The Issue of "Fracking"

Heissonear · Jul 20, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
Possibly, but I wouldn't count that as a requirement.

Drilling Fluid Disposal | Hydraulic Fracturing-Fracking Fluid Disposal

"Salt is another problem. Vik Rao of the Research Triangle Energy Consortium told Barlow Herget of SGRToday .com that fresh water injected in the fracking process comes back salty, as in seawater salty. In some cases, Rao, a one-time a Halliburton executive, has seen fracking wastewater be up to 10 times saltier when returned. He has suggested that instead of using fresh surface and well water, fracking should use brackish salt water that can be found in deep aquifers, usually 1,500 feet down and deeper....

Rick Martinez: Fracking: focus on the water | Rick Martinez | NewsObserver.com
...Because of this salinity, fracking wastewater cant touch the ground. A common disposal process now being used is to inject it into deepwater wells. Im not crazy about that method, since Rao says about a third of the water leeches back to the surface."

I think the concern is more environmental or contamination from saltwater to the surrounding ground.

.

It may be new to you, but service companies have fracked reservoirs world wide for decades. More than 100,000 wells fracked in Oklahoma alone BEFORE the shale misinformation craze floating around.

Why all of a sudden this "pollution" promotion? Is it scientific? My wife was born and raised in OK. Our kids were born on OKC. You would not be able to drive me around and point out "pollution from hydraulic fracturing over the decades. I've been involved in many of the hydraulic fracks around the Will Rogers Airport, even many hydrocarbon based frack fluids. Show me the evidence of pollution. Instead I'll show you Oklahoma land and subdivision as usual.

Hype is hype, it is not science based.

Heissonear · Jul 20, 2014

juvenissun said:
Sounds funny. Fracking in California? Ha!
Sure, anything could happen in that state. But is US so desperately need of gas?

In addition, I though California is in drought. Can they afford to frack?

This is nothing new, fracking in California has STILL BEEN on going over the past decade in the lower San Joaquin Valley area and formations.

Heissonear · Jul 20, 2014

juvenissun said:
Fracking induced earthquake. That is why.

Plenty of "frack induced quake info" in the first 20 posts. Remember the microseismic services now involved in shale fracturing treatments?

Integration of Surface Seismic and Microseismic for the Characterization of a Shale Gas Reservoir | CSEG Recorder Online

Heissonear · Jul 20, 2014

A graph showing the magnitude of frack treatment induced quakes in comparison to other events.

Heissonear · Jul 20, 2014

Graph showing number and magnitude of seismic events from a typical shale frack treatment.

juvenissun · Jul 20, 2014

Heissonear said:
Plenty of "frack induced quake info" in the first 20 posts. Remember the microseismic services now involved in shale fracturing treatments?

Integration of Surface Seismic and Microseismic for the Characterization of a Shale Gas Reservoir | CSEG Recorder Online

I wonder what kind of ground movement caused the earthquake.
It might be possible that gas in the shale leaked out to neighboring strata more seriously than we thought.

suzybeezy · Jul 20, 2014

I live in the Northeast part of the US and many communities are prohibiting or severely limiting fracking. There's been tons of debate on both sides (I've attended numerous) and I think there's just too much uncertainty on how this will impact the stability of the ground years down the road. I think more studies need to be conducted before we permit too much. Better to be safe imo.

juvenissun · Jul 21, 2014

suzybeezy said:
I live in the Northeast part of the US and many communities are prohibiting or severely limiting fracking. There's been tons of debate on both sides (I've attended numerous) and I think there's just too much uncertainty on how this will impact the stability of the ground years down the road. I think more studies need to be conducted before we permit too much. Better to be safe imo.

You mean northern NY and New England? Fracking there? It seems to be another joke.

I say: If we need the gas, then frack it. It is a relatively simply system. We do know what could happen in the worst situation. I don't think it would cause any long term (longer than 5 years) environmental damage. Even all the shale gas leaks out to the groundwater, it is not a big deal.

Heissonear · Jul 21, 2014

juvenissun said:
I wonder what kind of ground movement caused the earthquake.
It might be possible that gas in the shale leaked out to neighboring strata more seriously than we thought.

During shale frack treatments there are hundreds to thousands of very small earthquakes (ground movement seismic events). They happen in the region where the frack fluid is injected. Look at the seismic maps in the link above and the many dots in the below graph, with each dot representing a small earthquake beyween -1 to -4 intensity (extremely small quakes).

juvenissun · Jul 21, 2014

Heissonear said:
During shale frack treatments there are hundreds to thousands of very small earthquakes (ground movement seismic events). They happen in the region where the frack fluid is injected. Look at the seismic maps in the link above and the many dots in the below graph, with each dot representing a small earthquake beyween -1 to -4 intensity (extremely small quakes).

The problem is WHEN did the earthquake take place. Does it happen simultaneously with the injection or a period of time after that. If it is simultaneously, then the ground is not moving after the fracking. Then there might not be any seismic problem.

Also, the plot gives me an impression that the seismic foci are distributed wider then the induced fractures. Not sure if this is true.

What are the concerns of those seismic people?

Heissonear · Jul 21, 2014

suzybeezy said:
I live in the Northeast part of the US and many communities are prohibiting or severely limiting fracking. There's been tons of debate on both sides (I've attended numerous) and I think there's just too much uncertainty on how this will impact the stability of the ground years down the road. I think more studies need to be conducted before we permit too much. Better to be safe imo.

Suzy,
You mentioned you have been to several debates of fracking in areas of the Northeast. And also mentioned the stability of the ground after fracturing.

For determining the geometry of fractures developed, many frack treatments are monitored with seismic equipment. The equipment collects the location and intensity of each earthquake that occurs during and for about 24 hous after the frac treatment.

Most of these earthquakes are slippage of rock that make up the natural joints (cracks) common in shale rocks.

It is suspected by geomechanical and tectonic experts that these small earth quakes are induced during frac fluid injection because of the existence of gravity force on the rock mases along natural fractures (cracks in the rock), a process called Shear Activation Stress.

Since the natural joint (crack) systems in rocks exist, particularly in shale rocks, gravity allows stresses (forces) to be present that seek to adjust to a lower stress state. A frack treatment allows these natural stresses to be relieved as the numerous microseismic events (ultra small earthquakes) show.

So fracking of the rock typically does not build up stresses within the rocks but acts to relieve the stresses by earth movements in typically a slippage direction along the natural joint systems where gravimetric and tectonic built stresses already exist.

Heissonear · Jul 21, 2014

juvenissun said:
The problem is WHEN did the earthquake take place. Does it happen simultaneously with the injection or a period of time after that. If it is simultaneously, then the ground is not moving after the fracking. Then there might not be any seismic problem.

Also, the plot gives me an impression that the seismic foci are distributed wider then the induced fractures. Not sure if this is true.

What are the concerns of those seismic people?

Good questions. Microseismic monitoring weeks before and after frack treatments show +90% of the seismic events (earthquakes) occur during and within 12 hours after the frack treatment (during and shortly after the high rate fluid injection process).

The distribution pattern (individual dots on microseismic maps) shows the quakes are small and distributed. This appears to show the reduction of stresses along the natural joints (cracks) in shale rocks, stress that is present before fracks as Shear Activation Stresses due to gravimetric and tectonic regional forces.

juvenissun · Jul 21, 2014

Heissonear said:
Suzy,
You mentioned you have been to several debates of fracking in areas of the Northeast. And also mentioned the stability of the ground after fracturing.

For determining the geometry of fractures developed, many frack treatments are monitored with seismic equipment. The equipment collects the location and intensity of each earthquake that occurs during and for about 24 hous after the frac treatment.

Most of these earthquakes are slippage of rock that make up the natural joints (cracks) common in shale rocks.

It is suspected by geomechanical and tectonic experts that these small earth quakes are induced during frac fluid injection because of the existence of gravity force on the rock mases along natural fractures (cracks in the rock), a process called Shear Activation Stress.

Since the natural joint (crack) systems in rocks exist, particularly in shale rocks, gravity allows stresses (forces) to be present that seek to adjust to a lower stress state. A frack treatment allows these natural stresses to be relieved as the numerous microseismic events (ultra small earthquakes) show.

So fracking of the rock typically does not build up stresses within the rocks but acts to relieve the stresses by earth movements in typically a slippage direction along the natural joint systems where gravimetric and tectonic built stresses already exist.

I doubt that. In particular, shale buried thousands of feet in the ground. There could be major joints. But not that many to be responsible for the earthquake.

From the plot of foci, it is obvious that the effect of fracking is much wider than just make cracks in the gas shale. I believe many of the foci are locations of indirect fractures that responded to fractures directly opened by water injection.

It would be nice to see the plot of foci versus time. You probably can see the propagation of fractures outwards from the location of water injection.

juvenissun · Jul 21, 2014

Heissonear said:
Good questions. Microseismic monitoring weeks before and after frack treatments show +90% of the seismic events (earthquakes) occur during and within 12 hours after the frack treatment (during and shortly after the high rate fluid injection process).

The distribution pattern (individual dots on microseismic maps) shows the quakes are small and distributed. This appears to show the reduction of stresses along the natural joints (cracks) in shale rocks, stress that is present before fracks as Shear Activation Stresses due to gravimetric and tectonic regional forces.

This plot is beautiful.
Is it possible to show me the link?

Heissonear · Jul 21, 2014

juvenissun said:
I doubt that. In particular, shale buried thousands of feet in the ground. There could be major joints. But not that many to be responsible for the earthquake.

From the plot of foci, it is obvious that the effect of fracking is much wider than just make cracks in the gas shale. I believe many of the foci are locations of indirect fractures that responded to fractures directly opened by water injection.

It would be nice to see the plot of foci versus time. You probably can see the propagation of fractures outwards from the location of water injection.

With the sophisticated 3D software Microseismic companies have today it is routine to "watch" in the office on a computer monitor the microseismic events occur over time; time plots in 3D.

You are correct that normally the frack fluid does not directly cause slip faults but most microseismic events in the shale are indirectly created. The state of type and amount of natural stress in the shale rock along with number and weakness (state of recementation) are factors that contribute to the number and sensitivity if avtivation of slip faulting in the natural jount systems.

In the Marcellus shale in the Northeast there are two primary joint systems, with "J1" easily activated in most geographic areas.

Heissonear · Jul 21, 2014

juvenissun said:
This plot is beautiful.
Is it possible to show me the link?

It is from a technical paper that is behind a paywall.

juvenissun · Jul 21, 2014

Heissonear said:
It is from a technical paper that is behind a paywall.

May be the authors and title?

juvenissun · Jul 21, 2014

Heissonear said:
With the sophisticated 3D software Microseismic companies have today it is routine to "watch" in the office on a computer monitor the microseismic events occur over time; time plots in 3D.

You are correct that normally the frack fluid does not directly cause slip faults but most microseismic events in the shale are indirectly created. The state of type and amount of natural stress in the shale rock along with number and weakness (state of recementation) are factors that contribute to the number and sensitivity if avtivation of slip faulting in the natural jount systems.

In the Marcellus shale in the Northeast there are two primary joint systems, with "J1" easily activated in most geographic areas.

OK, I see what do you mean by "joint" in shale. And yes, seismics is a good way to see the structure of shale, which might increase the efficiency of fracking.

Thanks.

[serious] · Jul 21, 2014

As discussed previously, the USGS has ruled out natural variation in seismic activity as a cause of the increase in significant earthquakes. Do you have an alternate theory for their cause?

This is well outside my field of expertise, but from my reading, there is some indication fracking may be responsible in part for the recent "quake swarms" I'm unaware of any other possible explanations. Of course, "something we haven't thought of" remains an option, but until we have thought of it, shouldn't we look more towards identified possible causes?

Michael · Jul 21, 2014

[serious];66028742 said:
As discussed previously, the USGS has ruled out natural variation in seismic activity as a cause of the increase in significant earthquakes. Do you have an alternate theory for their cause?

This is well outside my field of expertise, but from my reading, there is some indication fracking may be responsible in part for the recent "quake swarms" I'm unaware of any other possible explanations. Of course, "something we haven't thought of" remains an option, but until we have thought of it, shouldn't we look more towards identified possible causes?

It seems to me that the water pollution problems, as well as the earthquake issues need to be addressed before fracking can be considered 'safe'. IMO renewable energy and nuclear salt reactors are in our long term best interest.

The Issue of "Fracking"

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Attachments

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Attachments

... and God saw that it was good.

Reports Manager

... and God saw that it was good.

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Attachments

... and God saw that it was good.

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Attachments

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Contributor

Similar threads