strike.
If I was in the fracking business, I'd be all over this. Whoever in CONgress is on the right committies would stand to make a ton of money on lobbying handouts to get the correct language into the right bills in a hurry. They are going to fooking love this report with both hands.
Oops. Hope I didn't give away the plot.
Are you aware the study was from 1966?
Haha exactly notapplicable. Often the devil is in the details... like the year of publication. although I think... I hope... Blu was being sarcastic
most people should know by now that politicians are far too stupid to collaborate on a secretive plan, expect cohesive cooperation amongst themselves, and put said secret plan into action without unthought of side effects.
basically human beings don't run the universe the laws of physics do.
Oh come on:
Nit pick someone else. ;) Imma say'n, someone has their hands in someone elses pocket before end-of-day Washington DC time, count on it.
Blu on a fundamental level we're in complete agreement most industries and especially the energy industry have their hands so far in Congress' his pockets that... well I'll let everyone use their imagination on this one.
There was beer in 1966.
But only those motion imparting carbon dioxide bubble invasive and destructive pull tabs. That's why they were outlawed to minimize the carbon footprint of beer.
That's why I switched to vodka.
<:)
Oh, MY! Never thought that anyone would be looking to profit off of a position!
None of this adds FACTS to the debate. But... Love how you hide your loathing of govt here. Great subliminal messaging! NOTE: I'm an advocate of NO govt- only REAL MEN tread here (no namby-pamby "I need govt to protect 'my' property)
These criminals have no freaking idea about cause and effect, and they don't care. They exactly follow the pattern and method of the global warming fraud, where scientists are paid to support whatever the predators-that-be and predator-class want.
"These criminals have no freaking idea about cause and effect, and they don't care."
That's been my thinking of the Army as well!
BTW - While global "warming" may or may not be a fraud (fucking Mother Nature is sure a joker!), global climate CHANGE _IS_ real (just look at the ice cores)- see you around at the next glacial period! (wondering whether you'll have hedged or not)
BTW2 - Not ALL scientists are bought and paid for. I'd prefer to focus on the data (and how the data was acquired), not in broad-brushing everything (which would be the method of the ideologue/propagandist).
I said "scientists are paid to support whatever the predators-that-be and predator-class want". I didn't say every single scientist is willing to lie, misrepresent and create rationalizations to support their masters, and clearly not every one is. However, it is clear that the majority are willing to issue non-objective if not dishonest articles and conclusions, and the minority who cannot be corrupted are silenced and punished in very substantial ways.
Hey, I'm a dependably honest, objective scientist and over the years I've accepted a couple contracts to do research and development for the government (mostly NASA and AirForce), and I can confirm first hand that the intellectual corruption is breathtaking! Fortunately for me, most work I do has nothing to do with government directly or indirectly.
Tainted by the MIC I see.... probabaly explains your cynicism...
Somehow I doubt you are or ever were a "real" scientist.... suprise me with something.
Right. I'm sure AirForceResearchLabs and NASA hire/contract non-scientists as "senior research scientist" all the time. That must be why they keep wanting me to do work for them (most of which I turn down). But I'm not gonna play games trying to convince you I'm a "real scientist". Why should I care what you think? Besides, my point is simply to add my first-hand experience to what is blatantly obvious to a great many observant people.
Hey, just trying to figure out where you are coming from...
I have 20 years in academic research experience, while it was not nirvana, I have a very different view on doing research funded by the government...Most people in the private sector have no clue about how tight, in comparison, research is in academia....
What do you mean by "tight".
And please tell me, how much "research" do you think is NOT done for government today (directly or indirectly)? And as for "private research", what is your take on corporate research to reverse engineer something like an fairly effective natural cancer cure to find a chemically related artificial compound that has similar effects that can be patented because it isn't a natural compound... even though the natural compound is more effective and has vastly fewer and less severe side effects?
You could say from one point of view that this is "beneficial objective research", but from a more full, complete point of view this is mass murder (by hiding the natural substance, preventing the natural substance from being double-blind tested, by lobbying the FDA to create laws to prevent the natural cures from being labeled as being able to treat the problem, and so forth).
I would say it is true that some people believe that kind of "research" is perfectly legitimate, objective and ethical... while others of us would say "no way, jose" because they intentionally go out of their way to prevent the testing, knowledge and availability of effective natural cures that would save millions of lives and endless misery... and then [sometimes] introduce and promote [to doctors especially] less effective, more dangerous artificial products that enrich them.
You can assume I am in the later camp when it comes to judging "ethics" and "objectivity".
By tight I mean the high quality as a function of cost; i.e. no frills. This is typically not the case when the research is related to the MIC and Health care sectors.. It has to do something when the primary motivating factor is scientific truth and not personal financial gain... For example take look at the average pay of US scientists involved in the LHC or Keck Observatory....
I might find out soon enough. Looks likely my next gig will be on Mauna Kea, ESO in atacama, or Cerro Tololo. But I must say, even in a field as "esoteric" and "uninteresting to politicians" as astronomy, I see a great deal of manipulation of science, scientists and research take place. Of course, if you accept all dominant ("official") scientific positions as "known and certain beyond any possible shadow of a doubt", you'd claim they're just being prudent with their funds by cutting off any and all research that might make minority opinion look more plausible (or even correct).
Wow. you must have one hell of an axe to grind....
I really don't think the politicos really care about Type II A Supernovas.... Well maybe the evangelicals that don't like to be reminded that these things happened well before the putative t=0 of Genesis have their issues....
And if you are making an oblique reference to Climate Science and what the consensus is.... well, sometimes the
"truth" that the data is pointing at doesn't sit well with people. C'est la vie, n'est ce pas?
This certainly applies to so-called "climate science" in spades, but I was thinking of a couple formerly very respected astronomers who were subverted or destroyed because they had doubts about the BigBang theory, which is considered unquestionable by the masters of the scientific status quo. Watch the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster for a dramatization of how honest science can be. I've seen it first hand several times, and I've suffered it first hand.
Sure, a great majority of scientists are like the great majority of the population - they just do what they're told to get their paychecks, and they're unlikely to come up with much of anything new or important anyway (though there's still the equivalent of "useful grunt-work" for them, even in many fields of science). What matters is how the more alert, curious, creative and completely intellectually honest are treated. That's the issue I focus on most, because that's where extraordinary advancement comes from.
I don't have any more of an axe to grind about science than any other aspect of human existence that involves predators and parasites controlling, dominating, defrauding, misdirecting, bleeding and enslaving honest, ethical producers.
Let's not be naive.... I have been a victim of petty political games as well in academia, it comes with being a member of the species....
Re: Climate Science, there are two possibilities.
1) All the data is wrong....
2) The interpretation of the data is wrong....
Nothing I have seen from the anti-AGW crew suggests 1) or is consistent with 2)... Yeah, sometime science has a way trumping Ideology and the desire for things to be something else... and with AGW, following the money is a very good guide...
What data? Including the data they hid, threw away, refuse to release, tamperted with and otherwise rendered unavailable for careful consideration? There is also how some data is ignored while other OPPOSITE data is repeatedly trumpeted as proof of disaster on our doorsteps. One obvious example is the polar ice caps (in two ways). One way was the histeria about the significant reduction in ice-cap coverage in the northern hemisphere. This was repeatedly pointed to as SCIENTIFIC PROOF (even by the UN reports in their calls for worldwide totalitarian action and billionaire-feeding carbon-tax scams). What they KNEW PERFECTLY WELL BUT IGNORED AND ACTIVELY HID (and even lied about sometimes) were these very relevant facts: (1): The northern ice-cap was considerably less covered in the MWP, and passage then from pacific to atlantic oceans was possible above canada (which is was just about getting to be again recently). (2): It is NORMAL for the northern ice-cap to shrink and southern ice-cap to grow SIMULTANEOUSLY, which indeed was happening. But they only issued histeria about the northern ice-cap and did everything in their power to hide the facts I mention above in addition to others.
This is not "errors in interpreting data". This is SELECTIVELY EXCLUDING data that does not lead to the theory or political position you wish to support AND purposely lying about the data AND the facts AND the known phenomenon. And this was NOT just in the mainstream media, who admittedly is in the hype and hysteria business. It was everywhere.
The ONE simple fact of the MWP is sufficient to cause extreme skepticism in the mind of ANY and EVERY honest scientist when it comes to making thoughtful educated guesses about "dangerous AGW". There are ZERO scientists on earth who can be certain (or even "almost certain") that THIS TIME is not similar to the MWP... even as "this time" is massively less warm and consistent than then.
As for myself, I started out assuming the BigBang was certainly essentially correct, as well as assuming a substantial part of AGW was human caused. Looking into the DATA and making careful inferences changed my mind about both. Notice it didn't work the other way around.
Total bullshit.
This information may have caused the huge jump in oil today.
While it sent NG to new lows?
Precisely.
http://missywpp.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/frack-attack/
My peak oil credentials here at the Hedge are beyond reproach but there is a serious error in the following paragraph of the above article:
Unless there is a some new measurement system I am unaware of, earthquake intensity is not measured in milliDarcies. mD are units of permeability.. i.e. the flowrate of a liquid in a material. Something not right about this article....
See, fucking idiots. Like Fast and Furious. Building #7
WMD Manufactured Bullshite whatever....
Realize this: Such governmental study would be one of the first pieces of research (supposedly honorably and scientifically pursued) that's taken place in a manner timely enough to have any applicability to the matter at hand.
Fucking Amazing!
And then........... suspicious errata.
Highly suspicious.
In fact, utilizing a unit of maesurement which has no applicability to the issue at hand.
Jesus.
Thanks, Flack
I don't doubt the original articles and study only the qualifications of the person putting together this tripe...
BTW, its Flak
+ 1 Flak...nice catch.
This is a classic example of the asshats that deny everything not even knowing enough about an issue to spot a potential real problem...
Fracking morons.
True and total crap at the same time.
I saw an article about this from the UK.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-gas-fracking-idUSTRE7A16002...
Basically, yes, very small earthquakes can be caused by fracking, but lots of things can cause very small earthquakes. And there are several hundred thousand earthquakes of this magnitude every year globally. They are a total non-issue.
Or would be, except for a set of politicians seeking to protect their completely uneconomic green pet projects by destroying the competition.
UP YOURS
I have lived here 35 years and NEVER felt an earthquake. Within the last year there have been at least 5 5.0 or better. Go soak your bulbous head in some frack fluid.
They are fracking in multiple shale structures in multiple states, and there are not EQs occurring in say PA or TX. The EQs you are feeling are real, but there is a perfectly natural fault that could be getting active.
In short, correlation does not equal causation. Until you can show me any scientific evidence that fracking can cause larger EQs, I will continue to think this is bullshit.
"In short, correlation does not equal causation. Until you can show me any scientific evidence that fracking can cause larger EQs, I will continue to think this is bullshit."
Well, your thought process is YOURS I suppose...
I wonder, however, if fracking were to be proven to you, and, that in the process it were to like kill you, then what would you think?
Yup, let's do it until it kills us!
As a clear-thinking person a ways up in this thread noted- perhaps there's different geology in these places? Fuck it, it's so much easier just writing stuff off, condemning data and all, not really thinking.
If it were not for newer and more sensitive measuring equipment, no one would even know that these "earthquakes" had happened.
Damn us for paying closer attention to things!
The dangerous assumption here is that because some group of people aren't aware of something that there isn't an affect on some other group.
Logic FAIL!
@SpeakerFTD You hit the nail on the head. This is set up by the green lobby to protect their expensive and not particularly useful wind (kills 400,000 birds annually) and solar projects. California is currently covering their deserts with solar panels. Unfortunately they need water to keep them from getting too hot. Don't know where that's coming from as Calf. is very stingy about water. It ruined its farming industry in order to protect a tiny fish living in the aquaducts.
The two states above CA are largely made of rainforest.
Rainforest only on the west side of the Cascades, oregon and washington both are mainly desert.
Farming isn't "ruined" in California. Scale, perhaps IS, but that's not the same (broad brush categorization as ALL).
Playing sides only avoids the LARGER issue, and that's that water is precious and LIMITED. Remove ALL "environmental" actions and you'll STILL be faced, assuming the growth-at-all-costs mentality that today's world operates under, with shrinking fresh water supplies (on a per-capita basis at least).
As far as the "green lobby" goes, you'll find that these are the same folks as the rest of the corporate lobbies. Do you know what BP claims is what BP stands for?
Ignorance is doing more damage than anything else. And failing to realize that this is a much bigger picture than just fish and farming, that it has to do with finite resources, well, miss this at your own peril!
BTW - I'm short solar techno-stuff (just as I'm short all other finite, unsustainable things- like fossil fuels and corporate farming [which includes bio-fuels]). I am, however, LONG passive solar.
Which is probably why they don't put seismographs near Wal*Marts.
The quakes are 3 miles deep. At 15,000 ft you are normally going to find gas. No one (who is sane) is drilling 15,000 ft wells for gas in the US right now.
Also, just about every well in the US is frac'd. It's not just gas wells. Oil wells as well.
Did you even read it? The disposal wells dump tens of thousands of barrels of all kinds of crap into formations just above basement rock (5k - 10k ft deep). This creates pressure on a known fault line. Deniers are liars on this issue. Hoover dam sits on the surface but it caused hundreds of earthquakes when they flooded it.
CVX just permitted one to 29,000 feet and it is likely to be gas. MMR has drilled several to 32,000 feet targeting gas pay zones. Do a search on MMR and Davy Jones #1.
Are you really comparing offshore GOM to onshore Oklahoma?
You wrote about the depth of wells. Are the depths measured differently offshore than onshore?
CVX permit info on a well in Cameron County, Louisiana:
SER. # WELL NAME NUM ORG ID FIELD SEC TWN RGE EFFECTIVE DATE
244039 SL 20571 001 1194 9727 019 15S 04W 10/31/2011
API NUM PRMT DATE SPUD DATE STAT
17023231000000 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 01
WELL SURFACE COORDINATES Surface Longitude Surface Latitude Lambert X Lambert Y Ground Elevation Zone Datum
0-0-0 0-0-0 1525900 388240 0 S NAD-27
WELL SURFACE COORDINATES GENERATED BY DNR UTMX 83 UTMY 83 LONGITUDE 83 LATITUDE 83
516713.873029 3288439.95367005 -92.82717817 29.72602609
EFFECTIVE DATE TOTAL DEPTH
10/31/2011 29000
DETAIL
10/31/2011 01 29000 1466.4' EASTERLY ALG SL OF SEC 19 FR SW COR THENCE 2434.2' NLY @ RIGHT ANGLES LOCATED IN SEC 19.
We just discovered a massive amount of NG in the shale under DC. Last fracker there is a rotten fucking egg...
i feel the earth - move - under my feet ...
I'm sure wind energy is the answer to our prayers.
Are you a troll, or are you just stupid? Just curious...
No shit. Fracking=earthquakes
WOW! Who would have thought it? /sarc
No!
Earthquakes = Earthquakes.
Fracking = Fracking.
The "issue" is whether fracking increases the likelihood of earthquakes. The Observer Effect would suggest that this would be likely.
Let me get this straight. You DON'T trust your government when it comes to the state of the government's unemployment numbers, the Fed, the Treasury or even the contents of Fort Knox, but now you're ready to suck up this hokum hook, line and sinker? Missing from this report is the story about the biggest solar storm in years pealing off the sun and heading our way. Please! PLEASE! Send me some of what some of you are smoking. Wait. No. Don't bother, I live in California.
"Let me get this straight. You DON'T trust your government when it comes to the state of the government's unemployment numbers, the Fed, the Treasury or even the contents of Fort Knox, but now you're ready to suck up this hokum hook, line and sinker?"
Selective critical thinking.
Ha ha!
I'd ask that very thing of warmongers- most who don't trust their govt, but magically do in the case of war/violence.
Bottom line: Corporations WILL come out on top of this debate. They will maximize their profits one way or another: and in some cases they'll demand extortion money to NOT damage someone's environment (NAFTA has these nice little caveats).
I don't think there is enough evidence to say either way. This earthquake was the largest in the state's recorded history. It will be studied (hopefully by unbiased people). Either way, I'd take 5.0-6.0 earthquakes over the possibility of radioactive fallout any day.
Who's going to bomb us for not fracking?
blah blah bla..what's next? linking the sun to global warming?
I see that another one of the usual fucking clowns that hang out at the Hedge has wandered by....
What made you crawl out of your "deny absolutely everything that I don't have a clue understanding" hole?
Talking to empty space! People(?) such as this have no interest in meaningful debate: they're superior, or they're superiorily paid (trolls).
The (leading mainstream) religious believers believe in judgement in the "afterlife." I'm too weary of group-think, so I tend to not huddle with these flocks, but... I'm thinking that evolution (thank God for the intelligent design that is evolution!) will eventually clean these things up (so, I guess that I'm in basic agreement that there are larger forces at work).
The technology is around to "Frac" without using WATER. There's a Canadian company that uses LP (propane). They inject it; busts the rock; and comes right back out of the well and is recoverable. No water is involved. See http://www.gasfrac.com/about_gasfrac.aspx
Fracking has been used for a very long time; and I'd be curious to see whether there is evidence that the fracking starting in the 1950s caused quakes.
Any experts out there?
That's a mess. How do you deal with royalty owners? With water, normally you do not get the entire load back. I doubt you will get 100% load recovery with LPG. Plus, how are you going to know? How are you going to compensate the mineral owner for the hydrocarbons?
Fracking has been used for a very long time; and I'd be curious to see whether there is evidence that the fracking starting in the 1950s caused quakes.
*****************
I can tell you that "disposal/injection" wells are fed into a high permeability/porous-usually salty/briny formation and it takes very little pressure to inject-
Most of the water from a frac job comes back out too. The gas or oil will bring the water out of the well, the sooner the better. Generally the well is flowed back soon after the job to get the well cleaned up and the water out before it compormisis the formation. A usual component of a frac job is sand to keep the cracks propped open when the water is returned. A frac job does not involve continuous injection as in a disposal well.
Poor reporting and bad numbers again by the guest post author. Here are the numbers from the USGS:
The magnitude 4.7 and 5.6 earthquakes that occurred on November 5, 2011, were situated in a region located about 50 km east of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Earthquakes are not unusual in Oklahoma, but they often are too small to be felt. From 1972-2008 about 2-6 earthquakes a year were recorded by the USGS National Earthquake Information Center; these earthquakes were scattered broadly across the east-central part of the state. In 2008 the rate of earthquakes began to rise, with over a dozen earthquakes occurring in the region east- northeast of Oklahoma City and southwest of Tulsa, Oklahoma. In 2009 the rate of seismicity continued to climb, with nearly 50 earthquakes recorded--many big enough to be felt. In 2010 this activity continued. The magnitude 4.7 and 5.6 earthquakes of November 5, 2011, are the largest events recorded during this period of increased seismicity. Additionally, the M5.6 quake is the largest quake to hit Oklahoma in modern times.
Here's the link in case the author would like to rethink the post: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb0006klz.php...
Just to set the record straight, I live about 15 miles from the epicenter. Where the claim of 1K of quakes is a bit of a stretch.
Hmmm...better give those BLS numbers a second look, maybe they are actually accurate after all....
works for big oil as shill -
this is the worst "POS" article i've ever read/heard -
absolutely unbelievable
This is the type of article that will really trigger Geo Wash to go wild. You haven't seen anything until he digs up the nutter theories from Before It Is News.
You've led a pretty shelted life if this is the case.
I'll take a few 3.0 earthquakes over the $1200per month it would take to heat my house if fuckhole nat gas speculators take over the market betting on higher gas prices because the new gas finds can't be exploited. Do people remember a few years ago when gas hit $14 per 1000mcf? It cost me $600 to heat my house to 65 degrees in january.
Most of this article is bullshit. They are detecting microquakes, which thousands happen every single day. A fucking garbage truck going down the street can create larger movements on a seismograph.
1.0-2.0 quakes are extremely common. You don't even feel them. A 5.0 is enough to move a couple plates on a wall. Let's not start thinking this article is talking about 10.0s being unleashed.
"A fucking garbage truck going down the street can create larger movements on a seismograph."
Uh, no.
"$1200per month it would take to heat my house"
Is that USD? Anyway, we should abolish speculation because you've got high energy demands? (keep in mind that markets ARE all about "speculating") I'd think about spending more energy to gain more control over your dependencies. Fight "speculation" or work on those things that you have some control over... hm... your choice.
Oil iis Abiotic, there is no peak oil and no oil shortage. And we should switch to LFTRs with 1000 years worth of energy for the entire world anyway. Since your reading ZH, you should be making $6000/day anyway, so who cares if it costs $600 to heat your house/mo???
The frackers are busy in Pennsylvania.
Maybe it is a coincidence we recently had a quake you could actually feel, here, for the first in my memory.
Maybe it is a coincidence that people are losing their wells.
Maybe we should just keep experimenting. Who needs solid ground and water, anyhow?
Maybe it is a coincidence that people are losing their wells
***************
If they fracked into your water well--
The house would be gone--
I know of several people who live near a fracking operation, and have coincidentally lost their water supply. These people can see the fracking from their homes. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the water and chemicals they inject can run horizontally and disrupt water supply for miles.
It is possible that their wells were damaged by the drilling fluids as the well bore passed through the water zone-but it's doubtful that fracking damaged it-or you would have atmospheric communication with the gas or oil zone-in other words an uncontrolled blowout-
btw--is that you Croaker?
Not Croaker.
Junk science
Junk comment!
Fuck milk, somebodys got UNG!
I'm not an expert, but I have pondered the thought of the unintended consequences(earthquakes-ummm, TSUNAMIS????) of extracting the fluids(oil) and gases from under or within the tectonic plates.
P.S. My asshole twitches like a sailors weatherman when these kind of statements come out. The last thing that Americans need are sky high energy bills(edit: sky higher); although, my gas bill through LG&E has stayed the same even though the price of nat gas has plummeted???
"The last thing that Americans need are sky high energy bills"
Perhaps they shouldn't invest in things that require so much energy?
But, yes, it'll ouch! It's coming eventually.
Is it really going to matter how hight your energy bill is, if you don't have any water?
as a real geologist, with field experience...one needs first to plot all epicenters and hypofocus points on a map and a 3D map. If the the quakes line up look around for faults. Oil / NG are found in areas where there is faulting or diastrophism going on. If one injects water into faults or faulted areas you can expect to be lubricating the fault and you get slippage. This was a theory advanced in California where they were slipping faults...releasing their built up energy to avoid future larger quakes. There was discussion of this to use along the big transverse slip faults like the san andreas.
Please remember too that fracking is usually done in deep zones...8-10 k feet deep. Municipalities and especially domestic wells do not tap aquifers this deep. So this does not cause water contamination. but if you cause slippage along a vertical fault you change the relationship on the opposing sides of the fault...you could possibly move a permeable or more porous bed to oppose a less porous transmissive bed allowing for a new way for water to move up and down the stratigraphic column.
"Please remember too that fracking is usually done in deep zones...8-10 k feet deep. Municipalities and especially domestic wells do not tap aquifers this deep. So this does not cause water contamination."
Do you know whether the entire length of the hole is protected? Just curious whether there couldn't be injected fluids/gasses seeping out other than at the bottom (target). I haven't spent much time reading up on all this, but I do recall complaints that fracking media was being found in folks' wells: the question here would be whether the local geology does or doesn't contain the same media- if it does, then your theory would tend to match.
Thank you for the explanation. I didn't quite know how to express that. I've not yet heard of any water contamination here due to the fracking. I do beleive that we are changing the way the water is moving beneath the surface. We've been through this before in Western Pennsylvania with strip mining. What good is gas if you don't have any water? If you don't live in an area where fracking or is being done, I guess it's all well and good.
Damn, and I thought it was global warming. Just goes to show you that you could be in the wrong church and the wrong pew at the same time. :)
Fracking can cause small earthquakes, which may combine to cause big earthquakes, but not in OK's case. Production near the epicenter is mostly shallow, no major fracking, and epicenter was a few miles deep. Here's a pretty good discussion:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/06/1450202/oklahoma-hit-by-its-stro...
Oilprice resembles a tabloid in its quest for details and facts.
The bigger issue is what fracking does to the water table.
The fresh water table is a few hendred feet deep.
Fracking is done on rocks generally a mile deeper than that. The layers of rock which contained the oil and gas under their pressures will contain the frac job so that it is not going to frac UP but horizontally.
"The layers of rock which contained the oil and gas under their pressures will contain the frac job so that it is not going to frac UP but horizontally."
Is this monitored? That is, how would one KNOW that it's not going UP some place other than the drill hole?
I'm just thinking that this is all way too unpredictable to know what's happening underground. I'll agree that the greater question is what possible affects there might be on ground water: I rely on well water, in which case I've got a bit more interest in this angle.
If there was not a "cap rock" sealing and containing the oil and gas into the formation, it would have long ago migrated into the upper zones. Certainly you understand that the oil and gas are migratory. That is how they move horizontally into the borehole. If it was possible for them to move upward (no cap rock) they would have done that.
Yeah, Anna Bligh (premier of Queensland) will be shiting bricks ... Queensland's finances are shot to bits, and the Govt is relying on fracking to pull the state's finances and deficits out of the toilet.
But just a few months ago North Queensland had a 5.2 shock (I was in the immediate area when it happened, at that time), where normally there are almost none, and never anywhere near that magnitude.
And where did this quake happen? Well, curiously, just inland of the coal field export town of Bowen. The "Bowen Basin" is a colossal sedimentary basin, absolutely brimming with high-grade coal and nat-gas ... and "The Great Artesian Basin" aquifer (which I understand is the biggest contiguous aquifer on earth .. it is to aquifers what "The Great Barrier Reef" is to coral http://www.environment.gov.au/water/locations/gab/index.html )... with lots of experimental drilling and fracking going on, and all of a sudden ... a significant shallow earthquake pops up.
http://www.news.com.au/national/north-queensland-has-been-rocked-by-a-52...
Australia may have little to almost no NET Federal public debt, but the State public debt and the current and projected deficits of Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania are looking very much like the PIIGS.
This will put a spanner in the works ... this fracking was already EXTREMELY controversial and politicised.
"Yeah, Anna Bligh (premier of Queensland) will be shiting bricks ... Queensland's finances are shot to bits, and the Govt is relying on fracking to pull the state's finances and deficits out of the toilet."
Someone should ask her what the plan is for when the NG runs out, or if demand is drastically reduced (say, for example, world-wide depression). Nothing like trying to hang on to turds in the hope of escaping the swirling of the water down the toilet bowl (which runs eternally)!
Oh, by the way ... remember that plan to pump carbon dioxide underground? ... yeah, scratch that taxation spending white-elephant too.
Well, well, well....this confirms my own suspicions, pointed out in several blog posts over the last few years:
Mother Earth on Crack
Unless someone else has posted in the 3 pages above-
In the land of the brave & the home of the free, don't be surprised if some entrepreneurial bright-spark suggests that a little fracking might relieve pressure build-up in certain locations, and proposes it as a good thing.
San Andreas anyone?
(that's how you get to end of empire)
Does anyone know if they are doing this anywhere near the supervolcano under Yellowstone? It would be very unfortunate for everyone in the world if that were to be awakened.
This article is BOGUS. Here's why.
1) They quit using the well in 1966. Because of "possibility".
http://www.rma.army.mil/cleanup/facts/deep-wel.html
2) Colorado's earthquake history.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php
Of note: They had quakes before the well, and a lot of them 20 years later.
3) The "EPA Report" quoted in the article:
"Technical Program Overview: Underground Injection Control Regulations EPA 816-r-02-025"
is the SAME ARTICLE as used in a footnote for validity !!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1849934/13/Operation-of-Deep-Injection-Wells
P.S. - There is NO MENTION of the Army Corps of engineers ANYWHERE in the document, EXCEPT where the EPA "report" chose to inject it IN ONE SENTENCE. In 1967 the Army DID NOT STATE it "CAUSED" the earthquakes.
There is NO REFERENCE (or LINK) to this purported "Report" either. They didn't even get the author's name right, It's R. "L" Wesson, not R. "I" Wesson. Here's the book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Earthquake_hazard_associated_with_de...
Neither of them work for either the EPA OR the U.S. Army Corp. Nicholson is a Monnbat from UCSB.
The IPPC "bogus Hockey sticks" now come to mind. Discredited. Nice try tho.
"It's a CONSPIRACY I tell ya".
This is simply the EPA changing a word to suit the Moonbat agenda.
I think you may want to rethink this statement....
The study was included because someone did a troll for any study. It is impossible to determine what caused a particular earthquake or series of earthquakes. Since the study cannot absolutely rule it out, it does recognize a possibility that the injection contributes to the earthquake. About the same possibility that the negro I saw at the chicken shack yesterday was Barrack O'Bama.
Geologically, this is a stupid conclusion. Very, small earthquakes, yes. A 5.6 no fucking way. Another over hyped issue from ZH, premised on factually incorrect conclusions.
Sure! Just another "hockey stick"..
Earthquake Frequency Up 133% In 2010And absolutly no reason to worry:
More Mysterious "Monster Fish" Comes To SurfaceFirst off, I'm going to take issue with the title of this posting. It's semi-sensationalist and doesn't actually reflect the conclusions of the body of the article. The conclusion of the study is that there seems to be a causal link b/w low-level seismic activity (not sure if the Nov 5 earthquake is related - haven't seen the geographic distribution of previous seismic and this much larger earthquake) and injection wells. There is NOT a link b/w hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity
Chris Robart Principal, PacWest Consulting Partners crobart@pacwestcp.comInjection/disposal wells have been used for years (the article cites examples as far back as 1961 but injection wells have been used since well before that ) as one of the primary methods of disposal for fluid waste products from a wide range of industries, including oil/gas. An injection/disposal well is any well that is connected to a sub-surface formation that is geologically disconnected from potable water-bearing formations (sometimes they are abandoned oil or gas wells) that could otherwise be used as drinking water. All oil/gas wells produce significant volumes of water and other non-desirable fluids (i.e. everything other than hydrocarbons) which need to be handled in some way. In some major areas of shale activity there is widespread treatment and recycling of "produced water" (e.g. Marcellus in Pennsylvania, Fayetteville in Arkansas) but eventually even the recycled water becomes to dirty to re-use and must be disposed of via injection wells or treated a VERY high cost.
As the article indicates, there has been evidence of injection wells causing seismic activity as far back as 1961, well before hydraulic fracturing was widely used (companies first began experimenting with hydraulic fracturing in the early 1950s but it was mostly a science project and didn't become common until the 80s or 90s, and didn't become widely used in the context of shale development until the early 2000s). So the problem here doesn't have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, HOWEVER, hydraulic fracturing does create a significant amount of water that must be managed either through treatment or disposal, so you could certainly say that the increase in hydraulic fracturing has increased demand for injection wells. One more sidenote - E&Ps always try to avoid fracing into any part of the well (they also try to avoid drilling through) where there are existing fault lines because instead of the energy of the frac cracking open the rock, it goes into the fault and they lose all the energy from the frac and have to start over.
Here's how the connection b/w injection wells and earthquakes has been described to me by a geologist at the Bureau of Economic Geology (Research Center at UT Austin): the injection of fluids into a disposal well that is connected to existing geological fault lines has the tendency to alter the ambient pressure in the formation and the fault while decreasing the friction between the fault line, which creates the opportunity for a shift in the fault line (i.e. an earthquake) with a much lower level of energy.
The geologist also described to me a very simple solution to the problem: as part of the permitting process for a new injection well, the relevant regulatory agency should require comprehensive seismic imaging (not particularly new technology, but pricey) to verify that the proposed target formation for the injection well does not overlay existing fault lines and does not have the potential to increase the occurrence of seismic activity. That would make the cost of a new injection well, and therefore the per barrel cost of injecting fluids much more expensive, but that is a good thing in my mind. Currently injection is the least cost option for dealing with dirty water. An increase in the cost of injection relative to treatment will make water recycling and water treatment a more economic and increase its use in the industry.
Ok, but let's just add that this that this is your first and only post at zh, so far, and you've been a member for for 6 days and 10 hours.
Now Chris, rightly or wrong mate, you'd have to admit this rates kinda high-up on the unofficial zh "Shilliness and squawk-your-book Index".
As for determining fault location in that way ... at all relevant scales ... in 3D ... yeah ... dream on.
Faults can be unseen, but there, in large numbers. It ain't like in the movies mate.
At this time legislative moves are underway to ban fracking in New South Wales.
Element - yes, it's my first comment on the site - what's your point? At least I'm not posting anonymously. A friend of mine who is a frequent reader of zerohedge sent this article over to me since he knows it's a subject I've spent a lot of time on. Until he sent me the article I was entirely unaware of the existence of this site.
I'm happy to admit that geology is not my strongest area of expertise (my professional background is strategy consulting / entrepreneurship but I also have an engineering degree) but I recognize the challenges in identifying faults. I've spent a lot of time interacting with drilling engineers and completion engineers (the guys responsible for designing and executing fracs) and a major point that I often hear is faults can sometimes be nearly impossible to identify until you hit one with a drill bit. My point regarding more comprehensive seismic as a requirement for approval of injection wells is to put some sort of reasonable precautions in place to at least minimize the number of faults that an injection well (and its target formation) intersects. From a policy persepctive, I also support increasing the cost of injection wells to improve the business case for recycling/reusing water in the oil/gas industry (for fracing, drilling, etc.).
There is legislation underway in a number of US states and countries to ban (but more often to put in a place a temporary moratorium on) fracing. Here's a non-exhaustive list of major regulatory activity that I've seen lately:
France - moratorium in place until the results of a major EPA study on hydraulic fracturing are complete (not until early 2014)
Quebec - moratorium in place on hydraulic fracturing until a study by the provincial enviornmental regulator is complete
South Africa - moratorium in place on hydraulic fracturing until a study by the environmental regulator is complete
US - EPA has recently released its plan for a major environmental study on hydraulic fracturing, due for completion in 2014. the EPA has also recently committed to doing a lifecycle study on water in the context of hydraulic fracturing (I believe its mostly focused on what happens to water after fracing is complete, as opposed to the first study mentioned, which is focused more what happens during fracturing)
State of New York - moratorium in place but the NYDEP has recently published a report proposing a lifting of the moratorium along with a number of new regulations/oversight on fracturing
State of Maryland - moratorium in place until a study by the state environmental regulator is complete
There has also been legislative activity in a lot of US states recently to improve industry transparency by requiring full disclosure of chemicals put downhole during the process of fracing. Here's one good summary from Lexology, a legal blog:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=abc37c91-7d24-44f1-ae87-6c...