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 Nelson Roe on January 20, 2012 at 7:37pm

Thanks Betty! :-)

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on January 22, 2012 at 4:20am

amen Nelson.

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 20, 2012 at 5:16pm
Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 21, 2012 at 1:25pm

I agree with your second question completely, it is very important to consider the carbon footprint of alternatives, which is why I do not support corn ethanol or hydraulic fracturing.   The following is an abstract of a peer reviewed scientific study on the carbon footprint of Shale Gas: 

Received: 12 November 2010 / Accepted: 13 March 2011
© The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by highvolume
hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions.
Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from
shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime
of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps
more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from
shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes
from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane
is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater
than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few
decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse
gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time
horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil
when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to
coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice
as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

Thus how can I support gas drilling that causes more pollution than coal?

Permalink Reply by Nelson Roe on January 20, 2012 at 7:27pm

I like the nanoparticle energy concept here as well, but I would pose some of the same questions as Michael.  Also, another thing to consider here is that this is a new concept.  What is to say that a few years down the road, someone, somewhere doesn't discover that one or some of the components used in building the solar cells (or whatever is shown in the photo) is hazardous in some way, shape, or form, as many are now saying about the solar panels that are currently being produced in China.  I believe that in any human involved process, someone along the line is going to find something in the process that can be shown to cause some form of harm to something.  And in turn this will cause an uprising from a particular group or groups.  As stated earlier, we, as a collective just have to attempt to go with the best, most environmentally friendly, and most cost efficient option available to us at the current time.  By the time this company can develop this energy source, successfully market it, and get the demand for it to a point that the cost is comparable to Nat Gas or oil, then someone will be on to the next great idea & someone in the future generations will probably be having similar debates as we are having now, only it will possibly be over nanoparticle energy vs. that next great idea...   Again... just all my opinion.

 

I am by no means against the search for the alternative energy source.  We all just have to keep in mind that we need to be realistic & realize that we do need something affordable to sustain us until it gets here.  & if companies are willing & able to produce that "something" from within our borders instead of importing it, then I am all for it.  Given that somewhat similar drilling operations have been ongoing around here for years & for the most part, the regulations & standards are in place & have been abided by... Notice I said for the most part, again I am aware there have been exceptions & incidents that folks like to quickly point out...

Permalink Reply by Dan on January 21, 2012 at 4:41am

Howard,  This looks very interesting but doesn't explain what metals are used to cause oxidation, if they are used up in the process and need to be mined over and over.  What is used to contain the gasses untill sent to the reactor and are they likely to combust if leaked?  I think I would rather have a nucleur reactor in my back yard but this would probably work in metro areas where they are allready pumping crap around and have to treat it.  I did a search at this site looking for the new technology being developed making solar antenea using organic RNA chains linked together, which is actually a closer process to photosynthesis and doesn't have the toxic by-products as manufacturing solar panels, but found nothing.  There is a reference to a site there that is quite interesting and possibly a much bigger bandwagon to jump on though.  http://www.solutioneur.com/

Permalink Reply by Richard Rudin on January 20, 2012 at 3:35pm

For all, I am in western Colorado. I am part of a community based Coal Collaborative, which includes county, environmentals, water co.s,  and three coal co.s.   We ALL believe in mining our "super compliant" coal with the caveat being the companies act as  good neighbors and are environmentally responsible. 

Here are my beliefs. Hydrofracking on rare occasions  can create seismic activity (see Cuadrilla Resources, their own commishoned report Nov. 2, found the Co. responsible for definitely 2 and up to 50 tremors in Lancashire, UK. (they accepted responsibility) Re-injection creates seismic activity considerably moreso. See Youngstown, Ohio Dec. 31.

These now change the conversation from "whether, or whether not" to  "what degree" and what effects...

I am hoping this site could shed some light (with fact) on the engineering aspects of having  coal leasing (deep underground longwalls) and gas leasing concurrently and in proximity. 

Permalink Reply by gary smith on January 20, 2012 at 4:09pm

i for one question anything out of britain. who did the tests? the same people who did the climate-gate e-mails?

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 21, 2012 at 1:31pm

I agree that the earthquake potential from both production wells and injection wells is rare, however having the industry and ODNR deny any correlation is doing a great job of swaying public opinion against these processes.   If ODNR and D&L had come forward after the 3rd or 4th quake and said hey we think there may be a problem lets slow thing down and study this, your cause would have a lot more public support.  Right now each additional earthquake shifts hundreds more people against fracking and injection wells.

Permalink Reply by beth hamm on January 20, 2012 at 4:13pm

Mark, Thanks for your post - it is very refreshing to hear that someone stand up for the USA and our fight for independence.  The enviro - marxists will say anything to cause problems.  I heard one say that drilling wells causes the earth to give way and cause subsidances.  Never stops!! Say anything to cause a fuss.  Read on the site we need to just Say " NO GAS FOR YOU" to those who have problems with sending our Gas and Oil to market.

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 20, 2012 at 5:12pm

Would it help you understand my point of view any better, if I was to call you a fascist capitalist pig?  I think not.  I make my posts for the same reasons you do; we are not trying to change each others point of view, but we are trying to get information out to those who have not made up their minds on the issue or (based on the recent Quinnipiac Poll) those who haven't yet heard anything about fracking.

I do find it ironic, that we can both look at the same reports and we both feel that it backs up our point of view.      

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on January 20, 2012 at 5:31pm

Howard,

Your headline states fracking and injecting cause earthquakes. There is your problem, remove fracking from your title and you may have some ground to stand on. Personally I still need more info to even beging believing that injecting caused Youngstown's earthquake. At some point, when more research is done, I might change my opinion.

Furthermore, the title of this website is go marcelus shale dot com. Nobody here will change their opinions based on a few statements. Especially not when a baseless claim is made.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service