Skip to content

Fluid injection and seismicity

April 18, 2012

I don’t use this blog much anymore to link to an article or post I find interesting — I mostly do that with Twitter these days — but I wanted to make sure this one gets wide distribution.

Mark Zoback, an earthquake expert at Stanford University, published a piece in EARTH Magazine yesterday (April 17, 2012) titled Managing the seismic risk posed by wastewater disposal. This article is a breath of fresh air. Just go read it now, it will only take a few minutes.

There has been quite a bit of kvetching the past few months regarding whether or not operations related to natural gas exploration and production, and specifically hydraulic fracturing (referred to as ‘fracking’), have caused earthquakes. There are numerous articles on the topic — many asking the question and others making proclamations.

Zoback’s article is certainly not the end-all-be-all on this issue, but it stands out for being rich in facts and technical details that are skillfully communicated. The bottom line is that these operations can and do induce seismicity. But, it’s not the hydraulic fracturing that’s doing it. Rather, it’s the injection of fluid into the subsurface:

[W]e have known for more than 40 years that earthquakes can be triggered by fluid injection. The first well-studied cases were earthquakes triggered by waste disposal at the Rocky Mountain arsenal near Denver, Colo., in the early 1960s, and by water injection at the Rangely oilfield in western Colorado in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.

Such quakes occur when increasing pore pressure at depth caused by fluid injection reduces the effective normal stress acting perpendicular to pre-existing faults. The effective normal stress on a fault can be thought of as a force that resists shear movement — much as how putting a weight on a box makes it more difficult to slide along the floor. Increasing pore pressure reduces the effective normal stress, allowing elastic energy already stored in brittle rock formations to be released in earthquakes. These earthquakes would someday have occurred anyway as a result of slowly accumulating forces in the earth resulting from natural geologic processes — injection just speeds up the process.

And it’s not just the injection of fluid into the subsurface through a well that can increase pore pressure enough to induce seismicity. Geologists and engineers have known for decades that the accumulation of large volumes of water at the surface, behind newly constructed dams, can also create earthquakes. (Here are the results of searching ‘induced seismicity reservoir’ on GoogleScholar just to give you a flavor of that literature.)

The important conclusion at this point is that fracking is not triggering seismicity:

The concern about triggered seismicity associated with shale gas development arises after hydraulic fracturing, when wastewater that flows back out of the wells is disposed of at dedicated injection wells.

Emphasis mine. So, some might say: ‘Injection, fracking, whatever … the point is that these activities are causing earthquakes!’. Yes, these activities can and do cause earthquakes. But details matter, and here’s why: If we want to establish/improve regulations for these operations in the name of public safety we need to understand the mechanism. We need to do the basic science to address the problem. (This is an issue in geothermal and CO2 projects as well.) And I don’t care if it’s advocacy for or against natural gas extraction, either loses credibility if specifics about the science are distorted, cherry-picked, or omitted. Details matter.

I realize there’s a bigger-picture debate about whether or not to extract natural gas at all. This is a good debate to have no doubt. But, let’s make sure the current state of knowledge and understanding informs that debate.

About these ads
8 Comments leave one →
  1. April 18, 2012 5:04 pm

    Thank you for this post. This is good information and it’s always nice to see a balanced presentation of facts.

  2. Steve Gough permalink
    April 18, 2012 5:18 pm

    Thanks for posting, Brian; fracking is now a big issue in southern Illinois, much debated, and this helps.

  3. April 19, 2012 9:28 am

    This is a great post Brian – chalk one up for solid science over emotional knee-jerking. I absolutely agree with your comment that effective regulation must be based on thoughtful (and, dare I say, peer-reviewed) scientific analysis. Mark Zoback is arguably one of the most respected scientists in the field of reservoir geomechanics, so I can only hope that his thoughts are ultimately captured in a suitable highly-ranked peer-reviewed journal.

  4. philohio permalink
    April 19, 2012 10:25 am

    From the USGS:
    FAQs – Earthquakes Induced by Fluid Injection

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=46

  5. philohio permalink
    April 19, 2012 10:34 am

    New U.S. Rules Regulate Pollution from Fracking
    New oil and gas wells will need new equipment to capture the gases that escape during

    http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/2012/04/18/air-pollution-from-fracked-natural-gas-wells-will-be-regulated-under-new-u-s-rules/

  6. john meeder permalink
    April 19, 2012 6:01 pm

    I must be confused, I thought fracking was fluid injection. Did you see the USGS report on fracking and earthquakes?

Trackbacks

  1. Increase in magnitude 3+ earthquakes likely caused by oil and gas production (but not fracking) | EcoTone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers