Now, if they can simply identify EVERY "critically stressed fault" BEFORE injecting, instead of years AFTER injecting and learning they were there all along, they are ALL SET!!!!
Earthquakes in OK and KS
- Thread starter nolesincebirth
- Start date
Now, if they can simply identify EVERY "critically stressed fault" BEFORE injecting, instead of years AFTER injecting and learning they were there all along, they are ALL SET!!!!
I got earthquake insurance added to my policy up here in the twin cities. Cost me 37¢ a month.
KS and OK were a lot closer to the New Madrid when TJ was younger. Continental drift or something.
Now, if they can simply identify EVERY "critically stressed fault" BEFORE injecting, instead of years AFTER injecting and learning they were there all along, they are ALL SET!!!!
Seismic lines will identify geographic distribution of faults. A good 3D survey will image faults capable of causing a significant event. Study well bore breakouts to orient regional stress fields in conjunction with historical earthquake occurrence to help distinguish highest risk faults- avoid injecting near faults oriented parallel to maximum stress at all costs. Map the injection reservoir to determine how much fluid can be injected before volumetrically encroaching on the fault. Then install a series of monitor stations to detect and locate any fault slip. If you start seeing fault slip, stop injecting and re-evaluate your approach. If injection wells are carefully planned, earthquakes are unlikely to be an issue.
Or just operate in Oklahoma where most people A) don't care, or B) refuse to acknowledge the source of the problem.
Sure, Jan. That's why they weren't identified in the first place here....
Had we identified those unknown faults, there wouldn't have been any injection wells.
Only:
A) This isn't what actually happened.
B) This isn't what computer models indicated - slips and stress buildups started occurring far away from injection sites.
That sure sounds like lotsa added costs - is the "free market" going to dictate this, or will it require regulations, rules and penalties? Otherwise, extractors can just set up shell companies to extract, then shift assets and declare bankruptcy to avoid responsibility when not following proper techniques and creating quake zones/damage to residents who gained no benefit from the extractions.
I refuse to argue with somebody who reads at a 3rd grade level.
The Tufts researchers' analysis provides the most robust inference to date that fluid-activated slippage in faults can quickly outpace the spread of fluid underground.
You need to induce a slip to initiate their "domino theory".
JFC, you are telling us this is not related to oil extraction. Please inform us. And you are full of shit. You have thrown out tons of mumbo jumbo that does nothing to belay seismic activity resulting from oil extraction.
"If you start seeing fault slip, stop injecting and re-evaluate your approach. If injection wells are carefully planned, earthquakes are unlikely to be an issue."
In any model, carefully planned are unlikely to be an issue. Multiple models increase the risks. Increases of the multiples raise the risks.
Last edited:
Your making fun of their "theory" (which matches "observations") is proving my point, spud.
And "when you start seeing a fault slip", it is already too late. You've passed a tipping point, and although eliminating water disposal may alleviate the problem, it may not, for quite a while.
It is highly doubtful in a competitive and cost-conscious industry, extractors are going to "play it safe". They are known for being a "cowboy" industry, and that's when bad things happen, and externalized costs create big problems for everyone else. Now, if they want to "regulate" it and follow industry/government/science "standards" that only allow disposal in very very low risk/no risk areas, that'd be fine. They won't do that, as it means transporting wastewater for miles to acceptable sites, and they need to do it near extraction areas to make it economical.
Had they already been following a "low risk" model for disposal, this problem would likely have never occurred. Damn good thing we never let the nuclear power industry play this fast and loose....
JFC, read my first post in the thread. Then sit back and absorb how dumb the rest of your post reads.
Last edited:
We can agree on your last two paragraphs. Your first paragraph is your typical hyperbolic BS.
Well, OK seems to think it's a problem now but more to the point is what you outline here now standard practice?
Sorry, but this response is pure laziness and indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
Must be God’s judgment. Kansas and Oklahoma need to repent their evil ways.
Again, if OK extractors had been "tracking faults" and following appropriate practices, there would not have been an emergency order issued, and no quakes that caused many millions in damages to property. That's simply a fact.
Right. Which goes back to my earlier point that wastewater can be disposed of while limiting earthquake risk. Oklahoma, historically known for some of the loosest oil and gas regulations in North America, has been late to adapt.
I mentioned Arkansas. They were seeing similar issues around the same time Oklahoma started having issues. Arkansas issued a moratorium on water disposal within a certain radius of high risk faults, operators adapted by implementing frac water reuse, water treatment facilities and water disposal sites in areas not in proximity to high risk faults. Since the Guy Swarm, which kicked off the moratorium, and thousands of fraced wells later, I'm not aware of any earthquake activity associated with water disposal wells in Arkansas.
But it wasn't.
And, it may not be able to be disposed of, economically, without pushing the externalized costs onto the general public. What extractor has provided any "guarantees" they will not disturb existing faults? And purchased associated insurance to cover "mistakes"? Because that's how risks like this are handled in regulated industries.
First of all, let's not pretend "risks like this" are common in other industries.
It's important for regulators to find an appropriate balance between private and public interests. What's deemed "appropriate" will vary from one person to the next, but you're not going to hear me argue that the state of Oklahoma has done the public any favors with their regulation practices. I'm not really sure what a specific company has to gain by coming out and "guaranteeing" no earthquakes. By doing so, they're going to make themselves susceptible to lawsuits that may be unrelated to their activity.
A more appropriate approach, in my eyes, would be to apply a state-wide tax per volume pumped where the tax revenues are placed in a fund to pay for future damages. Identify all operators injecting within geologically defined sub-regions and pool them together. Any damaging quakes occurring within a sub-region will be subject to fines for all operators in the pool. The operators can monitor and protest each others activities in front of the state oil and gas commission.
Sure they are. We just regulate them.
Very very heavily, for the nuclear energy industry, in fact. Likewise, for the air-traffic industry. Loads of industry-based and government regulations.
That's not the case for the oil extraction/frakking industry, though. Which is why these things occurred in OK and KS. Again, that is simply a fact. You seem to be rather uncomfortable with those facts. That doesn't change the reality here, though.
This industry does not support that - because it makes their assets and extraction unprofitable, unfortunately. I agree with your point, but it's simply not realistic with how this industry has worked for the past decades.
In each of the industries you listed, a majority of incidents can be easily traced back to a precise source. That's not exactly the case with earthquakes.
If manufacturing the idea that I'm uncomfortable with facts is something that is necessary for you to jerk your own ego off to complete satisfaction, by all means, keep at it. But for your own health, realize it is you who is out of touch with reality.
I followed the post you referenced here with an apology for referencing oil and well drilling vs. fracking. Probability is not predictability but does not preclude risk. The frequency of earthquakes in the area is attributed to injection of waste water, fracking or otherwise. Are you disputing this?
The occurrence of quakes prior to use of this technique was insignificant compared to the occurrences in the past few years. Data is in front of everyone's eyes.
This passage from: americangeoscience.org
"Users can also view the locations of waste water disposal wells, which have in some cases been associated with recent earthquake activity in Oklahoma and elsewhere."
Source: Oklahoma Office of Secretary of Energy and Environment
Last edited:
Apology accepted. I'm not in any way disputing that wastewater injection has been responsible for the increase in earthquake frequency.
Similar threads
