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 is accepted as probable by the geology world that small quakes along a strike-slip fault like the San Andreas fault in California do reduce the severity of potential quakes. Volcanic cluster quakes are of course much different than lateral s/s quakes, and are not the question here.
Fhsiv
I assume you are jesting….the “green” geothermal development are critical, and of course fracking is done by Big Oil!!! Need I say more?,
fhsiv says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:12 am
Why are we not hearing same type of concern being expressed over similar microquake activity related to “renewable” geothermal energy operations here in California.
==============================================================
Because geothermal-induced earthquakes are renewable. Duh.
Chuck says: “There is no real evidence to support this assertion.
In fact swarms of small earthquakes are an indicator of an imminent eruption in volcanology”
In fact, fore shocks always reduce the intensity of the following main shock. There just is no reliable way of determining the extent of the reduction in built up forces because the relative magnitude is so low. Source: USGS.
There was an earthquake recently in the DFW area. The reporting on the quake caught the impact of these small quakes perfectly.
In a metroplex of millions of people, the news report covering the quake stated “Dozens of people actually felt the tremor”.
Unofficially, I heard that it was so severe that someone’s throw pillow actually fell off their couch. But it may have been off balance to start with.
The imposition of dirty, noisy and – perhaps – uneconomical practices upon small communities who are given no voice or right of refusal has led fracking to be enormously unpopular. The push for fracking seems in haste for energy security[sic] given the political uncertainty in those parts of the world that have had the temerity to build their civilizations over the wests resources. The pollution and removal of ancient land rights enrage people who feel insulted by the greed of those with no interest or knowledge in local desires and practices. Thus, I feel it is a grave mistake to offer up any support for it here – just at the point when people are beginning to listen to the ideas and sound science behind the dismissal of the nonsense that is MMGW. If the ideas behind fracking become too conflated with the ideas behind the resistance to Gore-ism, I fear the results will be a setback to everything this wonderful site is aiming for and has worked so hard to achieve.
We need to distinguish between earthquakes caused by fracking, and those caused by high volume disposal of liquid waste products. The largest earthquakes by far are those caused by disposal. There has been an earthquake as high as 5.7 on the Richter scale caused by disposal wells in Oklahoma. That big, and you can have several thousand dollars of damage to your house. The ones caused by actual fracking are usually between 1 and 2, barely noticeable if you are right on top. Big difference.
If wastewater was recycled more, there would be much less need for disposal wells. And places like Oklahoma and Texas often don’t have all that much water to spare. If the industry wants to avoid a PR disaster the first time someone is killed by an earthquake caused by disposal, they have to recycle water more. It will cost a bit more, but it will be worth it.
Face it, none of us would want a magnitude 5 earthquake near our house. Fracking is very good for the US. It makes tons of tax money for cash starved states (Pennsylvania in particular), provides many jobs, reduces our imports. The industry can afford to recycle water a lot more to reduce the bigger earthquakes caused by disposal well.
Here is the link for the 5.7 earthquake near Prague, Oklahoma caused by disposal wells, not by fracking:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/energy-earthquake-oklahoma-idUSL2N0M80SP20140311
latecommer2014 says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:39 am
” reduce the severity of potential quakes.”
..
Please review item number seven in this list of Earthquake Myths.
..
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/earthquakes/Pages/qh_earthquakes_myths.aspx
Chuck in your earthquake myth site the statement was that small quakes do not PREVENT Large quakes….. Again not to the question.
It is accepted that the small quakes REDUCE the severity of the large quakes
When you start looking at the study, you find that there isn’t a trend of increased earthquakes over time near the fracking-disposal wells. For that matter, aside from one small swarm in one year, the fracking well area itself is pretty light on seismic activity. So, supposedly, fracking disposal wells ONLY cause earthquakes at a distance, not near the wells themselves.
… but there is a trend in areas with active seismic stations, to the point that, using their methodology, one would conclude that earthquakes are caused by seismographs.
ponysboy says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:46 am
“In fact, fore shocks always reduce the intensity of the following main shock.”
Not only is there no evidence for this assertion, it is in fact unprovable You even admit to this in your own post.
latecommer2014 says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:58 am
“It is accepted that the small quakes REDUCE the severity of the large quakes”
…
That is an unproven assertion. In fact there is no way to actually make any kind of measurement that can verify it.
norah4you says:
July 5, 2014 at 5:52 am
“…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”…”
With millions of wells drilled and hydraulic fracturing being used since the 1940’s, there has not been ONE single instance of ground water contamination due to hydro-fracturing. This in spite of multiple EPA studies trying to find one in order to have a basis to regulate (read shut down) the process.
nickreality65 says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:54 am
“…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…”
Produced water is highly saline. It is co-produced with the oil. It comes out of the ground that way when it is “new”. It is re-injected into deep saline aquifers (not shallow potable aquifers). It is treated before it is re-injected to make it better than “new”. Hydro-fracturing liquids generally are captured and re-used when practical.
How odd. If you check out the maps provided in the research, the earthquake swarms were not at or even near the wells. One of the reasons they included such a long range 25km for quake causation.
Another very odd statement out of the blue; couple that with Chuck’s previous comment and apparently we can expect a volcano to erupt in Oklahoma one absolutely zero evidence.
Or, perhaps Chuck is expecting a massive tectonic shift similar to the Santa Cruz 2013 event which lies within a very active earthquake zone?
Well, that last one might be closer than we normally consider for Oklahoma. Half of Oklahoma lies within the New Madrid earthquake zone. Just outside of that zone lies the Meers fault a strike slip fault. At this point in time, faults directly affected by the New Madrid fault (a potential rift zone) are not well defined. Looking at the Meers fault line, it is curiously isolated, especially for an active strike slip fault.
The research paper is rather horrible. There is not a defined test method nor a list of possible influences and causes. One assumption going in and one assumption coming out.
Instead the paper proceeds right in assuming that injection fluids cause earthquakes and the path to results are tailored to find coincidences that can appear to be correlations so causation is assumed.
At no point in the research is there any determination that X well injection caused X1 quake. Let alone exactly how that particular injection managed to A) force a quake or B) cause a release of tension in a particular fault. There is no attempt to determine stress.
Which brings up another anomalous question regarding fracking caused quakes; serious earthquake research teams spend a lot of time and money studying the most well defined fault zones in the world and they are unable to definitively link specific cause to specific effect. Generalize, yes; specifically identify, no. Yet Cornell researchers supposedly do this with a terribly planned and executed study? What a hoot!
The term earthquake or tremor has more alarming freight than the word warming or change. Little does it matter that some folks have a vibrating easy chair or bed to ease tension and loosen up muscles that gives more shake than these tremors. And hey what about the bull riding machine at the local bar?
From a psychological standpoint, it doesn’t matter that the oil industry has been re-pressuring spent reservoirs for secondary recovery since 1926:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=9cO8wnaDXIkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=history+of+water+gas+flooding+repressuring+of+oil+reservoirs&source=bl&ots=xxxNf4_sq0&sig=AMxFmyYtcIJ-A1KXK1XX1zYzbWg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1BS4U86lDZezyATMqILADw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20water%20gas%20flooding%20repressuring%20of%20oil%20reservoirs&f=false
and where all the disasters before this technique was discovered by activists and the general public in the last few years.
Dumbing down in education is definitely a deliberate tool required to set up scaresfor the ignorant by those who want to tear down the engines of prosperity (and particularly that of the USA).
Do these people know that repressuring wells for secondary recovery through pumping down water or gas has been a standard technique since 1926:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=9cO8wnaDXIkC&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=history+of+water+gas+flooding+repressuring+of+oil+reservoirs&source=bl&ots=xxxNf4_sq0&sig=AMxFmyYtcIJ-A1KXK1XX1zYzbWg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1BS4U86lDZezyATMqILADw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20water%20gas%20flooding%20repressuring%20of%20oil%20reservoirs&f=false
I always knew the dumbing down in education was designed to make people more dependent on governmnent but I didn’t think it through that dummies would be publishing this kind of ancient stuff in “Science”.
ATheoK says:
July 5, 2014 at 8:12 am
..
“apparently we can expect a volcano to erupt in Oklahoma”
Obviously you have missed the forest for the trees.
The point I was making did not assert that there would be volcanoes in Oklahoma. It was a specific instance showing that small earthquakes do ***NOT*** relieve stress, or prevent subsequent shocks.
Using a clear and evident example that dispels a myth must be an debate technique unrecognizable to you.
John says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:54 am
“If wastewater was recycled more, therewould be much less need for disposal wells. And places like Oklahoma and Texas often don’t have all that much water to spare. ”
_________
A high percentage of the injected fluids are salt water, flowing from depth to wellhead and then transported to and re- injected at disposal wells. In older, depleting fields, salt water injection wells have been used, at least since the 60’s, to force remaining hydrocarbons from the rock.
——-
Oklahoma is one of the most ecologically diverse places on the planet, running downhill from arid High plains Rocky Mt. plateau in the Northwest, to cypress swamps in the Southeast. There’s plenty of water in the eastern part of state, but if you can figure out how to get it to the dry west, then be sure and let us know…
By the way, Oklahomans are an enterprising bunch and have created myriad lakes and impoundments and as a result, there’s more shoreline in Oklahoma than on the US Eastern Seaboard and the US Gulf Coast combined.
But of course putting megatons of carbon dioxide underground as part of CCS could not possibly have any adverse consequences….
chuck says:
July 5, 2014 at 8:19 am
“…small earthquakes do ***NOT*** relieve stress, or prevent subsequent shocks. ”
_________________
That’s not exactly true. Small quakes do relieve stresses, but there just aren’t enough small quakes to prevent the inevitable big ones. The USGS position is that injection wells might indeed trigger earthquakes along faults sooner than they would have naturally occurred, but I’m unaware of a USGS statement as to the extent that any injection- caused quakes alleviate larger stresses. Considering the political climate in which the USGS operates, the lack of such a statement comes as no surprise. However, small quake stress relief is acknowledged within the USGS literature and one can easily read between the lines…
chuck says:
July 5, 2014 at 8:04 am
latecommer2014 says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:58 am
“It is accepted that the small quakes REDUCE the severity of the large quakes”
…
“That is an unproven assertion. In fact there is no way to actually make any kind of measurement that can verify it.”
chuck, you probably aren’t an engineer. If you inject fluids under pressure broadly (fracking, repressuring reservoirs) into a significantly stressed field, there is little doubt you can assist in movement on faults. If you inject into a generally non stressed field with no active faults, you can initiate very local movement on new fractures – gee whiz fracking is designed to actually fracture the rock in the reservoir! The fracking fluids are pumped down at a pressure of about 80% of the lithostatic pressure to induce fractures at selected points from the well bore. Imagine pumping it down at 100% in sufficient volume, you would rupture more than the formation you intended to. There is nothing magical about stress in rock whether natural or induced. Your little quakes prior to volcanic activity are just fracturing because of fluid pressure – the same thing.
Now your assertion that there is no way to make measurements to verify it is wrong. It would probably be too expensive and foolhardy to do the test, but if the San Andreas is under growing stress, you could frac along the fault for hundreds of miles and various depths with fluids approaching 100% litho pressure and get some data to correlate with it.
I live in one of the areas of ‘fracking central’ and if all the energy consumed by the anti crowd and their misinformation were eliminated, the need for fracking would likely be reduced by a noticeable amount.
In spite of alarmist claims, there is zero evidence linking that earthquake to a wells of any kind.
Prague Oklahoma is no stranger to earthquakes, plus it is well inside the New Madrid zone. At 3.1 (5km) deep, just which disposal well supposedly caused the two big Prague earthquakes (4.6 and 5.6) on 11-05-2011, not forgetting the dozens of after shocks.
USGS issuing a statement justifying the presidents opposition to oil or coal is no unexpected. Read the science not the alarmist media release.
Or do you plan to claim that disposal well fluids also caused the Powhatan Virginia 5.8 quake in the August 2011?
Coincidence is not correlation, correlation is not causation! Preparing lists of earthquakes and then assuming local activity by mankind causes them is utter BS. Causation must be proved!
Consider before jumping to any conclusion the sheer scale of an earthquake. Earthquakes are measured on a logarithmic scale where quake difference between 4.6 to 5.6 indicates a tenfold increase in amplitude but represents 31 times the energy of the lower quake. Attributing such massive releases of energy to virtually any activity of man borders on bizarre. Especially when the earthquake energy for all of the quakes allegedly caused by well fluids is totaled.
I must’ve missed your clear and evident examples… Evident, isn’t that one of those robust words the alarmists love, along with that well defined scientific word ‘clear’?
Now about ‘dispels your myths’; as noted above you are obviously not an engineer, nor are you a geologist or seismologist. There is a well known earthquake movement function called ‘creep’ which describes the rate of slip in a strike/slip fault.
Steady-state creep means frequent small movements that appear to avoid the drastic large and destructive fault movements which are termed ‘episodic’ creep. Small creep movements which are measured by seismometers as small earthquakes relieve the fault stresses without catastrophic impacts. Where fault stress builds till the fault is forced to move literally sheering rock as the fault sides slide past each other makes for very catastrophic earthquakes.