Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on May 18, 2012 at 3:59

AR, If I understand correctly... injection operators who shut in a disposal well, due to earthquakes, do so because they are injecting near a fault where the injected fluid may contribute to the fault "slipping" and causing tremors.  There is a geological reason to suspect the disposal well is causing EQs, in other words.

Shutting a well down has nothing to do with the public perception of any relationship to fracing.  The media encourages the public hysteria by leaping at any opportunity to insert the word "fracking" into a story.  I will give them (media) the benefit of the doubt here (which they may not deserve) and just say that linking an earthquake to fracking makes a more exciting story than "just the facts"  would and takes a lot less work on the part of the reporter.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antiqued Rose on May 20, 2012 at 5:41

Thanks for the explanation.

Perhaps one can see why people equate (equake, hehe) injecting near a fault line and tremors. Pressure by injecting spent fluid near the fault line appears to be the problem, if I follow.

The actual injection of fluid to bust shale deep and laterally would not, in a similar area, cause the quakes it seems.

That's a little mind bending, for me. I certainly could be missing the point, not the first time.

Please help me see.

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on May 20, 2012 at 18:31

jffree,

There is technical reason for shutting in the disposal wells after a quake and it has nothing to do with the fault slipping caused by injection or fracing. The real reason would be to check for real damage to the casing in the well. A quake can cause the casing to sheer, collapse or split. They would not want to take the chance of injecting salt water or frac fluids into any formation that the well is not permitted for.

Also of interest. If and its a big IF fracing causes quakes by allowing the faults to move more easily wouldn't it be better to have little quakes over a long period of time rather than THE BIG ONE that is going to happen someday? The earth is always moving and to me if we can find a way to allow these faults to slip more easily over the long period then I would think that would be better that waiting for a big one that will do great damage. This actually could start a new science and area of expertise - Fault Management. That is if fracing can be proven to really cause the faults to move.

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on May 21, 2012 at 0:19

sesport,

The earth is continually moving. If you move it a little at a time it should have little effect. It just the BIG ONE  that would be a problem.

Permalink Reply by Max on May 15, 2012 at 3:22

News information and the general public......9 out of 10 people will decide that NG production causes earthquakes if an earthquake occurs somewhere where they're not supposed to happen, and NG wells are in use.

Those 9 out of 10 people would also believe that wind turbines have caused the increased severity of tornado's if the right news spin was delivered by a wild eyed reporter.  Stand that reporter on a house slab with two-by-four's sticking out of the ground, have him point at a wind turbine in the distance, and say "the turbulence caused by that windmill created a rotating column of air that begin feeding into the thunderstorm and wham, a tornado dropped out of the clouds and blew this house away".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on May 20, 2012 at 19:08

Max,

You bring up an interesting point about the wind turbines. When you start taking energy out of the movement of air (wind) then something has got to change somewhere. I've been thinking about this for sometime. It seems that the wind turbines can and will make some change to the overall environment. Could be drought in some areas and more rain in others. Could be colder in some areas and warmer in others because of less movement of air from the equator towards the poles. That is something that needs to be studied. The same goes for solar energy. We will start seeing colder winters because of all of the energy that is being diverted from the heating of the planet to electric generation by the large solar farms. These are two things that could do great damage to the environment if not regulated as far as density and placement. 

Just something to get you guys thinking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 21, 2012 at 1:28

Sesport - Google "Urban heat island"  Here is the all important and mostly correct wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on May 21, 2012 at 3:48

The wind energy we're removing with wind turbines has little or no effect on earth's weather patterns.  The amount of energy removed from our "Whole-Earth" system by wind turbines would be equal to you giving up one breath of air over your entire life time.  You're not going to notice it and the earth's weather won't either.  For wind turbines to effect weather, they would have to be as intruding as an mountain range. 

Your theory on removing solar energy by converting it to electricity doesn't hold either.  Energy is not lost.  If anything, using a solar panel to capture the energy from a proton would help heat up the Earth.  The solar panel would enable you to capture a greater percentage of the energy contained in any given proton.  Some of that energy would be converted into heat on the solar panels surface, and the energy converted into electricity would later be converted back to heat when it's used in a light bulb or your electric stove.  We would have to place our solar panels in space and completely interrupt the Suns energy from colliding with the Earth to have a negative effect on the amount of energy the Earth is absorbing.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antiqued Rose on May 17, 2012 at 3:22

Last night's quake, also out of the Timpson area was eight times as bad as the 3.8, registering 4.3. Said to be unrelated entirely to the 3.8.

Woke me up in Chireno.

People are disconcerted and are wondering what the hay.

If the o&g industry wants to get in front of this, get out there with info, rather than shutting down injection wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on May 17, 2012 at 3:43

Location of this quake was at about 3 miles deep, well beyond wells in the area.  No recent HF in the area, no injection in the vicinity of the quake epicenter.  Several old dry holes and a few temproary abandoned.  Would kill to have 3D siesmic of this area, but strongly suspsect existing fault. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antiqued Rose on May 17, 2012 at 4:35

Thanks bob, I always appreciate your posts

This is not 3D and no doubt you know about this ET fault line, but others may need this.

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/eusa/eus.php

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Texas54 on May 17, 2012 at 4:53

I know this is sort of off topic but will the coal minining they are doing  west of Hwy 45  have any effect.

• ▶ Reply

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