Are the science journalists ignorant of science? Or are they intentionally misleading the public?
Earthquakes triggered by fluids injected deep underground, such as during the controversial practice of fracking, may be more common than previously thought, a new study suggests.
Firstly, there is nothing “controversial” about fracking. Fracking has been a common well completion practice for more than 50 years. The practice of large-scale fracking of shale formations is somewhat more recent… But even that practice is 30 years old. Mitchell Energy was fracking the Barnett Shale in North Texas and the Bossier Shale in East Texas back in the 1980’s.
Secondly, the study cited in the Live Science junk journalism did not relate fracking to earthquakes…
Frohlich, 2012 found no correlation between fracking and earthquakes… NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO-POINT-ZERO…
Most earthquakes identified in the study ranged in magnitude from 1.5 to 2.5, meaning they posed no danger to the public.
“I didn’t find any higher risks from disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids than was thought before,” says Frohlich.”My study found more small quakes, nearly all less than magnitude 3.0, but just more of the smaller ones than were previously known. The risk is all from big quakes, which don’t seem to occur here.”
All the wells nearest to the eight earthquake groups reported high injection rates (maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water). Yet in many other areas where wells had similarly high injection rates, there were no earthquakes. Frohlich tried to address those differences.
Texas map showing the Barnett Shale (gray) and rectangle indicating region mapped in figure 2. Credit: Cliff Frohlich/U. of Texas at Austin.
“It might be that an injection can only trigger an earthquake if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a nearby fault that is already ready to slip,” says Frohlich. “That just isn’t the situation in many places.”
Hydraulic fracturing is an industrial process in which water and various chemicals are pumped deep underground in order to fracture rock, allowing oil or gas to more easily flow to a well. As petroleum is produced at the surface, most hydraulic fracturing fluids return to the surface too. Frohlich is careful to point out that he did not evaluate the possible correlation of earthquakes with the actual hydraulic fracturing process, but rather the effects of disposing of fracturing fluids and other wastes in these injection wells.
And finally, as I have previously posted, the induced seismicity from fracking and most injection operations is almost entirely nonpalpable.
The first earthquake I ever felt was a quake attributed to the Denver Arsenal disposal well back in the early 1980’s. There are a lot of things that go into waste water disposal but the main thing that must be understood is that they are very closely controlled by the various states oil and gas production regulators (or at least it is in Wyoming).
It has been my experience that a number of the “science journalists” do not have any science background beyond perhaps high school biology…
For 31 years my profession has been optimizing hydraulic fracturing. Yea, I was fracing when fracing was cool. I found it a bit awkward to tell casual contacts what I did for a living. Overtime I learned it was better to summarize as I help improve how fast the hydrocarbons come out of reservoirs.
Now to see the average activist and journalist discuss “Fracking” is in one part showing their ignorance/poor comprehension, and the other their obvious bias. Then in using what is to them are “facts” that proves their position, like inducing earthquakes or contamination of aquifers, they show motives besides wanting to know the truth. Blind they become. Correcting their blindness can be almost impossible. It takes patience.
In the course of waywardness they are hurting themselves and those around them.
As presented earlier, the most likely connection is with continuous injection disposal wells around areas with existing stress faults. Injection may provide lubrication or increase stress till failure, but the magnitude to date is negligible. But in a world with uncertainties who knows if we might see a Macondo-like earthquake by chance. There is much more to learn by empirical observation.
This is getting more like “whack a moley” or some rapidly mutating virus. You debunk their stuff and they jump into entirely new forms and areas. Newsflash: a)Fracking, temporarily increases pressure in the formation but the subsequent production of the oil/gas reduces the pressure even more. b) The Fracking is taking place mainly in areas where long time oil and gas production previously reduced the pressure. c) Major fault zones are not a feature of confined hydrocarbon reservoirs – they would have been conduits for the whole works to have leaked out eons ago – possibly like the Oil Sands of Canada, offshore Gulf of Mexico and California, and Venezuela,.
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 10, 2012 at 4:14 am
“But injecting compresse(d) CO2 underground is simply wonderful.”
The insidiousness of these indirect “carbon” is the problem, is that there is a huge public out there that sort of buys in to this kind of egregiously dishonest activist political science.
Interesting to note that the extreme fear of fracking is now causing countries such as South Africa to build coal plants. People believe fracking is more damaging than CO2. Talk about environmentalists sabotaging themselves….
Most disturbing is the use of “may” in science papers. Really? Isn’t may or possible the realm of science fiction? Any may or could happen, anything is possible, as “Kwik” noted. (I’m never quite sure if the “may” is the news media or the paper itself. One hopes it’s the media, though evidence is it’s not the media.) Only “probable” counts.
There are all sorts of “scary” stories out there. There was a big earthquake in Sichuan Province, China back in 2009. One American colleague was trying to tell me about the “secret” EM weapon and that agents had tested it on China and caused this particular earthquake. I explained to him the physics of EM and the amount of energy it would take to create an EM pulse big enough to create an earthquake, if indeed it could (like at least 1 nuclear power plants worth). I also pointed out that if anyone had some “secret” EM pulse weapon, that it would kill all the electronics within its range. I think I put that conspiracy to bed with that guy but who would know.
For some reason there are these people with a doomsday mentality and would like to imagine some evil people behind it. Then they see themselves as Saviors. That is how I look at Greens. Doomsday saviors. Maybe they read too many superman comics when they were young.
hmmm. Let’s talk about this one. If fracking causes an increase in smaller quakes which will only slip in the direction of least resistance, thus relieving tectonic stress, this is bad how???? Maybe what has been discovered is a way to prevent earthquakes that kill. A series of wells drilled along major distructive faults for the purpose of “fracking” them just might be the discovery of the century.
Mike Hebb :
August 10, 2012 at 3:39 am
In the sixties there was talk of drilling wells and setting off explosives to cause small earthquakes an so avoid the huge earthquakes. Maybe even small nukes.
Sanity prevailed. The underground nuclear testing did not set off more earthquakes or prevent earthquakes.
Stephen Rasey says:
August 10, 2012 at 2:04 am
… I believe there is ample evidence that high volume fluid disposal in deep wells can be the source of induced seismicity…
In the permitting process, Type II wells typically have a set of guidelines that they are required to follow. The most important parameter is the fracture gradient. Using data specific to the formation, maximum well head pressure is determined and the operation is not allowed to exceed that without permission from the cognizant authroity. (AOGC in Arkansas, other States probably have similar)
This pressure is going to be highly dependent on how fast or easily fluid moves into the formation. If the flow rate drops, the pressure builds, and the operation has to “throttle back” in order to stay within the limits of their permit.
That the biggest Denver quakes occured months AFTER the injection stopped is I think a key to understanding another mechanism. Thermal contraction and expansion might play a part as well as pore pressure changes.
Sounds reasonable… but another thing about Denver that the press seems to overlook, is the Rio Grande Rift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande_Rift
Given enough time, you can kiss the Rockies good bye.
Yes. You are confused.
Your re-reading of the article appears to have further confused you.
There’s nothing reasonable about your assumption. Froelich did not study fracking operations. He studied wastewater injection wells. Hydraulic fracturing is not a subset of injection wells.
It is nonsense and it is also an attempt to shut down economical use of conventional energy.
YOU ARE IGNORANT
ON THE FRACKING QUESTION
Is the Assumption of Radial Environmental Carpetbaggers
“… It was not exactly fracking, but rather a geothermic drilling.
(unfortunately, in German).”
If they’d been drilling in English that wouldn’t have happened. 🙂
I’m on board with the AGW skeptic stuff, but I will likely never be on board with the “fracking is safe” camp. I cannot ever see how injecting toxins into the ground will ever be a good idea, and no one has adequately explained the flammable house water problem to me.
I am, until I see evidence to the contrary, ashamed that this position is being taken up by WUWT.
Methane is commonly present in ground water. Hence the prevalence of places in the U.S. called “Burning Springs” – NY, WV and KY, IIRC. Those names all predated drilling, you know.
Fred @ur momisugly 2:25 am
Thanks for the link Fred. Dr. Freulich explains fracturing and its aftermath and his research findings very clearly. I would that journalists would listen to such explanations.
For the confused, fracking pumps fluids into a well then removes them. Injection pumps fluids into a well for disposal, i.e. they stay in the well. Yes, fracking can use millions of gallons of fluid, but it comes back out.
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal problems are exactly the kind of problems that anti-fracking types hope for, but fail to find with fracking. If you pump billions, yes billions, of gallons of fluids per month into a faulted area, what are the chances that you’re lubing up a fault? Pretty good from the results, I’d say. On the other hand, drilling into a faulted area consisting of tuft, and then setting off nuclear explosions demonstrably doesn’t cause tremmors as a side effect – the ground shakes from the blast, but then stops.
Geothermal quakes are a direct result of asking for trouble. You inject fluids into an area with known faulting, high temperatures, and then wonder that something happens? WUWT?
David Middleton – can you provide a few paragraphs to explain how and why waste water injection and fracking are unrelated so other silent but similarly confused people can understand this? To be honest I read the article and came away thinking you were FOC but like most I’m not well versed in your field.
“May be”, “suggests”
Sounds like enough wiggle room to drive an aircraft carrier through.
Words like “Maybe” and “Possibly” and common in the AGW community. When it comes to paying taxes for wind subsidies or higher utility bills I would not have the option of “Maybe” or “Possibly” paying them, if they are on my bill.
“Radial Environmental Carpetbaggers” Well said.
“…[C]arpetbagger was a pejorative term Southerners gave to Northerners (also referred to as Yankees) who moved to the South during the Reconstruction era, between 1865 and 1877.
The term referred to the observation that these newcomers tended to carry “carpet bags,” a common form of luggage at the time (sturdy and made from used carpet). It was used as a derogatory term, suggesting opportunism and exploitation by the outsiders. Together with Republicans[!] they are said to have politically manipulated and controlled former Confederate states for varying periods for their own financial and power gains. In sum, carpetbaggers were seen as insidious Northern outsiders with questionable objectives meddling in local politics, buying up plantations at fire-sale prices and taking advantage of Southerners.”
Recently I cycled past a house in a town in the Catskills NY that was flying a series of lawn placards…”No Fracking. Gov. Cuomo, we will remember on election day;” “No Nuclear Power-shut Indian Point;” “Stop our Reliance on Foreign Oil;” “There is NO Clean Coal;” “In-River Hydro kills our rivers;” “Stop Offshore Drilling, prevent the next Deepwater Horizon:”
I presume that there are some evils to be found in wax candles as well.
I guess we will all just have to eat more carrots…then again that would require that we add more fertilizer to the soil, and I suspect that there are placards against that too.
What do these people want?
Jason says:
August 10, 2012 at 7:58 am
I’m on board with the AGW skeptic stuff, but I will likely never be on board with the “fracking is safe” camp. I cannot ever see how injecting toxins into the ground will ever be a good idea, and no one has adequately explained the flammable house water problem to me.
I am, until I see evidence to the contrary, ashamed that this position is being taken up by WUWT.
My dear fellow, I think you’ll find that this gas in water mischief has been debunked many times over. As I understand it, there were no active fracking operations going on in the area at the time of the video, & it was demonstrated that the gas was already in the water before operations began. Fracking is safe it’s been operating for over 30 years without major incidents occurring. Listen to the geologists & the men & women working in the industry, & learn to not always believe that Big Oil/Gas is out to rule the world & make everybody poor, quite the opposite in reality!
Then you are totally ignorant of the subject matter.
The basic procedure is to pump a slurry of water and sand into the formation to expand natural fractures… Hence, hydraulic fracturing.
The word “fracking” has a lot of different spellings. The media have generally settled on “fracking.” It is sometimes referred to it as “frac’ing” or “frakking” on scout tickets. “Frac” is the industry abbreviation for fracturing. The operation is generally called a “frac job.” I don’t think anyone ever gave the spelling much thought until the media started reporting about it. I tend to use “frack” because it seems to be the most common spelling in the mass media.
The frac fluid will include other chemicals that facilitate the flow of proppant (sand) into the fractures and ease the extraction of the frac fluid from the formation. The mix of chemicals is tailored to the hydrocarbon reservoir and varies quite a lot.
Halliburton’s Colorado DJ Basin WaterFrac formulation is ~96.3% water, 3.4% sand and 0.3% other chemicals. I suppose some of the 0.3% of “other chemicals” might not be safe for human consumption (although Halliburton does have a potable frac fluid).
Now, this may come as a total shock to you… The frac fluid is pumped into “hydrocarbon” reservoirs. Hydrocarbons, like oil and natural gas liquids tend to already be rather toxic to humans before the frac fluid is pumped into the reservoir.
Sounds like “Project Mainstrike”. Zorin Industries evil plan to destroy California by fracking. If you see this fellow report him to the EPA at once:
Jason,
Studies have been done showing that fracking is safe.