Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on May 14, 2012 at 6:45

I think Chesapeake may have admitted fracking caused quakes in Arkansas or Oklahoma - I think it was Arkansas a couple of years ago.  (am I wrong about this?)

There may have also been a British company saying fracking caused quakes in England.  I thought it was odd that the companies rushed to admit responsibility.  Also, double check both what I said about Arkansas and CHK. It happened - we both recall a similar news story.

and, arn't most of the problems in the water disposal?  the injection wells?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 14, 2012 at 6:49

The Arkansas earthquakes may have had some connection to injection wells.  Those wells in question were taken out of service.  No connection to fracing.  See related article.

GREENBRIER, Ark. -- A pair of magnitude-3.9 earthquakes rumbled through central Arkansas this week, about a month after two companies halted operations at nearby injection wells over concerns that they may be linked to the seismic activity plaguing the region.

The latest big quake struck near Greenbrier on Friday morning, less than 24 hours after an equally strong quake hit nearby, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Officials said no one was hurt and damage was minimal.

The quakes are the largest in the area, about 35 miles north of Little Rock, since the companies agreed to temporarily cease operations at the wells at the behest of the Arkansas Gas and Oil Commission. The wells, used to dispose of wastewater from natural-gas production, ceased operations on March 4.

Their owners – Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy and Clarita Operating – have said they don't think the injection wells are tied to the earthquakes. And with the latest rash of quakes, some people in Greenbrier, including police dispatcher Steve Priddy, are questioning the potential link as well.

"I'm not sure that it is the injection wells," Priddy said.

But Scott Ausbrooks, a geo-hazards supervisor for the Arkansas Geological Survey, said it would be premature to rule out a possible tie to the injection wells.

"We're only a month out after they stopped injecting," Ausbrooks said.

The Fayetteville Shale, an organically rich rock formation underlying the region, is a major source of natural gas in Arkansas. Drillers free up the gas by using hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," which requires injecting pressurized water to create fractures deep in the ground. The two injection wells at issue dispose of "frack" water when it can no longer be re-used by injecting it into the ground.

Dozens of smaller earthquakes have been shaking the town in recent weeks – part of a series of about 1,000 quakes to hit the region since September. The largest of those – with a magnitude of 4.7 on Feb. 27 – was the biggest quake to hit the state in 35 years. Neither of the larger quakes this week caused much damage – or even disruptions in traffic, Priddy said.

"We've gotten pretty used to them around here lately," he said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 14, 2012 at 6:52

Injection (disposal) wells were also taken out of service at DFW airport after the N. Tx. tremors.  Not related to fracing, either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stevew on May 14, 2012 at 9:19

thanks Skip. I recall the articles at the time.

 

and, the public does see this as fracking.  I understand that it isn't techically fracking, but almost no one outside of the field does. After all, the injection well would not have been drilled unless water had been used for fracing - it's all part of the same process in most people's minds. Longer term I think we have to go propane or something besides water - unless it's treated on site and reused. Fracking has become a general term to describe the entire natgas operation.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 14, 2012 at 9:44

The only way the public sees this as fracing is when those with an agenda characterize it as such.  "Injection" wells are Salt Water Disposal wells.  They have been around for decades and were disposing of "produced" water long before they disposed of any frac related water.  If the public doesn't care about the difference and considers fracing a part of all nat gas production then they have erroneously been taught to do so.  Injection is and should remain the general means of salt water disposal as fracing with some agent other than water does absolutely nothing about the vast majority of salt water which is produced from conventional wells such as Hosston and Cotton Valley.  Frac water is a very small percent of the volume of produced water.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stevew on May 14, 2012 at 10:28

It's not an adjenda so much as the fact that once you get outside of o&g producing areas there is very little media coverage of natural gas except for the shales and fracking. Local media covers local stories.  Your areas media has stories all the time about natural gas in some way. But that's because it's being produced there.  Our newspapers cover hydro and wind power a lot because that's what we have here.

 

Injection wells may have been used for decades, but they are a recent term in the news media for much of the US. Most of us learned about injection wells from news articles about fracking. You can't seperate them in the public's mind.  Water disposal will continue to be a major issue in natural gas.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 14, 2012 at 10:58

The vast majority of SWD injection wells have never disposed of one drop of "frac" water.  Once again the industry has let an issue be framed by those who know little or nothing of the facts and those who do not care about the facts.  The "produced water" from conventional gas wells is no more or less toxic than water used for hydraulic fracturing.  Just as the majority of water contamination issues are casing failures with little or no connection to whether the well was fraced or not.  There are important issues that need to be addressed but public opinion informed by misinformation and deliberate falsehoods is not going to get us there.  I tend to think the "public" is capable of making an informed decision.  They just need to get the facts not the propaganda.  I have noticed a change in the tone of media reports in the last year as facts become more readily available.  Better late than never.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 17, 2012 at 3:30

Logger, you are correct that local media covers local stories.  When your media covers stories about nat gas, fracing, salt water disposal, etc., they are picking up stories and feeds from the national media, which clearly, in large part, has an agenda.  I'll bet when your media covers stories on hydro and wind power, they get most of the facts right.  Not necessarily so when they run stories about a subject they know precious little about, by your own admission.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 14, 2012 at 10:30

got more clarity on the depth -  depth of the quake in question was about 3.2 km, not the 1.9 km I was told earlier - this puts it deper than the injection zone by a consierable amount. 

 

injection wells are also widely used for hazardous waste. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antiqued Rose on May 15, 2012 at 1:57

Why in the world would injection well companies stop their business because there's a misperception of injection fluid as it relates to fracking (this is how at least one fracing company spells fracing on their trucks, btw).

This would have been a time to educate the public.

No wonder the public is confused. We want clarity. Not spin and manipulation of fact from ANY camp.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antiqued Rose on May 17, 2012 at 3:17

Anybody? Was this already addressed and I missed it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antiqued Rose on May 18, 2012 at 1:10

zzzzzzz

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page