Oil industry study shows production and injection wells can trigger earthquakes.

Oilfield Review: Seismicity in the Oil Field 

Publication: Oilfield Review

Volume: 12
Issue: 2
Publication Date: 06/01/2000


In some areas, seismic activity, better known as earthquakes, can occur as a result of oil and gas production. In this article, we review the modern history of human-induced seismic activity, and present the findings of a recent project to monitor injection- and production-related seismicity. Scientists in Russia, in a cooperative project with Schlumberger, are analyzing the seismic energy recorded during these events to extract information about the reservoir, to more fully characterize the state of stress in the field and to optimize the recovery of reserves.

Russian%20Study.pdf

Induced Earthquake Bibliography

Oil and Gas Production Induced Earthquake References

http://www.nyx.net/~dcypser/induceq/pis.html

Views: 2561

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 20, 2012 at 1:13am

This is the first paragraph of the Oil and Gas Production Induced Earthquake References

Some people have been abusing this web resource by claiming that it supports the claim that "fracking" which is properly called "hydrofracturing" induces earthquakes. This is untrue. None of the the papers on this website investigates or supports the claim that hydrofracturing induces earthquakes. All legitimate research has found no evidence of this. "Injection induced earthquakes" are NOT caused by hydrofracturing. Injection of fluids for the purpose of waste disposal or well stimulation is NOT "fracking." Injection of fluids CAN induce earthquakes in some circumstances. Hydrofracturing has NOT been found to induce earthquakes.

015334grltd9mPermalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on January 20, 2012 at 1:31am

If this is the case Mauck must evict Merkart, this is not a forum  for distortions and hysteria,

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 20, 2012 at 4:16am

Perhaps the title I chose is too provocative for your site.   The Russian study actually concludes that all oil and gas production has the potential to create earthquakes, whether fracking is used or not.

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 20, 2012 at 10:11am

Howard, the full quote is as follows:  "Few will deny that there is a relationship between hydrocarbon recovery and seismic activity, but exactly how strong a relationship exists has yet to be determined.  Furthermore what can or should be done about it sparks another debate."  "In regions of lower tectonic stress earthquakes of that magnitude are less likely, but relatively weak earthquakes could occur and damage surface structures." 

Elsewhere in the article:  "... it is rare for reservoir development to lead to earthquakes strong enough for people to feel.  More often, induced seismic events are weak and can be recorded only with the help of a sensitive seismometer network." 

The article concerns induced seismicity using case studies of seismic activity recorded after long term waterfloods were conducted for enhanced recovery in faulted sandstone reservoirs.  These operations are significantly different from hydraulic fracturing operations occurring in the Utica Shale or Marcellus in both the duration of fluid injection and the volume of injection.  One location is near the boundary of tectonic plates, and the other in a more tectonically quiescent area.

The geologic setting and reservoir characteristics of the case studies also appear to be signicantly different from the setting and characteristics of eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania.

The title of your post is misleading and the article does not appear to conclude that all oil and gas production operations have an unqualified potential to create earthquakes sufficient to cause earthquakes.  Hydraulic fracturing operations do not seem to be addressed in this article.  the word fracturing appears only twice and not in the context of hydraulic fracturing operations.

All in all it is a valuable article and the citations in your post are informative, but it does not make a compelling case for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing .

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 20, 2012 at 11:00am

Thank you for your expert response.  It would be great if you started following the Eastern Ohio well map via Google Earth thread.  We get questions about geology frequently and we would welcome your input. 

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 20, 2012 at 5:29pm

Yes, that is the full quote from an article published in a well respected oil industry journal, so now for the big question why do the administrators of ODNR not know about this article, or if they do know about it, how can they justify saying:

"But Heidi Hetzel-Evans, an ODNR spokeswoman, said the agency stands by its regulations that permit the well operations.

“(ODNR has) not seen any evidence that shows a correlation between localized seismic activity and deep-injection well disposal.”  Oct. 30,2012


and

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources said this week it believes there is no correlation between the well, which goes down into the Precambrian formation — which dates from the formation of the Earth until about 542 million years ago and lies about 9,000 feet below the ground — and the earthquakes, which started March 17.

Nov 26, 2012

Are they uninformed, or are they lying?

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 21, 2012 at 1:30pm

As the Lamont Doherty seismometers were not installed until November 30, it appears they were commenting on the best site specific information available locally at the time.  The Oil Review published by Schlumberger probably has a readership somewhat less than that of Mother Jones, so it is understandable that the Russian study has not been widely available outside the domain of professional seismologists.  ODNR was not lying and as it is unlikely that they have a full time seismologist on staff I would not consider them to be uninformed.  They saw the problem, closed the injection well, called in experts with more specialized knowledge to investigate further and have not allowed new injection wells in the immediate vicinity of the current problem well.  It seems to me that the system is working in a rational manner.  ODNR appears to me to have conducted itself in a responsible professional manner to this point.

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on January 20, 2012 at 11:03am

Nice post comrade now if they believe it we will be exporting or oil to the westerners!  Lol

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 20, 2012 at 4:14am

Did you read the Russian study, it clearly states "Few will deny their is a relationship between hydrocarbon (oil & gas) recovery and seismic activity"  and in regions of low tectonic stress (no major faults or seismic activity) "relatively weak earthquakes could occur and damage structures."

I find it interesting that the reference site does not list the Russian study even though it appeared in a respected oil and gas industry journal and is older than some of the other studies mentioned.

I intentionally put both links up to encourage discussion and comparison of these studies.   I guess you aren't interested in information that contradicts your thoughts on the subject.

015334grltd9mPermalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on January 20, 2012 at 7:42am

The only discussion we want from the Fractivist, is to give us an alternative now, not some shout out to start putting restaurant greese in our engines.

Permalink Reply by Nelson Roe on January 20, 2012 at 8:26am

I am still pro-drilling & have not seen any evidence yet that has proven anything to make me want to change my position on this.  However, I believe that open, healthy discussion is a good thing.  It seems that some people tend to focus on the "Fractivists" being narrow minded and only wanting to bash the O&G and any related industry.  But if we, as the opposition to their position, are just as narrow-minded as we accuse them of being, and do not allow for an open dialogue, then are we truly any better?   True issue resolution can only be found through open communication, and attempting to find something that comes close to satisfying all (or at least most) parties involved (I know we can't please everybody!).  It shouldn't be "us against them" to find the resolution, I believe it should be how can "WE" come to a resolution.  I know this is almost always easier said than done, but keeping an open mind to at least hear the opposition & attempt to discuss the issues would be a good starting point...

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 20, 2012 at 8:33am

I agree.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service