Direct experience with fracking-related earthquake?

[Urbanized]

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.

[Urbanized]

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..?

[Urbanized]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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

[mkjeeves]

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.

[ewoodard70]

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.

[u50254082]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

Well this makes the answers to my question clear as mud

[Bellaboo]

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)

[Jersey Boss]

Thanks for taking the time

[Urbanized]

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:

1. Fracking fluid often returns to the surface as flowback
2. 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.

[Urbanized]

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:

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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/...ion-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/...ls-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)

[mkjeeves]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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/earthqua...-says/13946020

[Johnb911]

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.

[BLJR]

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.

[Bellaboo]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[ewoodard70]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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...lines/18801361

[mkjeeves]

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...lines/18801361

[mkjeeves]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[stile99]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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.