Fracking and earthquakes

[mkjeeves]

Yes, I have no argument with this. Hydraulic fracturing is designed to create fractures in rock where there were none before. This will create a seismic event; however, these events are negative magnitude (yes negative) which cannot be felt on the surface and require highly calibrated tools to measure their presence. As far as I know, there have been no cases documented in which hydraulic fracturing operations caused an earthquake or earthquake swarm that could be felt on the surface. There have been several documented cases in which disposal wells were attributed to sizable (mag 2-4, maybe 5?) seismic events. I believe one of these was in arkansas and the other was in texas. LIke I said before, you need a specific set of circumstances to cause a fault to slip, but it can be done.

As far as your question about the sandridge well. I don't know much about this well, but if the state has shut it down, that well has failed the new criteria for "at risk" disposal wells. It has either had recent seismic activity nearby the wellbore and/or it is near a fault that cuts deep into the earth's crust and said fault is oriented favorably for slip to occur.

A hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, well in Ohio triggered scores of small earthquakes in March 2014, including one large enough to be felt in nearby towns, a new study confirms. The biggest quake, a magnitude 3, was one of the largest ever caused by fracking. State officials shut down the well two days after the earthquake hit.

Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into rock to break it up and release trapped oil and gas. In Ohio, fracking triggered earthquakes on a hidden fault in ancient crystalline rock beneath a natural gas well in the Utica Shale, according to the study, published today (Jan. 5) in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

No earthquakes were ever recorded in this region of Ohio before fracking started, and the shaking stopped after the well was shut down, said lead study author Robert Skoumal, a graduate student in seismology at Miami University in Ohio. Skoumal and other Miami University researchers identified 77 earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 1 to 3 that occurred from March 4 to 12. [Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth]

"The company happened to be unlucky because they were hydraulic fracturing near an unknown fault," Skoumal said.

The largest earthquake rattled nerves in eastern Ohio but did not cause any damage. "It could be felt, but this is a very small event," Skoumal said. "It did not pose any risk."

It's rare for fracking to cause earthquakes that people can feel. This is the fifth reported case tying fracking to felt earthquakes, and the second instance in Ohio. Fracking typically causes tiny tremors that are too small to be felt by people, usually smaller than about magnitude 1.

Fracking Led to Ohio Earthquakes

[ylouder]

All these other states and countries are aggressively pushing back against frac(k)ing BECAUSE of what is happening here in Oklahoma. Really consider how this all has been handled.

-Over 5000 earthquakes last year, met with denial

-Billions of gallons of toxic water injected, met with denial

-Public calling on State and Industry for help, met with denial

-Outside geologist, scientist and universities conducting research and making it available to the public, met with denial

-State begrudgingly creates a committee to study a well-documented problem, closed to public and the only real thing they have done so far is ---issue more denial. (until recently)

-Two old ladies go to devon tower and hold a banner in the lobby to protest fracking, glitter falls off the banner she is holding ---- she is charged with Bio- Terrorism, yes seriously.

So once again, really consider how this has been handled and then ask yourself again on if it's so odd that people don’t want this type of activity in their communities. The appalling lack of ethics or honor is mind numbing.

[C_M_25]

A hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, well in Ohio triggered scores of small earthquakes in March 2014, including one large enough to be felt in nearby towns, a new study confirms. The biggest quake, a magnitude 3, was one of the largest ever caused by fracking. State officials shut down the well two days after the earthquake hit.

Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into rock to break it up and release trapped oil and gas. In Ohio, fracking triggered earthquakes on a hidden fault in ancient crystalline rock beneath a natural gas well in the Utica Shale, according to the study, published today (Jan. 5) in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

No earthquakes were ever recorded in this region of Ohio before fracking started, and the shaking stopped after the well was shut down, said lead study author Robert Skoumal, a graduate student in seismology at Miami University in Ohio. Skoumal and other Miami University researchers identified 77 earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 1 to 3 that occurred from March 4 to 12. [Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth]

"The company happened to be unlucky because they were hydraulic fracturing near an unknown fault," Skoumal said.

The largest earthquake rattled nerves in eastern Ohio but did not cause any damage. "It could be felt, but this is a very small event," Skoumal said. "It did not pose any risk."

It's rare for fracking to cause earthquakes that people can feel. This is the fifth reported case tying fracking to felt earthquakes, and the second instance in Ohio. Fracking typically causes tiny tremors that are too small to be felt by people, usually smaller than about magnitude 1.

Fracking Led to Ohio Earthquakes

I like how you didn't hold the part where I said, "as far as I know." I haven't read anything about these wells, but do you have better sources, I.e. papers published in scientific journals? Not doubting these claims, but just curious to read more details.

Most of these horizontal are drilled in areas where faulting is not present. It is too costly to drill out of zone when drilling across these faults as the rock is offset and broken. If there was an unidentified fault below the well, it isn't all that surprising that they fracked into the fault and perturbed the stresses around it. All that being said, 5 wells out of the many thousands drilled isn't all that bad, and the magnitude was fairly small so the impact was minimal.

[mkjeeves]

I like how you didn't hold the part where I said, "as far as I know." I haven't read anything about these wells, but do you have better sources, I.e. papers published in scientific journals? Not doubting these claims, but just curious to read more details.

Most of these horizontal are drilled in areas where faulting is not present. It is too costly to drill out of zone when drilling across these faults as the rock is offset and broken. If there was an unidentified fault below the well, it isn't all that surprising that they fracked into the fault and perturbed the stresses around it. All that being said, 5 wells out of the many thousands drilled isn't all that bad, and the magnitude was fairly small so the impact was minimal.

Progress will be when industry types admit they don't know.

[bradh]

Which I don't think anyone here has ever said "no," they just haven't admitted "absolutely yes" which is what posters here won't stop until they have.

[Just the facts]

If nothing else the last several pages prove this in not a right-wing vs left-wing issue because myself and ylouder/theTravellers/mkjeeves/zookeeper are not on the same side of the aisle. Heck, we might not even be in the same room. This is clearly an industry insider/investor/employee vs. everyone else issue.

[moose]

Could this thread be limited to news & discussion regarding Sandridge specifically? So much uneducated speculation on the last few pages only tangentially related to Sandridge.

[mkjeeves]

I.e. papers published in scientific journals?

The googler tells me press release about the paper and what scientific journal here: http://www.seismosoc.org/society/pre...ss_Release.pdf

Purchase a copy here apparently: SSA - Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA)

[C_M_25]

The googler tells me press release about the paper and what scientific journal here: http://www.seismosoc.org/society/pre...ss_Release.pdf

Purchase a copy here apparently: SSA - Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA)

Thanks! I was in meetings all day and didn't have time to look them up...yet I had time to respond to something else in here. Priorities!

[C_M_25]

The googler tells me press release about the paper and what scientific journal here: http://www.seismosoc.org/society/pre...ss_Release.pdf

Purchase a copy here apparently: SSA - Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA)

Interesting read. I didn't buy the article, but I checked out the other link. What is interesting is that the earthquakes induced from the fracturing operations were relatively short lived. That makes a lot of sense as frac'ing doesn't pump as much fluid into the ground, so it won't be able to contact as much of the fault.

It is also interesting because it mentions the Earthscope project. Quite simply, they are marching a very large array of seismometers across the US. (I got to help install one of the permanent instruments here in Oklahoma.) The high-density grid of instruments can record smaller events that the previous instruments couldn't detect. It is only natural that you are going to detect more events than ever recording before. It is unfortunately coincidental with an increase in oil field activity, so we don't have a good baseline model for the greater continental USA. That makes it so difficult to determine what is oil field related and what is natural. It is a very cool science project nonetheless.

Earthscope

Obviously in this case, they found a strong correlation with the well activities and I have no argument with their findings. It is very intersting, but not surprising if the well drilled through a basement fault.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[PWitty]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[PWitty]

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.

[bradh]

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.

[ylouder]

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.

[Rover]

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

[Just the facts]

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.

[bradh]

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.

[Bellaboo]

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.

[onthestrip]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[PWitty]

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.

[PWitty]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.