Introduction:
If you have paid any attention to the news lately, you will hear a phrase that is becoming more and more widely used to describe one of the main dangers of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Alberta. This phrase is called “induced seismicity.” Numerous tremors have been felt in Alberta within the past six (6) months and a concern is growing that a large earthquake will be triggered in the immediate future. Residents of Alberta are worried that their homes and livelihoods will be destroyed if hydraulic fracturing continues in our beautiful province. But, is this even an issue? Will induced seismicity be a term we hear on a regular basis, or is it just a media trigger word? Due to the lack of scientific facts, Contrary to the media’s …show more content…
Highly trained geologists or geoscientists conduct this survey. The seismic survey determines the estimated reserve in the area, and the best locations to drill. The experts test the area for pre-existing seismic faults, ground water, and oil and gas deposits. The test begins by creating a small shock wave on the surface with either an explosive buried in the ground, or a “stomper” truck that vibrates the ground. When the shock waves strike items of different densities they reflect back to surface at different rates. On the surface, the shock waves are detected by a geophone. The results can then be analyzed and a 2D or 3D seismic image can be generated. (McFarland, …show more content…
As it stands now, no prominent fault lines put Alberta at risk. This is much unlike other Canadian provinces, such as British Columbia. Hydraulic fracturing should be more closely monitored in British Columbia, specifically in the Juan De Fuca area, or in any area known fault lines exist. Closer to home, geothermal imaging should be used to examine Alberta’s underground for new faults. New seismic tests should be developed to look deeper into the earth’s surface to detect potential weak spots. If these faults/weak spots are discovered, the areas can be avoided and induced seismicity in Alberta can be minimized. As much as people dislike or protest hydraulic fracturing, it is a necessary evil. Nowadays, hydraulic fracturing is the most economic and safest way to extract oil and gas from beneath thick layers of shale. Canada cannot run without natural gas and produced hydrocarbons; unfortunately this is a harsh truth
The phase, injection rate, pressure and depth below the surface should be monitored more closely as proppant/waste water is injected to earth’s surface. This could give more insight into which variables play a bigger part in causing earthquakes to occur. If a single variable can be isolated, it can be minimized in the process of injection, thus reducing the likelihood of inducing seismic
If you have paid any attention to the news lately, you will hear a phrase that is becoming more and more widely used to describe one of the main dangers of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Alberta. This phrase is called “induced seismicity.” Numerous tremors have been felt in Alberta within the past six (6) months and a concern is growing that a large earthquake will be triggered in the immediate future. Residents of Alberta are worried that their homes and livelihoods will be destroyed if hydraulic fracturing continues in our beautiful province. But, is this even an issue? Will induced seismicity be a term we hear on a regular basis, or is it just a media trigger word? Due to the lack of scientific facts, Contrary to the media’s …show more content…
Highly trained geologists or geoscientists conduct this survey. The seismic survey determines the estimated reserve in the area, and the best locations to drill. The experts test the area for pre-existing seismic faults, ground water, and oil and gas deposits. The test begins by creating a small shock wave on the surface with either an explosive buried in the ground, or a “stomper” truck that vibrates the ground. When the shock waves strike items of different densities they reflect back to surface at different rates. On the surface, the shock waves are detected by a geophone. The results can then be analyzed and a 2D or 3D seismic image can be generated. (McFarland, …show more content…
As it stands now, no prominent fault lines put Alberta at risk. This is much unlike other Canadian provinces, such as British Columbia. Hydraulic fracturing should be more closely monitored in British Columbia, specifically in the Juan De Fuca area, or in any area known fault lines exist. Closer to home, geothermal imaging should be used to examine Alberta’s underground for new faults. New seismic tests should be developed to look deeper into the earth’s surface to detect potential weak spots. If these faults/weak spots are discovered, the areas can be avoided and induced seismicity in Alberta can be minimized. As much as people dislike or protest hydraulic fracturing, it is a necessary evil. Nowadays, hydraulic fracturing is the most economic and safest way to extract oil and gas from beneath thick layers of shale. Canada cannot run without natural gas and produced hydrocarbons; unfortunately this is a harsh truth
The phase, injection rate, pressure and depth below the surface should be monitored more closely as proppant/waste water is injected to earth’s surface. This could give more insight into which variables play a bigger part in causing earthquakes to occur. If a single variable can be isolated, it can be minimized in the process of injection, thus reducing the likelihood of inducing seismic