The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: Suppressed on November 18, 2017, 03:47:46 pm
-
'I HAD TO LEAVE'
Former state seismologist testifies officials coerced him to alter research on induced quakes
By Mack Burke | Transcript News Editor Nov 16, 2017
4 min to read
NORMAN — Oklahoma’s former lead seismologist has testified he was pressured by officials at the University of Oklahoma to suppress findings linking earthquakes with fracking wastewater disposal.
In a deposition taken on Oct. 11, Austin Holland alleges he was reprimanded for publishing a peer-reviewed journal article connecting the two and was pressured to alter his findings by Larry Grillot, dean of OU’s Mewbourne College of Earth and Energy, and Randy Keller, the former director of the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Holland said his decision to leave OU and the Oklahoma Geologic Survey in 2015 was a direct result of pressure from his employers.
[...]
http://www.normantranscript.com/news/former-state-seismologist-testifies-officials-coerced-him-to-alter-research/article_d8383864-cb20-11e7-8206-2bc32ae1169a.html
-
Of course there's always the possibility that Holland was the one with the agenda and the university officials were simply trying to maintain the integrity of the research.
-
Of course there's always the possibility that Holland was the one with the agenda and the university officials were simply trying to maintain the integrity of the research.
reading this article, it appears that supposition has legs.
All scientists are subject to peer review of his/her work. Why did this guy believe he was not?
-
It's not exactly a secret that waste-water injection is related to earthquakes.
-
It's not exactly a secret that waste-water injection is related to earthquakes.
Yes... with ever increasing fracking/injection wells came ever increasing earthquake activity...
so much so that Oklahoma became as earthquake active as California but with totally different tectonics.
Similar earthquake activity has been happening NW of the DFW area where there is much oil/gas production.
-
I forget how the story goes and I don't want to get it wrong but that even Rex Tillerson was against fracking near Denton which of course, seems to be where his residence is.
-
Yes... with ever increasing fracking/injection wells came ever increasing earthquake activity...
so much so that Oklahoma became as earthquake active as California but with totally different tectonics.
Similar earthquake activity has been happening NW of the DFW area where there is much oil/gas production.
One tiny point- it doesn't appear to be fracking, but the re -injection of waste water.
-
I forget how the story goes and I don't want to get it wrong but that even Rex Tillerson was against fracking near Denton which of course, seems to be where his residence is.
I don't know about Denton County... but private water wells have been polluted in next door Wise County from all the oil/gas abuse.
-
I don't know about Denton County... but private water wells have been polluted in next door Wise County from all the oil/gas abuse.
You sure about that? It's technically hard to do.
-
reading this article, it appears that supposition has legs.
All scientists are subject to peer review of his/her work. Why did this guy believe he was not?
Sentence two notes that his work was peer-reviewed.
-
You sure about that? It's technically hard to do.
Unless there is a lot of surface spillage, you are right. If there is a lot of surface spillage, someone isn't doing it right.
-
One tiny point- it doesn't appear to be fracking, but the re -injection of waste water.
Correct. Fracking may induce fractures, but the majority of the fluid is produced back from the well. Some companies will re-use it after treating it, and eventually that and produced water will be disposed of in injection wells. If those injection wells are causing problems, perhaps a different disposal site would solve the problem. If there is a problem, it needs to be identified, characterized, and then steps taken to correct it.
Seismic problems would depend on the geology of the disposal formations, as in North Dakota we have almost no seismicity, even though a considerable amount of produced water and frac water are injected daily.
-
Sentence two notes that his work was peer-reviewed.
Obviously, some peers objected to it. Does he think only those that agree with him are able to review his work?
-
Obviously, some peers objected to it. Does he think only those that agree with him are able to review his work?
That seems to be the prevailing attitude among many these days!
-
Yes... with ever increasing fracking/injection wells came ever increasing earthquake activity...
so much so that Oklahoma became as earthquake active as California but with totally different tectonics.
Similar earthquake activity has been happening NW of the DFW area where there is much oil/gas production.
I'll get resident geologist @Smokin Joe to chime in, but saying Oklahoma is as earthquake active as California is akin to saying the traffic in Oklahoma is as bad as California. Yes, they both have traffic but there is really no comparison whatsoever due to scale.
Any earthquakes recorded in Oklahoma are minor compared to California. The largest ever recorded in OK was 5.8 on Richter scale vs a 7.9 in California.
For you and guys in Rio Linda, that is over a hundred times as strong.
And are you suggesting that NW of DFW has similar earthquakes as to California? Most earthquakes recorded in Texas occur near El Paso. Do you have a record of these Texas earthquakes recorded near DFW as I cannot find them?
I believe you are simply parroting some decidedly anti-industry talking points and throwing them against the wall to see what sticks.
-
I'll get resident geologist @Smokin Joe to chime in, but saying Oklahoma is as earthquake active as California is akin to saying the traffic in Oklahoma is as bad as California. Yes, they both have traffic but there is really no comparison whatsoever due to scale.
Any earthquakes recorded in Oklahoma are minor compared to California. The largest ever recorded in OK was 5.8 on Richter scale vs a 7.9 in California.
For you and guys in Rio Linda, that is over a hundred times as strong.
And are you suggesting that NW of DFW has similar earthquakes as to California? Most earthquakes recorded in Texas occur near El Paso. Do you have a record of these Texas earthquakes recorded near DFW as I cannot find them?
I believe you are simply parroting some decidedly anti-industry talking points and throwing them against the wall to see what sticks.
There have been earthquakes associated with disposal wells, from Rocky Flats (CO) to the Midwest, and in other areas. Increasing the pore pressure in formations under stress has been shown to increase the likelihood of seismic events in SOME geological settings. Deferring to the USGS and for good basic information on the topic, I recommend seeing this: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php)
Keep in mind that without stresses already present, the amount of rock movement will be small or nonexistent. In North Dakota, the nation's second largest oil producer, there are virtually no earthquakes, despite injecting unprecedented amounts of production and used frac water in recent years.
As for groundwater contamination, there should not be any, if the well is properly constructed and operated with spill containment and prevention measures observed. A properly constructed injection well looks like this in schematic:
(https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/ClassIIInjectionWell.jpg)
Anyone who is really interested in this topic can get scads of info here: http://www.statesfirstinitiative.org/induced-seismicity-work-group (http://www.statesfirstinitiative.org/induced-seismicity-work-group) There is a webinar on the site, and links to other information as well, including a primer on induced seismicity.
-
As a follow-on and in the interest of presenting more complete information, http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Energy-In-Depth-Report-Injection-Wells-and-Earthquakes-Quantifying-the-Risk1.pdf (http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Energy-In-Depth-Report-Injection-Wells-and-Earthquakes-Quantifying-the-Risk1.pdf)
A little more technical, but includes assessments in Oklahoma and Texas: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1070/pdf/ofr2015-1070.pdf (https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1070/pdf/ofr2015-1070.pdf)Incorporating Induced Seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model—Results of 2014 Workshop and Sensitivity Studies
-
Now, a comment. If information that quakes, even small ones, are being induced by injection well activity is being suppressed, it shouldn't be. We don't find the answers to potential problems by ignoring them.
-
Correct. Fracking may induce fractures, but the majority of the fluid is produced back from the well. Some companies will re-use it after treating it, and eventually that and produced water will be disposed of in injection wells. If those injection wells are causing problems, perhaps a different disposal site would solve the problem. If there is a problem, it needs to be identified, characterized, and then steps taken to correct it.
Seismic problems would depend on the geology of the disposal formations, as in North Dakota we have almost no seismicity, even though a considerable amount of produced water and frac water are injected daily.
In Huntington Beach and Long Beach, water produced from water injection, has be reused for at least 45 years. So called fracking was used even before that.
There are thousands of $1+ million homes in the immediate area, literally on the same blocks with both injection and production wells.
The risks involved, have not stopped the building of more homes, hotels and shopping centers.
** Am I the only one having trouble posting images, lately ... using?
(http://)
-
** Am I the only one having trouble posting images, lately ... using?
(http://)
I haven't, but I have noticed more sites are not allowing hot-linking, and not all of them substitute a picture saying "Don't hot-link our images, you pooty-head," they just don't appear. I've gotten to where I preview every post with an image to make sure I have a good link, and that the pic isn't the sized of the side of a barn.
-
In Huntington Beach and Long Beach, water produced from water injection, has be reused for at least 45 years. So called fracking was used even before that.
There are thousands of $1+ million homes in the immediate area, literally on the same blocks with both injection and production wells.
The risks involved, have not stopped the building of more homes, hotels and shopping centers.
** Am I the only one having trouble posting images, lately ... using?
(http://)
The worst spots for induced seismicity appear to be in the Anadarko basin (Oklahoma and Kansas). others have happened, and the first I heard of were at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal ("Rocky Flats") in Colorado, decades ago. The effects (or lack of them) depend on the geology in the area, not on just whether there is wastewater injection going on. Fraccing has been around for over 80 years, and saltwater injection (disposal) even longer.
What we are seeing is that far greater amounts of flowback water and produced (formation) water are being disposed of than in the past in a shorter time frame. In some areas where there is existing stress in the rock and along existing fault lines, that stress is being released as friction is reduced.
Not all wastewater injection wells are oil and gas related. (The Rocky Mountain Arsenal situation had nothing to do with the oil industry).
-
Now, a comment. If information that quakes, even small ones, are being induced by injection well activity is being suppressed, it shouldn't be. We don't find the answers to potential problems by ignoring them.
My comment: The author said he felt intimidated by Harold Hamm when he relayed that his paper expressed his opinion that hydraulic fracturing caused earthquakes.
First, there are few peers in industry that agree with that statement. An earthquake by definition is simply an earth movement that is recordable. The earth is constantly moving, we just do not feel it most of the time. I have sat wells where we record tiltmeters for injection and fracced wells and also recorded microseismic events. In every case, one can see a recorded 'earthquake' on the instruments. These are non-damaging events. So running around saying 'earthquake' is akin to running around saying 'the sky is falling' when there it is raining.
@Smokin Joe , is that suppressing things?
Secondly, he agrees that the oil industry had no censure whatsoever of his papers. It was 'staff', which I assume are scientific peers, who questioned his papers. As I read the article, it appears he offered opinions that others disagreed with, which is the need for peer reviews.
-
My comment: The author said he felt intimidated by Harold Hamm when he relayed that his paper expressed his opinion that hydraulic fracturing caused earthquakes.
First, there are few peers in industry that agree with that statement. An earthquake by definition is simply an earth movement that is recordable. The earth is constantly moving, we just do not feel it most of the time. I have sat wells where we record tiltmeters for injection and fracced wells and also recorded microseismic events. In every case, one can see a recorded 'earthquake' on the instruments. These are non-damaging events. So running around saying 'earthquake' is akin to running around saying 'the sky is falling' when there it is raining.
@Smokin Joe , is that suppressing things?
Secondly, he agrees that the oil industry had no censure whatsoever of his papers. It was 'staff', which I assume are scientific peers, who questioned his papers. As I read the article, it appears he offered opinions that others disagreed with, which is the need for peer reviews.
Note I didn't say who might be conducting any alleged suppression, I just stated that there shouldn't be any, and did not mean to imply there was any.
The other factor is one of intensity, and that needs to be put into perspective as well. Break a rock it will send out a shockwave. I have been on drilling rigs where in fractures the bit would 'hop', and the whole location would shake. With 40K on the bit, that is a small seismic event: the whole location shakes noticeably. But that isn't the sort of thing that brings down buildings and causes widespread destruction. Minor events occur all the time.
Map of the last 24 hours: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22autoUpdate%22%3A%5B%22autoUpdate%22%5D%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22feed%22%3A%221day_all%22%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B-16.13026201203474%2C-171.73828125%5D%2C%5B78.63000556774836%2C-59.23828124999999%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%5B%22plates%22%5D%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3A%5B%22restrictListToMap%22%5D%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22timezone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22settings%22%2C%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22event%22%3Anull%7D (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22autoUpdate%22%3A%5B%22autoUpdate%22%5D%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22feed%22%3A%221day_all%22%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B-16.13026201203474%2C-171.73828125%5D%2C%5B78.63000556774836%2C-59.23828124999999%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%5B%22plates%22%5D%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3A%5B%22restrictListToMap%22%5D%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22timezone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22settings%22%2C%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22event%22%3Anull%7D)
Most of those are small potatoes, the sort of thing that would go unnoticed by someone walking along. or even sitting.
By contrast, filter out the little ones that no one feels, and you get this, over a week: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22autoUpdate%22%3A%5B%22autoUpdate%22%5D%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22feed%22%3A%227day_m45%22%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B-75.32002523220802%2C-228.1640625%5D%2C%5B85.02070774312594%2C-3.1640625%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%5B%22plates%22%5D%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3A%5B%22restrictListToMap%22%5D%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22timezone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22settings%22%2C%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22event%22%3A%22nc72923380%22%7D (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22autoUpdate%22%3A%5B%22autoUpdate%22%5D%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22feed%22%3A%227day_m45%22%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B-75.32002523220802%2C-228.1640625%5D%2C%5B85.02070774312594%2C-3.1640625%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%5B%22plates%22%5D%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3A%5B%22restrictListToMap%22%5D%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22timezone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22settings%22%2C%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22event%22%3A%22nc72923380%22%7D)(Those are magnitude 4.5+, and New Caledonia--the French territory, not Louisiana--seems to be a busy place at the moment, but to my knowledge there isn't much completion work going on there.)
When people think of an "earthquake" they tend to think of the latter, with abundant destruction and people buried in rubble. So causing panic on the basis of minor events is pretty much irresponsible science, unless it can be shown these events are precursors to a major event--something which hasn't been done on a regular basis. That simply hasn't been shown in this geological context. This isn't a volcano building pressure, nor an active plate boundary.
Fraccing has not been known to cause any significant disturbances. The questions about induced seismicity revolve (or should revolve) around wastewater injection wells. If he stated otherwise, then without information to back that claim (avoiding circular reasoning), it isn't substantiated.
-
My comment: The author said he felt intimidated by Harold Hamm when he relayed that his paper expressed his opinion that hydraulic fracturing caused earthquakes.
Obviously, "hydraulic fracturing" is being used to represent the actual fracking and the associated activities, including wastewater injection -- which was what he had written about.
Induced seismicity isn't just a short-term effect. Induced seismic events can occur long after the actual injections.
As has been said above, these aren't huge events being noted. And as @Smokin Joe says, if there's intimidation to prevent reporting on them, that's not good at all.
-
Obviously, "hydraulic fracturing" is being used to represent the actual fracking and the associated activities, including wastewater injection -- which was what he had written about.
Induced seismicity isn't just a short-term effect. Induced seismic events can occur long after the actual injections.
As has been said above, these aren't huge events being noted. And as @Smokin Joe says, if there's intimidation to prevent reporting on them, that's not good at all.
You are lumping all associated activities into hydraulic fraccing including wastewater injection?
Do you realize that most oil and gas activities include wastewater injection, not just hydraulic fraccing?
To combine them together makes no sense at all to people who understand the oil industry.
And BTW, there are plenty of areas where hydraulic fracturing is used where the produced water is resused in fraccing, so wastewater injection is done.
-
Obviously, "hydraulic fracturing" is being used to represent the actual fracking and the associated activities, including wastewater injection -- which was what he had written about.
Induced seismicity isn't just a short-term effect. Induced seismic events can occur long after the actual injections.
As has been said above, these aren't huge events being noted. And as @Smokin Joe says, if there's intimidation to prevent reporting on them, that's not good at all.
That is very misleading to do so. Lots of waste water injection occur that is not part of hydraulic fracturing. And there is significant hydraulic fracturing that doesn't use waste water injection. To me it is intentionally misleading.
-
I think you are making the same point as @Suppressed.
-
That is very misleading to do so. Lots of waste water injection occur that is not part of hydraulic fracturing. And there is significant hydraulic fracturing that doesn't use waste water injection. To me it is intentionally misleading.
Yep! NO doubt about it IMHO!
-
I think you are making the same point as Suppressed.
That was not my intention.
These are two very different operations for different purposes.
One is to inject into deep formations high volumes of water over a short period of time with the expectation of getting the majority of the water back to the surface. The objective is fraccing the formation. The produced water back may or may not be disposed and could be recycled instead.
The other is a continuous injection of water at shallower horizons and no expected return of any of the injected water. The objective is disposal of water from producing operations.
-
Nobody ever mentions the fact that these minor quakes seldom if ever do any real damage anyway.
When heavy trucks cross the dam 100 yards from my house I feel more shaking than I've ever felt from any natural earthquake and nobody is complaining.
There are wastewater disposal wells all around me and I've never felt any shaking from them. The trucks carrying the brine cause more shaking.
-
You are lumping all associated activities into hydraulic fraccing including wastewater injection?
You were the one referencing what Dr. Holland said. I was pointing out that the injections in question were from the hydraulic fracturing process, which includes waste disposal.
And BTW, there are plenty of areas where hydraulic fracturing is used where the produced water is resused in fraccing, so wastewater injection is done.
?
Not sure what your point is here.
-
That is very misleading to do so. Lots of waste water injection occur that is not part of hydraulic fracturing. And there is significant hydraulic fracturing that doesn't use waste water injection. To me it is intentionally misleading.
I haven't read the paper. Please point me to it, and what other injections had occurred.
-
You were the one referencing what Dr. Holland said. I was pointing out that the injections in question were from the hydraulic fracturing process, which includes waste disposal.
?
Not sure what your point is here.
You are obviously not understanding oil and gas operations. Do you understand the previous post I made that explains the difference? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291663.msg1520103.html#msg1520103
And I have no idea of what you are talking about by the ?
You need to begin not posting in areas where you lack sufficient expertise, like oil and gas operations.
-
I haven't read the paper. Please point me to it, and what other injections had occurred.
There is no paper. It is a basic activity in oil and gas operations.
If you must read something, read this that shows in 2014 a good % of frac water in the Pennsylvania shales is recycled and/or reused, not disposed.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/solidwst/2015/1-15-15/Water_Recycling_and_Oil_and_Gas_Waste.pdf
Email the author if you have questions. He works for the Pennsylvania state government.
-
You are obviously not understanding oil and gas operations. Do you understand the previous post I made that explains the difference? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291663.msg1520103.html#msg1520103
And I have no idea of what you are talking about by the ?
You need to begin not posting in areas where you lack sufficient expertise, like oil and gas operations.
I'm just curious - what is it about the original comment that made you react like that?
-
I'm just curious - what is it about the original comment that made you react like that?
He is equating the disposal of water to the injection of water for frac purposes.
They are definitely not synonymous.
-
He is equating the disposal of water to the injection of water for frac purposes.
They are definitely not synonymous.
I got that, and you know that and I know that, but why the antagonism? That's the part I meant. I really don't get it.
-
I got that, and you know that and I know that, but why the antagonism? That's the part I meant. I really don't get it.
It is misleading, hopefully unintentionally rather than intentionally, that conveys an impression that all fraccing and water disposal is bad as it causes earthquakes.
After repeated attempts to convey the truth, I still do not know if innocence or an agenda is in play here.
This is not the first instance of this happening either.
-
It is misleading, hopefully unintentionally rather than intentionally, that conveys an impression that all fraccing and water disposal is bad as it causes earthquakes.
After repeated attempts to convey the truth, I still do not know if innocence or an agenda is in play here.
This is not the first instance of this happening either.
OK, I give. I don't think that's what was at play here, but I could be wrong. Now, a couple of posters on page one - that might be a different story.
-
Oklahoma quakes this year top tremors in California
June 19, 2014
" Oklahoma has now surpassed California in quakes, and seismologists see no end in sight, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said.
California has recorded about 140 3.0-magnitude quakes or greater, compared to 207 in Oklahoma."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/us/oklahoma-earthquakes-wastewater-wells/index.html
LA Times
Oklahoma's earthquake threat now equals California's because of man-made temblors, USGS says
March 1, 2017
" The earthquake risk for Oklahoma and southern Kansas is expected to remain significant in 2017, threatening 3 million people with seismic events that can produce damaging shaking, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey forecast released Wednesday.
The seismic risk is forecast to be so high that the chance of damage in Oklahoma and southern Kansas is expected to be similar to that of earthquakes in California, USGS scientists writing in the journal Seismological Research Letters said Wednesday. "
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oklahome-earthquake-20170301-story.html
-
Oklahoma quakes this year top tremors in California
June 19, 2014
" Oklahoma has now surpassed California in quakes, and seismologists see no end in sight, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said.
California has recorded about 140 3.0-magnitude quakes or greater, compared to 207 in Oklahoma."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/us/oklahoma-earthquakes-wastewater-wells/index.html
LA Times
Oklahoma's earthquake threat now equals California's because of man-made temblors, USGS says
March 1, 2017
" The earthquake risk for Oklahoma and southern Kansas is expected to remain significant in 2017, threatening 3 million people with seismic events that can produce damaging shaking, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey forecast released Wednesday.
The seismic risk is forecast to be so high that the chance of damage in Oklahoma and southern Kansas is expected to be similar to that of earthquakes in California, USGS scientists writing in the journal Seismological Research Letters said Wednesday. "
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oklahome-earthquake-20170301-story.html
Instead of fawning over the numbers of very small tremors, why don't you catalog instead the numbers of tremors that have caused significant destruction?
Isn't that the really important number anyway?
-
Instead of fawning over the numbers of very small tremors, why don't you catalog instead the numbers of tremors that have caused significant destruction?
Isn't that the really important number anyway?
Like the New Madrid... and how Ouachita intersects with Reelfoot ??
-
OK, I give. I don't think that's what was at play here, but I could be wrong. Now, a couple of posters on page one - that might be a different story.
You only had to wait just a little bit, @Sanguine. :laugh:
-
You only had to wait just a little bit, @Sanguine. :laugh:
Yes, the fault is in the stars or something....
-
You are obviously not understanding oil and gas operations. Do you understand the previous post I made that explains the difference? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291663.msg1520103.html#msg1520103
And I have no idea of what you are talking about by the ?
You need to begin not posting in areas where you lack sufficient expertise, like oil and gas operations.
If you don't understand that hydraulic fracturing can result in waste that's disposed of by injection, then you don't understand it.
-
There is no paper. It is a basic activity in oil and gas operations.
If you must read something, read this that shows in 2014 a good % of frac water in the Pennsylvania shales is recycled and/or reused, not disposed.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/solidwst/2015/1-15-15/Water_Recycling_and_Oil_and_Gas_Waste.pdf
Email the author if you have questions. He works for the Pennsylvania state government.
Holland was referring to Oklahoma, not Pennsylcania. Please try reading before posting.
-
He is equating the disposal of water to the injection of water for frac purposes.
They are definitely not synonymous.
No, he isn't.
Do you think nuclear waste isn't a part of "nuclear power"?
-
It is misleading, hopefully unintentionally rather than intentionally, that conveys an impression that all fraccing and water disposal is bad as it causes earthquakes.
After repeated attempts to convey the truth, I still do not know if innocence or an agenda is in play here.
This is not the first instance of this happening either.
Yeah, you're reading a lot that ain't there.
-
If you don't understand that hydraulic fracturing can result in waste that's disposed of by injection, then you don't understand it.
There once again you display ignorance on oil and gas operations.
Hydraulic fracturing uses fluids including water, some of which is produced back. Of that which is produced back, a lot of it, as I have already shown you, is re-used in other frac operations.
I really do not know what else to tell somebody that refuses to understand what fraccing and water disposal really are.
-
No, he isn't.
Do you think nuclear waste isn't a part of "nuclear power"?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is all manner of liquid waste disposed of in injection wells and most of it has nothing at all to do with hydraulic fracking.
-
No, he isn't.
Do you think nuclear waste isn't a part of "nuclear power"?
what does that have to do with the subject matter here?
Did you cross threads?
-
what does that have to do with the subject matter here?
Did you cross threads?
Waste disposal, sometimes including the injection of waste fluids, is part of the hydraulic fracturing process. We speak of "nuclear power" and "hydraulic fracturing" as broader terms encompassing more than just the core of power generation or fracturing of rock.
It's obvious to anyone without blinders that's what Holland was referring to.
-
I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is all manner of liquid waste disposed of in injection wells and most of it has nothing at all to do with hydraulic fracking.
Agreed. A small fraction of the UIC permit applications I've filed have been for fracking-related operations.
-
There once again you display ignorance on oil and gas operations.
Hydraulic fracturing uses fluids including water, some of which is produced back. Of that which is produced back, a lot of it, as I have already shown you, is re-used in other frac operations.
I really do not know what else to tell somebody that refuses to understand what fraccing and water disposal really are.
I'm sorry. I hadn't realized that all the rest disappears and is never disposed of via underground injection.
-
Waste disposal, sometimes including the injection of waste fluids, is part of the hydraulic fracturing process. We speak of "nuclear power" and "hydraulic fracturing" as broader terms encompassing more than just the core of power generation or fracturing of rock.
It's obvious to anyone without blinders that's what Holland was referring to.
If you are talking about disposal of produced water (saltwater), all fraccing does is enhance production. That saltwater would have been produced with oil from the formation as part of the produced fluids anyway, provided the well had even been economic (vertical or horizontal) without fraccing the formation, which has been pretty much an industry standard to enable or enhance production for 80 years.
Let's break this down.
Drilling fluids used while drilling are commonly re-used or even sold to other companies drilling in the area.
Frac fluids are used to fracture the formation after drilling is completed and are mostly produced back in the flowback period, (initial production), and either saved and treated for re-use, or disposed of. Currently the trend is for re-use as an economic measure.
Produced water is also disposed of, this being water from the reservoir which also contained oil and/or gas. This water is usually saline and disposed of in injection wells.
All hydraulic fracturing does is enhance flow rates from the formation the oil and produced water are produced from. That produced water would have been disposed of in an injection well, anyway. That's a production thing, not really a fraccing thing.
Aside from the oil and gas production industry, other industries use injection wells to dispose of fluids it is far more expensive or dangerous to treat than to just inject into a rock formation at depth. The first example I provided of injection wells being identified as a cause of seismic activity was in Colorado at a nuclear weapons manufacturing facility and had nothing to do with the oil industry.
In cases where seismic activity is tied to wastewater disposal, that will be dependent on local geology and the rate and volume of wastewater being injected. Some will show a cause-effect relationship, others will not, and some will show no effect at all.
-
Holland was referring to Oklahoma, not Pennsylcania. Please try reading before posting.
Pennsylvania is an example, but recycling hydraulic fluids has been going on in Oklahoma and other states for years.
Once again, hydraulic fracturing doesn't mean waste water injection. And a lot of waste water injection doesn't come from hydraulic fracturing, it comes from producing wells.
Oklahoma energy companies work on water recycling
http://newsok.com/article/3948370
March 30, 2014
...Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp. in 2012 built a pond in Canadian County to hold up 21 million gallons of water. The facility allowed Devon to reuse more than 260 million gallons before the company completed its drilling project in the area late last year.
Devon was able to reuse both the freshwater used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and the produced water, which refers to the water that is recovered along with the oil from deep below the surface. The average oil well in Oklahoma produces about 10 times as much water as oil. The water typically is many times more salty than the ocean....
-
Waste disposal, sometimes including the injection of waste fluids, is part of the hydraulic fracturing process. We speak of "nuclear power" and "hydraulic fracturing" as broader terms encompassing more than just the core of power generation or fracturing of rock.
It's obvious to anyone without blinders that's what Holland was referring to.
Getting a little tired of telling you that hydraulic fracturing has NOTHING to do with waste water disposal.
Go read a book on oil and gas operations.
Saying fraccing is akin to waste water disposal is like saying buying groceries at the grocery store is akin to taking a dump in the toilet, so groceries require disposal in sewage systems.
-
Getting a little tired of telling you that hydraulic fracturing has NOTHING to do with waste water disposal.
Go read a book on oil and gas operations.
Saying fraccing is akin to waste water disposal is like saying buying groceries at the grocery store is akin to taking a dump in the toilet, so groceries require disposal in sewage systems.
We have plenty of wastewater injection going one around my neck of the Michigan woods with no fracking going on. I know a couple of guys who got in early when the oil and gas industry started expanding here in the late 70s and early 80s and have become fairly wealthy on wastewater disposal.
-
Getting a little tired of telling you that hydraulic fracturing has NOTHING to do with waste water disposal.
Go read a book on oil and gas operations.
Saying fraccing is akin to waste water disposal is like saying buying groceries at the grocery store is akin to taking a dump in the toilet, so groceries require disposal in sewage systems.
Argue it with others who point out that produced water is sometimes injected for waste disposal.
-
We have plenty of wastewater injection going one around my neck of the Michigan woods with no fracking going on. I know a couple of guys who got in early when the oil and gas industry started expanding here in the late 70s and early 80s and have become fairly wealthy on wastewater disposal.
Obviously. As I said, I've done UI for mostly other fluids.
But these are all red herrings. Go back up thread and the incorrect point being claimed was that the hydraulic fracturing industry never injects for waste disposal.
-
Argue it with others who point out that produced water is sometimes injected for waste disposal.
Here's your lesson for the day you need to practice
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTECydp4NQGJLL5zbvv6zu9rLJN8ZcwpSCabJbcGqBK0uwAfeAQ)
-
Another recent story on earthquakes in California. Just 134 tremors recorded last week, on just one fault system.
Oh, hum, just another day in CA.
Earthquake WARNING: US struck by 134 tremors in ONE WEEK on most DANGEROUS fault
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/661655/california-earthquake-2017-134-tremors-one-week-san-andreas-fault