'The time is now': New Mexico taking action on oil and gas-induced earthquakes
Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus
Fri, November 26, 2021
A growing threat of earthquakes in southeast New Mexico prompted the State to take action by upping its seismic monitoring and calling for oil and gas operators to curb the amount of produced water disposed of underground.
The byproduct water, known as produced water in industry terms, is a combination of flowback water created during hydraulic fracturing operations and water brought up from underground shale formations along with oil and natural gas.
Traditionally this water, briny and contaminated with toxic chemicals, is pumped back into the shale for disposal, but such a process was recently linked to increased seismic events in the Permian Basin shared by southeast New Mexico and West Texas.
More: Eddy County oil and gas revenue collections rise in September
Earlier this year, the Texas Railroad Commission announced it was establishing two seismic response areas (SRAs) in the Midland area and along the Texas-New Mexico border in Culberson and Reeves counties. It called for reductions in produced water injection volumes and advocated blocking any new permits for saltwater disposal wells (SWDs).
And on Tuesday, New Mexico’s Oil Conservation Division (OCD) announced similar actions as a string of earthquakes were reported in New Mexico throughout November.
Permits under review for SWDs in the area south of Malaga, near the Texas State Line, will require additional review, the department said.
More: Oil and gas 'the future' of Carlsbad and New Mexico
Meanwhile, a “statewide response protocol” was put in place by the OCD that will increase reporting and monitoring measures while also reducing the volume of water injected based on further observed seismic activity.
“Category 1” of the protocol would go into effect when two quakes of magnitude (M) 2.5 or higher occur within 30 days and within a 10-mile radius of each other.
An M 2.5 earthquake is the first level where it could be lightly felt, according to the Richter Scale. Serious damage can occur at a M 3 or greater.
More: New Mexico environmentalists, industry debate impact of EPA oil and gas methane rule
With 10 miles of the epicenter of such an event, operators would be required to provide to the state weekly reporting of daily injection volumes and average daily surface pressure, while digitally measuring injections volumes and pressure and providing analysis and data to the OCD when requested.
At “Category 2,” which goes into effect if one M 3 event occurs, all of Category 1 requirements would be imposed, along with requirements that operators within 3 miles reduce injection rates by 50 percent.
Within 3-6 miles, operators would be required to cut injection by 25 percent.
More: New Mexico, Permian Basin oil and gas environmental concerns heard at UN's COP26 summit
If a M 3.5 or higher quake is reported, operators with 3 miles must shut in their wells, and cut injection by 50 percent at 3-6 miles, and 25 percent at 6-10 miles.
OCD Director Adrienne Sandoval said most of the recent significant seismicity was reported on the Texas side of the basin, but the State was taking action to prevent the threat to New Mexico.
Adrienne Sandoval was hired in April as the director of New Mexico's Oil Conservation Division.
“The Oil Conservation Division is taking a proactive approach to managing seismic activity tied to oil and gas activity in New Mexico,” she said. “While some of the biggest events have occurred over the state line in Texas, the time is now to ensure larger events do not occur in our part of the oil field.
“Using solid data and working with our stakeholders and state partners, the plan laid out today takes a pragmatic approach to addressing this issue.”
More: New Mexico's oil and gas water research studies economics, toxicity
A map of magnitude 2.5 earthquakes reported along the Texas-New Mexico border in 2021, per the U.S. Geological Survey.
Data shows earthquakes increased while oil boomed in the Permian Basin
Data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) showed that along the Texas-New Mexico border in the Permian Basin, 422 earthquakes of M 2.5 or higher were reported in 2021, with 22 reported in November alone.
Last year, the USGS reported just 209 such quakes in that same area and only 51 in 2019.
In 2018, the USGS database showed 16 M 2.5 or greater quakes in the area and four in 2017 – the year commonly associated with the most recent boom in oil and gas credited to expanded use of hydraulic fracturing.
More: Xcel Energy completes southeast New Mexico power loop to account for oil and gas demand
Most recently, on Nov. 23 a M 2.7 quake was reported about 35 miles south of Whites City, per USGS data, just over the border in Texas, along with an M 2.6 the day before in the same location.
Several more were reported throughout the month close to that area, just south of the state line.
An M 3.2 was reported Nov. 13 about 23 miles southwest of Monument, a ranching community just outside Hobbs.
More: Risk of earthquakes caused by oil and gas operations in New Mexico rising
About 50 M 2.5 or higher quakes were reported on the Texas side in October, per the USGS, with none in New Mexico. An M 3.3 occurred in an area about 19 miles southeast of Malaga almost directly on the border.
The previous month saw three M 2.5 or higher quakes near Jal on Sept. 1, 9 and 20. The next day, an M 3.2 quake was reported near Malaga.
How do injection wells cause earthquakes?
The injection of oil and gas wastewater was found to induce seismicity through a process called poroelasticity, the result of the interaction between fluid and solid but porous rock formations, per a May study from Virginia Tech published in the journal Science Daily.
More: Pioneer Resources exits Delaware Basin, New Mexico in $3.25B sale of oil and gas assets
This interaction can stress the rock and active deep or “basement” faults, the report read.
"It is quite interesting that injection above the thick, overall low-permeability shale reservoir can induce an earthquake within the deep basement, despite a minimal hydraulic connection," said Guang Zhai, a postdoctoral research scientist in the Department of Geosciences, part of the Virginia Tech College of Science.
“What we have found is that the so-called poroelastic stresses can activate basement faults, which is originated from the fluid injection causing rock deformation."
More: Lujan Grisham's pledge to cut carbon emissions attacked by New Mexico oil and gas supporters
The study reported seismicity in the Permian Basin was observed to increase “significantly” since 2010 in shallow wastewater injection which led to deep seismicity.
Most of the quakes were small and largely unfelt but could point to a trend of increased magnitudes and potentially larger events, the study read.
Zhai said the problem could get worse as energy needs increase around the world, and shallow disposal injection remains the cheapest method of wastewater management.
More: Feds move forward with sale of southeast New Mexico public land to oil and gas industry
People should use the research, Zhai said to rethink the human role in induced seismicity resulting from fossil fuel development.
"As the future energy demands increase globally, dealing with the enormous amount of coproduced wastewater remains challenging, and safe shallow injection for disposal is more cost-efficient than deep injection or water treatment," Zhai said.
"We hope the mechanism we find in this study can help people rethink the ways induced earthquakes are caused, eventually helping with better understanding them and mitigating their hazards."
Adrian Hedden @AdrianHedden on Twitter.
This article originally appeared on Carlsbad Current-Argus: New Mexico taking action on oil and gas-induced earthquakes
In this Feb. 6, 2015, file photo, protesters prepare to take down a makeshift oil derrick that was set up in front of the California State Office Building to protest fracking in San Francisco. California regulators are citing climate change for the first time as they deny new permits for hydraulic fracturing, a process used to extract oil and gas from the ground. In denying 50 fracking permits this year, the state's oil and gas supervisor said he was using his discretion to protect public health, safety and environmental quality and to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)More
Wed, November 24, 2021
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California regulators haven't approved permits for the controversial oil and gas extraction process known as fracking since February, effectively phasing out the process ahead of Gov. Gavin Newsom's 2024 deadline to end it.
The state's Geologic Energy Management Division, known as CalGEM, has rejected an unprecedented 109 fracking permits in 2021, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. That's the most denials the division has issued in a single year since California began permitting fracking in 2015. Fifty of the permits, mostly from Bakersfield-based Aera Energy, were denied based solely on climate change concerns.
State oil and gas supervisor Uduak-Joe Ntuk wrote in a September letter to Aera that he could “not in good conscience" grant the permits “given the increasingly urgent climate effects of fossil-fuel production” and “the continuing impacts of climate change and hydraulic fracturing on public health and natural resources.”
Newsom, a Democrat, called in 2020 for state lawmakers to ban the practice by 2024. But a proposal before lawmakers failed, leading Newsom to direct CalGEM to proceed with the timeline on its own. It’s only one piece of Newsom’s climate change agenda, which includes a complete end to oil and gas production in the state by 2045, long after he’s left office.
Kern County, where most fracking in the state occurs, and the Western States Petroleum Association have sued the state over the denials. WSPA's lawsuit, filed in October, argues state law requires CalGEM to permit fracking if it meets technical requirements and that the denials amount to a de facto ban on the process that hasn't been approved by the Legislature.
A hearing in the Kern case is scheduled for Monday and the state must respond to WSPA's lawsuit by Dec. 2.
Fracking is the process of injecting a high-pressure mix of mostly water with some sand and chemical additives into rock to create or expand fractures that allow for the extraction of oil and gas. Permitted fracking operations account for just 2% of oil production in California. But the practice is controversial due to concerns about the chemicals used in the fracking fluid contaminating groundwater.
Environmental justice organizations representing low-income communities and people of color have protested fracking for its potential water contamination and the methane released by the process. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas.
Juan Flores, a community organizer based in Kern County with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, said by denying the permits Newsom and his administration are living up to expectations set by voters.
“This is a type of action that we expected," he said.
WSPA said in its lawsuit that the state's permitting process includes stringent requirements designed to protect public health and safety.
These actions “don’t really deliver the positive benefits for a fight against climate change, but what they do is impose big impacts on Californians — to their finances, to their freedoms and, essentially, how they live and work every single day,” WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd told the Chronicle.
CalGEM has approved just 12 fracking permits this year, down from 83 in 2020 and 220 in 2019.
In his letter to Aera explaining why the state denied permit applications, Ntuk cited extreme heat, drought and wildfires as examples of the dangers caused by climate change. He argued that CalGEM must ensure the activities it regulates match the state's environmental, public health and climate change goals. He said a 2014 law that gave the agency permitting power over fracking does not require the state to approve permits even if applications are complete.
Kathy Miller, an Aera spokeswoman, did not respond to an email seeking comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment