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: 2564

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

015334grltd9mPermalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on January 20, 2012 at 5:43pm

Food for thought............what if it is reported in the next few days that the Salt Springs injection well permitted for 8,000 ft. was drilled to 12,000 ft. in order to take on more fluid........illigally?

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on January 20, 2012 at 6:03pm

 If it was drilled to the depth of hell its self i still would not believe the injection well effects would be enough to have triggered a earth quake. A thought here, as we know rock formations hold water or oil, that we can agree upon, We know the process of fracking causes fractures in a formation (cracks that allow a fluid to move) that we can agree upon. But what is a fault, a crack in a formation a natural fracture that would allow for a flow of liquid.  With the distance if it is correct, I do not believe the injection well could have reached the fault line.

Permalink Reply by Nelson Roe on January 20, 2012 at 7:50pm

I am not sure where this Salt Springs injection well is located, but if in Ohio then I would imagine that ODNR would likely be all over it.  I am sure there are ways of monitoring the depth & if it was found that the operator in fact drilled 4,000 ft. deeper than what they were permitted to drill, then I would say a hefty fine would be coming their way & they may either shut the well down until they could obtain proper permits for a greater depth, or force the operator to plug it back to the original permitted depth. 

Not quite sure where you were trying to go with this one Ron, but it would seem downright foolish to me if an operator were to so blatantly disregard something as what you posed in this hypothetical situation(or at least I hope it is hypothetical).

015334grltd9mPermalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on January 21, 2012 at 1:31am

The Salt Springs well is the epicenter well.............as always, I tend to get info. prior to the public.  I do not know where this one is going either, Nelson. 

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 21, 2012 at 2:45am

Here is the Completions Report for the NORTH STAR(SWIW #10).  Is this the well that you heard is drilled to 12,000'?  This shows it to be drilled to 8988'

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 21, 2012 at 1:35pm

The title has been changed to more accurately reflect the contents of the article.

As for your second point, I thought the purpose of this site was to share information so that those who are unfamiliar with the process of shale drilling can make an informed decision.  I am not trying to change the minds of those who have already made up their minds.

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 21, 2012 at 2:14pm

Share away.

It does take time to establish patterns that are not reasonably attributable to coincidence.  Determination of induced seismicity and calculation of likely earthquake intensities resulting from previously unidentified faults relies upon collecting a statistically meaningful sample.  Perhaps a modification to the licensing program for injection wells is desirable.  Something on the order of new wells in areas without significant subsurface information have a probationary period where operations are limited.  If monitoring shows abnormal behavior, a range of actions can be ordered from further investigation to outright closure.  If no undesirable effects are demonstrated over a sufficient period of time, full scale operation is approved.  Costs to implement this type of monitoring and control would likely be shared between the injection well operator and the waste generators.  The program could be operated by the existing regulatory agency.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 21, 2012 at 2:21pm

Should a 3d seismic survey by part of the permit process for waste injection wells?

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 21, 2012 at 4:29pm

Mark,

You are assuming a great deal more scope than the permitting system  modifications I propose.  There would be no additional conditions imposed on the majority of injection wells or new construction of wells in areas that have have had normal operations to date, for example the area around Minerva.  I am aware that the majority of the program is working successfully and there is not a need to dump significant additional costs into a new bureaucracy.  What I suggest is that some wells that are proposed in new areas or into deeper formations without a history of successful wells, be required to provide more site specific data prior to unrestricted operation.  It would be my expectation that this could be handled by the current staff allocated to the permitting program, and would likely affect less than a handful of wells per year.  The deep near basement geology of Ohio could use some better characterization, and I would expect this to be gradual with the normal orderly development of additional disposal wells as well as from data normally collected from the exploration and development of producing wells.  I've worked for both the private sector and regulators and have no desire to see either one run inefficiently or irrationally.  I propose a simple graded approach to deal with the expected limited number of wells that could pose a problem.  I don't want to see operators have their pockets picked, and I wish to see the public receive adequate protection from realistically forseeable threats.  No drama, no exaggerations, no endless litigation.  Just the facts please sir.

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 21, 2012 at 5:07pm

Just left it open.  Seemed a good place to stop.  Say for example in the construction of an injection well or a dam a shear zone is encountered.  In some cases there may be an engineered solution to the potential problems this poses.  In other cases it is a better idea to back up and try again.  My point is not to halt activity based on fear of shadows, but to be serious about what we do and act in a dispassionate rational fashion.  Perhaps by leaving threats as unspecified I am not wrapping things up in as nice a package as I would like, but an endeavor worth undertaking is rarely engaged in with complete knowledge of where it is going to lead.  I am convinced developing the Utica resources will be beneficial, and ancillary problems with waste products will be successfully resolved. 

One of my colleagues works for a company that intends to provide recycling services for flowback and produced water.  If they can commercialize the process it would be intended to be economically competitive with injection.  It's goal would be to save operators money over the trucking and disposal costs.  I understand it is being funded by private money, so we are not talking about another Solyndra debacle. 

Sorry I haven't elaborated more on threats, but I didn't wish to create a long debate over what I intended to be a simple proposal for a rather small addition to a system that works rather well in my opinion. 

Permalink Reply by beth hamm on January 21, 2012 at 2:22pm

  There were faults causing earthquakes since the beginning of time and with all the wells drilled and fracked --- we should be having alot more quakes if your sources are right.  If you were not on this band wagon it would be another soap box.  People on this site are only reading the the posts they want to so maybe Howard  you should go on record to say that you would rather not use any products that have been brought to you by NG --- research all the plants using it for all the things you use everyday.  Why not buy a nice place in the mountains and live totally GREEN ----- oh my mistake land is not for sale there b/c we are producing NG there.  Someone once said that those against to helping the country, states and local govt were just chewing on sour grapes since they could not profit.  There are many ways to profit from this maybe that would be the way to go instead of trying to project your views and sing to the choir here on this site????????????  Instead of Drill Baby Drill let's Frack Baby Frack.

Permalink Reply by Howard Markert on January 23, 2012 at 5:16pm

Mark, the feeling is mutual, I think you should stop posting your misrepresentations as well.   Seeing that you are not going to stop, I don't think I should have to either.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service