Oklahoma Earthquake Politics

[Hobbes]

Again, we aren't going to get a production tax and relief fund by muzzling the geologists at OGS and remaining in denial, even if that was a flimsy makeshift solution.

The politics here don't work equitably.
Who is going to lobby for that in the legislature? The O&G industry? Ha...

No, the profits from O&G production have been invested in lobbying the legislature for looser regulation, not the other way round.

 

[Shadowrider]

Interesting.
1) I thought OERB was voluntary.
2) I scanned through the statute and it appears that very minor tweaking could encompass something for seismic damages to property owners and be a pretty easy sell.

But I still think this "movement" (no pun intended) has a feel that environmentalists are driving it quietly and from behind the scenes. I have to be wrong about that, academia would never help them do it. What am I thinking?

From the OERB statute:

§52-288.8A. Levy of assessment - Remitting - Rate - Collection.
A. To fund the activities of the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, an
assessment shall be levied in the amount of one-tenth of one percent
(1/10 of 1%) of the gross revenues received at the wellhead for oil,
natural gas, casinghead gas or condensate produced from each well in the
State of Oklahoma except for production exempt from the payment of gross
production tax pursuant to Section 1001 of Title 68 of the Oklahoma
Statutes.

Source

 

[1krr]

Emotions do not dictate science. And my main point was to counteract your claim that Class II vs a hydraulically fractured well are pretty much the same. That is simply not true... both in the amount of fluids inject, lithology and substructure properties (porosity, permeability etc). For instance one of the main reason you fracture a well is to increase permeability (the ability for the fluid in the pore space to move)... this, by very nature should tell you that if it is that hard to get out... that isnt the type of formation you would want to use as a disposal well. Now when shifting to the subject of earthquakes, that is all very relevant. The explanation that "Faults are being lubed are simply layman wording that is very far from the truth. What is happening, supposedly, is that the prolonged increase in fluid in the pore space is changing the stress profile of the rock structures and near-by faults. (if you want to learn more, look up Mor's failure envelope for rock). As for "Dont cause earthquakes" where are you placing blame? There are many drillers/completion/producers out there that have made significant progress towards waste water recycling. And it isnt, necessarily because of seismic activity. What was once more economical to just shoot down an old well, is starting to shift with current drought scenarios. IE cost of water is going up.

You are doing what industry pundits always do and clouding the issue and accusing me of being emotional but the fact is you asked for science and data and thus far, I am the only one who has provided any. I've made my position clear. There are earthquakes, they are causing damage, and the oil and gas industry is responsible. So let us level set just a little bit here with a simple yes or no question. You are welcome to support your answer with whatever science or data you want to present for thread's audience to consider but I'm curious if we are just talking from the same side or if we are diametrically opposed in views. So here goes: Do you believe that earthquakes are caused by oil and gas industry activities regardless of the specific type of well causing it?

 

[DrinkYourMilkshake]

You are doing what industry pundits always do and clouding the issue and accusing me of being emotional but the fact is you asked for science and data and thus far, I am the only one who has provided any. I've made my position clear. There are earthquakes, they are causing damage, and the oil and gas industry is responsible. So let us level set just a little bit here with a simple yes or no question. You are welcome to support your answer with whatever science or data you want to present for thread's audience to consider but I'm curious if we are just talking from the same side or if we are diametrically opposed in views. So here goes: Do you believe that earthquakes are caused by oil and gas industry activities regardless of the specific type of well causing it?

Correlation is not science. It's basis for hypothesis. But not science.

I tend to get gassy in the spring. Does that mean warmer weather makes me fart? Or could it be warmer weather increases my desire for Mexican beer, which I do imbibe, and thus cause increase uptake in Mexican food?

As for your question, at this time, I would say I am 70% sure the increase seismic activity is due to waste water injection and thusly a function of the industry.

But like everyone else, that 70% is not based on science, is based on correlation and therefore only a hypothesis.

Via science, I can say it is not due to hydraulic fracturing.

 

[DrinkYourMilkshake]

Allow me to amend that last statement. With science, probability of nonmicro seismic due to HF completion is greatly diminished.

I imagine there are subsurface conditions where seismic activity could approach felt levels. But likelihood would be extremely rare.

 

[1krr]

Forming a hypothesis is science. It's core tenet of the scientific method.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Correlation is a principle method of testing a hypothesis. You talk a lot about physics and if you were a physicist (you may be?) you would know that correlation is common because physical events are rarely directly observable. Using your fart example (I like it), I don't care if you get gassy in the spring or from mexican beer, you farted. It stunk. And you were responsible. We can talk about mexican beer. I would enjoy testing the hypothesis that mexican beer causes gas to exhaustion. Whether it was mexican beer or whether it was the spring, ya farted.

But I feel like we made progress here and I'll reciprocate. i think the debate exists in the final 30%. I'm open to discussion about that 30% and with compelling evidence, maybe you can take me from 100% sure to 70% sure. But remember on thing, I've got no emotion driving this. I also have no protection of my livelyhood driving this. I worked in the industry and became skeptical about the industry as a result of being in it. I didn't actively investigate it until my house started shaking like a jumping bean (see me sticking with the mexican theme here?). I got to my 100% as a result of consideration of the evidence. Let's go from here.

EDIT: Had the pending post for a while so I didn't see your amended statement. I'm ok with that. Geology is complex and it stands to reason that the earth's crust isn't uniform and thus will have different effects on different formations. I'm more about taking responsibility when it does have an unintended effect. Like I said, if fracking and production doesn't affect me or others negatively, you can drill to the moon if you want. That won't change my opinion of a need for a more diverse energy infrastructure but those are two different arguments.

 

[DrinkYourMilkshake]

Forming a hypothesis is science. It's core tenet of the scientific method.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Correlation is a principle method of testing a hypothesis. You talk a lot about physics and if you were a physicist (you may be?) you would know that correlation is common because physical events are rarely directly observable. Using your fart example (I like it), I don't care if you get gassy in the spring or from mexican beer, you farted. It stunk. And you were responsible. We can talk about mexican beer. I would enjoy testing the hypothesis that mexican beer causes gas to exhaustion. Whether it was mexican beer or whether it was the spring, ya farted.

But I feel like we made progress here and I'll reciprocate. i think the debate exists in the final 30%. I'm open to discussion about that 30% and with compelling evidence, maybe you can take me from 100% sure to 70% sure. But remember on thing, I've got no emotion driving this. I also have no protection of my livelyhood driving this. I worked in the industry and became skeptical about the industry as a result of being in it. I didn't actively investigate it until my house started shaking like a jumping bean (see me sticking with the mexican theme here?). I got to my 100% as a result of consideration of the evidence. Let's go from here.

EDIT: Had the pending post for a while so I didn't see your amended statement. I'm ok with that. Geology is complex and it stands to reason that the earth's crust isn't uniform and thus will have different effects on different formations. I'm more about taking responsibility when it does have an unintended effect. Like I said, if fracking and production doesn't affect me or others negatively, you can drill to the moon if you want. That won't change my opinion of a need for a more diverse energy infrastructure but those are two different arguments.

This will largely be arguing semantics, but correlation is not science. It is in science, but is not science in and of itself. Simply put, correlation does not always imply causation (fart example).

As for the rest... I can agree to those terms.

As for my own correlation, http://maps.fractracker.org/latest/...95782&webmap=aa7f85ff6fb149248df33ba2aae66080

Class II well locations vs Shale wells.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/oklahoma/seismicity.php

Seismicity map of Oklahoma.

Notice the strong correlation between class II wells and seismic activity. This is the reason I have 70% certainty that seismic activity is due to waste water injection. Remaining 30% has more to do with contribution as I truly believe this is a case of converging stresses (reduced lithostatic static pressure/stress due to aquifer depletion, etc, etc ad nauseum).

My amended statement on certainty that fracturing cannot cause non-micro seismic activity is because when I made the original statement, I was speaking specifically about Oklahoma and the majority (over 99%) of the seismic activity. I will not deny that fracturing a well that is, basically, on top of a fault could create microseismicity that will in turn trigger/induce "felt" seismic activity.

For what it is worth, I have said for a long time that wells in close proximity to faulted structures should not be used for waste water injection.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Even if one were to accept the premise of this being solely attributable to disposal injection wells, since most of what is being pumped into these disposal injection wells is wastewater from the fracking process, it's still caused by fracking, imo.

 

[DrinkYourMilkshake]

Even if one were to accept the premise of this being solely attributable to disposal injection wells, since most of what is being pumped into these disposal injection wells is wastewater from the fracking process, it's still caused by fracking, imo.

Not the case on the class 2 wells associated with Prague swarm.
Beyond that, do you blame Alpo for the dog crap in your yard?

 

[Hobbes]

Not the case on the class 2 wells associated with Prague swarm.
Beyond that, do you blame Alpo for the dog crap in your yard?

Hunton is an O&G production project though and it is believed to be the cause of the 2011 quake.
Semantics, smoke and mirrors, obfuscation...
You're not winning us over with that.