The news reports several small magnitude earthquakes in the Dallas suburb of Irving where two fracking wells were put in in 2010. Anyone on here live there?
Not related to Texas, but we've been having a fracking debate here in NC. The concern is that removing fluid (oil, natural gas, whatever) from under the bedrock can cause earthquakes from the bedrock shifting. Yes, they replace the fluid they take out so it should be a null difference, but that's the argument. I don't know enough about it to know if it's a valid concern or not.
I would think it would be hard to prove a connection but common sense tells me there may be one. Irving isn't the first place reporting increased seismic activity after fracking.
There is a well known fault line in Irving. It causes motorcyclists who aren't familiar with it to poop themselves when they go over it. Until there is some solid evidence it's just a conspiracy theory.
I'm in dallas and as far as I can tell there has been no increase in earthquake, just a increase in consistency theory.
I'm not a fan of fraking but it's because I do believe it can pollute ground water and because the small town I'd like to move to has been overrun and property values jumped.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 01-07-2015).]
Yep, well known. Only a handful of cases in the world that an earthquake caused by fracking has a magnitude of >1 though (meaning people can't feel them). The faults in the area (within 1 km of the fracking) must already be under stress and basically ready to go for it to happen. Water injection wells are more likely to cause seismic activity. They can affect up to (in very rare cases) closer to 10 km.
The current hypothesis with geologists concerning small earthquakes is that they relieve stress and postpone larger seismic activity. But if too many small earthquakes happen around the same time, it could lead to a major one.
At the end of the day, nobody has anything to worry about really. Two fracking wells are not likely to cause any earthquakes that anyone can feel. If they have, it's extremely rare. The amount of liquid being put into the ground must be vast on those wells. News agencies have used fracking as a negative buzzword for the past decade--be careful what you hear.
Not related to Texas, but we've been having a fracking debate here in NC. The concern is that removing fluid (oil, natural gas, whatever) from under the bedrock can cause earthquakes from the bedrock shifting. Yes, they replace the fluid they take out so it should be a null difference, but that's the argument. I don't know enough about it to know if it's a valid concern or not.
They had the same thing going on in NE Ohio. I think its just coincidental myself. One of my aunts always believed tornados were caused by space shuttle and satellite launches... Never mind there were tornados before rockets were invented. Nothing would convince her otherwise.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 01-07-2015).]
I dunno if these events can be called full on "earthquakes". they are not due to any tectonics or continental plates. These are just tremors from ground settlings. yes, I get it, that the folk who are used to a solid footing getting a little shake, and they wet their pants.
I would be 1000% more worried about the environmental impact.
I had my house shake pretty harshly back in the early 80s from a tremor in Columbus. Only time I ever had it happen. It was years before they invented fracking, and far from being in an earthquake area.
I had my house shake pretty harshly back in the early 80s from a tremor in Columbus. Only time I ever had it happen. It was years before they invented fracking, and far from being in an earthquake area.
We've been fracking since the 60's. Please know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
I didnt open my mouth, I typed. While it may have been done earlier, it wasnt to the extent it is now where its actually profitable. If it was done much at all in the past, why werent there all these reports then about quakes...? The idea of it started mid 1800s...but rarely used. Im so sick of people arguing technicalities.
"The modern era of hydraulic fracturing began in June 1998, at a well several miles north of Fort Worth. A completion engineer, working for Mitchell Energy & Development, had proposed using large amounts of water and pressure to break up the Barnett Shale. He received permission to frack three wells, but his efforts failed. He received permission for three more. His fifth attempt was successful and was the first "slick-water" frack using water mixed with chemicals. The success of the new approach - more pumping horsepower - was replicated in other wells around Fort Worth and later exported, successfully, to other states."
I didnt open my mouth, I typed. While it may have been done earlier, it wasnt to the extent it is now where its actually profitable. If it was done much at all in the past, why werent there all these reports then about quakes...? The idea of it started mid 1800s...but rarely used. Im so sick of people arguing technicalities.
"The modern era of hydraulic fracturing began in June 1998, at a well several miles north of Fort Worth. A completion engineer, working for Mitchell Energy & Development, had proposed using large amounts of water and pressure to break up the Barnett Shale. He received permission to frack three wells, but his efforts failed. He received permission for three more. His fifth attempt was successful and was the first "slick-water" frack using water mixed with chemicals. The success of the new approach - more pumping horsepower - was replicated in other wells around Fort Worth and later exported, successfully, to other states."
There weren't reports of quakes because fracking wasn't as widespread as it is today. It was used irregularly. Now it's used on virtually every well.
And it's not a technicality. We've been pumping large volumes of water and proppant while fracking since the 1960's. You're just talking about the time when every company basically started using it and adding chemicals to the mix to make it work better.
Everything we drilled in the Anadarko, Austin Chalk, and Tuscaloosa MS Trend areas was fracked back in the early 70s thru the 90s when I got out of it--both oil and gas wells.
I would be more concerned with fracking contaminating the water supply, that is something that could take years to show up similar to old gasoline storage tanks that have contaminated ground water years after they were installed.
Sorry, nothings going to convince me its causing earthquakes anymore than rockets cause tornados. The only relationship between the two I could possibly buy into would be landslides if theyre fracking into hillsides.
Originally posted by tebailey: The biggest problem is the oil companies don't give a damn about water contamination or earth quakes. What matters to them is $$$$$$
That would be natural, if true. $$$$$$$$$$ makes them care. There is more than enough "government conscious" to make them care. As well as civil liabilities.
Sorry, nothings going to convince me its causing earthquakes anymore than rockets cause tornados. The only relationship between the two I could possibly buy into would be landslides if theyre fracking into hillsides.
Lol okay buddy. You want to be ignorant, go on ahead and do it. What's your field of expertise again?
Nothing related. Im an expert body/ paint man and ex-USAF fighter/ commercial pilot. Ive done a lot more, RV and specialty vehicle manufacture, Semi car-hauler driver, raced boats and stock cars, fiberglass boat/ RV repairs. Working on oil wells dont make someone an earthquake specialist. Ill just be ignorant about the relationship between fracking and earthquakes unless someone can undeniably prove it to me. They fought it in court about 100 miles from me for last 5 years, and no one could, so they went back to fracking again. Im sure with all the government interference in anything they can, if they could prove it...they would have stopped it everywhere.
It took the feds 9yrs to get them to take lead out of gas after it was proven that it was a health issue. all it takes is $$$$$ and you can do anything you want.
I guess OJ Simpson didn't really kill his wife either, since they never could prove it in court......
Legally in the criminal trial, he didnt. Different answer in the other one where they found him responsible.
Everyone here anymore yells for absolute proof of anything. The proof for me would be finding a place with absolutely NO history of earthquakes ever, then fracking some wells that results in quakes right afterward....thats proof. All the experts couldnt prove it in NE Ohio, so they lost. Im pretty sure the witnesses there know much more about it than anyone here.
let me ask our resident expert something, lets put this in simple terms everyone will understand, especially me.
Lets use an apple as an example of the earth, if we continually pump water from a needle into it the interior of the apple will take it for a while, then as you keep pumping fluid into the apple eventually the outside of the apple will rupture as well as the inside, the core only has so much room for things to be added to the inside of said apple, right expert? So eventually things will start braking, little paths will open up to other parts of the apple, earth. and like that if you have wells of water inside the apple they will get contaminated by whatever you are pumping into the apple, earth. So just because it hasn't caused any damage, Yet doesn't mean the continual pumping of fluids into the earth isn't going to do bad things, like contaminate water wells, oceans, and everything else underground.
I mean there is only so much we can pump into the earth without it doing something now is there.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 01-11-2015).]
Legally in the criminal trial, he didnt. Different answer in the other one where they found him responsible.
The proof for me would be finding a place with absolutely NO history of earthquakes ever, then fracking some wells that results in quakes right afterward....thats proof.
ever? I suppose you do understand, that the place you are describing doesn't exist, and hasn't since the time Earth was just a gaseous clump? It's akin to asking someone to prove dinosaurs existed but dis-allowing all fossil and DNA evidence.
So just because it hasn't caused any damage, Yet doesn't mean the continual pumping of fluids into the earth isn't going to do bad things, like contaminate water wells, oceans, and everything else underground.
I mean there is only so much we can pump into the earth without it doing something now is there.
Steve
Fracking is continually pumping fluids? I thought once the obtainable oil was recovered fracking was discontinued.
let me ask our resident expert something, lets put this in simple terms everyone will understand, especially me.
Lets use an apple as an example of the earth, if we continually pump water from a needle into it the interior of the apple will take it for a while, then as you keep pumping fluid into the apple eventually the outside of the apple will rupture as well as the inside, the core only has so much room for things to be added to the inside of said apple, right expert? So eventually things will start braking, little paths will open up to other parts of the apple, earth. and like that if you have wells of water inside the apple they will get contaminated by whatever you are pumping into the apple, earth. So just because it hasn't caused any damage, Yet doesn't mean the continual pumping of fluids into the earth isn't going to do bad things, like contaminate water wells, oceans, and everything else underground.
I mean there is only so much we can pump into the earth without it doing something now is there.
Steve
You are confusing 2 completely different procedures. 1. Fracking. 2. Water flooding a hydrocarbon (oil and gas) reservoir. Fracking is done, at extremely high pressures to open up a shale, rock, or consolidated sands formation to allow oil and gas to flow to the well bore so it can be extracted.
Water flooding, is completely different, and is normally done in old fields where the natural gas has been depleted and the natural pressure has bled off, meaning the hydrocarbons will no longer make up the well bore, up to the production zone, or "sideways" to where the wells are located. Water, usually salt water that originally came out of the well, is injected down into the production area, at minimal pressure, and the additional liquid provided by the water pushes the hydrocarbons further back up in the production zone. (water is heaver than oil so the oil goes to the top, or in the case of a more horizontal producing zone, the water pushes the oil laterally toward the well bore(s). It's also called voidage replacement, and water flooding has been around since the late 1800s in the old Pennsylvania fields.
Fracking is continually pumping fluids? I thought once the obtainable oil was recovered fracking was discontinued.
That's pretty much the way it works, since fracking just opens up a tight geological formation. Once the oil is in the opening, it's own presence holds the formation open.
Water (and sometimes C02) flooding/injection is different.
water flooding:
Fracking a shale formation:
It's rarely a good thing to remove liquids (or gases)from below ground and not replace them with something. We see this happen in big cities in coastal areas where ground water and hydrocarbos are removed and nothing replenishes the pumped liquids-the results are subsidence. In coastal areas of Texas and La, bedrock may be miles down--unlike places like NY where skyscrapers are built right on top of bedrock not far below surface, so subsidence is a big problem--and it's not just the heavy structures that sink, it's the whole landscape.
Never mind there were tornados before rockets were invented. Nothing would convince her otherwise.
