I'm way late to the party, but skimming over the last couple pages there are a couple things I want to clarify because I still see many people mischaracterize these two things.

1) The link in question (in regards to earthquakes) is not Fracking<-->Earthquakes, it's Disposal Wells<-->Earthquakes. A moratorium on fracking would be pointless because, as PhiAlpha said, we would still be injecting all the produced water from existing wells into the disposal wells. If you want to do a study then try and temporarily halt produced water injection into a couple of disposal wells near an area of interest (preferably one with recent seismic activity) and see what the short and long term results are.

2) Saying "toxic chemicals" when you refer to produced fluids/frac fluids is a gross exaggeration, and is a blatant scare tactic to persuade the opinions of people who are uninformed on the issue. I know in this case it was quoted from the article, but I see that term over and over in reference to produced fluids/frac fluids. 99% of frac fluid (aside from sand) is fresh water, and 99% of the other 1% is FR (friction reducer, AKA soap, hence the term "slickwater"). What remains are miniscule amounts of chemicals that are intended to prevent scale buildup along the inside of the pipe, prevent the pipe from corroding, and to inhibit bacterial growth (can damage both the formation and the pipe). Certain situations may also call for viscosifying/de-viscosifying agents that temporarily increase the viscosity of the fluid to aid in the transport of sand, but that is not always required. Most all these are the same chemicals found in the soap/cleaning agents you probably store under your kitchen sink. Nobody has any issue flushing these chemicals down their toilet or rinsing them down the sink, but an O&G company wants to pump them 5,000+ ft underground and all of a sudden there's an issue. There are also very low concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM, typically radium infused salts) that are found in produced water. These materials are absorbed into the formation water from the formation rock that the water is contained in. These are not materials that the O&G company is introducing into the formation. They were there long before anyone thought about producing oil and gas from the formation, and they are in such low concentrations that handling the produced water at the surface is in no way dangerous (although I still wouldn't want to drink it, obviously). So why would you not want to put the formation water back where you got it (the formation)? Lastly, the reason the frac companies (service companies like SLB, Weatherford, Baker Hughes) don't want to disclose their frac additives, unless mandated, has nothing to do with the toxicity of the chemicals they are using. It is because it gives them a competitive advantage, and gives them the ability to tell operators (like DVN, CHK, SD) that their "proprietary" frac fluid is better than their competitors because of the ratio of the compounds or because of the addition of X or Y chemical. This is the same reason that supplement companies only list "proprietary" blends on their pre- and post-workout supplements (for anyone else out there who is a fitness buff).

I have no problem with someone having an opinion that doesn't agree with my own. That is their right. But what I can't stand is when someone who has no scientific background in geology, chemistry, or engineering, tries to shout from the mountain tops that their opinion is fact in an attempt to persuade others. That is one of the curses of the internet is that everyone has the medium to broadcast their thoughts to the masses, no matter how informed/uninformed they may be.

Phialpha, Pwitty, padz, and cm25, thanks for all the info. It is obvious you guys know your stuff and i appreciate your posts.

That last bit wasn't necessarily aimed at anyone on this board, just the general public as a whole. The entire O&G industry was basically shut down in the state of New York because the average citizen would rather base their opinions on the statements of uninformed NYC celebrities than consider the information that was being relayed, on both sides of the issue, by the scientific community.

Plu thanks but I don't know near as much as these other guys. I am just a non industry guy who has always had an interest in the field.

Thank you for the incredibly long post that answered a question no on asked about the composition of frac water - something that can easily be found within a 5 second search of a program called google.

In my industry we call it blinding people with bullsh*t.

Basically you change the subject and then ramble on until people hopefully go away; and seems to be a theme from people who are on a losing side of an arguement.

Outside of that the only real issue I have with your post is comparing the chemicals to household soaps, that's a stretch of the imagination that is easily disproven by a search on our states very own website. But with that said I also realize that in the grand scale of it all the overall percentage is very small compared to the 3 - 5 million of gallons of once drinkable surface or ground water that is lost per every single well. Water that hopefully will never reenter the water cycle and is now permanently lost.

Another thing you forgot to mention was where the flowback or produced water goes once it's injected for 'permanent' disposal, obviously it's finding once dormant faults by traveling miles away through porus rocks --- so is it permanently removed, or does anyone know where it ends up?

If not why have there been numerous cases around the country where people have found that same brine in their ground water after disposal wells came online?

Be specific and find sources because a few months ago you same self proclaimed industry experts (who were high fiving for the great info a few post up) were swearing that injection wells in our state had absolutely nothing to do with the earthquakes and we all see how that turned out.

Why is this discussion on this thread? We aren't discussing the title of the thread, just frac hating and frac loving.

Saying "toxic chemicals" when you refer to produced fluids/frac fluids is a gross exaggeration, and is a blatant scare tactic to persuade the opinions of people who are uninformed on the issue. I know in this case it was quoted from the article, but I see that term over and over in reference to produced fluids/frac fluids. 99% of frac fluid (aside from sand) is fresh water, and 99% of the other 1% is FR (friction reducer, AKA soap, hence the term "slickwater"). What remains are miniscule amounts of chemicals that are intended to prevent scale buildup along the inside of the pipe, prevent the pipe from corroding, and to inhibit bacterial growth (can damage both the formation and the pipe). Certain situations may also call for viscosifying/de-viscosifying agents that temporarily increase the viscosity of the fluid to aid in the transport of sand, but that is not always required. Most all these are the same chemicals found in the soap/cleaning agents you probably store under your kitchen sink. Nobody has any issue flushing these chemicals down their toilet or rinsing them down the sink, but an O&G company wants to pump them 5,000+ ft underground and all of a sudden there's an issue. There are also very low concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM, typically radium infused salts) that are found in produced water. These materials are absorbed into the formation water from the formation rock that the water is contained in. These are not materials that the O&G company is introducing into the formation. They were there long before anyone thought about producing oil and gas from the formation, and they are in such low concentrations that handling the produced water at the surface is in no way dangerous (although I still wouldn't want to drink it, obviously). So why would you not want to put the formation water back where you got it (the formation)? Lastly, the reason the frac companies (service companies like SLB, Weatherford, Baker Hughes) don't want to disclose their frac additives, unless mandated, has nothing to do with the toxicity of the chemicals they are using. It is because it gives them a competitive advantage, and gives them the ability to tell operators (like DVN, CHK, SD) that their "proprietary" frac fluid is better than their competitors because of the ratio of the compounds or because of the addition of X or Y chemical. This is the same reason that supplement companies only list "proprietary" blends on their pre- and post-workout supplements (for anyone else out there who is a fitness buff).

In a state with a multi-year drought and no relief in sight, why are we pumping 80 billion gallons of water underground every year never to be seen again if 99% of it is fresh water and the other 1% is 99% soap with only "miniscule amounts of chemicals" that is so easily treated at existing wastewater treatment plants that we could pour it down the drain at home?

Sorry if I am not buying what you are trying to sell.

If instead of throwing it away, Sandridge could become the largest private provider of fresh water in the world, which incidentally is more valuable than oil.

In a state with a multi-year drought and no relief in sight, why are we pumping 80 billion gallons of water underground every year never to be seen again if 99% of it is fresh water and the other 1% is 99% soap with only "miniscule amounts of chemicals" that is so easily treated at existing wastewater treatment plants that we could pour it down the drain at home?

Sorry if I am not buying what you are trying to sell.

If instead of throwing it away, Sandridge could become the largest private provider of fresh water in the world, which incidentally is more valuable than oil.

That's what I was saying in my earlier, if there was a way to treat that water and put into the potable water system, I'd rather have that than a cure for cancer. I do not know, however, if there is some reason that the water is pumped back into the ground, as if it was originally thought it needed to be put back where it was taken. Much like the fear of treating sewer plant effluent for drinking water, there are ecological drawbacks of removing that water from the stream system.

That's what I was saying in my earlier, if there was a way to treat that water and put into the potable water system, I'd rather have that than a cure for cancer. I do not know, however, if there is some reason that the water is pumped back into the ground, as if it was originally thought it needed to be put back where it was taken. Much like the fear of treating sewer plant effluent for drinking water, there are ecological drawbacks of removing that water from the stream system.

The other day I was reading about Sandia National Lab in New Mexico was in the process of cleaning Frack water that would be complaint for agriculture uses. I went back to find the article but I couldn't get it to show up.

Injection wells have been around since before the 70's, yet it's only in the last few years that they cause earthquakes. SO why didn't it happen before now? None of the anti-energy crowd can answer that.

Im guessing it has to do with the frequency and the amount, which has been exponentially higher in the last few years than in the 70's. This seems to be an obvious reason, imo.

Thank you for the incredibly long post that answered a question no on asked about the composition of frac water - something that can easily be found within a 5 second search of a program called google.

In my industry we call it blinding people with bullsh*t.

Basically you change the subject and then ramble on until people hopefully go away; and seems to be a theme from people who are on a losing side of an arguement.

Outside of that the only real issue I have with your post is comparing the chemicals to household soaps, that's a stretch of the imagination that is easily disproven by a search on our states very own website. But with that said I also realize that in the grand scale of it all the overall percentage is very small compared to the 3 - 5 million of gallons of once drinkable surface or ground water that is lost per every single well. Water that hopefully will never reenter the water cycle and is now permanently lost.

Another thing you forgot to mention was where the flowback or produced water goes once it's injected for 'permanent' disposal, obviously it's finding once dormant faults by traveling miles away through porus rocks --- so is it permanently removed, or does anyone know where it ends up?

If not why have there been numerous cases around the country where people have found that same brine in their ground water after disposal wells came online?

Be specific and find sources because a few months ago you same self proclaimed industry experts (who were high fiving for the great info a few post up) were swearing that injection wells in our state had absolutely nothing to do with the earthquakes and we all see how that turned out.

If that is what you took out of all of our posts a few months back then you didn't read them very closely

Im guessing it has to do with the frequency and the amount, which has been exponentially higher in the last few years than in the 70's. This seems to be an obvious reason, imo.

Its unfortunate that injection volume records were not kept prior to the 90s so that theory could be proven. Contrary to what everyone seems to think, there have been major volumes of water disposed during every oil boom in ok history. There may be higher volumes now, but record keeping makes it tough to prove.

In a state with a multi-year drought and no relief in sight, why are we pumping 80 billion gallons of water underground every year never to be seen again if 99% of it is fresh water and the other 1% is 99% soap with only "miniscule amounts of chemicals" that is so easily treated at existing wastewater treatment plants that we could pour it down the drain at home?

Sorry if I am not buying what you are trying to sell.

If instead of throwing it away, Sandridge could become the largest private provider of fresh water in the world, which incidentally is more valuable than oil.

Why do they inject the salt water back downhole instead of filtering it into usable drinking water? The same reason we can't commercially filter ocean water for use as drinking water. It's expensive. Like pahdz made reference to from an old post of his, whoever can find a way to economically remove salt from water will be swimming in money. To this point nobody has. So it is much cheaper to dispose of it downhole and be done with it.

Thank you for the incredibly long post that answered a question no on asked about the composition of frac water - something that can easily be found within a 5 second search of a program called google.

In my industry we call it blinding people with bullsh*t.

Basically you change the subject and then ramble on until people hopefully go away; and seems to be a theme from people who are on a losing side of an arguement.

Outside of that the only real issue I have with your post is comparing the chemicals to household soaps, that's a stretch of the imagination that is easily disproven by a search on our states very own website. But with that said I also realize that in the grand scale of it all the overall percentage is very small compared to the 3 - 5 million of gallons of once drinkable surface or ground water that is lost per every single well. Water that hopefully will never reenter the water cycle and is now permanently lost.

Another thing you forgot to mention was where the flowback or produced water goes once it's injected for 'permanent' disposal, obviously it's finding once dormant faults by traveling miles away through porus rocks --- so is it permanently removed, or does anyone know where it ends up?

If not why have there been numerous cases around the country where people have found that same brine in their ground water after disposal wells came online?

Be specific and find sources because a few months ago you same self proclaimed industry experts (who were high fiving for the great info a few post up) were swearing that injection wells in our state had absolutely nothing to do with the earthquakes and we all see how that turned out.

I made it clear in my post that I was referring to the previously quoted article, and the associated comments, that used the terms "toxic waste" and "toxic chemicals" a few pages back. As PhiAlpha said, there were also questions concerning the difference between frac, flowback, and produced fluids. If you missed all of that then maybe you should beef up on your reading comprehension. I don't mean to be rude, but give me a break.

As to your question above, the produced fluids are re-injected into formations that have been deemed by the USGS (US Geological Survey) to be a suitable reservoir candidate. In many instances these are old depleted oil/gas bearing formations, but not always. If there was a fault that existed in such a formation (a fault that carried brine water up into the ground water), like you proposed is happening, then there would have never been any oil and gas there in the first place. The oil and gas would have migrated vertically, up through the fault, until it hit another impermeable barrier or until it breached the surface. The fact that there was an oil and gas reservoir there in the first place indicates that there were no channels allowing flow between formations. If there were, then it would not be approved by the USGS as a formation suitable for disposal.

Edit: I also want to add that brine water (salt water) is not a subsurface phenomenon that exists only in the realm of oil and gas operations. It occupies the void pore spaces in all subsurface rock that isn't filled with oil and gas. It just has to be present deep enough and for long enough that salts are absorbed into the water from the formation rock. Certain subsurface rocks also have the ability to filter out impurities in the water, which is why some formation water is clean and has no salts or other impurities present.

In a state with a multi-year drought and no relief in sight, why are we pumping 80 billion gallons of water underground every year never to be seen again if 99% of it is fresh water and the other 1% is 99% soap with only "miniscule amounts of chemicals" that is so easily treated at existing wastewater treatment plants that we could pour it down the drain at home?

Sorry if I am not buying what you are trying to sell.

If instead of throwing it away, Sandridge could become the largest private provider of fresh water in the world, which incidentally is more valuable than oil.

It is produced saltwater that is not easily or economically feasible to treat right now (though several companies are starting to make advancements in that technology that will make it more feasible in the future), not frac flowback. Some companies do treat and reuse frac water flowback now In order to conserve water, especially in extremely arid environments like the permian basin. It's generally more expensive to buy freshwater in those areas so it is more economical (and obviously environmentally responsible) to treat frac flowback water for reuse.

ill have to find the pie chart I posted a few months ago, but I think that the total fresh water used in all oil and gas operations accounts for about 1% of water used in Oklahoma for a given year. Obviously water used is water used, but the amount consumed for non agriculture irrigation and none oil and gas industrial is much higher than that. If you have a problem with water used during hydraulic fracturing, I would hope that you have an issue with the amount of water used through those activities as well.

Agree with your comment on Sandridge but the process will have to improve in efficiency to be economic for use in the mississippi like.

Thank you for the incredibly long post that answered a question no on asked about the composition of frac water - something that can easily be found within a 5 second search of a program called google.

In my industry we call it blinding people with bullsh*t.

Basically you change the subject and then ramble on until people hopefully go away; and seems to be a theme from people who are on a losing side of an arguement.

Outside of that the only real issue I have with your post is comparing the chemicals to household soaps, that's a stretch of the imagination that is easily disproven by a search on our states very own website. But with that said I also realize that in the grand scale of it all the overall percentage is very small compared to the 3 - 5 million of gallons of once drinkable surface or ground water that is lost per every single well. Water that hopefully will never reenter the water cycle and is now permanently lost.

Another thing you forgot to mention was where the flowback or produced water goes once it's injected for 'permanent' disposal, obviously it's finding once dormant faults by traveling miles away through porus rocks --- so is it permanently removed, or does anyone know where it ends up?

If not why have there been numerous cases around the country where people have found that same brine in their ground water after disposal wells came online?

Be specific and find sources because a few months ago you same self proclaimed industry experts (who were high fiving for the great info a few post up) were swearing that injection wells in our state had absolutely nothing to do with the earthquakes and we all see how that turned out.

You realize that it is possible to have a discussion with out being an ass, right? Would you talk like this to people in person?

You realize that it is possible to have a discussion with out being an ass, right? Would you talk like this to people in person?

My guess he would not.

I'm not sure where you are going with that - do you want to call me? - my suggestion is to stop threatening people when you are at work on company time. You never know who is watching.

I'll be at the next OKC Talk happy hour (hey Pete...hint hint), I find that when you meet people in person conversations tend to go a lot more civil (looking at you AP :) )

Thank you for the incredibly long post that answered a question no on asked about the composition of frac water - something that can easily be found within a 5 second search of a program called google.


I'm not sure where you are going with that ? - my suggestion is to stop threatening people when you are at work on company time. You never know who is watching.

please stop being a jerk to everybody. you are welcome to express your position on oil and gas operations but try to express that opinion like an adult. thanks.

now... if everybody could get back to topic, that would be great. -M

looking at you AP

Are you referring to the Johnny Manziel thing? Turns out he really is a douche... ;)

Are you referring to the Johnny Manziel thing? Turns out he really is a douche... ;)

Seriously...but still a baller of a college QB :)

I'll be at the next OKC Talk happy hour (hey Pete...hint hint), I find that when you meet people in person conversations tend to go a lot more civil (looking at you AP :) )

Same here

We'll be doing an OKCTalk meet-up in mid April when I'm in town.

Details to follow.

I'm not sure where you are going with that - do you want to call me? - my suggestion is to stop threatening people when you are at work on company time. You never know who is watching.

What exactly about my post was threatening? Also, how about I worry about what I do with my time and you do the same for yourself, sound good?

You should come to the next OKCtalk get together.

We'll be doing an OKCTalk meet-up in mid April when I'm in town.

Details to follow.hopefully it will be in early April. I'm moving to LA April 10th :p

hopefully it will be in early April. I'm moving to LA April 10th :p

Sorry, will likely be Tuesday 4/21 or later that same week.

Ah, well I'm going to leave April 10th, get my apartment, and come back with a friend and then rent a uHual and then drive back, so maybe I'll be here when it is going on. I hope so at least.

Ah, well I'm going to leave April 10th, get my apartment, and come back with a friend and then rent a uHual and then drive back, so maybe I'll be here when it is going on. I hope so at least.

That's a long drive in a UHaul. I went from Lincoln, Ne to Chattanooga and wanted to shoot myself.

That's a long drive in a UHaul. I went from Lincoln, Ne to Chattanooga and wanted to shoot myself.ha. I remember riding in a UHual from Dallas and it sucked. I have never driven a UHaul though.

I think the anti-fracking and anti-SWD well sentiments here are a function of a perceived helplessness in the fact of more frequent and stronger earthquake activity that does have consequences for homeowners in the state. When OK grabbed the top state spot with 550+ earthquakes of 3.0+ last year, people are looking for answers, and feel they aren’t getting any. Given that these quakes are causing harm to what is usually people’s most valuable investment—their house—they tend to grab the pitchforks and hit the streets.

Folks see the O&G industry’s authority in the state, and influence in the halls of power here, and, combined with what they perceive as the industry’s foot-dragging on the issue, have grown suspicious. Since state scientific and regulatory boards (OGS, OCC, OWRB, ect) have been slow to act as well (until recently), they also appear to be ‘in on it.’ Combine this with the fact that some of the state agencies get a good piece of their budget from the O&G business (particularly OGS), people are skeptical of industry-biased reports and research from them.

I think the O&G industry can do a better job in educating the general population in how and why fracking itself likely isn’t the culprit vice very high-rate injection of produced water. Some people, of course, will see any explanations from oil majors or service companies as line-towing PR bites, which is perhaps why more recent efforts haven’t been made on this front. The threat of litigation may also have in-house counsels watering down explanations as well.

I say this as a geologist, so I’m far from an industry hater. I can, however, see a bit of both sides here.

I think the anti-fracking and anti-SWD well sentiments here are a function of a perceived helplessness in the fact of more frequent and stronger earthquake activity that does have consequences for homeowners in the state. When OK grabbed the top state spot with 550+ earthquakes of 3.0+ last year, people are looking for answers, and feel they aren’t getting any. Given that these quakes are causing harm to what is usually people’s most valuable investment—their house—they tend to grab the pitchforks and hit the streets.

Folks see the O&G industry’s authority in the state, and influence in the halls of power here, and, combined with what they perceive as the industry’s foot-dragging on the issue, have grown suspicious. Since state scientific and regulatory boards (OGS, OCC, OWRB, ect) have been slow to act as well (until recently), they also appear to be ‘in on it.’ Combine this with the fact that some of the state agencies get a good piece of their budget from the O&G business (particularly OGS), people are skeptical of industry-biased reports and research from them.

I think the O&G industry can do a better job in educating the general population in how and why fracking itself likely isn’t the culprit vice very high-rate injection of produced water. Some people, of course, will see any explanations from oil majors or service companies as line-towing PR bites, which is perhaps why more recent efforts haven’t been made on this front. The threat of litigation may also have in-house counsels watering down explanations as well.

I say this as a geologist, so I’m far from an industry hater. I can, however, see a bit of both sides here.

I agree with everything you said. Especially the part about anyone with ties to the industry being labeled as simply "towing the line" whenever they speak out on the issue. The reactions in this thread are evidence of that. I've always joked that the O&G industry is the one business (outside of Wall Street) where the general public has more distrust than trust in anything that people who work in the industry say in regards to our operations. In any other situation people will look to the ones who are educated/trained and/or work in the specified field when they have questions about something. If someone has a legal concern, they ask a lawyer. If they have a computer problem, they ask an IT expert. If they don't feel well, they go to the doctor. But if someone has a question about something in the O&G business the last person they want to seek out is a Petroleum Engineer/Geologist because they have ties to the industry and are biased. It's the craziest thing to me. I'm taking time out of my day to post on this forum anonymously. Nobody knows who I am or where I work. I'm not getting any brownie points from anyone for posting on here and sticking up for the industry. I could say whatever I want with no repercussions. There's no incentive to sit here and spend my time responding to a question with lies. However, more often than not any informed post someone makes is met with immediate negativity by someone who has no intention of considering any statements that don't line-up with what they already believed to be true in the first place. It's impossible to have any sort of civilized debate. I think that is the main reason that so many companies in the industry don't do a better job at maintaining any sort of educational or PR campaigns. They just figure, what's the point if everybody just brushes it off and doesn't believe it?

USGS released this article: Coping with Earthquakes Induced by Fluid Injection

USGS Release: Coping with Earthquakes Induced by Fluid Injection (2/19/2015 2:15:00 PM) (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4132&from=rss_home#.VOtyVLDF_jL)

and what did local media do with that story? run to the public with headlines of "USGS says fracking causing earthquakes"

*sigh*

and what did local media do with that story? run to the public with headlines of "USGS says fracking causing earthquakes"

*sigh*In fairness, I have to point out that this is a very strong and quite logical -- although false -- conclusion from the third paragraph of the USGS release. The "new technologies" they mention are almost certainly the improved hydraulic fracturing methods.

However, fracking itself most surely is NOT the cause, so the headline is NOT a true statement. Denizens of the oil patch have been fracking the formations for at least a hundred years, starting out by using nitroglycerine and later switching to high-pressure hydraulics which are far safer. As recently as 1955 I saw first-hand the result of a nitro frac effort that went wrong, shredding a crew of three men and creating a crater 50 feet in diameter.

I agree with the call for increased transparency, but not with the emotional public outcry to ban fracking itself. So long as we're committed to fossil fuels, it behovves us to increase domestic production of them to the greatest extent possible -- not to cripple them!

In fairness, I have to point out that this is a very strong and quite logical -- although false -- conclusion from the third paragraph of the USGS release. The "new technologies" they mention are almost certainly the improved hydraulic fracturing methods.

However, fracking itself most surely is NOT the cause, so the headline is NOT a true statement. Denizens of the oil patch have been fracking the formations for at least a hundred years, starting out by using nitroglycerine and later switching to high-pressure hydraulics which are far safer. As recently as 1955 I saw first-hand the result of a nitro frac effort that went wrong, shredding a crew of three men and creating a crater 50 feet in diameter.

I agree with the call for increased transparency, but not with the emotional public outcry to ban fracking itself. So long as we're committed to fossil fuels, it behovves us to increase domestic production of them to the greatest extent possible -- not to cripple them!

That's going to be the difficult part in all of this.

It's the same reason people are opposed to Keystone XL despite the fact it is better for the environment and safer because you know, pipelines don't crash like trains do.

That's going to be the difficult part in all of this.

It's the same reason people are opposed to Keystone XL despite the fact it is better for the environment and safer because you know, pipelines don't crash like trains do.At the risk of going far off-topic here, I'd like to see the feds create a regulation prohibiting the transport of ALL petroleum products (both crude and refined) via public transportation lines -- railways and highways in particular -- while permitting pipelines. Even better would be a requirement that refined products NOT be transported across state lines by any means. Perhaps then we would all be safer, the highway network would be in better repair, and Californians would be between a rock and a hard place to retain their number one spot as gas/diesel consumers (although they'd probably have much cleaner air to breathe)...

At the risk of going far off-topic here, I'd like to see the feds create a regulation prohibiting the transport of ALL petroleum products (both crude and refined) via public transportation lines -- railways and highways in particular -- while permitting pipelines. Even better would be a requirement that refined products NOT be transported across state lines by any means. Perhaps then we would all be safer, the highway network would be in better repair, and Californians would be between a rock and a hard place to retain their number one spot as gas/diesel consumers (although they'd probably have much cleaner air to breathe)...

Warren Buffet owns a lot of the train companies who move the crude. Warren buffet is a huge obama supporter. Keystone xl would hurt buffets profits. Put those together.

Koch Pipeline Company Facts | Koch Pipeline Company (http://www.kochpipeline.com/about-us/kpl-facts/)
Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. (“KPL”) owns or operates about 4,000 miles of pipelines that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas liquids, ethanol and chemicals.
KOCH is a big GOP supporter and Keystone will bolster Koch profits.
And this.
https://laelyn.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/keystone-pipeline-and-john-boehner-surprise-theres-money-involved/

No wonder John Boehner is all over President Obama’s decision regarding the Keystone XL pipeline! He put money into the Canadian companies involved!


. . . according to Boehner’s financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada’s oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companies — BP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxon — along with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada

Put these together as well when adding it all up.

I'm not really a student on what legislators are allowed to do, but is it against the rules to invest at all in companies as a politician?

I'm not really a student on what legislators are allowed to do, but is it against the rules to invest at all in companies as a politician?

No.

So he's invested in something he may think eventually gets put in? I really don't see anything wrong with Buffet protecting his interests, or Boehner if he is indeed invested in these companies. And that's how we end up where we are today I guess, unfortunately.

Yeah, but the difference is Boehner has more influence than Buffett in promoting his investments and stifling competing interests. Anyway the point I was originally making was that as a counterpoint to the insinuation that POTUS is acting at the behest of a well heeled supporter.

Even better would be a requirement that refined products NOT be transported across state lines by any means.

I have advocated this for a long time. It wasn't very long ago in human history that only raw materials were transported and final production occurred close to the end user.

Koch Pipeline Company Facts | Koch Pipeline Company (http://www.kochpipeline.com/about-us/kpl-facts/)
Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. (“KPL”) owns or operates about 4,000 miles of pipelines that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas liquids, ethanol and chemicals.
KOCH is a big GOP supporter and Keystone will bolster Koch profits.
And this.
https://laelyn.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/keystone-pipeline-and-john-boehner-surprise-theres-money-involved/

No wonder John Boehner is all over President Obama’s decision regarding the Keystone XL pipeline! He put money into the Canadian companies involved!


. . . according to Boehner’s financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada’s oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companies — BP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxon — along with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada

Put these together as well when adding it all up.

10259
Welcome to Washington.

Although technically the pipeline is owned by TransCanada and wouldn't effect Koch much.

What about Earthquakes and Fracking? Is anyone asking that? Or is it all about Fracking and Earthquakes? I mean... we need to be thinking outside the box man. Where is all the sushi in this situation?

What about Earthquakes and Fracking? Is anyone asking that? Or is it all about Fracking and Earthquakes? I mean... we need to be thinking outside the box man. Where is all the sushi in this situation?

Sleep, plupan, sleep.

Observations of static Coulomb stress triggering of the November 2011 M5.7 Oklahoma earthquake sequence - Sumy - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JB010612/abstract)

The evidence is no longer out on this. Injection wells are causing earthquakes. Period. If the legislature doesn't get its act together and figure out a way to hold producers accountable, I'm guessing the courts will.

More accurately, the paper argues that injection wells triggered that specific 5.7 shock. As for others, it says only that 60% appear to be correlated.

However, it's a strong batch of evidence showing probable cause of the 5.7, which did result in rather extensive property damage. I sincerely doubt that the legal profession will wait for the legislature to do anything; I expect claims to be filed within a very short time. Multi-million dollar damage judgements will provide powerful motivation for legislators to act!

It will be interesting to see what the courts rule. I recall there is either a class-action lawsuit already filed or there is a petition to give an existing lawsuit class-action status. At the end of the day someone is going to have to pay for the damage, and be held accountable when someone gets killed (because you know it will happen eventually). I am sure the insurance companies will be quick to claim "industrial accident" when it happens. That is when the **** will hit the fan.

Observations of static Coulomb stress triggering of the November 2011 M5.7 Oklahoma earthquake sequence - Sumy - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JB010612/abstract)

The evidence is no longer out on this. Injection wells are causing earthquakes. Period. If the legislature doesn't get its act together and figure out a way to hold producers accountable, I'm guessing the courts will.

It's the Corporation Commission who should do a better job of getting its act together, so the knuckleheads in the state legislature won't have to do it for them.

Although technically the pipeline is owned by TransCanada and wouldn't effect Koch much.

Koch Industries stands to gain financially from the pipeline's construction, because the behemoth company owns an estimated 1.1 million acres of leases for Canada's tar sands and the pipeline would likely boost development there. [The New Republic, 2/1/15]

Interesting article in Oklahoman today on disposal wells and cutting back or plugging of wells in 16 counties.

New Stanford study released today:


Geophysicist says study proves injected water triggers quakes in some areas
By: Sarah Terry-Cobo The Journal Record June 18, 2015

OKLAHOMA CITY – Wastewater disposal in Oklahoma is causing the state’s ongoing seismic activity in some formations, but not others, said Stanford University geophysics professor Mark Zoback.

In particular, the Arbuckle formation in northern Oklahoma is more susceptible to triggered earthquakes, according to his study published Thursday.
His conclusions call into question the viability of the Mississippi Lime play, which produces more water than other oil and gas plays in the state.

“I’m a strong advocate for responsible oil and gas development. But I don’t think what is happening in Oklahoma is sustainable,” Zoback said.

His research looks at six areas in Oklahoma that experienced dramatic increases in earthquakes and increased fluid injection. Some areas with swarms of near-daily quakes can be tied to wastewater injection. But areas in which fluid is injected into producing reservoirs, known as enhanced oil recovery, haven’t experienced the same responses, he said.

The study, “Oklahoma’s recent earthquakes and saltwater disposal,” published in the journal Science Advances, analyzes Oklahoma Corporation Commission data on injection wells and seismic events through 2013. Complete data for 2014 is not available from the regulatory agency.

Zoback and co-author F. Rall Walsh III found seismic activity near Perry and Cherokee are closely correlated to oil and gas wastewater disposal. The fluid travels through the porous Arbuckle rock formation’s small faults, putting pressure on the granite basement rock, creating pressure buildup and triggering earthquakes.

In Cherokee, wastewater disposal jumped from less than 60 million barrels in 2012 to more than 180 million barrels the following year, 10 times higher than in the early 2000s. The area experienced a dramatic increase in earthquakes in 2014.

However, rock formations in the Ardmore area had high injection volumes, more than 40 million barrels per month, but haven’t experienced a similar pattern of earthquakes. Because nearly all of the fluid injection in that area is into shallower formations for enhanced oil recovery wells, rather than disposal of produced water or flowback from hydraulic fracturing, scientists don’t expect the same pressure buildup would affect critically stressed faults in the granite basement rock.

The main difference between the Ardmore area and the Cherokee and Perry areas seems to be which formation the liquid was drawn from and where it was later injected, he said.

Zoback works closely with the OCC and the Oklahoma Geological Survey to study the Sooner State’s ongoing and unusual earthquake increase.
A.J. Ferate, vice president of government affairs for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, said Zoback is a well-respected researcher and his theory is worth considering. As with all scientific theories, he said, industry groups must apply the scientific method as they seek a cause for the ongoing seismic activity.

In Pennsylvania, the underground rock formations won’t hold disposed water, so it is recycled, and the remaining water is trucked to neighboring Ohio for disposal. Recycling wastewater is an option in some parts of Oklahoma, but not in the Mississippi Lime, Zoback said.

“The amount of saltwater disposal and produced water at this scale far exceed the capacity for recycling,” he said.

Ferate said his group will continue to work with the OGS and OCC as each group researches Zoback’s findings.

The University of Colorado is researching how to clean up salty, carcinogen-laden produced water so it can be used for agriculture. The project has not yet been field-tested, but it is one possible option for produced water disposal, Ferate said.

“We have to take a step-by-step approach to ensure we’re being responsible with our production,” Ferate said.

Zoback said even if injection volumes in the Arbuckle formation in northern Oklahoma are cut in half, it may take a few years for the rock layers to recover from the pressure. Earthquakes are likely to continue, he said.

“What can you do to maintain this kind of play? Injecting is convenient, as receptive as the Arbuckle is,” he said. “But a magnitude 4 earthquake felt throughout most of Oklahoma every two weeks is not exactly sustainable.”

The study does not address when or if a larger magnitude earthquake, such as a 6 or 7, will happen. But given the magnitude 5.6 quake in Prague in 2011, and a magnitude 7 earthquake about 1,200 years ago, researchers should consider the possibility.

“So there is potential for potentially damaging earthquakes, but a lot more work has to be done,” he said.


Read more: Geophysicist says study proves injected water triggers quakes in some areas | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/06/18/geophysicist-says-study-proves-injected-water-triggers-quakes-in-some-areas-energy/#ixzz3dRGbT5bT)

The University of Colorado is researching how to clean up salty, carcinogen-laden produced water so it can be used for agriculture. The project has not yet been field-tested, but it is one possible option for produced water disposal, Ferate said.


That is awesome, whoever succeeds at this deserves the highest science award for eternity.

As long as the earthquakes continue to occur way out in the middle of nowhere, such as 12 miles west of Perry where hardly anyone can sense them, the more and more complacent Oklahomans are going to become toward the need to do anything about them. With frequency of earthquakes back up in the land of nowhere after somewhat of a lull, it's highly questionable if the Oklahoma Corporation is doing enough about them.