Earthquake rattles Oklahoma

[ConstitutionRose]

Hydraulic Fracturing is 67 years old, started in Oklahoma.

http://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/

You must be older than I would have guessed.

Oh come off of it.  You are being a contrarian.  My American Indian ancestors told stories of the earth shaking.  Yearbooks dating back to the founding of the boarding school in 1917 mentioned earthquake parties.  There is a frigging fault.  Or maybe you believe the Sooners were drilling fracking and disposal wells from their sod houses.

[thackney]

Oh come off of it.  You are being a contrarian.  My American Indian ancestors told stories of the earth shaking.  Yearbooks dating back to the founding of the boarding school in 1917 mentioned earthquake parties.  There is a frigging fault.  Or maybe you believe the Sooners were drilling fracking and disposal wells from their sod houses.

I was responding to:

I lived there as a kid 5 decades or more before fracking started

You are either ~120 years old, or do not understand when fracking started.

- - - - - - - -

Nearly all earthquakes are not caused by waste water injection. 

Nearly all waste water injection wells do not cause earthquakes. 

However, some waste water injections wells, injecting into/near faults at basement rock level are likely increasing the earthquakes in that area.

[bob434]

Would you please point me to a citation for that?

I think that anyone who looks at the actual data and says there's no correlation is crazy, blind, ignorant, or stupid.  It's pretty impossible to miss.

 i gave a citation in last post- government ordered study- only 8 wells are THOUGHT TO have been possibly responsible- out of thousands of wells-

According to the NRC study how many earthquakes have resulted from those 30,000 injection wells? Eight. Once again, statistically zero.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2012/06/nrc-study-fracking-does-not-cause-earthquakes/

Yeah- Crazy- Guess the NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER is comprised of all crazy people then- There are also other studies you can find yerself- Another govenrment ordered study came out not long ago stating there was little evidence that frackign was causing earthquakes- and there have been several smaller studies done in earthquake prone lands to determine if frackign increased them- very little if any correlation was found- with no direct evidence linking it- just speculation-

[bob434]

[[Most injection wells are not associated with felt earthquakes. A combination of many factors is necessary for injection to induce felt earthquakes. These include: the injection rate and total volume injected; the presence of faults that are large enough to produce felt earthquakes; ]]

First of all, faults usually produce earthquakes all on their own or rather earthquakes are common around large faults- Second- how many more earthquakes can be directly attributed to injection wells in these areas? (Again, only 8 across America are 'thought to be responsible' for earthquakes- minor ones at that even if they were responsible) Where is the study done to directly link an injection, or many injections, to earthquakes? Do they happen immediately when injecting? Days later? Weeks? Months? When they do happen, how is it determined that it was a direct result of an injection? Opinion? Or some verifiable fact? IF everything you inject fluid into 'sensitive areas' it causes earthquakes immediately after the injeciton, and is consistent enough that that statistically it can't be simple coincidence, then yeah- you can assume, by reason of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' conclusion, that the injections are directly responsible provided you rule out other factors such as natural causes-

[[Only a small fraction of these disposal wells have induced earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern to the public]]

Proven? Or opinion? Does the opinion even reach a level of 'beyond reasonable doubt' given that enough circumstantial evidence is present to present a beyond reasonable doubt case for those injections being the direct cause of the quakes?  There are several million earthquakes every year in the world- Earthquakes are extremely common - of the 1000's of injection wells, only 8 can be GUESSED to have been the cause? With no definitive proof they were the cause-

The whoel issue is liek hte second hand smoking issue- sure, second hand smoking can cause cancer if taken in enough quantity- but government officials are claiming just being in the same large parking lot, like a hospital parking lot- and smoking a cigarette is 'putting everyone at danger of causing cancer, and therefore needs to be banned' Yet they have absolutely ZERO proof that Anyone got cancer fro m soemoen smoking a cigarette clear across a parking lot- They have nothign more than an unsubstantiated opinion that a woman or man who got cancer one year got it from someone in a parking lot smoking a cigarette one day- Goodluck trying to prove that in a court of law- Yet they get away with making that unsubstantiated correlation because there is no direct proof that they 'didn't get the cancer fro m that one cigarette one day' The fact is that hte person most likely got it from defective genes, OR from other environmental conditions liek autos- or smokestacks or even crap emanating naturally from the ground=- or burnign woodstove at home- o...r or... or...-

[Smokin Joe]

[[Most injection wells are not associated with felt earthquakes. A combination of many factors is necessary for injection to induce felt earthquakes. These include: the injection rate and total volume injected; the presence of faults that are large enough to produce felt earthquakes; ]]

First of all, faults usually produce earthquakes all on their own or rather earthquakes are common around large faults- Second- how many more earthquakes can be directly attributed to injection wells in these areas? (Again, only 8 across America are 'thought to be responsible' for earthquakes- minor ones at that even if they were responsible) Where is the study done to directly link an injection, or many injections, to earthquakes? Do they happen immediately when injecting? Days later? Weeks? Months? When they do happen, how is it determined that it was a direct result of an injection? Opinion? Or some verifiable fact? IF everything you inject fluid into 'sensitive areas' it causes earthquakes immediately after the injeciton, and is consistent enough that that statistically it can't be simple coincidence, then yeah- you can assume, by reason of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' conclusion, that the injections are directly responsible provided you rule out other factors such as natural causes-

[[Only a small fraction of these disposal wells have induced earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern to the public]]

Proven? Or opinion? Does the opinion even reach a level of 'beyond reasonable doubt' given that enough circumstantial evidence is present to present a beyond reasonable doubt case for those injections being the direct cause of the quakes?  There are several million earthquakes every year in the world- Earthquakes are extremely common - of the 1000's of injection wells, only 8 can be GUESSED to have been the cause? With no definitive proof they were the cause-

The whoel issue is liek hte second hand smoking issue- sure, second hand smoking can cause cancer if taken in enough quantity- but government officials are claiming just being in the same large parking lot, like a hospital parking lot- and smoking a cigarette is 'putting everyone at danger of causing cancer, and therefore needs to be banned' Yet they have absolutely ZERO proof that Anyone got cancer fro m soemoen smoking a cigarette clear across a parking lot- They have nothign more than an unsubstantiated opinion that a woman or man who got cancer one year got it from someone in a parking lot smoking a cigarette one day- Goodluck trying to prove that in a court of law- Yet they get away with making that unsubstantiated correlation because there is no direct proof that they 'didn't get the cancer fro m that one cigarette one day' The fact is that hte person most likely got it from defective genes, OR from other environmental conditions liek autos- or smokestacks or even crap emanating naturally from the ground=- or burnign woodstove at home- o...r or... or...-

As far as seismic activity caused by either fraccing or injection wells, look at the seismic history of Western North Dakota. Oil production since the 1950s has produced at least an equal volume of water, disposed of in saltwater disposal wells. I missed the 'big' 2.6 earthquake in 1982, and that has been the only one in the oil producing region in my lifetime. Similarly, there have been over ten thousand horizontal wells fracced in that same area since 2000, no earthquakes.

Now, North Dakota isn't known for faults or earthquakes, so if either fraccing or injection wells were going to cause either in areas which had had no earthquakes, it would be a prime area to see that result. Nope. Nada.

Which means the earthquakes are occurring along faults which already existed, releasing stresses already present in the rocks.

Are injection wells causing that release by 'lubricating' existing faults? Possibly. Are hydraulic fracturing jobs causing that release? Highly unlikely. The former involves gradually increasing the pore pressure of a rock layer by adding fluid to the layer, and if that layer is connected to a fault, it is possible that fluid pressure along the fault could facilitate the release of seismic stresses already present.
 
The latter involves a short term increase in pressure, and with a multistage frac (common now) that pressure is targeted at the rocks outside as little as a couple hundred feet of wellbore during each stage. When the frac job is done, the pressure is released fairly rapidly during the flowback period after a frac, and is only present for a few weeks at most, declining as the well is produced. Because the pressure increase occurs over a small area, and is of short duration, any induced seismic activity should occur during that period, not later as the pressure is declining. That has not been documented, and there is no hiding an earthquake, so the connection were one to exist would have been evident and documentable by now.

I agree fully about 'smoking science'. Hook up a lab animal to breathe cigarette smoke for months on end and it will likely get cancer. Do the same with auto exhaust, fumes from new carpet, paint, paneling, a host of different particulates, or virtually any other irritant with pulmonary latency (not readily expelled), and chances are you'd get the same result. As far as that 'research' went, is just as far as those conducting it wanted to go. They were looking for proof of a scapegoat, not the answer. Nowhere have I seen any statistics adjusted for environmental toxins or irritants, nor occupational exposures of other substances (except asbestos), because the 'evidence' was targeted at deep pockets which could be held for ransom. Secondhand smoke? Anyone who grew up in the '60s should be dead, if steel dashboards, no seat belts, no bicycle helmets, no three prong outlets, not wearing a life jacket, or any of dozens of other things didn't get us.
There is another possibility, though, but it is unlikely you will see it mentioned. Do a web search on SV-40, and the connection to Polio vaccines. It's an eye opener.

[Sanguine]

...
There is another possibility, though, but it is unlikely you will see it mentioned. Do a web search on SV-40, and the connection to Polio vaccines. It's an eye opener.

Hmmm:  http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/

[thackney]

Hmmm:  http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/

Thanks for that well sourced link.

[Victoria33]

Oh come off of it.  You are being a contrarian.  My American Indian ancestors told stories of the earth shaking.  Yearbooks dating back to the founding of the boarding school in 1917 mentioned earthquake parties.  There is a frigging fault.  Or maybe you believe the Sooners were drilling fracking and disposal wells from their sod houses.

@ConstitutionRose
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
My Bob is an earth scientist/geologist and traveled the world finding oil for more years than most people are old on this forum. He was the premier earth scientist in this country at the time.  He says the Oklahoma earthquake was NOT caused by fracking.

Here is a story for you:
When the cold war was over, Russia allowed Mobil Oil Company into the country to find oil.  Mobil sent Bob.  He had meetings with a Russian official in the Kremlin regarding where Bob wanted to look for oil as he already knew where it was likely to be.

After a number of these meetings, Bob and the official were having dinner, and the official began to cry.  Bob had an interpreter so he said nothing until the interpreter told him why the official was upset to the point of crying.  The official had said while crying, "Bob, I could not kill you."  The official had grown up being taught every American was evil and should be killed.  Bob's humanity had reached this man and destroyed what he thought all Americans were.  That official's opinion of Americans changed from that time forward - they were not evil and subject to death.
 

[MajorClay]

Great graphics Thackney 

[bob434]

[[Now, North Dakota isn't known for faults or earthquakes,

Which means the earthquakes are occurring along faults which already existed, releasing stresses already present in the rocks]]

What are hte facts?

injection wells are strictly controlled by authorities and regulations- we keep hearing that injection wells are placed 'near faults' or even 'over faults' and that 'they are causing pressure on these faults which result in earthquakes'

L:istening to the accusations by anti-frackers, one would think oil drillers are allowed to dump their wastewater anywhere they like- that there are injection wells all over the place, and that injeciton wells exist in siesmic prone areas-

What is the truth? Wells can not be located near faults- there are very strict guidelines as to where injections can take place

The fact is that north dakota is actually very suitable for injection wells-

[[North Dakota geology is very suitable for underground injection of oil and gas wastes. Disposal injection in North Dakota is typically one-half mile below the deepest underground source of drinking water (USDW) and one mile to two miles above the granite rock formations where earthquakes originate. However, as a precaution North Dakota has rules in place relative to induced seismicity: North Dakota requires a map depicting the area around the location where the disposal well is proposed that depicts any known or suspected faults. Wells must be constructed in a manner that prevents movement of fluids into USDW’s or into unauthorized zones.]] (https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/undergroundfaq.asp)

"Are injection wells causing that release by 'lubricating' existing faults? Possibly."

Not really- again- there are very strict regulations regarding injection sites- and again- a recent NRC study showed only 8 'possible' minor earthquakes caused by injection wells- that's out of tens of 1000's of wells/injection sites-

[[Current science indicates that earthquakes originate from faults in the granite rock formations that are much deeper and older than the sedimentary rocks where disposal injection occurs in North Dakota.]] (same link as above)

The bottom lien is that injection wells are highly regulated- but listening to anti-fracking folks, one would think they are unregulated, exist everywhere, and are a direct cause of every rise in earthquake activity sine frackign began-

The comment was made earlier that frackign has been around for a very long time, and earthquakes were increasing during that time period- Well study after study have shown that fracking is not responsible for quakes, that injection sites MAY BE instead-  but no direct proof of such as only 8 can be 'thought to have caused' minor earthquakes

As well- wastewater injections are only a fairly recent process- wastewater usede to be dumped at sea and in waterways before- so the claim that frackign was the cause of earthquakes years ago isn't true- they weren't even injecting back then-

Another fact is that there are millions of earthquakes every year- some areas see increases each year for a few years- all due ot natural processes- some see decreases- to suggest that increased 'must be due to injection sites' simply because injection sites are in an area where increases takes place isn't very scientific thing to say- that would be like saying that because more people chew bubble gum i n the area, it is causing more earthquakes-
This boils down to a correlation issue- (and is exactly why anecdotal evidence isn't an excepted form of evidence, and why peer reviewed studies are necessary- my aunt claimign her warts were cured because she began eating snowflakes i n the winter isn't scientific- it's a wrong correlation on her part- The reality is that she forgot abotu the fact that she began eatign a little better during that time, or used a different soap to wash dishes with- any number of things could have been the cause- but to claim snowflakes cured her warts (or caused more for that matter) is called 'anecdotal evidence'

Someone earlier said something like 'only a crazy person could look at the 'evidence' and conclude that fracking isn't causing earthquakes' Yet the actual evidence states that only 8 injection sites can be thought to have POSSIBLY caused earthquakes- While earthquake activity may increase in areas where there are injection wells, the fact is earthquakes increase where there aren't any injection wells as well- increases and decreases have always happened- always- where is the proof that injection wells are a direct result of increasing earthquakes?

We had more wind this summer- which 'if you look at the evidence' it shows that more people ate beans this summer- so only a crazy person could look at hte evidence and not conclude that beans are the cause of higher and more frequent winds' because 'where the most beans were eaten, higher wind speeds, and more frequent winds were recorded

Correlation- We have to be very careful when trying to correlate results with activities or processes- Again- a recent NRC study shows only a possible 8 cases of possible quakes due to injection sites-

[Smokin Joe]

Hmmm:  http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/

Thank you for the link. http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/testimony/testimonyspetember102003.aspx

A couple of questions persist, and these are more about the nature of research than the results. First, if the intent of the research had been to show that SV-40 did persist and had caused cancer in childhood or even later in life, would it have yielded that result? Attribution of cancer to a specific carcinogen is often problematical, as humans have very complicated exposure histories and genetic factors may obscure that picture even more.

Then, too, political factors will influence what sees the light of day as well.

For instance: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research/index.htm That is just an index of studies done, and note papers there produce conflicting results, although there appears to be a connection.

As for SV-40, it doesn't smell bad, isn't something that will create an industry for its removal, heck, it won't even depress the value of apple orchards.

Those of us who received the vaccine got some, and so many other things are being blamed at this point we won't ever know the answer.
 
As far as cancer goes, there are different varieties, and they may have different causes or triggers, or multiple causes.

Tobacco smoke may be one, or may be far less significant than presumed. The buildup of tar in the lungs would trap other possible carcinogens, or possibly react with otherwise harmless agents to produce a carcinogen that causes cancer. My great grandfather never smoked, but died of lung cancer in his eighties. He was a carpenter. My paternal grandfather lived to about the same age, and smoked from his teens to within a couple years of his death, due to complications from diabetes, not cancer.
Occupational and environmental exposures are not taken into account, as a rule, and many smokers worked at blue collar jobs with large amounts of dust, aerosols, VOCs, or smoke (like welding smoke), or were around high temperatures consistently, or chemical irritants.
While my relatives' results do not refute the concept of tobacco smoke as containing carcinogens, they are the opposite of what would have been expected.
 
Depending on where you grew up and how old you are, this might be relevant as well: http://www.260press.com/nuclear-fallout-maps.htm

[IsailedawayfromFR]

My cousins who are in the oil business pointed out at a family thing that there was very little if any fracking in that area of Missouri or Oklahoma during the time I was growing up there five plus decades ago.  The earthquakes, as many have already pointed out, are associated with faults and possibly disposal wells.

Well, you can believe your kin or believe the actual facts, which show hydraulic fraccing began in the 40s.

I happen to believe facts.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh come off of it.  You are being a contrarian.  My American Indian ancestors told stories of the earth shaking.  Yearbooks dating back to the founding of the boarding school in 1917 mentioned earthquake parties.  There is a frigging fault.  Or maybe you believe the Sooners were drilling fracking and disposal wells from their sod houses.

Do you not understand that the earth has had earthquakes since it began?  So what if we had some in 1917 as the earth is billions of years older.

What can you be possibly thinking about?

Geologists are laughing at that comment.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, you can believe your kin or believe the actual facts, which show hydraulic fraccing began in the 40s.

I happen to believe facts.

Hydraulic fracturing began in the 40s http://www.geosociety.org/criticalissues/hydraulicFracturing/history.asp, but those were vertical wells, and simply did not cover the area a 9500 ft. lateral in the pay zone covers.

To get a good idea of the anticipated drainage area of those vertical wells, note the numbers of acres in the lease spacing. That, generally was the area the well was considered to drain no farther than, and spacing sizes were established to help keep someone from draining oil out from under adjacent land where someone had not put in a well.

Still, the fluid level is fairly low. One million gallons of frac fluid would be 3.07 feet deep if you could stack it on one acre. The spacing for a two section (square mile) lease (9500 ft. of lateral in zone) is 1280 acres (+/-) and that million gallons forms a puddle there only .029 inches thick. Yep, thirty thousandths of an inch of fluid thickness spread over the lease, for every million gallons of frac. Not a real earthquake maker, that.
 

[Silver Pines]

@ConstitutionRose
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
My Bob is an earth scientist/geologist and traveled the world finding oil for more years than most people are old on this forum. He was the premier earth scientist in this country at the time.  He says the Oklahoma earthquake was NOT caused by fracking.

Here is a story for you:
When the cold war was over, Russia allowed Mobil Oil Company into the country to find oil.  Mobil sent Bob.  He had meetings with a Russian official in the Kremlin regarding where Bob wanted to look for oil as he already knew where it was likely to be.

After a number of these meetings, Bob and the official were having dinner, and the official began to cry.  Bob had an interpreter so he said nothing until the interpreter told him why the official was upset to the point of crying.  The official had said while crying, "Bob, I could not kill you."  The official had grown up being taught every American was evil and should be killed.  Bob's humanity had reached this man and destroyed what he thought all Americans were.  That official's opinion of Americans changed from that time forward - they were not evil and subject to death.

@Victoria33

What a story.  That makes me very sad for people who are brainwashed by their tyrannical governments into hating everyone who isn't them.

The North Korean people are told very much the same thing by their fat little leader.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hydraulic fracturing began in the 40s http://www.geosociety.org/criticalissues/hydraulicFracturing/history.asp, but those were vertical wells, and simply did not cover the area a 9500 ft. lateral in the pay zone covers.

To get a good idea of the anticipated drainage area of those vertical wells, note the numbers of acres in the lease spacing. That, generally was the area the well was considered to drain no farther than, and spacing sizes were established to help keep someone from draining oil out from under adjacent land where someone had not put in a well.

Still, the fluid level is fairly low. One million gallons of frac fluid would be 3.07 feet deep if you could stack it on one acre. The spacing for a two section (square mile) lease (9500 ft. of lateral in zone) is 1280 acres (+/-) and that million gallons forms a puddle there only .029 inches thick. Yep, thirty thousandths of an inch of fluid thickness spread over the lease, for every million gallons of frac. Not a real earthquake maker, that.

NO arguments from me on effectiveness of current fraccing with that way back then.

The point is the guy was trying to apparently claim, erroneously

1. Fraccing has only come around in the past few years.

2. earthquakes are only caused by fraccing.

Can't let that falsely permeate this thread

[Smokin Joe]

Let's start over, Bob, now that the servers are back up..

 I am a geologist who has spent his career on drill sites in seven states from North Dakota to Nevada, since 1979. Over 224 wells in a variety of different basins, vertical, horizontal, and directional wells in carbonate, clastic, mixed lithology and fractured volcanic reservoirs.
One thing is for sure, anyone who says they know where all the faults are is a fool. Run away.
We are discovering more faults all the time, sometimes by seismic activity, on occasion by drilling across one on a horizontal well. Been there, done that. Even if we knew where they all were, that does not account for fracture and joint sets (fracture swarms related to structural flexure) which can create permeability fairways which will take fluid places rapidly. Those little fractures (1mm is a Darcy or more of permeability) can move a lot of fluid. They can work for you (which is why frac jobs are done) or they can work against you, bringing in saltwater from depth (I have seen that result, too).
Note what I said:

"Are injection wells causing that release by 'lubricating' existing faults? Possibly."

Possibly because it can and has happened. Not probably, not definitely, but possibly. It depends on the geology of the area.

One thing my experience has made me well familiar with is that even 'layer cake' geology isn't, reservoirs are seldom isotropic in terms of properties, and there are a lot more faults down there than we know, even in areas deemed to be simple. That doesn't mean those faults are under stress, just present. You need both of those to have movement, and the stress needs to be great enough to overcome friction between two masses of rock so that movement can occur.

Add water at the interface, and the coefficient of friction is reduced. Add water under pressure, and it is reduced even more. It doesn't have to be pumped into the fault, only part of a system connected to it, but that doesn't mean that an injection well will cause an earthquake, either.

So, my answer: "Possibly." It can happen, it has happened, it may well happen again, although the more we understand the potential for a problem, the easier it is to avoid.

At least in this neck of the woods, oil companies have found it best to be good neighbors, and avoid problems as much as possible. If that means not rocking someone's great aunt Elsa's prized lutefisk platter off the china hutch, so be it..

First, not all injection wells are oilfield related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Arsenal, for instance. And yes, SOME cases exist of injection wells being closely associated with earthquakes, to the point that the increased fluid pressure facilitated the release of already present stress along an existing fault, whether or not the fault was known at the time the injection well was put in.

From 1990, before the current boom in horizontal drilling, multistage hydraulic fracturing, and oil production:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1951/report.pdf (USGS Bulletin no. 1951: Earthquake Hazard Associated With Deep Well Injection-A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By CRAIG NICHOLSON and ROBERT L. WESSON Prepared in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency

Under certain circumstances, the increased pore pressure resulting from fluid injection, whether for waste disposal, secondary recovery, geothermal energy, or solution mining, can trigger earthquakes. This report discusses known cases of injection-induced seismicity and how and
why earthquakes may be triggered, as well as conditions under which the triggering is most likely
to occur. Criteria are established to assist in regulating well operations so as to minimize the seismic hazard associated with deep well fluid injection

Now that isn't provided to panic the masses, any more than fracking polluted the perched water table in Pavilion, Wyoming. Denial of the possibility of a geologic hazard is as silly as insisting it would happen every time. Panic because there is a remote possibility is ludicrous.
Injection wells can cause earthquakes under a set of predictable and uncommon circumstances, we just need the background knowledge to avoid meeting those criteria and there is no problem.

[Smokin Joe]

NO arguments from me on effectiveness of current fraccing with that way back then.

The point is the guy was trying to apparently claim, erroneously

1. Fraccing has only come around in the past few years.

2. earthquakes are only caused by fraccing.

Can't let that falsely permeate this thread

I agree. Of the following:

1. Fraccing has only come around in the past few years.

2. earthquakes are only caused by fraccing.

Neither is true.

[XenaLee]

@Victoria33

What a story.  That makes me very sad for people who are brainwashed by their tyrannical governments into hating everyone who isn't them.

The North Korean people are told very much the same thing by their fat little leader.

Odd, considering....that we have a scrawny little leader....that apparently thinks Americans and America is evil.  Why else would he go on those apology tours.  But then, America really isn't Barry's country.  So there's that.

[bob434]

[[Denial of the possibility of a geologic hazard is as silly as insisting it would happen every time.]]

Noone is denying the 'possibility' - the chances of it happening though- especially given how extremely regulated the industry is in regards to placements of injection wells, depths, amount of water injected etc- is so remote as to be nearly non existent- and again- none of hte4 massive earthquakes that have done damage have ever, as far as i know, beeen linked to injection sites- at best- only minor quakes were 'possibly' related to injection sites in 8 cases out of 10's of 1000's- possibly- pretty big important word possibly- it's neither definitive nor inconclusive- it sits smack in the middle=- hovering around the 'shoulder shrug'; high water mark- there are many 1000's of injection wells all across the country- the reality is that there were only 8  quakes (minor ones at that) 'presumed to be caused by injection sites' - meanign that less than <1%  'might have been caused' by sites- zero major quakes- people facing the possibility they 'might die from cancer' would love to have % chances this low- I know, because i faced it not long ago- the chance for me had it been what they thought i had, was 28%-  nearly 1/3- which was somewhat concerning to me- 1/3 meant that there was still a 2/3 chance i wouldn't die if i had had it- which was pretty good odds really- (turns out it wasn't cancer thankfully- but there was a scare for awhile- point being- had the chance been as low as injection sites possibly causing minor quakes- I would have been totally unconcerned- no fear at all of dying (had i actually had the cancer)-

We need to put htis issue in perspective- Everyoen is so up in arms agaisnt fracking and/or injection wells-- but what are the actual chances that it's 'causing kilelr quakes'? When put in perspective, I think we can all agree that it's silly to even be worrying bout it

<1% is nothing folks- absolutely nothing- We have one of the safest hydrofracking processes in the world- with extremely strict guidelines for where the waste material can be dumped and how-

If 25% of known quakes i n an area were thought to be due to injection wells- coupled with evidence that a killer quake had ;likely been caused' by injection wells,   then i would say yeah- there's a problem there- and we should be worried about it

You chances of dying from an injection site induced quake is far less than it would be for contracting lyme disease from a tick bite just walking out in the yard, or being bit by a rabid raccoon- (but these things actually happen and have been proven to happen- injection well quakes not so much)

[Smokin Joe]

@bob434
It definitely was not my intent to foment panic, just the opposite, actually.

There have been no killer quakes linked to either fraccing (zero quakes) or injection wells. In those rare instances injection wells have been linked to seismic activity, the parameters established for avoiding such instances have further reduced the likelyhood of a recurrence.

As I said, I would be remiss if I said it couldn't happen that low magnitude quakes could be triggered by injection wells, but the probability is incredibly low. Again, that depends on knowledge of the geology of a specific area.

If you take the time to read the paper I provided the link to, http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1951/report.pdf you will see the salient differences between say, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal quakes associated with disposal wells in impermeable basement rock (three 5.5 quakes, the most severe ever associated with injection wells) and very different the standard saltwater injection well in the oil patch, where fluid is injected into a permeable formation with the porosity to accept that water (the wells are selected just for the presence of a rock formation with just that property).

The study was done well before it became chic to bash the oil industry like the Obamites' EPA has, and is a reasonable appraisal of the problem. That information was useful in devising and implementing the rules today which have tremendously reduced the likelyhood of a repeat of what were already uncommon occurrences. Knowing what caused the instances where this has occurred in the past makes it possible to craft regulations and criteria which will help avoid it in the future. As for whether such will never happen again, as a geologist I can't say no, but I can say it is far less likely than it was in the past, and it was pretty rare then.

According to that paper:

This explains, in large part, why, of the
many hazardous and nonhazardous waste-disposal wells in
the United States, only two have ever been conclusively
shown to be associated with triggering significant adjacent
seismicity. These are wells located near Ashtabula, Ohio,
and near Denver, Colo. In the case near Ashtabula, a series
of small, shallow earthquakes was triggered close to the
bottom of a 1.8-kilometer (km)-deep well; the largest of
these was of magnitude (M) 3.6 and occurred in 1987. In
the Denver case, the injection well responsible was located
at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, where fluid was being
injected into relatively impermeable crystalline basement
rock.

That isn't cause for panic, no matter what your take is on the situation. Both situations are avoidable in the future.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

[[Denial of the possibility of a geologic hazard is as silly as insisting it would happen every time.]]

We need to put htis issue in perspective- Everyoen is so up in arms agaisnt fracking and/or injection wells

Nope, everyone does not believe that.  Us in the oil industry know a lot better, as do most sensible people in America.

Those who are up in arms are
1. environmentalists who consider fraccing evil as it produces oil and gas and wish alternaitve sources of energy to be produced that are supposedly renewable or clean.
2. those producing oil and gas that do not utilize fraccing much such as OPEC that are not advantaged by the huge amounts of oil and gas depressing prices and reducing consumers' dependency upon their monopoly.
3. the ignorant