PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Guns in Texas - Earthquakes due to..



Bob
22nd April 2015, 16:34
21 April 2015

The studies are in.

"There appears to be little doubt about the conclusion that the earthquakes were in fact induced," USGS seismologist Susan Hough, who wasn't part of the study team, said in an email.

"There's almost an abundance of smoking guns in this case."

There have been also a tremendous jump in earthquakes in Oklahoma and southern Kansas, where there have been more than 950 magnitude 2 or higher quakes so far this year, according to the USGS.

West of Ft. Worth in the 84 days monitored in the study, from November 2013 to January 2014, the area around Azle, Texas, shook with 27 magnitude 2 or greater earthquakes, while scientists at Southern Methodist University and the U.S. Geological Survey monitored the shaking.


It's an area that had no recorded quakes for 150 years on faults that "have been inactive for hundreds of millions of years," said SMU geophysicist Matthew Hornbach.

The scientists concluded that removing saltwater from the wells in the gas production process and then injecting that wastewater back underground "represent the most likely cause" for the swarm of quakes, according to a study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.


http://www.pennenergy.com/content/dam/Pennenergy/online-articles/2015/April/Geologist.JPG

When the volume of wastewater injections into DISPOSAL WELLS decreased significantly, so did the shaking.

In the past, studies have linked quakes to the injection of wastewater after the drilling process This study is different because it also sees a secondary link in another part of the drilling process, when massive amounts of brine is taking out of the ground with the gas, said study co-author William Ellsworth of the USGS.

Removing the saltwater changes the underground pressure, Hornbach said.
But the deep injection of the wastes still is the principle culprit, Ellsworth said.

The controversial method of hydraulic fracturing or fracking, even though that may be used in the drilling, is not physically causing the shakes, he said.

Did you follow that?

IT IS NOT THE FRACKING doing the deeds as far as the earthquakes, but the re-injection of 'produced salt water' from oil and gas wells into what are called "disposal wells".

A disposal well is chosen because it is no longer producing adequate oil or natural gas. It is often an OLD well, with OLD casings, OLD PIPE, all of which can be leaking at shallower depths.

Oil and Gas wells are made with shielding casings and pipes where the water table (fresh water) is located, this is to ensure the non-contamination of the water table. It is strictly controlled by the inspection process, monitored during the permitting process, and drilled by reputable drillers and completed by skilled workers (The Moncando Blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico comes to mind..)

HOWEVER, are there adequate controls on the inspection of an INJECTION (disposal well) to determine if the casing is intact, if the piping is intact, and if the perforations in the lower bottom of the pipe are in the proper location to re-pressurize the old well now with another well's wastewater?

Are there adequate controls in the inspection of other wells in the area "changing in characteristics", such as mysteriously going dry, or mysteriously rapidly turning to water production, instead of oil or gas? That could indicate that an injection well has damaged the other formations in the area.

Have earthquakes started with the injecting of wastewater? A fracking operation is generally a one time operation, using extremely high pressure water deep down into the formations, many thousands of feet below the surface water-table..

Injection wells keep getting flooded with high pressure water, over and over.. Do casings crack near the surface? Do old pipes break? If so, there can be water table contamination, existing oil/gas field damage, and fault zones which have been stable, now "lubricated" so quakes can potentially happen.

Typical Horizontal well design able to go after SHALE OIL and SHALE GAS:


http://www.excoresources.com/images/environment-graphic-4.jpg

Note the multiple PIPES and CEMENT in-between the pipes, and the outer casing pipe and the earth itself.

Each of those cement bonds needs to be secure and stay secure for years and years.

This is an oil field example of PRODUCTION WELLS, plus ENHANCED RECOVERY (stimulation water injection) AND INJECTION WELL for disposal of produced salt water..


http://image.slidesharecdn.com/gao-664499-140729094423-phpapp02/95/gao-report-epa-oversight-of-injection-wells-13-638.jpg?cb=1406645210

The PRODUCTION WELL was most likely "fractured" once to open up the production zone.

The Stimulation (enhanced recovery well) was earlier most likely "fractured" to open up early production. It when it stopped producing oil or gas in adequate volumes for economical recovery, then was changed over to a stimulation well. A stimulation well then is "GENTLY" repressurized from the surface, with a controlled amount of saltwater (from oil/water separation activity). The stimulation is continued, with this water drive, to drive the oil to the NEWER PRODUCTION WELL.

Nearby in the field, a WASTE DISPOSAL WELL most likely exists. The purpose of this well is to accept the separated WASTE SALT WATER from production wells in the area. It receives saltwater and under high pressure pumps the wastewater into the formation(s) which will accept. When the original hydrostatic pressure has been equalized to what was originally taken OUT of the field, the wastwater well SHOULD PROPERLY BE SHUT DOWN.. INSTEAD it is possible that some disposal operators do not know when enough is enough for the disposal operations, and then over-pressure.. The over-pressure then runs the risk of damage to the well itself, the casing, piping, and the formations, and fault zones..

ARE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION the only sources of pressurized underground wastewater injection?

NO. Just blaming the oil and gas industry for the earthquakes, and contamination dangers is wrong.


http://www.propublica.org/projects/injection-wells/Injection-Wells-Class1.png

Wastewater injection wells may not necessarily be properly monitored when the oil and gas industry is not the user of that well. Industrial Chemical Plants, AND Municipal waste-water treatment plants use the DISPOSAL wells. Are they creating the surface-water contamination - something to think about and then do the research.

Matt P
22nd April 2015, 17:04
What's truly sad about this is that we could easily do away with all these harmful energy production practices if withheld energy technologies were released. Then bye bye oil, gas, fracking, contaminated wells and aquifers, etc, etc, etc.

Matt

panopticon
22nd April 2015, 17:36
G'day Bob,

Not wanting to go off topic to far just a quick question about Iodine-131.

I've been reading some studies reporting varying levels of I-131 being found in samples (mostly seaweed but also some water) in some near shore areas.

Some of these are explainable due to I-131 being used to treat certain medical conditions (for example some cancer or hyperthyroid treatment involves Iodine-131 therapy (http://www.insideradiology.com.au/pages/view.php?T_id=44)). When the patient urinates the I-131 enters the sewage system. The I-131 then gets concentrated in the local waste water treatment plant before release off-shore via pipe to the ocean.

The source of other samples are not as easy to isolate (no they are nothing to do with Fukushima before that chestnut gets dragged from the depths).

What I am wondering is if you would know the extent of I-131 usage as a tracer in hydraulic fracturing operations and if it would be possible that the water is moving through the water table and into the ocean for uptake? I know that this has been mentioned in past reports (notably US EPA periodicals and in some OSPAR Commission reports) however just curious as to the extent of I-131 usage as a tracer because that isn't something that I can find much data on.

Seems like a lot must be being used if fracking is the cause due to the short I-131 half-life (8 days).

-- Pan

Bob
22nd April 2015, 20:57
G'day Bob,

Not wanting to go off topic to far just a quick question about Iodine-131.

[..]

What I am wondering is if you would know the extent of I-131 usage as a tracer in hydraulic fracturing operations and if it would be possible that the water is moving through the water table and into the ocean for uptake?

I know that this has been mentioned in past reports (notably US EPA periodicals and in some OSPAR Commission reports) however just curious as to the extent of I-131 usage as a tracer because that isn't something that I can find much data on.

Seems like a lot must be being used if fracking is the cause due to the short I-131 half-life (8 days).

-- Pan

Howdy Pan -

Here goes. The use of a TRACER which is different than the normal radioactive sources (potassium, thorium, and uranium) in the soil (and water) is to track where the formation water-flood would be migrating.

Slug tracking

For slug tracking, the logging operator ejects a slug of tracer of radioactive Iodine 131 from the tool. (Such is used as a tracer because of its strong radioactivity signature, and decays fast.)

After ejection, the tool is run up and down through the slug to ensure that the slug is uniformly mixed across the wellbore cross section. The "tool" is a specific apparatus inserted into the well bore pipe, and lowered to depth. It contains the "sample radioactive tracer liquid" in this case. A "tool" can be any specific device temporarily added into the wellbore, under controlled positioning to be used for monitoring, precision injection of tracers, or performing a fracturing of the pipe (perforation).

Then, the GAMMA RAY DETECTION tool is lowered quickly and an upward logging pass is made at constant logging speed until the "slug" is detected.

The time of detection of the peak and the depth of the peak are recorded. Then the tool is quickly lowered again, and another upward logging pass is made at the constant logging speed until the slug is detected again. Again, the time of detection of the peak and the depth of the peak are recorded.

Figure 1)


http://petrowiki.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Vol5_Page_0510_Image_0001.png/575px-Vol5_Page_0510_Image_0001.png

The middle column shows DEPTH, in this case 9500-9600 feet below the surface of the land.

This process is repeated several times, resulting in a succession of detections of the same slug (see Fig. 1). As long as the peak progresses downward, there is flow in or near the wellbore.

Once the peak stops, there is no flow in or near the wellbore below the stopping depth.

For each detection, the area under the trace and above the common baseline of the traces is proportional to the percentage of injection still in or near the wellbore.

Another detector can be located elsewhere, and monitor for the tracer substance.

A VELOCITY TEST can be used to determine how long it takes to MIGRATE some distance.



Reference Papers on the Subject


Anthony, J.L. and Hill, A.D. 1986. An Extended Analysis Method for Two-Pulse Tracer Logging. SPE Prod Eng 1 (2): 117-124. SPE-13396-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13396-PA

Bearden, W.G., Cocanower, R.D., Currans, D. et al. 1970. Interpretation of Injectivity Profiles in Irregular Boreholes. J Pet Technol 22 (9): 1089-1097. SPE-2685-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2685-PA

Hill, A.D. and Solares, J.R. 1985. Improved Analysis Methods for Radioactive Tracer Injection Logging. J Pet Technol 37 (3): 511-520. SPE-12140-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12140-PA

Hill, A.D., Boehm, K.E., and Akers, T.J. 1988. Tracer-Placement Techniques for Improved Radioactive-Tracer Logging. J Pet Technol 40 (11): 1484-1492. SPE-17317-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/17317-PA

Kelldorf, W.F.N. 1970. Radioactive Tracer Surveying--A Comprehensive Report. J Pet Technol 22 (6): 661-669. SPE-2413-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2413-PA

Self, C. and Dillingham, M. 1967. A New Fluid Flow Analysis Technique for Determining Bore Hole Conditions. Presented at the SPE Mechanical Engineering Aspects of Drilling and Production Symposium, Fort Worth, Texas, 5-7 March. SPE-1752-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1752-MS

Simpson, G.A. and Gadeken, L.L. 1993. Interpretation of Directional Gamma Ray Logging Data for Hydraulic Fracture Orientation. Presented at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 26-28 April 1993. SPE-25851-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25851-MS

Small, G.P. 1986. Steam-injection Profile Control Using Limited-Entry Perforations. SPE Prod Eng 1 (5): 388-394. SPE-13607-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13607-PA

Wiley, R. and Cocanower, R.D. 1975. A Quantitative Technique for Determining Injectivity Profiles Using Radioactive Tracers. Presented at the Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 28 September-1 October 1975. SPE-5513-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5513-MS



===================================

Let's now take a look at the OTHER radioactive tracers used.. AND pay attention to the LENGTH OF TIME for the half-life.. Some are quite large..

SCN is applicable only to small reservoirs because the half-life of 35S is only 87 days.

Some anionic tracers may show complex behavior. Radioactive iodine (125I- and 131I-) breaks through before water but has a substantially longer tail than HTO.

Both a reversible sorption and ion exclusion seem to play a role here. 125I- and 131I- have half-lives of 60 and 8 days, respectively, which makes the compounds less attractive as tracers in large reservoir segments.


http://petrowiki.org/images/thumb/7/77/Vol5_Page_0653_Image_0001.png/800px-Vol5_Page_0653_Image_0001.png

The choice of radioactive tracer then is based on the DEPTH, TEMPERATURE of the RESERVOIR, and the amount of time that the STUDY needs to be monitored.

When a radioactive tracer appears at the SURFACE, it would be a concern.. It should remain downhole in the formation in which it was injected.

What is needed is BEFORE and AFTER studies.. Knowing background tracer substances present in the surface water is essential for an accurate study.. Without such prior studies of the radioactives being known, there is no reliable way of determining WHERE tracer elements may have originated.

A gamma ray spectrometer is the fingerprint analysis tool for an accurate study.