Oil and Gas Drilling Connected to Earthquakes in OK

[K-DOGG]

Thoughts?


http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401624...-they-know-why

[Spit Dialect]

Yup, but hey...Drill baby Drill!

On a side note, have you read the new discoveries of the hot water "blobs" moving in the North West?

Humans are destroying planet earth, but climate change is false y'all!

[BostonGuy]

What could be more ecologically damaging than to drill holes in the earth and then pump chemicals into those holes?I don't know how anyone can justify that fracking is safe and doesn't damage the environment

[Marcov]

Tornado belt and earthquakes. I want to buy a mobile home and move to Oklahoma.

[2ofEverything]

What could be more ecologically damaging than to drill holes in the earth and then pump chemicals into those holes?I don't know how anyone can justify that fracking is safe and doesn't damage the environment

[Mooshashi]

FFS is it to difficult to read the reports? The issue is high pressure injection of waste water into disposal wells not hydraulic frac jobs in producing wells. Frac water is not the only water being injected; nearly all producing wells generate water from the formation that is not drinkable (yes, Mother Nature creates crappy water) and it has to go somewhere.

There are thousands of water injection wells throughout the United States. Once the companies define the correct injection pressure these incidents of human induced seismicity will end.

BTW....there are over 8,000 wells in North Dakota and Montana that have been fracced since 2005...anyone ever hear of induced earthquakes in those states? There have been over 100,000 wells fracced (mainly with nitrogen) in the Appalachian Basin (NY, PA, WV, KY) since the early part of the 20th century...yep, no earthquakes attributed to fraccing.

Recently several wells in SE Ohio have induced earthquakes...the underlying reason for these earthquakes is the local geology. Most shale gas or oil production is in basins where the faults that jiggle upon lubrication do not extend very far from the formation that was fracced. Most frac jobs are done at depths >6,000' and there are very few places where faults extend up from 6,000' below the surface up to the surface. Therefore water supplies are very safe from contamination.

Companies usually know where major faults are relative to the wells (either injection wells or producing wells). The ones that don't know are being stupid or cheap because they didn't base their well drilling on 3D or extensive 2D seismic control.

[Tay Roc]

war fracting.

[Spit Dialect]

FFS is it to difficult to read the reports? The issue is high pressure injection of waste water into disposal wells not hydraulic frac jobs in producing wells. Frac water is not the only water being injected; nearly all producing wells generate water from the formation that is not drinkable (yes, Mother Nature creates crappy water) and it has to go somewhere.

There are thousands of water injection wells throughout the United States. Once the companies define the correct injection pressure these incidents of human induced seismicity will end.

BTW....there are over 8,000 wells in North Dakota and Montana that have been fracced since 2005...anyone ever hear of induced earthquakes in those states? There have been over 100,000 wells fracced (mainly with nitrogen) in the Appalachian Basin (NY, PA, WV, KY) since the early part of the 20th century...yep, no earthquakes attributed to fraccing.

Recently several wells in SE Ohio have induced earthquakes...the underlying reason for these earthquakes is the local geology. Most shale gas or oil production is in basins where the faults that jiggle upon lubrication do not extend very far from the formation that was fracced. Most frac jobs are done at depths >6,000' and there are very few places where faults extend up from 6,000' below the surface up to the surface. Therefore water supplies are very safe from contamination.

Companies usually know where major faults are relative to the wells (either injection wells or producing wells). The ones that don't know are being stupid or cheap because they didn't base their well drilling on 3D or extensive 2D seismic control.

I haven't checked the areas you mentioned but don't you think that where there are more likely to be earthquakes, and an incredible increase of earthquakes isn't a correlation?

Not the exact numbers, but I remember reading the study that showed something like a %4000 increase in quakes in those areas.

So I don't know if the comparison you gave is a fair one, if those areas aren't typically associated with earthquakes to begin with. I'm sure drilling in Florida will result in no earthquakes, but maybe drilling in San Diego would.

[Mooshashi]

I haven't checked the areas you mentioned but don't you think that where there are more likely to be earthquakes, and an incredible increase of earthquakes isn't a correlation?

Not the exact numbers, but I remember reading the study that showed something like a %4000 increase in quakes in those areas.

So I don't know if the comparison you gave is a fair one, if those areas aren't typically associated with earthquakes to begin with. I'm sure drilling in Florida will result in no earthquakes, but maybe drilling in San Diego would.

The point is that the underlying geology defines the frequency and intensity of the seismicity as related to the high pressure injection of water into disposal wells. Yes, if an area is likely to have natural quakes not related to plate movement (see below) then lubricating them with waste water would most likely increase the chance of not only more quakes but more intense quakes.

Also that there are quakes related to deep movement on tectonic plates, like along the San Andreas fault. This isn't the case in OK nor in North Texas where quakes have been noted recently around Azle and in Irving. Those quakes are currently being studied by geophysicists from SMU (Southern Methodist University) who have placed many more geophones on the surface than the USGS has throughout the country.

[Spit Dialect]

The point is that the underlying geology defines the frequency and intensity of the seismicity as related to the high pressure injection of water into disposal wells. Yes, if an area is likely to have natural quakes not related to plate movement (see below) then lubricating them with waste water would most likely increase the chance of not only more quakes but more intense quakes.

Also that there are quakes related to deep movement on tectonic plates, like along the San Andreas fault. This isn't the case in OK nor in North Texas where quakes have been noted recently around Azle and in Irving. Those quakes are currently being studied by geophysicists from SMU (Southern Methodist University) who have placed many more geophones on the surface than the USGS has throughout the country.

Ok, but fracking is increasing quakes then, in areas that are more prone to have them to begin with.

If I'm getting you correctly.