Fracking and Earthquakes: An Arkansas Case Study

An Arkansas Case Study

Nancy ColeIntro to GIS ClassMay 2, 2012

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

U.S. Shale-Gas Fields

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Fayetteville Shale Gas Rig

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Fracking-Fluid Holding Pond in Arkansas

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

UIC orUnderground Injection Control Well

Used for the disposal of fracking fluids

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Data Sources

1. Well Data: Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission GeoStor Web site

2. Earthquake Data: Center for Earthquake Research and Information Website

3. Basemap: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 TIGER/Line shapefiles Website

4. Population Data: U.S. Census Bureau Fact Finder 2 Web site

5. Critical-Facility U.S. Geological Survey’s GNIS (GeographicLocations: Names Information System) Web site

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Graph of Earthquakes 03/01/2009 - 02/29/2012

Date

11-Feb-1213-Nov-1115-Aug-1117-May-1116-Feb-1118-Nov-1020-Aug-1022-May-1021-Feb-1023-Nov-0925-Aug-09

Ma

gn

itu

de 4

3

2

1

0

Primarily Faulkner County

3 Years: March 2009-2012

8 fracking-disposal wells

1,483 earthquakes

Methods Overview

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Earthquake Magnitude Scale

Richter Magnitude Estimated Effects

2.5 or less Usually not felt, but can be recorded by seismograph.

2.5 to 5.4 Often felt, but only causes minor damage.

5.5 to 6.0 Slight damage to buildings and other structures.

6.1 to 6.9 May cause a lot of damage in very populated areas.

7.0 to 7.9 Major earthquake. Serious damage.

8.0 or greater Great earthquake. Can totally destroy communities near the epicenter.

Source: Michigan Tech

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Frequency of Occurrence of Earthquakes

Magnitude Annual Average

8 and higher 1 ¹

7 - 7.9 15 ¹

6 - 6.9 134 ²

5 - 5.9 1,319 ²

4 - 4.9 13,000 (estimated)

3 - 3.9 130,000 (estimated)

2 - 2.9 1,300,000 (estimated)

¹ Based on observations since 1900. ² Based on observations since 1990.Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

1. Map animation

When and where did the earthquakes occur?

2. Spatial-analysis buffers

How many people were at risk?

What “critical facilities” were at risk?

Primary Tools

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Map animation - When and where did the earthquakes occur?

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Spatial analysis buffers - What “critical facilities” were at risk?

5-Mile Radius

Facilities/County Cleburne Conway Faulkner Van Buren TotalAirports 0 0 3 0 3Bridges 0 0 0 0 0Dams 0 0 4 0 4Hospitals 0 0 0 0 0Schools 0 0 9 0 9

10-Mile Radius

Facilities/County Cleburne Conway Faulkner Van Buren TotalAirports 0 0 5 0 5Bridges 0 0 4 0 4Dams 0 0 7 0 7Hospitals 0 0 0 0 0Schools 2 0 12 3 17

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions

Conclusions

Steve Horton concluded:

1. The close spatial and temporal correlation of the Guy-Greenbrier earthquake “swarm” with disposal-well use – at high volumes and pressures – indicate that fluid-injection triggered the earthquakes.

2. Similar earthquakes were triggered in the 1960s in Colorado at Rocky Mountain Arsenal (5.2 magnitude) and Paradox Valley (4.3 magnitude).

3. The peak of the Arkansas earthquake swarm tended to lag disposal activity at wells 6 and 7 by 15 weeks.

4. The newly-identified Guy-Greenbrier fault could produce a magnitude 6.0 earthquake.

5. The location of fracking-waste disposal wells should be regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Introduction Background Data Methods Tools Results Maps Conclusions