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.
“a new study suggests”
I have conducted my own study that suggests new studies which suggest things are nothing but useless suggestions.
Furthermore, I suggest that the parade of studies and suggestions relating to climate may be contributing to more to global warming than CO2 emissions.
I suggest AGW arena takes a time out from making suggestions.
Climate Refugee: ”We cannot explain this without CO2″
The following info was obtained via compilation of “mailed” Heatland Institute internal memos …
“Our Big Oil” pals have recently** been secretly extracting CO2 from Oil as part of manufacturing of gasoline, diesel, etc. and “saturating fracking fluids with the CO2” to hide said extracted CO2 from “E.P.A. and Greenies”. Quote: “Our contact at WUWT is recommending our Big Oil partners’ CO2 saturating be done randomly through out the U.S., so as to further confound any AGW activists who might suspect nefarious activity.” H.I.’s confidential memos also suggested varying levels*** of CO2 saturation to “befuddle those who become suspicious” and attempt “linkage to Tremors”.
** Explaining why past fracking did not cause earthquakes. Past fracking fluids lacked CO2. Whereas fracking fluid, now saturated with CO2, and once injected into shale – violently react like a shook-up can of Diet soda with Mentos.
*** Based on S. Mcintyre’s ‘slight of hand’ with GW temps. to “bury increase” in the noise.
😉
This is plain alarmism and simply false. Even the EPA, reluctantly, concluded that an earthquake was likely impossible via fracking. There have been dozens of reports of localized, extremely small, tremors. Not a single report of damage. Too small, too shallow (narrow radiation), and buffered by the fracking compound itself which acts like a shock absorber.
Almost all oil and gas wells will also produce some brine (formation and/or connate water). This salt water is generally a lot more toxic than any frac fluid. Frac fluid is probably the least toxic of all completion and stimulation fluids.
In a water-drive reservoir, the brine production will steadily increase until the well “waters out.” Gas-solution or depletion-drive reservoirs will produce less brine, but generally produce some. Most reservoirs are a combination of water- and depletion-drive. When wells are first put on production, the completion fluids will also flow out, usually during the first few hours of production. We call this “unloading” or “cleaning up.”
The vast majority of the wastewater pumped into disposal wells consists of produced formation and/or connate water.
Brodirt says: “What do these people want?”
Mr. Fusion.
There is nothing that will satisfy these tree-huggers. When they demanded Wind Power, they whined about bird strikes. When wind turbine companies resolved the bird strikes, the Greenies protested with not in our backyard. When they demanded Solar Power, they said no because of desert tortoises. Followed by a No to Solar Power because of Hazardous Materials.
Remember that it is conventional wisdom – and true – that excessive water is toxic, ranging from hyponatremia to drowning, from excessive dilution of blood electrolytes to respiratory impairment by immersion.
Once again, deception is the rule.
They studied injection wells and blame hydraulic fracturing. They are two different processes, but since the public cannot discern, it will sell more papers.
There is also much more money to be extorted from the production side of oil & gas (than from waste disposal) if you can hold them hostage using sensational media accounts.
If only the public understood that so long as radical environmentalists succeed, it is we, the public, being held hostage whenever we purchase an energy product. The cost of fighting off these radicals is paid by the end user.
Jason:
I live in the heart of oil well country in Alberta (NOT oil sands). Back in the ’60’s (before fracking) we moved from the farm into a small town and my mother complained about the town water bubbling and gushing when she first turned on the faucet. We told her it was gas bubbles in the water; she thought we were all wet. So she lit a match and turned on the tap — burned the curtains over the sink. End of argument.
In the same town a friend of mine decided to open a private water well that had been capped several years before – he lit the gas coming out and it burned for 3 days before he could set up a pump.
David Middleton says
“The basic procedure is to pump a slurry of water and sand into the formation to expand natural fractures… Hence, hydraulic fracturing.” David you seem, refreshingly, to have done some research on the subject, but you have gotten this one point wrong. Fracturing does not attempt to expand natural fractures, but to create new ones through hydraulic pressure. As part of the process, generally a propant is pumped in with the frac fluid. Were it not the fracture would immediately close up. The propant traditionally used is the sand as you noted.
The frac fluid is produced back so that the oil or gas may enter the fracture and then it is disposed of in an injection well. The author cites injection wells which inject 150,000 barrels per month. At that rate, the frac fluid would be disposed of in a few hours at most. While the injection of produced brine water would go on day to day for years and even decades. The responsibility of injected frac fluid for any seismic activity that might result would be non existent.
Are the science journalists ignorant of science? Or are they intentionally misleading the public?
Yes, they are intentionally misleading the public, for their own good, just like James Hansen.
Fear sells.
From what I understand, the fracture itself does not produce earthquakes as defined by the USGS, but it does create seismic signals which can be detected on the surface. As several commenters have discovered, there is confusion with fracing, and forcing waste water into disposal wells.
I blogged on The Real Risks of Fracking in June of this year. Most of my information came from a paper presented to the Society of Petroleum Engineers conference this past February, Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells.
One of the more famous earth quake events dealing with fracking was a series of quakes in Arkansas. These quakes were subsequently discovered to be caused by waste water injection wells in an area close to a previously unknown fault. The waste water operations were ordered stopped. However, people in that part of the country still think it was the fracking that caused the quakes.
@cms,
The frac fluid and proppant get into the formation through natural fractures and other planes of weakness. Shale has to be fracked because it has very poor permeability.
While natural fractures aren’t essential to a successful frack job, they are desirable…
Natural fractures in the Barnett Shale and their importance for hydraulic fracture treatments
INatural fractures in the Barnett Shale and their importance for hydraulic fracture treatments
David Middleton, agreed.
“I have fracked. I have fracked more than once. God help me, I liked it.”
Fracturing treatments change the effective wellbore radius/diameter from a simple 5 to 12 inch round surface area to an effective/comparable 30 foot diameter or more surface area, depending on the size of the treatment.
Fracturing for hydrocarbons allows more area for the hydrocarbons to flow out of the formation rock. The result is often enhance production rate and volume over time.
For disposal wells the fracturing process is reverse to allow more fluid injection over time. The injection is typically continuous and can be a substantial volume over time.
Fracturing for hydrocarbons doe not cause earthquakes. But flukes can happen. But odds would be like winning the lottery. And the seismicity would be very small.
Very few wells are drilled as disposal/injection wells. If such wells induce earthquakes they are infrequent and small in magnitude. But then there are those that negatively over hype CO2 increase too.
The “bad” is that stress along a fault is never uniformly distributed. There are generally “locked sections” and sections that are mobile. The San Andreas Fault offers good examples of both. The fear would be that relieving stress in one area would actually increase it elsewhere along the fault, or to sympathetically trigger the release of stress in a locked zone in a “palpable” way. The vast majority of seismic activity isn’t “palpable” anyway (see data at quake.usgs.gov), so asserting that only very small movements were found is not telling anyone anything new, unexpected or special.
Seeing motion where no one knew there would be motion is an entirely different bucket of worms. That means an entirely unknown fault has been triggered. There are a lot of these around and they can be really unpleasant. The Northridge ‘quake for example was on a previously unknown “blind thrust fault,” a hidden fault where the upper limb moves over the lower at more or less right angle to the fault strike – e.g. the strike is nortth-south, the western side moves (thrusts) eastward above the eastern side. “Blind” simply means there is no surface indications of the fault’s existence. Another characteristic of a thrust fault is that it causes compression – increases stress. The huge earthquake in Japan was a similar motion with the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate (oddly Japan is on the western end of the North American Plate) moved toward each other with Japan riding up over the Pacific Plate. The vertical displacement was as much as 10 meters while the horizontal displacement was as much as 50 meters.
Another “bad” is that the stored energy in locked zones can be megatonnes greater than the energy stored unlocked areas. If you can’t predict what the actual energy release is going to be, then do you really want to assume the liability for accidentally triggering a major ‘quake? I can guarantee that the idea has been looked at for decades with no neat solutions. Tinkering might well be worse than not and no way to really tell.
Those frightened at the prospect of fracking never consider a cost/benefit analysis. Except in one or two locations [where there is minimal to no fracking], any earthquakes are minor temblors that cause no damage. And as Pamela Gray notes, fracking may well relieve pressure, thereby avoiding larger quakes.
So back to cost/benefit: fracking contributes enormously to national, state, and local wealth. Most folks with an IRA account are making money from it, whether they are aware of it or not. So the benefits of the immense added wealth produced by fracking clearly trump the economic Luddites who are trying to stop energy production.
Everyone considers the cost/benefit of their actions every day. Get in your car, and you might be killed. But you drive anyway. You fly in airliners, take trains, ride motorcycles, drink alcohol, white water raft, surf, gamble, smoke, use fossil fuels produced by dangerous offshore rigs, and so on. You do not play Russian roulette, race your car down the highway at 110 MPH, or rob liquor stores at gunpoint.
Everyone considers the cost/benefit of their actions. Fracking is safe, effective, and produces much wealth. The country needs the energy because without it, costs would be that much higher. So to those wild-eyed scaremongers going to ridiculous extremes over the Precautionary Principle, I say: stay indoors! Do not go outside for anything. You might get hit by a meteorite.
David, thank you very much for the pointers. If nothing else, they starkly contrast with what purports to be scientific inquiry in the area of “Climate Science.” Of course, they are more than that, they clearly show to the level of detail that O&G companies go to understand what’s going on thousands of feet below the surface.
Actually, I’d hate to have to depend on the quality of the work of some of the Warmistas, were I using work of that quality to try to find oil. I suspect dowsing would be more productive.
“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.”
“May be more common” like nobody noticed… big deal.
Alan the Brit says:
August 10, 2012 at 9:03 am
Jason says:
August 10, 2012 at 7:58 am
I grew up in western Pennsylvania. Go to ‘Clarion County, PA’ in Google Earth if you want to see the region. This is oil, gas, and coal country. The early practices were not regulated and wells drilled many years prior to the 1950s had been abandoned. Water and gas still came to the surface. One bubbling pool was about 2 Smoots across and a fallen tree lay at its edge. We would sit on the log and from a book of matches toss a lighted one into the center of the cauldron. Each time, a tiny explosion would burst as the gas ignited. This passed as entertainment before the digital age. Actually, we were hunting white tailed deer.
The natural oil, gas, and coal surface occurrences were known about. My Great-aunt Lizzy’s house had gas globes in the rooms from shallow gas piped in from her property. Her water came from the same land but I don’t remember the water, but it must not have been special. The lighting was special because we lived in town and had electric lights and a newly installed gas heater in the living room. Prior to that my family used local coal as a source of heat.
Smoot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot
Book of matches:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3633/3513354911_fbc641f5fa_z.jpg
John Hultquist,
Thanks. I shall incorporate Smoots in conjunction with my use of Oluympic swimming pools.☺
In addition to fracking, the related technique of horizontal drilling has produced a wealth of new fossil fuel production.
Crank out that harmless CO2, the biosphere needs it!
Doug Huffman says:
August 10, 2012 at 8:50 am
“…[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.”…
FYI, the term “Yankee” does not appear in the Southern lexicon. See “Damned Yankee”.
“Are the science journalists ignorant of science? Or are they intentionally misleading the public?”
Both and I would add some journalists are simply lazy.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/08/fareed-zakarias-take-gun-control-strikingly-similar-new-yorkers/55652/
Fareed Zakarias plagiarized, CNN and Time have suspended him.
Regarding external forces causing earthquakes I wonder if the environmentalists were upset when the National Football League cause an earthquake…
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seahawks-fans-cause-12th-Man-quake-during-Lynch-touchdown-113208789.html.
“It’s all real,” said John Vidale, Director of Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. “People were shaking the stands, the stands were shaking the ground and it [was] going to the instruments.”
Duster, thanks so much for an informative response.