Oklahoma Earthquake Politics

[Hobbes]

At least we are not still blaming low lake water levels for the quakes.
That is something I guess.

 

[1krr]

I've been pressed for time lately... and I will answer more in depth as time provides. However, you posted images that correlate the correct data (referencing seismic activity to well location). However, your assumption that there is not very much distinction between a class II well and a well which is being hydraulically fractured is absolutely false. The volumes of water are not the same. And certainly not the same when considering return water from the well. The purpose of the an injection well is to store waste water. In fractured well, the purpose is not to store water. It is to fracture the rock matrix to increase permeability. While there is unrecoverable water, to say the difference in the two are negligible is vastly irresponsible.

Your own maps show the correlation quite correctly. Where you see Class II wells, you see increase in seismicity. Whereas the "shale wells" show less to little to no seismicity. The issue is not hydraulic fracturing, the issue is choice of wells to do waste water disposal. And again, in the case the prague swarm, the class II wells in question were predominantly injected with waste water from conventional drilling and completion processes... NOT hydraulic fracturing.

So sure, there is a problem there. There is obviously attention required to the present geology such that injection wells are not selected in which they have the potential to change stress profiles in existing faults. But to state that Oklahoma's earthquakes are in some way a by-product of hydraulic fracturing is largely ignorant.

For the above; in case you haven't looked it up, a class II well is either: a.) and injection well associated with pressure maintenance of a reservoir, b.) waste water disposal c.) hydrocarbon storage. The only class II well that could be associated with hydraulic fracturing is (b), waste water, which waste water is not exclusive to fracturing. ( see reference about prague swarm ).

For your statements, enlighten me with published data that states a class II well and a fractured well (during any stage, drilling to production) are in any way similar in stress profiles on rock matrix and/or otherwise. I want to see PUBLISHED data... feel free to use any source. I am asking, because I am not quite sure where your correlation is coming from.

Again, your maps only further prove my point.

Yes, I stated that geophysics is complex. That, however, does not negate the fact that seismicity create during the hydraulic fracture process is largely negligible and "unfelt" at the surface. Again, to illustrate this I would literally have to make a long presentation involving failure envelopes of rock matric... pressure from the fracturing process... and how the latter affects the first. If you want to know more than that, I strongly suggest taking a geophysics course with a prep in strengths and materials.

As far as the postulation of faculty at a research institution, not quite sure what "leading protests" has to do with anything. Guess I am not sure what point you are trying to make there.

As for your analysis of mitigation, we will just agree to disagree. As far as the companies I have had to work with (as a check), I have been met with the utmost concern for the environment and landowners. "Their calculation is that with enough propaganda and lobbying, they can maintain their profitability from the highly effective process of fracking for decades." This is an incompletely thought... need clarification on the point you are making.

"THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM" I need a link to any producer that is saying this. Not saying you are wrong, I just need to see who is saying it before I answer.

From what I read, and understand, what I see is "Corporations are evil and only out for themselves, therefor, everything they say must be a lie and anyone that agrees with them must have been bought out."

If that is what you are basing your "science" on, well... good for you.

I'm somewhat suffering from the same time problem but I'll summarize that none of the above changes anything about my arguement. If I took a poll of people whose houses have been damaged by earthquakes I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give a 1/4 wad of used toilet paper for the difference between a fracking earthquake and an waste well earthquake. You are trying to spin the frack vs waste well arguement when it doesn't matter. We didn't have waste well earthquakes until we started large scale fracking. You said the volumes of chemicals/water injected in the ground is different. It simply doesn't matter. If you are putting 10 fracking wells worth of waste water into a single waste well, guess what, if you weren't fracking you wouldn't have 10 waste wells to dispose of. So it's smoke and mirrors to say one has nothing to do with another even if it is true that fracking isn't the cause. It's not any harder than this. Don't cause earthquakes. If you think waste wells are causing them, then don't use waste wells. The fact that the industry is using them even when they are trying to shift the blame to them only further illustrates my point that the industry is vastly irresponsble.

 

[okietool]

I'm going to disagree with the injection well vs frac.
IMO an injection well can also be a water flood project. To me a disposal well is a disposal well, an injection well can cover a variety of wells, including, but not limited to disposal wells.

It's in my mind we may be at a "Perfect Storm" point. Meaning, we have extracted hydrocarbons form the ground and not replaced the bulk of them for over 100 years. I have been exposed to some very good geologists and I think I have a better than average grasp of fault blocks, vertical fractures, etc. This makes me think there are valid lines of thought on waste water (this isn't just frac waste by the way, there are lots of different wastes being pumped down disposal wells) disposal. There is probably also a lowering of the aquifer, due to increase in population, increased use in industry (oil patch included) & farming and extraction of hydrocarbons without replacing their support for the over burden.

What's gotten us to this point may be the old "we don't know what we don't know".
Look at asbestos, we didn't know what we didn't know.
Tobacco, we didn't know what we didn't know.
Lead in paint, we didn't know what we didn't know.
There are hundreds of examples.

It would be interesting to see a map including the known or believed fault blocks and locations of believed vertical fractures, versus the locations of disposal wells.

The question of liability: who actually owns the well? Are OCC guidelines being followed? Exactly who has legally disposed of what and how much have they disposed of? Has the OCC stopped operations?

To me suing the oil companies or anyone else using the disposal wells as per OCC guidelines, falls in the same realm as suing gun manufacturers when a firearm is used in a crime.

I will freely stipulate most of the waste is oil company frac flow back, but, if the disposal is approved for that use, how does that make oil companies liable?

Use and disposal of water is of major concern to exploration companies, in the past you weren't allowed to reuse it, you weren't allowed to drill or frac with produced water, those thing have both changed. There is interesting work being done with natural gas fracing, but, like wind energy or electric cars, the technology isn't quite there yet.

 

[Hobbes]

Has the OCC stopped operations?

Actually, they have closed some disposal wells.
They have also moved to a traffic light system where they can limit how much waste is injected and under how much pressure.

Makes you wonder how they can deny publicly any causation doesn't it?

I will freely stipulate most of the waste is oil company frac flow back, but, if the disposal is approved for that use, how does that make oil companies liable?

The CC my approve a well but if there are unintended consequences the driller and operator still has liability.
BP had a drilling permit in the gulf but they still paid billions in fines and cleanup costs.

 

[okietool]

Actually, they have closed some disposal wells.
They have also moved to a traffic light system where they can limit how much waste is injected and under how much pressure.

Makes you wonder how they can deny publicly any causation doesn't it?


The CC my approve a well but if there are unintended consequences the driller and operator still has liability.
BP had a drilling permit in the gulf but they still paid billions in fines and cleanup costs.

As for them stopping the disposal, it may be shutting the barn door after the cow is out. By driller I assume you mean users, was the well specifically limited to oil and gas, or was other waste accepted? (environmental clean up, etc.)

BP's fines were because of non-compliance. Having the permit doesn't mean you're in compliance with permit or COA.

 

[Hobbes]

As for them stopping the disposal, it may be shutting the barn door after the cow is out. By driller I assume you mean users, was the well specifically limited to oil and gas, or was other waste accepted? (environmental clean up, etc.)

Here's one...
http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=28027564&catId=112032

BP's fines were because of non-compliance. Having the permit doesn't mean you're in compliance with permit or COA.

The BP defense was they weren't the drilling corp. They contracted that out.
That defense failed because they still have liability.

 

[okietool]

Here's one...
http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=28027564&catId=112032


The BP defense was they weren't the drilling corp. They contracted that out.
That defense failed because they still have liability.

Good research. If it's Sandridge's well, my money would say it was all Sandridge's waste. My next question would be, "Is it all frac waste or is it produced water or a combination"? The answer to that question would be purely to quench the thirst for knowledge.


That's accurate, but the fines were still for non-compliance with the APD and COA. As a lease holder you are responsible for actions of any sub-contractor on the lease at your behest. I would think the contractor got fined also.

Now this is an extreme case but, my company has been fined because Legal hunters drove off the side of our leases, the BLM even admitted as much. Their thought was it's your lease you have to control it. We now fence them all, this pisses the tenant ranchers off, but so far none of then have offered to pay the fines in lieu of us installing the fence.

 

[Hobbes]

You're referring to the fines and I am referring to the damage settlement

http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/

 

[okietool]

You're referring to the fines and I am referring to the damage settlement

http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/

That would also be part of the APD and/or COA. Liability for the clean up is included as part of the APD / COA. On BLM land in N.M. soil testing after operations is required, disposal and replacement of and affected soil is part of the process. Offshore will be different but generally the same.
Fines or forced liability for clean up costs are pretty much the same, the liability is probably not technically a fine because BP's insurance may have taken a hit on the clean up part. Blaming the contractor may have been a strategy to promote an insurance pay out. If I remember right they alleged contractor negligence on well control equipment maintenance. Of course they were told "Still your problem". This is of course all guess work and an interesting exercise, but moot.
Now awards to states or individuals would be civil actions, no?

 

[Hobbes]

There have already been some settlements over damage from injection wells.
Here is a sample from Arkansas.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97R16320130828?irpc=932

Of course those are small quakes, nothing like a 6.0

I think the woman in Prague is going to win her suit or more likely reach a settlement over the 2011 quake.