Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
hydraulic fracturing?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hobbes" data-source="post: 1867118" data-attributes="member: 3371"><p>Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas</p><p></p><p></p><p>Abstract</p><p></p><p>Between November 2009 and September 2011, temporary seismographs deployed under the EarthScope USArray program were situated on a 70-km grid covering the Barnett Shale in Texas, recording data that allowed sensing and locating regional earthquakes with magnitudes 1.5 and larger. </p><p></p><p>I analyzed these data and located 67 earthquakes, more than eight times as many as reported by the National Earthquake Information Center. </p><p>All 24 of the most reliably located epicenters occurred in eight groups within 3.2 km of one or more injection wells. </p><p>These included wells near DallasFort Worth and Cleburne, Texas, where earthquakes near injection wells were reported by the media in 2008 and 2009, as well as wells in six other locations, including several where no earthquakes have been reported previously. </p><p></p><p>This suggests injection-triggered earthquakes are more common than is generally recognized. All the wells nearest to the earthquake groups reported </p><p>maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water per month (24,000 m3/mo) since October 2006. </p><p></p><p>However, while 9 of 27 such wells in Johnson County were near earthquakes, elsewhere no earthquakes occurred near wells with similar injection rates. </p><p>A plausible hypothesis to explain these observations is that injection only triggers earthquakes if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a suitably oriented, nearby fault that is experiencing regional tectonic stress. </p><p>Testing this hypothesis would require identifying geographic regions where there is interpreted subsurface structure information available to determine whether there are faults near seismically active and seismically quiescent injection wells.</p><p></p><p>Cliff Frohlich</p><p>Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnet Road (R2200), Austin, TX 78758-4445 </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1207728109.abstract" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1207728109.abstract</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hobbes, post: 1867118, member: 3371"] Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas Abstract Between November 2009 and September 2011, temporary seismographs deployed under the EarthScope USArray program were situated on a 70-km grid covering the Barnett Shale in Texas, recording data that allowed sensing and locating regional earthquakes with magnitudes 1.5 and larger. I analyzed these data and located 67 earthquakes, more than eight times as many as reported by the National Earthquake Information Center. All 24 of the most reliably located epicenters occurred in eight groups within 3.2 km of one or more injection wells. These included wells near DallasFort Worth and Cleburne, Texas, where earthquakes near injection wells were reported by the media in 2008 and 2009, as well as wells in six other locations, including several where no earthquakes have been reported previously. This suggests injection-triggered earthquakes are more common than is generally recognized. All the wells nearest to the earthquake groups reported maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water per month (24,000 m3/mo) since October 2006. However, while 9 of 27 such wells in Johnson County were near earthquakes, elsewhere no earthquakes occurred near wells with similar injection rates. A plausible hypothesis to explain these observations is that injection only triggers earthquakes if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a suitably oriented, nearby fault that is experiencing regional tectonic stress. Testing this hypothesis would require identifying geographic regions where there is interpreted subsurface structure information available to determine whether there are faults near seismically active and seismically quiescent injection wells. Cliff Frohlich Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnet Road (R2200), Austin, TX 78758-4445 [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1207728109.abstract[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
hydraulic fracturing?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom