Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Earthquake Politics
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DrinkYourMilkshake" data-source="post: 2720208" data-attributes="member: 37041"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 ). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Again, your maps only further prove my point.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"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.</p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>If that is what you are basing your "science" on, well... good for you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DrinkYourMilkshake, post: 2720208, member: 37041"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Earthquake Politics
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
