Direct experience with fracking-related earthquake?

[Pete]

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-ear...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!

[Bellaboo]

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-ear...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...

[u50254082]

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.

[stile99]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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?

[u50254082]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[bradh]

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

[stile99]

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".

[Pete]

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.

[Urbanized]

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/G...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/natio...=.30f10a6e29f6

NPR says so:

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylv...njection-well/

The EPA says so:

https://www.epa.gov/uic/general-info...njection-wells

[stile99]

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.

[Urbanized]

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/

[mkjeeves]

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-fr...rthquakes.html

[Urbanized]

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.

[stile99]

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.

[Urbanized]

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-hydrau...akes-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.

[mkjeeves]

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=...c84iXRXRPGfJIM

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

[Urbanized]

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.

[Urbanized]

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=...c84iXRXRPGfJIM

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.”

[mkjeeves]

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.

[Urbanized]

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

[mkjeeves]

See post 11.

[Urbanized]

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...

[mkjeeves]

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.