fracking and earthquakes: an arkansas case study
DESCRIPTION
This presentation employs map animation to display three years of earthquakes (March 2009-February 2011) in north-central Arkansas, and uses spatial-analysis buffers to identify the number of people and the critical facilities at risk.TRANSCRIPT
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