Rall Walsh and Mark Zoback

Similar documents
DATA MINING THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS OF OKLAHOMA S CLASS II UIC DATA TO IMPROVE INJECTION INDUCED SEISMICITY STUDIES

Oklahoma Earthquakes: Trends and Underlying Causes. Jeremy Boak, Oklahoma Geological Survey October 21, 2016

Unraveling the Mysteries of Seismicity in Oklahoma. A Story Map

Julie Shemeta, MEQ Geo Inc., WCEE Webinar 1/13/2016 1/14/2016

COGCC Underground Injection Program & Induced Seismicity

RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR INDUCED SEISMICITY

New USGS Maps Identify Potential Ground- Shaking Hazards in 2017

Seismicity and the SWD-C4A well: An ongoing UIC case study in the Denver Basin, Colorado

How will induced seismicity in Oklahoma respond to decreased saltwater injection rates?

1 of 5 12/10/2018, 2:38 PM

Colorado s Underground Injection Control Program: Prevention and Mitigation of Induced Seismicity

FAQs - Earthquakes Induced by Fluid Injection

Leveraging Cross-Disciplinary Science for Induced Seismicity Risk Management

4D Integrated Study Using Geology, Geophysics, Reservoir Modeling & Rock Mechanics to Develop Assessment Models for Potential Induced Seismicity Risk

Regulatory Considerations for Evaluating the Potential for Induced Seismicity of a Class I Non-Hazardous Disposal Well

What We Know (and don t know)

Supplemental Information for. Geospatial analysis of Oklahoma earthquakes ( ): Quantifying the limits of regional-scale earthquake mitigation

Risk Treatment. Todd Shipman PhD, Alberta Geological Survey/Alberta Energy Regulator November 17 th,2017 Induced Seismicity Workshop, Yellowknife NWT

Addressing the risks of induced seismicity in sub-surface energy operations

Development of Kern County s Rose Oil Field*

Recent Earthquakes in Oklahoma. and Potential for Induced Seismicity Austin Holland Oklahoma State Seismologist

An Investigation on the Effects of Different Stress Regimes on the Magnitude Distribution of Induced Seismic Events

Kansas Underground Injection Control Program & Induced Seismicity. By: Benjamin Busboom Stinson Leonard Street

GROUND-WATER LEVEL CHANGES IN U.S. AQUIFERS AS POTENTIAL TRIGGERS FOR EARTHQUAKES JUNE Jean Antonides

Dallas-Fort Worth and Cleburne, TX

Environmental Groups Warn Oklahoma Fracking Operators of Potential Legal Action

Brine Disposal Reservoirs in the Appalachian Basin: Injection Performance and Geological Properties

Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated With Oil & Gas Development

On Shaky Ground FRACKING, ACIDIZING, AND INCREASED EARTHQUAKE RISK IN CALIFORNIA EARTHWORKS TM

September 21,

Truck Traffic and Truck Loads Associated with Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in Texas

Concerns About the Poten/al for Induced Seismicity Associated with the Mississippian Play: Perceived or Real?

Texas researchers dig into quake data Nathanial Gronewold, E&E News reporter Published: Thursday, January 18, 2018

3D Finite Element Modeling of fault-slip triggering caused by porepressure

What s Shaking in the Barnett Shale? STEP Dallas, August 11, 2015

In-Situ Stress and Active Faulting. In Oklahoma. Richard C. Alt II and Mark D. Zoback. Department of Geophysics. Stanford University

A comparison of seismicity rates and fluid-injection operations in Oklahoma and California: Implications for crustal stresses

Using Thermal Maturity to Identify the Most Productive Part of the Oil Window to Target in the Woodford Shale

USGS: USGS: NEIC NEIC

In Situ Stress and Active Faulting in Oklahoma

DEP Office of Oil and Gas Management

Characterizing and Responding to Seismic Risk Associated with Earthquakes Potentially Triggered by Saltwater Disposal and Hydraulic Fracturing

Bridging Domains - Solution Workflows for Marginal Field Challenges

Are There Links Between Earthquakes and Oil & Gas Activity in Oklahoma?

Assessment and Mitigation of Ground Motion Hazards from Induced Seismicity. Gail M. Atkinson

Fracking and Earthquakes What s the Risk? Alastair Muir, President Muir&Associates Consulting

A Better Modeling Approach for Hydraulic Fractures in Unconventional Reservoirs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) )

AOG Conference Perth, West Australia 23 February, 2017

White Paper on Induced Seismicity Related to Oil and Gas Development

Oklahoma Corporation Commission

SPE Comparison of Numerical vs Analytical Models for EUR Calculation and Optimization in Unconventional Reservoirs

Analysis of Seismicity Coincident with Hydraulic Fracturing of a Well in South Central Oklahoma Amberlee Darold, Research Seismologist Austin

8. Integrated Rock Mechanics Studies Technology Transfer Activities Gravimetric Determination of Basement Geologic Structure 41

SHALE GAS AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

A comparison of seismicity rates and fluid injection operations in Oklahoma and California: Implications for crustal stresses

Characterization of Induced Seismicity in a Petroleum Reservoir: A Case Study

The injection of fluids into the subsurface

Research in Induced Seismicity

From an earthquake perspective, 2011 was. Managing the Seismic Risk Posed by Wastewater Disposal. 38 EARTH April

Is It Safe to Frack Beneath Lake Lewisville?

Marcellus Shale Gas Play Tetra Tech Capabilities

Geologic Characterization of Stratigraphic Sequences in the Upper Ohio River Valley for Determination of Brine Storage Capacity

region includes nine states and four provinces, covering over 1.4 million square miles. The PCOR Partnership

Main Challenges and Uncertainties for Oil Production from Turbidite Reservoirs in Deep Water Campos Basin, Brazil*

Accurate Mass Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Waters

Advanced Subsurface Characterization for CO 2 Geologic Sequestration and Induced Seismicity Evaluations

New Madrid and Central U.S. Region Earthquake Hazard

Ohio Oil and Gas Association - Exploration Committee Exploration Update

Fr CO2 02 Fault Leakage Detection From Pressure Transient Analysis

DENR s Oil and Gas Initiative. Legislative briefing March 7, 2011 by DENR s Geological Survey Program

A Better Modeling Approach for Hydraulic Fractures in Unconventional Reservoirs

Human-Induced Earthquakes from Deep-Well Injection: A Brief Overview

Induced Seismicity: Can it Happen in Kentucky Too?

A century of oil-field operations and earthquakes in the greater Los Angeles Basin, southern California

Are earthquakes triggered by hydraulic fracturing more common than previously recognized? Aus$n Holland and Amberlee Darold GSA South- Central Sec$on

New Forecast Section. connection. Volume 3 Issue 4 April 2012

Opportunities in Oil and Gas Fields Questions TABLE OF CONTENTS

Geologic CO 2 Storage Options for California

KEY CONTROLLING FACTORS OF SHALEGAS INDUCED SEISMICITY

On 31 October 2008 and the following day, numerous

Hydraulic Characteristics of the Basel 1 Enhanced Geothermal System

Lotsberg Salt Formation Solution-mined Cavern for SAGD Solid Waste disposal, Cold Lake, Alberta.

OHIO S NEW CLASS II REGULATIONS AND ITS PROACTIVE APPROACH TO SEISMIC MONITORING AND INDUCED SEISMICITY

Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development:

Supplementary Materials for

PROPOSED DALY UNIT NO. 14 APPLICATION FOR ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY WATERFLOOD PROJECT BAKKEN FORMATION DALY, MANITOBA

Shale Gas Reservoir Simulation in Eclipse

Modeling Optimizes Asset Performance By Chad Baillie

Enhanced remote earthquake triggering at fluid injection sites in the Midwestern US

Monte Carlo simulations for analysis and prediction of nonstationary magnitude-frequency distributions in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Application of Pressure Data Analysis in Tapping the Potential of Complex Fault Block Oilfield

Long-Term Average Graphs

J.V. Herwanger* (Ikon Science), A. Bottrill (Ikon Science) & P. Popov (Ikon Science)

White Paper II Summarizing a Special Session on Induced Seismicity

Summary. Introduction

Plumbing the Depths of the Pelican Field

Geographical, Geological, and Hydrogeological Attributes of Formations in the Footprint of the Eagle Ford Shale

Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies

Transcription:

Update to Oklahoma s Recent Earthquakes and Saltwater Disposal with 2014 Injection Data 1 Rall Walsh and Mark Zoback Fig. 1. Earthquakes and injection wells in Oklahoma. The map shows the locations of recent earthquakes (2009-2014 as red dots), historical earthquakes (1974-2008 as yellow dots) and EOR wells (black x s) and SWD injection wells (blue x s) that injected more than 30,000 barrels (~4800 cubic meters) in any month in the most recent three years of data. Eight study areas are outlined, each named for a nearby town, are presented in figures 3-5. This figure remains essentially unchanged. 1 Walsh, F.R. and M.D. Zoback, Oklahoma s Recent Earthquakes and Saltwater Disposal, Science Advances, 1, e1500195 18 June 2015

Fig. 2. Statewide injection and earthquakes. (Top) Cumulative number of M 2.5 or greater earthquakes in Oklahoma since 1997. (Bottom) The left axis shows total combined injection rate of all UIC wells in Oklahoma by well type. The right axis shows all earthquakes in the state by magnitude through time in the state. Earthquake data are complete through 2014. We ve added injection data for 2014 to this plot and we see an step up in total volume injected statewide.

Fig. 3. Injection and earthquakes in three study areas. Monthly injection rates from EOR, SWD and unknown wells within the Cherokee, Perry and Jones study areas as well as the times and magnitudes of earthquakes in each area. Detailed maps of each study area are also shown. The symbols for earthquakes and injection wells on the maps are the same as in figure 1. Each study area in figures 3 and 4 is 5000 km 2. We see significant increases in the rate of injection in the Cherokee area in 2014. Perry the increases continued, and in Jones, rates declined slightly but earthquakes remained.

Fig. 4. Injection and earthquakes in three additional study areas with fewer earthquakes and less Saltwater disposal. In contrast to those in figure 3, here are three comparable areas with comparatively few earthquakes. The vertical scale in the Enid and Oklahoma City study areas is the same as in figure 3. The Ardmore area has a different vertical axis because of the very large volumes of EOR injection. In 2014 earthquakes extended into the eastern edges of the Enid and Oklahoma City boxes, and there was a slight increase in earthquake rate in the Ardmore area, though both injection and Earthquakes are significantly lower than the areas of equal size in figure 3.

Fig. 5. Injection and earthquakes in two areas within the Prague and Jones study areas. These show monthly injection rates and locations of EOR, SWD and unknown wells as well as earthquakes. The symbols for earthquakes and injection wells are the same as in the maps in figure 3. Note that the vertical scales are different for each area as are the sizes of the study areas. In 2014 Injection increased in the Prague area, and earthquakes continued to occur. In Stillwater the injection rate in the one main well peaked and started dropping as rapidly as it rose. It will be interesting to see how the seismicity responds if this well continues its rapid decline in 2015.

Fig. 6. Saltwater disposal in the three seismically active areas shown in figure 3. Volumes injected into enhanced oil recovery wells (EOR) and saltwater disposal wells (SWD) in the Cherokee, Perry and Jones study areas are shown between 2009 and 2014. Also shown is an upper bound estimate of the volume of hydraulic fracturing flowback water that was disposed of in each area in any given year (green). Over 95% of the saltwater disposed of in SWD is produced water, not flowback water from hydraulic fracturing.