From Cornell University , another one of the numerous studies that tries to make fracking (via wastewater products) look bad because it is claimed to cause small earthquakes as far as 30km away, which seems more than a bit of a stretch to me. There’s quite a bit of irrational hysteria and outright lies surrounding the issue, so much so that terrified eco-activists in my own county successfully got a ballot initiative on the Nov 4th election to ban fracking, even though there hasn’t been an oil/gas well drilled here in 25 years, making the ban pretty much a moot point. Meanwhile the fracking process is set to help the U.S. overtake Saudi Arabia, so one wonders if the inconvenience of small quakes might be acceptable.
Oklahoma quakes induced by wastewater injection, study finds
ITHACA, N.Y. – The dramatic increase in earthquakes in central Oklahoma since 2009 is likely attributable to subsurface wastewater injection at just a handful of disposal wells, finds a new study published in the journal Science on July 3, 2014.
The research team was led by Katie Keranen, professor of geophysics at Cornell University, who says Oklahoma earthquakes constitute nearly half of all central and eastern U.S. seismicity from 2008 to 2013, many occurring in areas of high-rate water disposal.
“Induced seismicity is one of the primary challenges for expanded shale gas and unconventional hydrocarbon development. Our results provide insight into the process by which the earthquakes are induced and suggest that adherence to standard best practices may substantially reduce the risk of inducing seismicity,” said Keranen. “The best practices include avoiding wastewater disposal near major faults and the use of appropriate monitoring and mitigation strategies.”
The study also concluded:
- Four of the highest-volume disposal wells in Oklahoma (~0.05% of wells) are capable of triggering ~20% of recent central U.S. earthquakes in a swarm covering nearly 2,000 square kilometers, as shown by analysis of modeled pore pressure increase at relocated earthquake hypocenters.
- Earthquakes are induced at distances over 30 km from the disposal wells. These distances are far beyond existing criteria of 5 km from the well for diagnosis of induced earthquakes.
- The area of increased pressure related to these wells continually expands, increasing the probability of encountering a larger fault and thus increasing the risk of triggering a higher-magnitude earthquake.
“Earthquake and subsurface pressure monitoring should be routinely conducted in regions of wastewater disposal and all data from those should be publicly accessible. This should also include detailed monitoring and reporting of pumping volumes and pressures,” said Keranen. ‘In many states the data are more difficult to obtain than for Oklahoma; databases should be standardized nationally. Independent quality assurance checks would increase confidence. “
Top marks though to Cornell researchers, who made their data and SI available here, along with the paper. Contrast that to NOAA/NCDC that puts their papers behind the paywall of the AMS.
Download the study, data, and SI: https://cornell.box.com/okquakes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s the usual problem here … never let the truth get in the way of a good (deceitful) story pushed by the anti-fracking eco-warriors!
Is there a scientific reason (standard) that the study uses kilometers instead of miles in its report?
This activity has nothing to do with fracking.
The fact that wastewater disposal can augment earthquake activity has been known for decades.
The process actually lubricates the fault lines and permits shifting at the fault line.
We could argue all day whether this is a good thing.:
Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.
On the other hand it’s not nice to fool with mother nature.
So many countries around the world are cautious about this activity in seismic regions.
But to conflate this activity with fracking is dishonest. (And I don’t think the authors intend it) Fracking liquids go directly into the porous rock. It can cause small tremors, just as an underground explosion would, but it has never led to an earthquake.
Might be some truth in the problem as refered. But the real problem with fracking is the risk of not having enough Clean Water for people and animals in areas due to consequences for so called “Ground Water”.
Nothing is simple when it comes to energy questions. Usually most on pro resp con sides forgotten to do a major consequence check before taking sides.
If you look at the detailed map of Oklahoma earthquakes from USGS, they are occurring where the fracking is taking place, in the oil fields that surround the large Cushing refineries. I mean the clusters are centred right at individual oil developments as you zoom-in tighter and tighter.
But the main reason there is oil here is because there is a strike-slip fault zone, sometimes called the Nemaha fault zone.
The first recorded earthquake on this fault line was in 1918. There was a 6.0 magnitude earthquake in 1929. Both just outside Oklahoma City, more-or-less where the current series of earthquakes are occurring.
Fracking may not be helping but there were already earthquakes in the same area long before fracking or any oil developments.
Now we do know that some types of drilling and, especially, large-scale hydro-thermal projects cause moderate-sized earthquakes. The two largest hydro-thermal projects outside of Iceland have been shut down as a result.
Since this nearly 65 year old solution was first deployed, the U.S. has passed one million wells and the worldwide number is more than two million. The researchers need to clearly state the difference in Oklahoma. At first reading, they have a daunting task ahead.
@Daveandrews, the entire rest of the world of science uses SI, using archaic units there for a science paper is likely to get laughed at.
I keep saying that a small quake triggered by fracking is a large quake in the future averted as it releases energy that will otherwise continue to accumulate. That would make frequent small and harmless quakes a good thing.
I have worked on old Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) programs TED and BUFF. They stand for Total Energy Independence and Battle Field Use Fuel of the Future. These programs were in response to the US becoming too dependent on imported crude (nearly 70% at that time). The idea was to convert our abundant coal resources into hydrocarbon fuel using gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. this produces clean paraffinic fuel useful in jet and diesel applications, which are just what the military needs. We could produce more energy from coal than exists in the Middle East, and then there are methane hydrates if we ever run low on coal. Methane Hydrates represent something like 10x the reserves of oil, so there is more energy available well into the future. All can be cleanly converted into energy dense liquid hydrocarbon fuels for use in aircraft and ground equipment.
But the TED and BUFF programs were scrapped due to environmentalists being totally against Coal to Liquids even though we can reduce the CO2 emissions to near zero for the process as they just hate coal in any form or use. Now we can actually see a future with much reduced dependence on foreign fuel form states that do not like us and the environmental movement wants to stop that too. Maybe there are other motives here that are not as obvious from a surface view.
Fortunately, we have enough NG now to begin a GTL industry that produces fuel that can be used directly in the existing infrastructure and equipment, something that many renewable resources cannot claim.
ponysboy says:
July 5, 2014 at 5:51 am
“Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.”
There is no real evidence to support this assertion.
In fact swarms of small earthquakes are an indicator of an imminent eruption in volcanology
What are magnitudes of these quakes? Did these become apparent only after seismometers were installed? (We had a joke at UofU that an aseismic region is one without seismometers.) What are the magnitudes of fluid withdrawl and injection? It appears to me they are looking at injection only. And using MODFLOW for a model of this size with so little input data with regard to rock properties? MODFLOW has been misused, and I’m not saying dishonestly, to promote anti-development agendas elsewhere, and often the modelers seem unaware of the misuse. Finally, a delta P of 50kPa triggers earthquakes?
Technically a magnitude 2.0 and 6.0 are both earthquakes, but there is no comparing their results.
I heard the author being interviewed on the BBC-WS. What they are talking about is normal oil extraction where the oil comes up along with a lot of saline. After separating out the oil, the saline is re-injected, not in exactly the same place, but a short distance away.
It is not injected at. Anything like the pressures used in fracking. No matter how hard the interviewer tried to tie the two, the interviewee kept insisting that the two are very different.
What wasn’t touched upon is the increased probability of problems if the waterways not replaced.
Also not touched was that the small earthquakes are relieving pressure, helping to reduce the probability of a much larger event if all the pressure should be relieved at once.
Bill Illis says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:00 am
If you look at the detailed map of Oklahoma earthquakes from USGS, they are occurring where the fracking is taking place, in the oil fields that surround the large Cushing refineries.
__________________
There are no large (or any) Cushing refineries. Fracking is taking place all over the state and this article has little to do with fracking,
The earthquakes have been occurring where they always have occurred. The injection wells in question may have increased earthquake occurrences in the fault zones, but there is nothing new, here. Certain areas in Oklahoma are fault- ridden and earthquake prone and always have been. When I was a boy in Oklahoma, I first heard the old saw that there are almost as many earthquakes in Oklahoma as in California, but they are small and hardly noticeable.
That there is “fracking hysteria” among the Alarmist/Warmists has been known for a long time.
Nothing earth shaking about it.
/grin
Philip says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:45 am
“Also not touched was that the small earthquakes are relieving pressure, helping to reduce the probability of a much larger event”
..
Again, there is no evidence for this assertion.
For example look at the Santa Cruz Island event(s) starting in January of 2013.
The only reason O&G companies reinject the waste water is because treatment is more expensive. There are lots of industry wastewater companies who could easily (though not cheaply) treat that water to good as new (wonderful property of water) on or off-site, but remote locations, transportation restrictions and costs are relatively too high. (I observed the first fracing operation of my career in 1966 or 67.)
No information on depth of wastewater injection operations. How does it compare with typical fracking operation depths? Similarly for hydro-thermal? And for potable water extraction?
Other areas in which fracking companies need to explain their case to counter scaremongering include:
How long does the drilling derrick typically remain on site? There are (possibly unfounded) fears of unsightly intrusion into landscapes.
How much water is typically injected initially? How much is it “polluted”? Is it tankered to site, or pipelined? How much is recovered, and is it removed from site (perhaps for re-use)?
What remains on site after remediation in the way of wellhead gear? How is gas removed from site (presumably by pipeline)?
Typically how long before a well needs re-fracking, what gear is involved, and how long does it remain on site?
Sorry, but the 30 km distance sounds a little far to me. Besides, normal permitting requirements (that I’m aware of) don’t allow, or severely restrict, injection pressures above the injection zone formation fracture pressure for the simple reason that if the fracture length is long enough it might reach “out of zone”, meaning the disposal fluid would flow out of the intended disposal horizon. Depending on the disposal zone depth and specific gravity of the injection fluid (if it’s produced water and not potable then it will have some total dissolved solids and hence somewhat heavier than fresh water) the static column pressure at the injection zone formation face can actually exceed the formation frac (yes, that is spelled correctly) pressure which may complicate the permitting process.
Or, if the static column is below but close to the frac pressure, the injection flowing pressures, depending on the injection rate, will more than likely exceed the frac pressure. This can easily be determined by doing a step rate test and is, if I’m not mistaken, usually done as part of the initial preparation of the well for injection. The test is done by injecting fluid into the well at known rates in a step wise manner. The first step is at a “low” rate and continued until the surface injection pressure is stable. The injection rate is increased by a set amount and the pressure noted, again, when stable. This process in continued until either the pressure limitations of the surface equipment or the downhole tubulars is reached or the formation frac pressure is reached. When the frac pressure is reached the surface injection pressure will actually fall sharply indicating that the formation has parted giving the injection fluid an easy path away from the wellbore with a corresponding sharp increase in the injection rate. I’ve actually done this test with the installed surface injection equipment to find out the limitations of an existing disposal well prior to some modification we were planning. (And, no, the injection pumps didn’t reach the frac pressure as the belts started slipping before that point.)
Disposal well permitting is a very rigorous process and not taken lightly by the state authorities nor the operating company. Injection wells are permitted (there are several permit “classes”) for the type of fluid to be disposed, volume injected, and so on, and are monitored by the state (at least in Wyoming they are) pretty closely. The state can, and probably, will inspect the well for initial compliance of the installed equipment to the permit and probably witnesses periodic pressure tests of the wellhead and downhole tubulars over the life of the well. Injecting over the permitted amount or injecting non-permitted fluids (a definite no-no) can get the operator into serious trouble with large fines and possible cancellation of the permit by the state.
And as a further note, what makes anyone think that the sharp petroleum engineers at OU, OSU, the State of Oklahoma, etc. don’t know all about this and found out that it’s of no concern? For crying out loud, fraccing (yes, that is the correct spelling, look it up in Halliburton’s books) was invented in OK or right in that area. I’m pretty sure these engineer know what they are doing. I’ve felt numerous 3-4M earthquakes (in HI) and they are no big deal and of no consequence anyway.
chuck says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:41 am
ponysboy says:
July 5, 2014 at 5:51 am
“Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.”
——–
There is no real evidence to support this assertion.
In fact swarms of small earthquakes are an indicator of an imminent eruption in volcanology
_________________
That’s just great. Oklahomans already live with floods, earthquakes, huge hail and tornadoes and next, volcanoes?
All you Blue- staters who are looking to relocate someplace for work, keep this in mind. Also, we don’t have any good places to fish, nor hunt, our women are contrary as the dickens and we’ll out- vote your silly notions which you’ve been bringing here with you.
(You can’t drive down the street without seeing California license plates all over the place, so it’s worth a shot.)
“ponysboy says:
July 5, 2014 at 5:51 am
“Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.”
There is no real evidence to support this assertion.
In fact swarms of small earthquakes are an indicator of an imminent eruption in volcanology”
You are talking about different things. Small quakes are associated with volcanic activity, but large earthquakes have been shown to be associated with a pause in small earthquake activity.
So, maybe fracking around active volcanoes, isn’t a good idea, but fracking around known fault lines may actually prevent damage.
Alan Robertson says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:59 am
Look at the seventh’s entry from a state that has a wealth of experience with earthquakes.
..
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/earthquakes/Pages/qh_earthquakes_myths.aspx
The history of earthquakes is quite interesting. That of Oklahoma is given here: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/oklahoma/history.php
Count_to_10 says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:04 am
Please review my post with link to “Earthquake Mythology”
Katie Keranen was offered the chance to see 3D seismic data, taken by Oil & Gas companies and shared with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission regulators, which showed where the ACTUAL fault locations near some injection wells were (& were not) – as opposed to her theorized locations. She declined to bother viewing the data.
Why are we not hearing same type of concern being expressed over similar microquake activity related to “renewable” geothermal energy operations here in California. Take a look at the earthquake pages for the numerous quakes at the Clear Lake and Salton Sea geothermal fields. And the Salton Sea fields are immediately adjacent to the San Andreas Faut…….