5.5 Magnitude earthquake in Pecos just now

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Archer said:

All of the major operators have massive water recycling projects in all active drilling areas. Just Google “company sustainability report “. Here are a few:

 

EOG: 90%+ recycled water use

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/eog-resources-publishes-2021-sustainability-report-301643136.html

 

Diamondback 29% recycled water use 

https://www.diamondbackenergy.com/static-files/faf5ab25-5ab5-4404-8c04-c7bd387ae418

 

Chevron 99% recycled water use in Permian 

https://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/documents/chevron-sustainability-report-2021.pdf

 

Devon 53% recycled water use

https://dvnweb.azureedge.net/assets/documents/Sustainability/DVN_2022_SustainabilityReport.pdf 

The problem is you get all of the frac water back in the first few months and then you have 20 years of additional water production and eventually you are done fracing to recycle into and are still producing water that has to go somewhere. 

The produced water is minuscule relative to flowback water. With these companies’ massive efforts (thanks for linking), you are at the very least delaying seismicity and allowing RRC and other regulatory bodies time to best determine where to permit disposal wells. And, Permian frac jobs aren’t slowing down for years. 

[Archer 474]

17 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

The produced water is minuscule relative to flowback water. With these companies’ massive efforts (thanks for linking), you are at the very least delaying seismicity and allowing RRC and other regulatory bodies time to best determine where to permit disposal wells. And, Permian frac jobs aren’t slowing down for years. 

That’s not what I see on the water production. 
 

I work in the Delaware. 63% of our total water production is from wells drilled before 2022, 37% is from wells that we brought online in 2022.  We have 30 two mile wells on active flowback today they represent 10% of our produced water totals. 
 

For a small well count operator flowback water will dominate the volumes but once an operator has hundreds of producing wells across multiple drill years the flow back water becomes a much smaller piece. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Archer said:

That’s not what I see on the water production. 
 

I work in the Delaware. 63% of our total water production is from wells drilled before 2022, 37% is from wells that we brought online in 2022.  We have 30 two mile wells on active flowback today they represent 10% of our produced water totals. 
 

For a small well count operator flowback water will dominate the volumes but once an operator has hundreds of producing wells across multiple drill years the flow back water becomes a much smaller piece. 

Weird. But I recall Delaware makes more water than Midland and other basins?  Or am I making that up?  And are you working horizontal Wolfcamp and Bone Springs wells?

[Archer 474]

4 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Weird. But I recall Delaware makes more water than Midland and other basins?  Or am I making that up?  And are you working horizontal Wolfcamp and Bone Springs wells?

I have not worked Ops in Midland so I am not sure on their cuts or decline profile. I see water cuts from 40-90% but 60-80% is probably most common. We’re operating everything from deep Wolfcamp to shallow Avalon wells. Focus on BS and Wolfcamp like everyone 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I am going to let you Permian basin nerds sword fight over this.  I'll just put my head down and continue to help my company drill and produce in the eagle ford.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

14 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I am going to let you Permian basin nerds sword fight over this.  I'll just put my head down and continue to help my company drill and produce in the eagle ford.

I recall that the eagle Ford has some quakes too. The ones I remember were centered around Falls City about 10-12 years ago.

They even showed up on weather underground.

[SquishMitten 10408]

22 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Smoking directly causes cancer. The process of fracking doesn’t have a thing to do with earthquakes. It’s injecting wastewater downhole into another well. Recycling solves the problem. 

Getting a little heated here so I'll try to rephrase the question I think some are trying to pose.

First, set aside the argument about recycling since that is not universal and injection wells currently exist. Second, any method that creates wastewater, leading to the need for an injection well, does occasionally increase seismic activity. 

Now, doing a side-by-side comparison between "traditional" drilling and fracking, does either method - more often than not - produce noticeably more wastewater than the other? If the answer is no, then your point is 100% valid that fracking does not have the downstream effect of increasing seismic activity (as compared to the other method). If either method typically produces more wastewater than the other, it is then fair to claim that such method leads to increased seismic activity (again, as compared to the other method).

[Archer 474]

50 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Getting a little heated here so I'll try to rephrase the question I think some are trying to pose.

First, set aside the argument about recycling since that is not universal and injection wells currently exist. Second, any method that creates wastewater, leading to the need for an injection well, does occasionally increase seismic activity. 

Now, doing a side-by-side comparison between "traditional" drilling and fracking, does either method - more often than not - produce noticeably more wastewater than the other? If the answer is no, then your point is 100% valid that fracking does not have the downstream effect of increasing seismic activity (as compared to the other method). If either method typically produces more wastewater than the other, it is then fair to claim that such method leads to increased seismic activity (again, as compared to the other method).

That’s a bit of a strawman question and I’ll explain why I see it that way. 
 

With hydraulic fracturing an operator may pump a million barrels of water into the well during the frac job so assuming all thing equal you will get a million extra barrels back (very basic and somewhat flawed assumption). 
 

Why I am saying it’s not a completely valid question is that in the onshore US the old reservoirs that could flow naturally without stimulation or with very minimal stimulation are drilled up. The shale reservoirs that are being drilled and produced now do not have the ability to flow without stimulation. So there is no “traditional” drilling methods that can be used on these wells. 
 

The US is currently producing 12 million barrels of oil a day, 9 million of that is coming from shale reservoirs. 
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-permian-oil-production-due-rise-dec-record-eia-2022-11-14/

Without hydraulic fracturing we are looking at 3 million barrels of domestic production. Companies would probably put capital to other projects so maybe that gets to 4 or 5 million. Whatever it is we would be importing massive volumes of crude and everyone would be praying for $4/gal gas again. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Archer

[TwiceHorn 31471]

All true, but to squish's question, which relates to causality, it is true that frac'ing operations use more water than more conventional drilling methods and thus increase the need for water disposal or recycling.

Another question, though.  I did some drilling and frac fluid patent work quite some time ago and even then, the emphasis was on inert and environmentally safe additives for frac'ing an other drilling fluids.  Has that changed?

Or is it exposure of the frac water to hydrocarbon-bearing formations that contaminates it?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I recall that the eagle Ford has some quakes too. The ones I remember were centered around Falls City about 10-12 years ago.
They even showed up on weather underground.

Yeah, I haven’t heard of any recent ones.

The company I work for recycles the water. Also a lot of work goes into studying the formations and faults to try and avoid issues. We will not do drilling or frac simops if the pads are within a mile of each other. Try to eliminate subsurface communication. I believe other operators will allow simops closer than a mile.

[Archer 474]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

All true, but to squish's question, which relates to causality, it is true that frac'ing operations use more water than more conventional drilling methods and thus increase the need for water disposal or recycling.

Another question, though.  I did some drilling and frac fluid patent work quite some time ago and even then, the emphasis was on inert and environmentally safe additives for frac'ing an other drilling fluids.  Has that changed?

Or is it exposure of the frac water to hydrocarbon-bearing formations that contaminates it?

Yeah once it is pumped into the rock the most pure clean water is going to come out a brackish hydrocarbon cut mess. 
 

The frac water is being pushed  thousands of feet into the reservoir and is mixing with the in situ fluids. What flows back is a blend of oil, reservoir water, and frac water. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Archer

[SquishMitten 10408]

34 minutes ago, Archer said:

That’s a bit of a strawman question and I’ll explain why I see it that way. 
 

With hydraulic fracturing an operator may pump a million barrels of water into the well during the frac job so assuming all thing equal you will get a million extra barrels back (very basic and somewhat flawed assumption). 
 

Why I am saying it’s not a completely valid question is that in the onshore US the old reservoirs that could flow naturally without stimulation or with very minimal stimulation are drilled up. The shale reservoirs that are being drilled and produced now do not have the ability to flow without stimulation. So there is no “traditional” drilling methods that can be used on these wells. 
 

The US is currently producing 12 million barrels of oil a day, 9 million of that is coming from shale reservoirs. 
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-permian-oil-production-due-rise-dec-record-eia-2022-11-14/

Without hydraulic fracturing we are looking at 3 million barrels of domestic production. Companies would probably put capital to other projects so maybe that gets to 4 or 5 million. Whatever it is we would be importing massive volumes of crude and everyone would be praying for $4/gal gas again. 

All of the bolded part is irrelevant to the yes or no question I asked.

34 minutes ago, Archer said:

That’s a bit of a strawman question and I’ll explain why I see it that way. 
 

With hydraulic fracturing an operator may pump a million barrels of water into the well during the frac job so assuming all thing equal you will get a million extra barrels back (very basic and somewhat flawed assumption). 
 

Why I am saying it’s not a completely valid question is that in the onshore US the old reservoirs that could flow naturally without stimulation or with very minimal stimulation are drilled up. The shale reservoirs that are being drilled and produced now do not have the ability to flow without stimulation. So there is no “traditional” drilling methods that can be used on these wells. 
 

The US is currently producing 12 million barrels of oil a day, 9 million of that is coming from shale reservoirs. 
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-permian-oil-production-due-rise-dec-record-eia-2022-11-14/

Without hydraulic fracturing we are looking at 3 million barrels of domestic production. Companies would probably put capital to other projects so maybe that gets to 4 or 5 million. Whatever it is we would be importing massive volumes of crude and everyone would be praying for $4/gal gas again. 

Fair enough, then let me rephrase...

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

First, set aside the argument about recycling since that is not universal and injection wells currently exist. Second, any method that creates wastewater, leading to the need for an injection well, does occasionally increase seismic activity. 

Now, doing a side-by-side comparison between "traditional" drilling non-fracking and fracking, does either method - more often than not - produce require the production of noticeably more wastewater than the other? And I'm talking generally, not one-off situations that are significantly out of the norm.  If the answer is no, then your point is 100% valid that fracking does not have the downstream effect of increasing seismic activity (as compared to the other method). If either method typically produces more wastewater than the other, it is then fair to claim that such method leads to increased seismic activity (again, as compared to the other method).

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by SquishMitten

[Archer 474]

5 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

All of the bolded part is irrelevant to the yes or no question I asked.

Fair enough, then let me rephrase...

 

The very nature of hydraulic fracturing is to increase the perm and connectivity of a reservoir so that it can flow more fluid. If a well didn’t produce more fluid after a frac companies wouldn’t be spending millions of dollars to do it. 

[SquishMitten 10408]

I understand that fracking is necessary. I'm not questioning that. I'm pro-O&G, for both personal and professional reasons. I'm only restating a yes or no question that was either being danced around intentionally or misinterpreted. I honestly don't know the answer, and I don't particularly care, but it's fair to admit that one process may have more negative effects. No reason to hide it or deny it, and that's BECAUSE of the points you made in your last two posts...the pros outweigh the cons (if it's even true that fracking produces more wastewater). 

[Archer 474]

24 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I understand that fracking is necessary. I'm not questioning that. I'm pro-O&G, for both personal and professional reasons. I'm only restating a yes or no question that was either being danced around intentionally or misinterpreted. I honestly don't know the answer, and I don't particularly care, but it's fair to admit that one process may have more negative effects. No reason to hide it or deny it, and that's BECAUSE of the points you made in your last two posts...the pros outweigh the cons (if it's even true that fracking produces more wastewater). 

I’ve answered it a couple times directly and then expanded on it why it’s necessary, I wasn’t trying dance around any question  

Again

The purpose of fracing is to produce more fluids. You can not produce just more oil or gas you get everything in one big commingled mess. By producing more oil you will produce more water. As I mentioned up thread you will produce anywhere from 1 barrel of water per barrel of oil to 9 barrels of water per barrel of oil. If a frac increases your oil production from 500 barrels per day to 1,000 barrels per day you will also double your water production. 

[Armybrat 40846]

[Bevo 13577]

25 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Frac!

[tejas60 3533]

I read somewhere on the internets (so it must be true) that this quake was 3.1 miles below ground. so not fracking related? 

[SquishMitten 10408]

19 hours ago, Archer said:

I’ve answered it a couple times directly and then expanded on it why it’s necessary, I wasn’t trying dance around any question  

Again

The purpose of fracing is to produce more fluids. You can not produce just more oil or gas you get everything in one big commingled mess. By producing more oil you will produce more water. As I mentioned up thread you will produce anywhere from 1 barrel of water per barrel of oil to 9 barrels of water per barrel of oil. If a frac increases your oil production from 500 barrels per day to 1,000 barrels per day you will also double your water production. 

I don’t know why this is so hard for both of us to get on the same page with the question and answer. I understand what you’re saying, but I still don’t think it answers the question. You say that by fracking you increase your output of water roughly equivalent to the increase in barrels. I would assume that’s the same regardless of method (i.e., the more barrels of oil produced, by any method, typically correlates to an increase in wastewater. Maybe if I ask it like this… to produce a barrel of oil from fracking, you will get 1-9 barrels of water. To produce a barrel of oil from non-fracking means, you will get between X and Y barrels of water. This is no longer a yes or no question/answer. Simply, what is X and Y?

All my previous caveats are the same: wastewater is unavoidable, not talking about recycling, fracking is necessary to continue meaningful production, etc. There’s nothing wrong with saying fracking produces more wastewater, leading to greater use of injection wells and increased seismology if the benefits outweigh the costs, which I believe they do. 

[Archer 474]

26 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don’t know why this is so hard for both of us to get on the same page with the question and answer. I understand what you’re saying, but I still don’t think it answers the question. You say that by fracking you increase your output of water roughly equivalent to the increase in barrels. I would assume that’s the same regardless of method (i.e., the more barrels of oil produced, by any method, typically correlates to an increase in wastewater. Maybe if I ask it like this… to produce a barrel of oil from fracking, you will get 1-9 barrels of water. To produce a barrel of oil from non-fracking means, you will get between X and Y barrels of water. This is no longer a yes or no question/answer. Simply, what is X and Y?

All my previous caveats are the same: wastewater is unavoidable, not talking about recycling, fracking is necessary to continue meaningful production, etc. There’s nothing wrong with saying fracking produces more wastewater, leading to greater use of injection wells and increased seismology if the benefits outweigh the costs, which I believe they do. 

Tough to discuss technical subjects with delayed text communications, plus you are delaying with a glorified caveman. 
 

IF I understand correctly:

You are correct if you are producing the same reservoir fraced and unfraced you should expect to see the same water cut after the frac load is recovered. So both wells will give you X barrels of water per barrel of oil. This ratio should remain fairly constant between the wells. 
 

The difference is the fraced well will be able to produce multiple times more oil and thus more water. 
 

The frac doesn’t change what is in the reservoir just the volumes of it that can be delivered to the surface. 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Archer

[CycleTex87 2970]

In my primitive petroleum engineering mind, you don't produce any oil & gas from a shale formation without fracturing it in the first place.  Trying to compare hypothetical water cuts before and after fracking is really meaningless.  Without the combination of long horizontal laterals into shales and fracturing each well, there's no renaissance of US oil & gas production that we've seen in the Permian or anywhere else.  @Armybrat's chart is interesting.  I didn't plot out the number of earthquakes over time, but they don't seem to be increasing in frequency.  Is this quake related to/caused by water injection secondary to hydraulic fracturing?  Who knows?  Does it matter?  Honest questions here.  Geopolitical forces have most certainly changed as a result of the shale production revolution, aided by hydraulic fracturing.

I happened to be on a wellsite south of Odessa at the time of the quake, and did not perceive it.  Was in Mentone the next day.  I didn't see any widespread damage, at least related to earthquakes.  Mentone itself is kind of an ongoing disaster.

Old chart, but shows the impact of fracking in Permian:

[sunset87 240]

The media/environmentalists have done a good job of turning the word “frac” into a real boogeyman. 

Like has been mentioned many times already the quakes are being caused by the huge volumes of water being disposed into deeper reservoirs that contain dormant fault systems. If the disposal wells are injecting into the deeper horizons they run the risk of being in area where these deeper horizons are located in a fault system area.  Not all deep disposal is located in faulted areas.  As a result of the increased pressure and possible "lubrication" from water disposal some of these dormant fault systems can be slightly reactivated resulting in the earthquakes being seen.  This is a direct result of the exponential increase in production of oil, gas and water from horizontal drilling, mostly from shale reservoirs, that has taken place in the last 5+ years. And yes these wells have to be fraced to produce in commercial quantities. It’s really a large scale manufacturing process now.

The water disposal issue is a very hot topic now and is being studied in depth. I think we will see less and less earthquakes moving forward. But they won’t completely stop. 

My bigger issue is the amount of water disposal taking place in medium depth horizons, which typically are not faulted. This is wreaking havoc in the oil field, causing the loss of legacy vertical wells.  Major water flows while drilling new wells and holes in casing to existing wells as a result of the huge volumes of water being disposed in an amongst existing wells, have become a real problem from my experience.

If you are on the wrong side of the horizontal game in the Permian (raises hand) as an operator, you're kind of fucked.

Edited November 22, 2022 by sunset87
covid brain

[RollLeft 5045]

I'm gonna need some of you guys to shut off your pipelines for an hour or so for "maintenance" so i can make aa few trades, mkay.  

[crash_davis 23113]

5.3 quake 20km NNW of Midland

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000j9vq/executive

 

[crash_davis 23113]

article from earlier today. bolded for lulz.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/earthquake-adds-new-hurdle-slowing-texas-oil-output-gains-2022-12-16/

Dec 15 (Reuters) - U.S. shale oil producers are facing higher costs in the nation's largest oil field after regulators restricted the use of some wastewater disposal wells in west Texas after the latest in a series of powerful earthquakes struck the region.

Wastewater that comes up with oil and gas production is often pumped back underground, a practice tied to a rise in earthquakes in Oklahoma and Texas oilfields. Regulators in both states have set limits on how much water can be injected, particularly into deep wells.

In mid-November, a magnitude 5.4 earthquake hit an area where operators already were required to reduce disposal volumes. That led Texas to further reduce volumes to 162,000 barrels per day by mid-2023, 68% less water from early 2022 levels in a producing area.

There is a "very real possibility" of another large quake occurring, said Laura Capper, chief executive of CAP Resources, a water management and risk mitigation consultancy.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

5.3 quake 20km NNW of Midland
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000j9vq/executive
 

Still wasn’t me. I’m strictly EF these days. I also work for a euro oil company. We try to recycle our water as much as possible.

But in all seriousness, pretty interesting to see two seismic events happen this close together, geographically and timing.

[Biff Tannen 45685]

Steiner Ranch swingers club apparently told FaceSpace they felt shaking earlier.  No idea if related...

[RPM 26321]

Photos of damage

[atomheartbevo 89668]

8 hours ago, RPM said:

Photos of damage

Yep

 

[Red Five 40858]

We will rebuild. 

[Willfully Horn 8017]

I’m curious if property owners who suffer damage from these quakes are reimbursed by the wastewater injection industry.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I’m curious if property owners who suffer damage from these quakes are reimbursed by the wastewater injection industry.

Highly doubtful. At least I have never heard of such a thing.

I think I would rather have well water than oil or gas. Yeah, O&G pays more, but selling water is just east and less concern about environmental issues on your land.

[Bookman 4639]

Why are people still writing "fracing" instead of "fracking"? I thought this was settled nine or ten years ago.

[Loop 1604 227]

1 minute ago, Bookman said:

Why are people still writing "fracing" instead of "fracking"? I thought this was settled nine or ten years ago.

Because it’s a simple litmus test to tell who is actually in the industry. There’s no “K” in the word fracturing.

[Bookman 4639]

Just now, Loop 1604 said:

Because it’s a simple litmus test to tell who is actually in the industry. There’s no “K” in the word fracturing.

Fair enough. I can only speak as an oil and gas lawyer.

[DalTxHornFan 3101]

21 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Fair enough. I can only speak as an oil and gas lawyer.

Apparently, there is very serious debate out there on this subject.  (I'm on Team "Fracking")

Fracking Vs Fracing – The End of the Debate?

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

 

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by DalTxHornFan

[Dnaguy 11964]

11 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’m curious if property owners who suffer damage from these quakes are reimbursed by the wastewater injection industry.

[Bookman 4639]

28 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Apparently, there is very serious debate out there on this subject.  (I'm on Team "Fracking")

Fracking Vs Fracing – The End of the Debate?

https://drillers.com/fracking-vs-fracing-end-debate/

 

 

Yeah, back when the Eagle Ford started, it was always "fracing," "fraccing," or "frac'ing", but I haven't seen that in legal writing in a long time. It's been fracturing or fracking for years now, in my experience. Engineers have a different purpose for their writing, which I assume is why they use the alternate spelling.

[Captainant 27669]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:07 PM, Willfully Horn said:

I’m curious if property owners who suffer damage from these quakes are reimbursed by the wastewater injection industry.

Ignoring and making others pay for and clean up the negative externalities of their industry is central to the O&G value chain. There's a reason why there's millions of dead, improperly capped wells just blasting H2S and methane into the air and poisoning the land. They ain't gonna do dick about it or clean up after themselves, it would hurt their margins and set a bad precedent of cleaning up after themselves

Edited December 19, 2022 by Captainant

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

The company I work for, a mid major drilling in the EF, most write “fracing”. Most of the time the ones spelling it “fracking” are not native English speakers.

[Archer 474]

On 12/17/2022 at 7:07 PM, Willfully Horn said:

I’m curious if property owners who suffer damage from these quakes are reimbursed by the wastewater injection industry.

There was a big 2016 earthquake in Pawnee, Ok one company settled earlier this year for damages and several others are still being sued. 
 

https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/oil-company-settles-class-action-suit-stemming-from-2016-pawnee-earthquake/article_bad03f7e-11e8-11ed-8c55-8ba9de8a1986.html

[Trey3216 15346]

On 12/18/2022 at 7:36 AM, Bookman said:

Yeah, back when the Eagle Ford started, it was always "fracing," "fraccing," or "frac'ing", but I haven't seen that in legal writing in a long time. It's been fracturing or fracking for years now, in my experience. Engineers have a different purpose for their writing, which I assume is why they use the alternate spelling.

They got tired of hearing unaware types and local media folks pronounce it fray-cing when reading it on the teleprompter.   

[sunset87 240]

On 12/18/2022 at 7:52 AM, Captainant said:

Ignoring and making others pay for and clean up the negative externalities of their industry is central to the O&G value chain. There's a reason why there's millions of dead, improperly capped wells just blasting H2SO and methane into the air and poisoning the land. They ain't gonna do dick about it or clean up after themselves, it would hurt their margins and set a bad precedent of cleaning up after themselves

Millions,blasting ?? Hyperbole much... H2SO? Sulfuric acid?? Okay. 

There's multiple disposal wells owned by different companies in the area of that earthquake. I don't know how you can tell which one/ones are responsible.  However, I guess you could try suing all of them. Wouldn't be surprised if something like that happens.

[Captainant 27669]

7 minutes ago, sunset87 said:

Millions,blasting ?? Hyperbole much... H2SO? Sulfuric acid?? Okay. 

 

Whoop my bad, I meant H2S - Hydrogen Sulfide

[CycleTex87 2970]

HS Chemistry Class Teacher Humor:  Little Johnny isn't with us anymore, 'cause what he thought was H2O was H2SO4.

Edited December 19, 2022 by CycleTex87

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:42 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

Still wasn’t me. I’m strictly EF these days. I also work for a euro oil company. We try to recycle our water as much as possible.

But in all seriousness, pretty interesting to see two seismic events happen this close together, geographically and timing.

 

recycle how?

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

 
recycle how?
 

Look up produced water recycling.

However, most of the time, as I understand it, the water is sold to another operator who recycles the water for their frac ops. I can’t find the numbers for my business unit, but another one here in the US recycled 75% of its water in 2017 to be used for more ops and 25% was sold to other operators for the same purpose. So at the very least trying to reduce the amount of freshwater used.

[RPM 26321]

6.4 in Northern California this morning. Eureka!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/64-magnitude-earthquake-hits-northern-california-rcna62522

A 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked parts of Northern California early Tuesday, knocking out power for thousands and causing widespread damages, officials said.

The quake hit at a depth of 10 miles just after 5:30 a.m. ET near Eureka in Humboldt County, the U.S. Geological Survey said. It struck around 7.4 miles west-southwest of Ferndale, the agency said.

More than a dozen smaller earthquakes appeared to hit parts of the region afterward, it said.

It was not immediately clear whether anyone was injured in the earthquake.

More than 70,000 utility customers were without power in Humboldt County as of 9 a.m. ET Tuesday, according to the online outage tracker Poweroutage.us.

"Power is out across the county," Humboldt County's Office of Emergency Services said in a tweet, adding: "DO NOT CALL 911 UNLESS YOU ARE EXPERIENCING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY."

Officials said widespread damages to roads and homes had been reported across the county as it warned residents to "be prepared for aftershocks" and to check gas and water lines for damages or leaks.

There was no threat of a tsunami in connection with the earthquake as of early Tuesday, the National Weather Service's tsunami warning system said.

A number of people said on social media that they were woken up by the MyShake earthquake warning app on their cellphones.

A seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey said people living near the coast reported feeling "significant shaking." They said people could expect to see minor damages, including things falling off shelves, and could possibly see foundational damages.

The quake comes almost exactly a year after a 6.2-magnitude earthquake struck offshore in the Cape Mendocino area of Northern California on Dec. 21 last year. No major damage or injures were reported in connection with that quake.

That earthquake had struck at a depth of 5.6 miles in the Pacific Ocean, about 24 miles west of the small community of Petrolia along the rocky wilderness of California’s Lost Coast region in Humboldt County, the Geological Survey and the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department said at the time.

[crash_davis 23113]

103 earthquakes in one week: What's going on in west Texas?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/07/29/west-texas-earthquakes-explained/74590224007/

So many earthquakes have struck the west Texas county of Scurry in the past week – more than 100 at last count – local officials have declared a state of emergency.

Scurry County Judge Dan Hicks wrote in his Friday declaration of disaster that since the first earthquake, registering magnitude 4.9, was felt the night of July 22, "damage has been found throughout Scurry County in businesses and residences."

 

103 earthquakes in eight days

From the first large quake of magnitude 4.9, the county has experienced a total of 103 earthquakes, including 12 of magnitude three or more, said Justin Rubinstein, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California.

The rash of earthquakes is not naturally occurring, as Texas, in general, is not a very seismically active part of the country. Instead, it is"almost 99% likely" to be linked to local oil fields, Rubinstein said.

“We can say with confidence that these are related to oil and gas extractions," he said.

The temblors are very likely linked to new forms of oil and natural gas drilling technology that allow companies to drill not just down into the earth but horizontally along an oil formation.

They are reaching deeply buried oil and natural gas deposits that are the decomposed remnants of plants and animals in ancient oceans. When the oil comes up, the salt water, which can be millions of years old, also comes up.

This is called "produced water" and there's a lot of it.

"The ratio of oil to saltwater is low. It can be five or 10 or even 20 barrels of saltwater for every barrel of oil," said Rubinstein.

This prehistoric water is much saltier than ocean water and can't be disposed of in rivers or even the ocean, in part, because it can contain contaminants such as hydrocarbons.

Instead, it must be pumped back deep underground where it cannot leech into groundwater, a process called saltwater disposal.

The large amounts of water being pumped underground in turn can cause earthquakes. "We've found evidence that saltwater disposal is the most likely cause of the earthquakes in Scurry County. This specific area has seen seismic activity going back to 2020," Rubinstein said.

[NorthLoop 14204]

Boil it down, then ship it to Colorado and tell them to try putting it on their fucking food.