I'm working with a national reporter who is doing a story on earthquakes in Oklahoma that have been directly caused by O&G fracking activity.

For example, last November there was one such incident in/near Yukon: http://kfor.com/2017/11/27/yukon-earthquakes-linked-to-fracking-well/.

Particularly if you live in the Scoop and Stack plays, please let me know if you can had an experience with an earthquake or two that was pretty much tied back to fracking activity.

If you could send me a personal message, I might want to put you in touch with this reporter as part of his story.

Thanks!

I'm working with a national reporter who is doing a story on earthquakes in Oklahoma that have been directly caused by O&G fracking activity.

For example, last November there was one such incident in/near Yukon: http://kfor.com/2017/11/27/yukon-earthquakes-linked-to-fracking-well/.

Particularly if you live in the Scoop and Stack plays, please let me know if you can had an experience with an earthquake or two that was pretty much tied back to fracking activity.

If you could send me a personal message, I might want to put you in touch with this reporter as part of his story.

Thanks!

Is it fracking or salt water injection ? A whole bunch of reporters out there don't know the difference between the two ? I know the OCC and company said fracking, but salt water injection is what is reduced in the larger fields after quakes. Not sure if it was drilled, but a proposed SWD was proposed in the area near Cimarron Rd and nearby folks put up resistance. Make sure the East coast reporter knows of the differences. Just a fyi...

Is it fracking or salt water injection ? A whole bunch of reporters out there don't know the difference between the two ? I know the OCC and company said fracking, but salt water injection is what is reduced in the larger fields after quakes. Not sure if it was drilled, but a proposed SWD was proposed in the area near Cimarron Rd and nearby folks put up resistance. Make sure the East coast reporter knows of the differences. Just a fyi...

Spot on. I wish more people knew it was not the fracking itself. The saltwater injection is typically more responsible based on the papers I have read.

Exactly what is salt water injection? Is it different than wastewater injection? My understanding is the EPA considers 'fracking' to mean the entire process, the actual well stimulation itself being just a component. I'm also not a geologist, so I could be wrong there, and the info is from a PDF dated June 2010, so maybe they redefined it, but at the time it even included sourcing the water used.

What is Hydraulic Fracturing?
Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation process used to maximize the extraction of underground resources – oil, natural gas and geothermal energy. The hydraulic fracturing process includes the acquisition of source water, well construction, well stimulation, and waste disposal.

Is it fracking or salt water injection ? A whole bunch of reporters out there don't know the difference between the two ? I know the OCC and company said fracking, but salt water injection is what is reduced in the larger fields after quakes. Not sure if it was drilled, but a proposed SWD was proposed in the area near Cimarron Rd and nearby folks put up resistance. Make sure the East coast reporter knows of the differences. Just a fyi...
1. Can fracking be accomplished w/o the need to dispose of massive amounts of water containing salt and chemicals?2. If not what are the alternatives to injecting into the earth?
3.Is fracking the only drilling method that produces this amount of waste water?

Exactly what is salt water injection? Is it different than wastewater injection? My understanding is the EPA considers 'fracking' to mean the entire process, the actual well stimulation itself being just a component. I'm also not a geologist, so I could be wrong there, and the info is from a PDF dated June 2010, so maybe they redefined it, but at the time it even included sourcing the water used.

What is Hydraulic Fracturing?
Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation process used to maximize the extraction of underground resources – oil, natural gas and geothermal energy. The hydraulic fracturing process includes the acquisition of source water, well construction, well stimulation, and waste disposal.

I had a brief stint in O&G and something I recall to this day is that there are some odd EPA laws about disposal of contaminated water. It could be the waste water from hydraulic fracturing, or it could be the waste water from the machinery at a compressor station -- it has to be treated in a documented/approved manner for the company to stay compliant.

The salt water disposal from fracking could be done differently, if such options existed. Rather than to inject it back into underground formations, which costs a lot of time and money, I don't know why they can't let it naturally evaporate off or to steam it off from some related process that generates heat. As long as it was done in a controlled manner, then mostly water vapor would flash off into the atmosphere. I even asked our guys out in the field about it and they all felt the same way, but they were stuck using the approved methods.

I guess what I'm trying to say is -- the disposal part doesn't have to be that way, but it happens to be one of the economical and approved methods of disposal. It could easily be removed from the equation if they found a better way, and then we'd have the benefits of hydraulic fracturing with the reduced occurrence of geological disruption.

Ugh. It’s not the fracking.

Pete, it would be awesome if your involvement could “inject” a little bit of truth into a discussion where the term “fracking” has become its own type of dog whistle. I’m sure some honestly use it by mistake - as it has become a misunderstood part of the vernacular - but the intellectual dishonesty surrounding its use has become so off putting to me. And I’m no O&G toady.

Produced water comes from both fracked AND traditional drilling. Conversely some fracked wells produce a lot of water and some very little. There was produced water a century before fracking became a widely used technology. Depending on the formation there can be huge amounts of produced water or very little. But a ton of produced water is naturally occurring; that is, in a lot formations there are pre-existing, vast deposits of salt water from ancient oceans (and this water naturally contains a lot of foul chemicals with literally zero human intervention).

Has the success of modern fracking and horizontal drilling techniques increased production in previously marginal formations, causing more wells to be drilled in places where they will produce excess water? Well, yeah, that’s fair. But the way water (much of it naturally occurring) is being disposed of (high volume, rapid injection back deep into the crust, where it naturally originated) is what is likely to cause earthquakes. This has been well-documented.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but to me misapplying the term “fracking” belies a political, blindly anti-fossil fuel bent that makes a story less credible. If someone is looking for an Oklahoma man made earthquake story, I’d rather see them dig into why Oklahoma disposes of more water than it produces. As in, Texas sending their produced water across state lines for disposal because it’s cheaper to do so and there are fewer restrictions.

Pretty much everything said above. Honestly shocked at the loose language in the OP.

Honestly shocked? Really?

Do you know what was going on in Yukon? There's even a link in the OP. I think Bellaboo's response is appropriate, make sure the reporter knows the difference. I think that might be good advice for posters here as well. I mean, the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" was thrown out, and if you want some intellectual dishonesty, how about the fact that Citizen Energy said they were fracking.

You know, if it's not a duck, don't call it a duck. I agree with that. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and comes right up to your face and says "I'm a damn duck!", you at least have to consider the possibility that it just MIGHT be a duck.

Now, if you want a story, that whole wastewater is being shipped here from Texas because they don't want to deal with it thing must be flame-broiled, cause it smells like a whopper. But that comes after the fracking in Yukon story, which is a matter of public record. And maybe after the story that Citizen Energy wants to restart operations at another well nearby in Mustang, and has directly told Mustang "Eff you, we don't have to comply with guidelines and have no intention of doing so".

This is one of the lead energy reporters for Bloomberg / Business Week who has been covering this sector for a decade.

If any of you want to talk to him directly, please contact me through private message and I'll put you in touch.

Since I’m not in the industry, I’m probably not the best person to carry the news to the Bloomberg reporter. Instead maybe just forward the many scholarly papers and articles from trustworthy news sources - which quickly come up on the first page of a Google search for “injection wells vs fracking “ or “induced seismic it’s” - and which sort it out very clearly, stating without equivocation that the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells. Several of these also have very detailed timelines of why/when such techniques were introduced.

This is not a radical concept; it’s merely an underreprted topic, as media (and also political activists) seize upon a term with a harsh-sounding buzzword of a name as a catch-all term for Oil and Gas exploration. Hence my use of the term “intellectual dishonesty.” The induced-seismicity problem (which is quite real) is definitely related to the aggressive injection of wastewater (which to a great extent is a naturally-occurring substance), and for the most part NOT directly tied to fracking.

Academia says so:

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/GEO2200%20Readings/Readings/Fracking/Earthquakes%20and%20fracking.pdf

The U.S. Geological Survey says so:

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php

The Washington Post says so:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fracking-is-not-the-cause-of-quakes-rather-its-frackings-wastewater/2015/04/27/e87a6e82-e9f4-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html?utm_term=.30f10a6e29f6

NPR says so:

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/deep-injection-well/

The EPA says so:

https://www.epa.gov/uic/general-information-about-injection-wells

I checked the first three links and then stopped, assuming (and yes, we all know what that does) the others confirm the same thing. The first two said front and center that yes, fracking causes earthquakes, the third has it about halfway down. Please edit your post from "the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells" to add the word main. The MAIN driver is not fracking, but injection wells. This would be intellectually honest. Denying fracking causes earthquakes, and then posting links that say it does, would not be, and actually adds to the confusion.

Again, as Pete has said twice, this person is writing an article on the fracking (not in question, it was fracking) done in Yukon. I'm 100% behind everyone saying that the correct term needs to be used, so let's please do so.

Here is a good resource that explains produced water - commonly called wastewater - and explains how it is different from (but still sometimes related to) fracking fluid (which often returns to the surface as “flowback water.”) In fairness this organization has industry ties (it’s a nonprofit of scientists and engineers working on better solutions for water disposal), but you can find the same information from many, many sources via Google:

http://www.producedwatersociety.com/produced-water-101/

stating without equivocation that the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells.

That is not an exactly correct statement. The driver of made made seismic activity in Oklahoma thus far has only been linked to injection wells and thus indirectly related to fracking.

Fracking was directly linked to earthquake activity large enough to be felt in Ohio. The study was published by the Seismological Society of America.

https://www.livescience.com/49326-fracking-caused-ohio-earthquakes.html

I checked the first three links and then stopped, assuming (and yes, we all know what that does) the others confirm the same thing. The first two said front and center that yes, fracking causes earthquakes, the third has it about halfway down. Please edit your post from "the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells" to add the word main. The MAIN driver is not fracking, but injection wells. This would be intellectually honest. Denying fracking causes earthquakes, and then posting links that say it does, would not be, and actually adds to the confusion.

Again, as Pete has said twice, this person is writing an article on the fracking (not in question, it was fracking) done in Yukon. I'm 100% behind everyone saying that the correct term needs to be used, so let's please do so.

Good grief, where did I say fracking is not known to induce seismicity? As you point out, all of those articles clearly state that it can induce minor shocks, but that everyone from the industry to regulators to academia agree that the driver behind the damaging quakes we have experienced over the past decade has been injection wells. This point has become very, very clear, and the only place it is being debated is by people who don’t know the difference or who knowingly ignore scientific research on the topic.

Good grief, where did I say fracking is not known to induce seismicity? As you point out, all of those articles clearly state that it can induce minor shocks, but that everyone from the industry to regulators to academia agree that the driver behind the damaging quakes we have experienced over the past decade has been injection wells. This point has become very, very clear, and the only place it is being debated is by people who don’t know the difference or who knowingly ignore scientific research on the topic.

You don't even read your own posts when they're quoted?

I think your final sentence is very accurate. I also think this 'debate' serves no purpose, and will let you continue to illustrate your own point with no further input from me.

That is not an exactly correct statement. The driver of made made seismic activity in Oklahoma thus far has only been linked to injection wells and thus indirectly related to fracking.

Fracking was directly linked to earthquake activity large enough to be felt in Ohio. The study was published by the Seismological Society of America.

https://phys.org/news/2014-10-hydraulic-fracturing-linked-earthquakes-ohio.html
This very article states that not a single person in the region reported feeling these quakes:


...Nearly 400 small earthquakes occurred between Oct. 1 and Dec. 13, 2013, including 10 "positive" magnitude earthquake, none of which were reported felt by the public...

..."Hydraulic fracturing has the potential to trigger earthquakes, and in this case, small ones that could not be felt, however the earthquakes were three orders of magnitude larger than normally expected," said Paul Friberg, a seismologist with Instrumental Software Technologies, Inc. (ISTI) and a co-author of the study...
This is very consistent with the articles I posted. But also it bears pointing out that this is an old-ish article that was done (I believe) before there was scientific consensus that injection wells were the real issue. It is entirely possible that this study - which mentioned “fracking activities” - didn’t distinguish between the fracking that was going on and any wastewater injection that may have been accompanying it.

This very article states that not a single person in the region reported feeling these quakes:


This is very consistent with the articles I posted. But also it bears pointing out that this is an old-ish article that was done (I believe) before there was scientific consensus that injection wells were the real issue. It is entirely possible that this study - which mentioned “fracking activities” - didn’t distinguish between the fracking that was going on and any wastewater injection that may have been accompanying it.

Here's a link to the release straight from the horse's mouth:

Fracking Confirmed as Cause of Rare “Felt” Earthquake in Ohio
SAN FRANCISCO – A new study links the March 2014 earthquakes in Poland
Township, Ohio to hydraulic fracturing that activated a previously unknown fault. The
induced seismic sequence included a rare felt earthquake of magnitude 3.0, according to
research published online by the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiG0Je_goXZAhUDa60KHV9AD0MQFggsMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.seismosoc.org%2FSociety%2Fpr ess_releases%2FBSSA_105-1_Skoumal_et_al_Press_Release.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1-xWuD6cc84iXRXRPGfJIM

If you have a study directly related to this event in Ohio, let's see it.

You don't even read your own posts when they're quoted?

I think your final sentence is very accurate. I also think this 'debate' serves no purpose, and will let you continue to illustrate your own point with no further input from me.
You are misapplying my words. Maybe it would have been more clear if I had capitalized THE, or said “main driver” or “damaging seismicity,” but “main driver” would especially - ahem - water down th point I was making. That point is that science AND the industry are in general agreement at this point that the seismicity that matters - the type of stuff that you can feel and that can cause damage - is nearly entirely (if not entirely) caused by wastewater injection.

And the other point I’ve made remains salient: most people - often even the ones who report on it - don’t seem to grasp what wastewater actually is, and that fracking fluid and wastewater aren’t really the same thing. These aren’t guesses; this stuff is very well documented and just a Google search away.

On edit: after further review, I did say EXACTLY what I meant:


...the driver behind the damaging quakes we have experienced over the past decade has been injection wells...
One of the reasons I don’t bother to read the quote when someone quotes one of my posts is that I stay very consistent with what I say, so I don’t often need to check back to see if I was contradicting myself. It’s about as rare as a fracking-induced earthquake. :)

Here's a link to the release straight from the horse's mouth:

Fracking Confirmed as Cause of Rare “Felt” Earthquake in Ohio
SAN FRANCISCO – A new study links the March 2014 earthquakes in Poland
Township, Ohio to hydraulic fracturing that activated a previously unknown fault. The
induced seismic sequence included a rare felt earthquake of magnitude 3.0, according to
research published online by the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiG0Je_goXZAhUDa60KHV9AD0MQFggsMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.seismosoc.org%2FSociety%2Fpr ess_releases%2FBSSA_105-1_Skoumal_et_al_Press_Release.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1-xWuD6cc84iXRXRPGfJIM

If you have a study that changed the finding in Ohio, let's see it.
Thanks. That only makes my point, which is that “felt” earthquakes from fracking are an incredibly rare event. And yet, when you see people talking about or reporting induced seismicity, they almost always toss out the term, “fracking.”

Thanks. That only makes my point, which is that “felt” earthquakes from fracking are an incredibly rare event. And yet, when you see people talking about or reporting induced seismicity, they almost always toss out the term, “fracking.”

Agreed. Now maybe some people will stop saying unequivocally fracking does not lead to earthquakes. But I doubt it.

^^^^^^^^
Has someone said such a thing?

See post 11.

See post 11.

You mean the one where I said “...the induced-seismicity problem (which is quite real) is definitely related to the aggressive injection of wastewater (which to a great extent is a naturally-occurring substance), and for the most part NOT directly tied to fracking...”?

Again with the parsing of words. It’s very clear in repeated posts and in the articles I linked that there is an acknowledgement of tiny, almost universally NOT felt earthquakes related to fracking. REPEATEDLY ACKNOWLEDGED. It’s science, actually.

The point I am clearly (and overwhelmingly) making with those (very credible and mostly non-industry) links is that the seismicity everyone is concerned about is caused by injection wells. It honestly couldn’t be anymore clear. And yet the “we’re experiencing earthquakes ‘cause fracking” drumbeat continues...

You mean the one where I said “...the induced-seismicity problem (which is quite real) is definitely related to the aggressive injection of wastewater (which to a great extent is a naturally-occurring substance), and for the most part NOT directly tied to fracking...”?

Again with the parsing of words. It’s very clear in repeated posts and in the articles I linked that there is an acknowledgement of tiny, almost universally NOT felt earthquakes related to fracking. REPEATEDLY ACKNOWLEDGED. It’s science, actually.

The point I am clearly (and overwhelmingly) making with those (very credible and mostly non-industry) links is that the seismicity everyone is concerned about is caused by injection wells. It honestly couldn’t be anymore clear. And yet the “we’re experiencing earthquakes ‘cause fracking” drumbeat continues...

The part I quoted when I entered this conversation where you used the paraphrase "stating without equivocation that the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells."

But who said what is not all that important to me compared to the lay of the land. An accurate statement on the subject IMO goes something like this:

Fracking has only been scientifically directly linked to manmade seismic activity of significant concern on one occasion in Ohio. All other studies thus far have indicated manmade seismic activity of significant concern in oil and gas exploration is indirectly related to fracking through the industry practice of disposing of wastewater generated in the drilling process at offsite injection wells rather than caused directly by the onsite fracking process itself.

The part I quoted when I entered this conversation where you used the paraphrase "stating without equivocation that the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells."

But who said what is not all that important to me compared to the lay of the land. An accurate statement on the subject IMO goes something like this:

Fracking has only been scientifically directly linked to manmade seismic activity of significant concern on one occasion in Ohio. All other studies thus far have indicated manmade seismic activity of significant concern in oil and gas exploration is indirectly related to fracking though the industry practice of disposing of wastewater generated in the drilling process at offsite injection wells rather than caused by the onsite fracking process itself.

Good grief, again. I do NOT use the word “unequivocally” since you’re bent on characterizing my position. What I said was “...and [articles] which sort it out very clearly, stating without equivocation that the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells...” and used the other phrase in the same post, which again I think states pretty clearly my position that the real thing that is causing damaging earthquakes is injection.

Your proposed summation was fairly close, I’ll go ahead and make a few changes:

“Though fracking is often erroneously mentioned in news reports or by the public as the direct cause of induced seismic events strong enough to be felt or to cause damage, it has only been directly linked to such activity by a scientific study on one occasion in Ohio, in 2014. All other studies thus far have indicated manmade seismic activity of significant concern related oil and gas exploration is almost universally caused by the industry practice of disposing of wastewater generated in the drilling processes of all types - including fracked and unfracked wells - at offsite injection wells.”

Disclaimer: I honestly have no idea whether that Ohio event is the one and only time geologists have blamed fracking for a “felt” earthquake. Just trying to head off whichever poster goes out and finds the one (or two, or whatever) times it has happened elsewhere, just to try to show me up. The point remains - very compellingly - that accepted science believes it has happened very, very few times - enough to characterize it as “very rare” - and accepted science ALSO believes that many thousands if not tens of thousands of seismic events (many, many of which have been “felt” and even damaging) have been induced by wastewater injection. It’s so incredibly lopsided that I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to prove the point regarding the one in Ohio.

Haha I see that while I was typing all of that you changed the part where you said I “used the word unequivocally” (I did no such thing) to the correct quote. I won’t go back and change my post or yours, just want for the record to point out that your original post (again) mischaracterized my words. Thanks for changing it, I guess..?

And again, this is the part of your propsed summary that I take issue with (and it’s not just you, it is constantly reported in the media this way:


...all other studies thus far have indicated manmade seismic activity of significant concern in oil and gas exploration is indirectly related to fracking through the industry practice of disposing of wastewater...

That part of the statement is simply untrue. Full stop. Produced water comes from all types of drilling, not just fracking. The reason we have more of it these days is because we have more production and because new technologies have allowed production in previously-marginal formations, some of which naturally contain massive amounts of water.

The problem isn’t the production technique. At least according to science. To blame it on the production technique is misleading, and as I said before intellectually dishonest, considering there is tons of readily-available science to the contrary.

The problem the way they handle the water that comes up with the product. They need to find a better way of handling it, and they also need to stop injecting in formations that could go seismic. The end.

You missed "manmade seismic activity of significant concern in oil and gas exploration is indirectly related to fracking"

Haha I see that while I was typing all of that you changed the part where you said I “used the word unequivocally” (I did no such thing) to the correct quote. I won’t go back and change my post or yours, just want for the record to point out that your original post (again) mischaracterized my words. Thanks for changing it, I guess..?

Yes I changed right after I posted that you "used the word unequivocally", to exactly what you paraphrased "stating without equivocation that the driver of man made seismic activity is not fracking but rather injection wells." (My clipboard was full of my writing when I typed the post, then went back and pulled the exact quote you wrote and I referenced multiple times.)

unequivocally versus without equivocation...so far off I corrected it immediately, for those who haven't actually read what you wrote.

You're welcome.

Urbanized, I have always wondered why they don't use the produced water as fracking fluid, instead of freshwater. To me it makes sense as a way to dispose of the water instead if injection wells.

Urbanized, I have always wondered why they don't use the produced water as fracking fluid, instead of freshwater. To me it makes sense as a way to dispose of the water instead if injection wells.

In one of the previously linked articles, it actually claims that is the normal process.

"The most recent set of U.S. data on produced water management was collected for the year 2012. Most U.S. produced water was injected. About 91% of the produced water was injected underground (this included water injected for enhanced recovery, water injected for disposal, and water sent to offsite commercial disposal). Slightly more than half of that was injected into producing formations for enhanced recovery. Slightly less than half of the injected produced water was injected to non-commercial and commercial disposal wells."

So it is being recycled.

However, I wish the focus of this entire argument shifted to -- why do we have to dispose of it by pushing it back underground? Especially if doing so triggers seismic activity.

Well this makes the answers to my question clear as mud

1. Can fracking be accomplished w/o the need to dispose of massive amounts of water containing salt and chemicals?2. If not what are the alternatives to injecting into the earth?
3.Is fracking the only drilling method that produces this amount of waste water?

Not sure if I can answer properly, but I do know that the waster water is a byproduct from fracking and normal operation of a producing well, except for 'dry' gas wells. O & G will flow up from a well in saltwater. I know that the Arbuckle formation, which is prominent for Salt water disposal, are not high pressure injected, but the Arbuckle is almost like a vacuum. A water truck can back up to a SWD location and literally open a valve, the byproduct will then flow into a small reservoir and then drain into the well on it own. I believe in Texas there are locations where they let the water evaporate (Read this but never seen it). Fracking has been going on since the 1940's. In general in the old days, a verticval well might have 2 to 4 pay zones fracked. The new horizontal wells that may be a mile or so in horizontal lateral length, may have frack points segmented in the pay zones. I have an interest in a well in Payne county that has a mile long lateral that was fracked a dozen locations along the line.

I'm sure there are people in the industry that know much more than I do that could comment here.

The issue are the faults in my opinion. In western Oklahoma they have a huge amount of horizontal wells and tons of SWD wells. I can't remember of hearing about a quake in the western part of the state. (Anadarko Basin)

Thanks for taking the time

Urbanized, I have always wondered why they don't use the produced water as fracking fluid, instead of freshwater. To me it makes sense as a way to dispose of the water instead if injection wells.

Again I want to make clear I’m not claiming to be an expert and actually have zero experience in or even ties to the industry; it’s simply a topic which has interested me for the past decade and so I’ve read up on it quite a bit.

My understanding is that although produced water perhaps IS sometimes used in fracking, the the reason they mostly use specific fluid is that they are able to control the consistency and chemical makeup, which is important to be more efficient. A lot of (most?) fracking fluid uses proprietary blends of additives which make it work better.

But it really wouldn’t be a good disposal method is because of a couple of things:


Fracking fluid often returns to the surface as flowback
The amount of fluid used in fracking is tiny compared to the amount of produced water that comes from some wells. In fact often a well will produce way more water than it does oil. This quantity of water can't be disposed of efficiently by being used as fracking fluid.

1. Can fracking be accomplished w/o the need to dispose of massive amounts of water containing salt and chemicals?2. If not what are the alternatives to injecting into the earth?
3.Is fracking the only drilling method that produces this amount of waste water?


Well this makes the answers to my question clear as mud

Sorry Jersey Boss, I missed your questions in all of the other conversation (though I do think the answers were in those links), but here is the correct info to my understanding:


Yes. Fracking CAN be accomplished without a need for massive water disposal, and in fact it very often is. Fracking itself doesn’t generally produce that much wastewater. An overwhelming amount of wastewater is naturally-occurring and it comes from both fracked and unfracked wells. Fracking isn't what causes this wastewater. It is completely a function of the formation; some formations produce a lot of water, some don't.


There are other methods of disposal, but they carry their own risks. In the early 20th century they just used to discharge it into rivers and lakes, which is of course an ecological disaster. At some point evaporation ponds (eventually these were lined) became a popular technique. But these carry huge groundwater contamination risks, if a lining is compromised or if the water gets away otherwise.

Injection became a popular method starting in the 30s or so (if I recall correctly), because it makes quite a bit of logical sense. Often you are simply returning naturally-occurring water to where it came from, and the thought is that this briny and potentially toxic water is being injected so far below ground water - with layers of impermeable rock in between - that it won’t contaminate ground water. There is some debate on this matter.

The industry is exploring other methods of disposal, including treatment/filtration and release of cleaned water into surface waters. So far this has been a nonstarter due mostly to expense but also due to concerns about contamination and the oversight that would be required to prevent it.


No. Produced water comes from fracked AND unfracked wells. it is a byproduct of the formation, not the drilling process. Also as a well ages it can produce higher water volumes. This is why we have such a huge volume of injection in Oklahoma; many of the still-producing wells here and in Texas are old wells or in formations which have seen a lot of production already. In those instances you can see more than TEN TIMES as much water come up as oil. Also old formations will sometimes be intentionally floooded to push the oil or gas to the surface. The economics of a well in these cases are not really about a well running “dry”; they are influenced by the cost/benefit ratio. At some point you’re spending more treating/disposing if water than you are getting in revenue.


For anyone else inclined to read some good and pretty even-handed articles on this topic:

https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-underground-injection-wells-used

(I was interested to learn that other industries such as pharmaceutical and sewer treatment also use injection wells, though it doesn’t appear they would be of the type that would trigger earthquakes, which are tied to high-volume injection)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/huge-study-links-wastewater-injection-wells-earthquakes

(Good info showing why science is focusing on injection wells as the earthquake culprit as opposed to say enhanced recovery (flooding formations to push minerals to surface)

Back to the original story at the top of the thread and the unanswered questions...


The OCC has been investigating and said the recent earthquakes have been linked to a fracking well at S.W. 44th and Richland Road.

“We’ve been working with that operator since Thursday to modify their frack stages to mitigate the risk of felt earthquakes,” Skinner said.

According to the Oklahoma Geological Survey, there have been two earthquakes near Yukon and 6 near the southwest corner of Canadian County in the last 15 days.

But, all of the shaking also comes on the heels of seismic testing in the area.

An out-of-state company just finished the testing that’s been going on since the beginning of October.

It involved vibrator trucks that actually shake the ground to determine if there’s any oil underneath.

“They vibrate the ground, and it’s a pretty good roar when they do that,” Parrish said.

But, both the Corporation Commission and Oklahoma Geological Survey said there is no credible evidence seismic testing can cause earthquakes.

“They all say that there’s no link to seismic activity and that kind of seismic testing,” Skinner said.

The more likely cause is the hydraulic fracturing.

After a 2.7 earthquake around 2:30 Monday morning, the volume at the S.W. 44th and Richland Road well was reduced once again in the hopes of stopping the quakes.

Is the reporting in question or did the Corporation Commission and Oklahoma Geological Survey in fact say these felt earthquakes were directly linked to a fracking operation? As I posted upthread, that connection has been made using scientific methods on a felt earthquake on at least one other occasion. The story is from November, more recent than previous published studies on injections wells causing seismic activity in Oklahoma.

Different news agency. The video shows Skinner with the Corporation Commission saying

“It does not appear to have anything to do with the disposal wells,” OCC spokesman Matt Skinner said. “It has everything to do, it appears, with the well completion operation.”

http://www.koco.com/article/earthquake-activity-near-yukon-linked-to-citizens-energy-s-fracking-operation-occ-says/13946020

Urbanized, I have always wondered why they don't use the produced water as fracking fluid, instead of freshwater. To me it makes sense as a way to dispose of the water instead if injection wells.

Several companies recycle their produced water to re-use in stimulating (fracking) new wells. The complications that come into play are economic (does it make sense to invest this much money into building a stationary facility to serve a drilling program where we only have x amount of planned wells in the immediate area that can be serviced by this facility) as well as technical (as Urbanized hinted at, controlling the makeup of your fluid is imperative to a successful stim) Produced water must be treated and, for lack of a better term, returned to fresh water state in order to be used again. Putting stuff you don't want down hole doesn't just mess up the way you complete the well. It can mess up your production on it for the life of the well by introducing bacteria and other bad stuff that can eat up your downhole equipment, scale off your producing zones, and kill the productivity of your well.

Great debate!!! Opinions and facts being thrown around and questioned. I truly get both sides. The one thing that sticks out to me is the increase in seismic activity in OK, charted next to the increase of fracking wells. I don't have them handy (will look this weekend), but the charts tend to show some growth with each other.

Also, we need to keep in mind that some formations, the Mississippi Lime in particular, are heavy water producers. The ML formation is primarily in North central to North western parts of the state.

Also to consider is that as the wells age, the production flow rate drops in half after the first year or thereabouts. As far as the quakes in Northern Ok goes, the drilling slow down in 2015 and 2016 helped relieve the seismic activity.

Great debate!!! Opinions and facts being thrown around and questioned. I truly get both sides. The one thing that sticks out to me is the increase in seismic activity in OK, charted next to the increase of fracking wells. I don't have them handy (will look this weekend), but the charts tend to show some growth with each other.
Certainly that is one argument against fracking; even if it is not the direct cause it leads to more production and also production in formations which might be more marginal and which would potentially contain a lot more water. Simply the uptick in production brought about by new technologies has dramatically increased the need for disposal wells. When you combine this with the fact that production has also increased in surrounding states and Oklahoma allows places like Texas to send their produced water here in addition to what we are already turning out...well...it's just a massive amount of wastewater being injected. Which of course also leads to increased injection flow to try to get rid of it all. And the speed with which some wells have been injecting has been cited by geologists as a part of the problem. They sometimes inject faster than the formation can absorb it, which causes a pressure increase, which then leads to seismic activity.

Urbanized,
Thank you for the info. I understand you are not an expert, but you are knowledgeable on this topic so that's why I asked.

OKLAHOMA CITY —

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has developed new requirements for oil and natural gas operators in the event of an earthquake.

The commission announced the new protocol Tuesday for operators in the newest and largest areas of oil and gas development, known as SCOOP and STACK in central and southern Oklahoma.

The guidelines say operators must have access to real-time seismic readings and must take action such as reducing the volume of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, after a magnitude 2.0 earthquake, rather than magnitude 2.5.

Operators must also pause operations for six hours after a 2.5 magnitude quake, rather than a magnitude 3.0 quake.

The new protocol does not address wastewater injection, which is linked to more and stronger earthquakes and has separate requirements for reducing or pausing activity following temblors.

http://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-oil-gas-regulator-modifies-earthquake-guidelines/18801361

New rules related to earthquakes and fracking, not earthquakes and injecting.

Oklahoma oil, gas regulator modifies earthquake guidelines

OKLAHOMA CITY —

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has developed new requirements for oil and natural gas operators in the event of an earthquake.

The commission announced the new protocol Tuesday for operators in the newest and largest areas of oil and gas development, known as SCOOP and STACK in central and southern Oklahoma.

The guidelines say operators must have access to real-time seismic readings and must take action such as reducing the volume of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, after a magnitude 2.0 earthquake, rather than magnitude 2.5.

Operators must also pause operations for six hours after a 2.5 magnitude quake, rather than a magnitude 3.0 quake.

The new protocol does not address wastewater injection, which is linked to more and stronger earthquakes and has separate requirements for reducing or pausing activity following temblors.

http://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-oil-gas-regulator-modifies-earthquake-guidelines/18801361

Don't know why that's doubled up, and I can't seem to edit it out. The video at the link has someone from the Corporation Commission making it clear this is about fracking related earthquakes for those who doubt the reporting again.

Again, it is widely known/accepted that fracking produces very small tremors. A 2.5 magnitude however is NOT damaging and is almost always completely imperceptible to humans. A 3.0 is not much different. These are good changes because they lower the threshold for well shutdown and allows an operator to get ahead of a problem sooner before triggering anything larger (which is incredibly rare - this entire discussion has turned up a single instance of it ever - but not impossible). Better safe than sorry.

All of that said, the VAST majority of felt/damaging induced earthquakes (such as the ones we’ve experienced in OK over the past decade) come from injection wells and are not directly linked to fracking. It’s indisputable.

All of that said, the VAST majority of felt/damaging induced earthquakes (such as the ones we’ve experienced in OK over the past decade) come from injection wells and are not directly linked to fracking. It’s indisputable.

It's also explicitly mentioned in the article referenced.

Again, the felt earthquake or quakes in this area have been directly linked to fracking, per the CC. Thus a change in rules. That is the subject of the thread but feel free to talk about all the other injection well related quakes too. There have indeed been a lot of them.

We sure have come a long way from complete denial of man induced earthquakes in Oklahoma to acknowledgment of felt earthquakes directly caused by fracking, and associated rules that attempt to monitor and reduce them.