scholarly journals Fracking bad language: Hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Roberts ◽  
Clare E. Bond ◽  
Zoe K. Shipton
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Earthquake Risk ◽  
Public Events ◽  
Well Stimulation ◽  
Communication Challenges ◽  
Risk Magnitude ◽  
Industry Policy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Public Views

Abstract. Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, is a well stimulation technique used to enhance permeability to aid geological resource management, including the extraction of shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing can induce seismicity and the risk of seismicity is a topic of widespread interest and is often reported to be an issue of public concern regarding hydraulic fracturing. This is particularly the case in the UK, where seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing has halted shale gas operations, and triggered moratoria. However, there seems a disconnect between the level of risk and concern around seismicity caused by shale gas operations as perceived by publics and that reported by expert groups (from industry, policy, and academia), which could manifest in the terminology used to describe the seismic events (tremors, earthquakes, micro-earthquakes). In this paper, we examine the conclusions on induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing from expert-led public facing reports on shale gas published between 2012 and 2018 and the terminology used in these reports. We compare these to results from studies conducted in the same time period that explore public views on hydraulic fracturing and seismicity. Further, we surveyed participants at professional and public events on shale gas held throughout 2014 to elicit whether they associate shale gas with earthquakes. We use the same question that was used in a series of surveys of the UK publics in the period 2012–2016, but we asked our participants to provide the reasoning for the answer they gave. By examining the rationale provided for their answers we find that an apparent polarisation of views amongst experts is an artefact and in fact responses are confounded by ambiguity of language around earthquake risk, magnitude, and scale. We find that different terms are used to describe earthquakes, often in an attempt to express the magnitude, shaking, or risk presented by the earthquake, but that these terms are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language usage. Such “fracking bad language” has led to challenges in the perception and communication of risks around earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing, and leaves language susceptible to emotional loading and misinterpretation. We call for multi-method approaches to understand perceived risks around geoenergy resources, and suggest that adopting a shared language framework to describe earthquakes would alleviate miscommunication and misperceptions. This work is relevant for a range of applications where risks are challenging to conceptualise and poorly constrained; particularly those of public interest where language inconsistency can exacerbate communication challenges and can have widespread consequence.

scholarly journals Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-327
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Roberts ◽  
Clare E. Bond ◽  
Zoe K. Shipton
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Earthquake Risk ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
Public Events ◽  
Risk Magnitude ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a borehole stimulation technique used to enhance permeability in geological resource management, including the extraction of shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing can induce seismicity. The potential to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread interest and public concern, particularly in the UK where seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing has halted shale gas operations and triggered moratoria. Prior to 2018, there seemed to be a disconnect between the conclusions of expert groups about the risk of adverse impacts from hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity and the reported level of public concern about hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity. Furthermore, a range of terminology was used to describe the induced seismicity (including tremors, earthquakes, seismic events, and micro-earthquakes) which could indicate the level of perceived risk. Using the UK as a case study, we examine the conclusions of expert-led public-facing reports on the risk (likelihood and impact) of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing for shale gas published between 2012 and 2018 and the terminology used in these reports. We compare these to results from studies conducted in the same time period that explored views of the UK public on hydraulic fracturing and seismicity. Furthermore, we surveyed participants at professional and public events on shale gas held throughout 2014 asking the same question that was used in a series of surveys of the UK public in the period 2012–2016, i.e. “do you associate shale gas with earthquakes?”. We asked our participants to provide the reasoning for the answer they gave. By examining the rationale provided for their answers, we find that an apparent polarisation of views amongst experts was actually the result of different interpretations of the language used to describe seismicity. Responses are confounded by the ambiguity of the language around earthquake risk, magnitude, and scale. We find that different terms are used in the survey responses to describe earthquakes, often in an attempt to express the risk (magnitude, shaking, and potential for adverse impact) presented by the earthquake, but that these terms are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language usage. Such “bad language” around fracking has led to challenges in understanding, perceiving, and communicating risks around hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity. We call for multi-method approaches to understand the perceived risks around geoenergy resources and suggest that developing and adopting a shared language framework to describe earthquakes would alleviate miscommunication and misperceptions. Our findings are relevant to any applications that present – or are perceived to present – the risk of induced seismicity. More broadly, our work is relevant to any topics of public interest where language ambiguities muddle risk communication.

The Potential Water Quality Impacts of Shale Gas Exploitation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsiao-Yuan Tammy Hsu ◽  
Fred Worrall ◽  
Andy Aplin
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Composition ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Fluid Composition ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Geothermal Waters ◽  
Rock Interaction ◽  
The Uk

<p>     The potential development of shale gas has brought with it several concerns about environmental impacts, these include: induced seismicity, air pollution, and groundwater contamination. During hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, large volumes of oxic and acidic water are injected into the gas-bearing formations. The injected fluids contain a range of additives and will mix and react with the in-situ groundwater and shale rock with the potential to drive water-rock interactions; release metal contaminants; alter the permeability of the bedrock; with each of these affecting the transport and recovery of water, hydrocarbons, and contamination. The purpose of this study is to understand the geochemical processes and inorganic metals release during hydraulic fracturing to assess the potential contribution of fluid-rock interaction for the composition of produced waters and alteration of shale mechanical properties.<br>     The study has: <br>i) Statistically analysed the chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing in USGS dataset to create prior distributions for the prediction of the salinity and chemical composition of flowback fluids in the UK. <br>ii) Statistically analysed the composition and controls on geothermal waters in the UK. Deep geothermal waters are an analogue for the in-situ groundwater composition with which injected fracking fluids will react and mix.<br>iii) Both sources of information have assisted in the design of the high pressure, high temperature experiments that will simulate the fracking fluid processes<br>iv) Undertaken sequential extraction of target shales to understand the data from existing batch experiments undertaker</p><p>     Future work will include isotope proxy and mineralogical texture studies to predict flowback fluid composition and the post-frack condition of the shale.</p>

Risk Management of Induced Micro-Seismicity Caused by Hydraulic Fracturing through Acoustic Emission

2013 ◽  
Vol 734-737 ◽  
pp. 628-633
Author(s):  
Yuan Feng ◽  
Chao Yin Feng
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Acoustic Emission ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Fault Location ◽  
Good News ◽  
Earthquake Risk ◽  
Assessment Standards ◽  
Gas Potential

To release the shale gas potential in China, hydraulic fracturing technologies play an important role. However, the latent technique risk deserves special attention. For example, the site-nearby micro-seismicity may have some relationship with the hydraulic fracturing. Nonetheless, the good news is that carbon dioxide stimulation can be used to displace hydraulic fracturing and obviate the potential earthquake risk. But the carbon dioxide methods are not economical nowadays, and hydraulic fracturing will continue to dominate. Through acoustic emission monitor, the reservoir characteristics and induced micro-seismicity magnitude and frequency will be collected and evaluated. Based on pre-existing project experience and numerical simulation, difference assessment standards about the hydraulic fracturing parameters are proposed to evaluate the micro-seismicity risk. Combined with other characteristics of rock property and fault location, this risk management can be used to guide the subsequent drilling and mining in practice.

Shale, Quakes, and High Stakes: Regulating Fracking-Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma, USA and Lancashire, UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Miriam R. Aczel ◽  
Karen E. Makuch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Seismic Activity ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
High Volume ◽  
The United States ◽  
Horizontal Drilling ◽  
Induced Seismic Activity

High-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling has “revolutionized” the United States’ oil and gas industry by allowing extraction of previously inaccessible oil and gas trapped in shale rock [1]. Although the United States has extracted shale gas in different states for several decades, the United Kingdom is in the early stages of developing its domestic shale gas resources, in the hopes of replicating the United States’ commercial success with the technologies [2, 3]. However, the extraction of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling poses potential risks to the environment and natural resources, human health, and communities and local livelihoods. Risks include contamination of water resources, air pollution, and induced seismic activity near shale gas operation sites. This paper examines the regulation of potential induced seismic activity in Oklahoma, USA, and Lancashire, UK, and concludes with recommendations for strengthening these protections.

scholarly journals Psychosocial impact on frontline health and social care professionals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e047353
Author(s):  
Henry Aughterson ◽  
Alison R McKinlay ◽  
Daisy Fancourt ◽  
Alexandra Burton
Keyword(s):  
Personal Growth ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Work Conditions ◽  
Individual Interviews ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Communication Challenges ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesTo explore the psychosocial well-being of health and social care professionals working during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignThis was a qualitative study deploying in-depth, individual interviews, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used for coding.ParticipantsThis study involved 25 participants from a range of frontline professions in health and social care.SettingInterviews were conducted over the phone or video call, depending on participant preference.ResultsFrom the analysis, we identified 5 overarching themes: communication challenges, work-related stressors, support structures, personal growth and individual resilience. The participants expressed difficulties such as communication challenges and changing work conditions, but also positive factors such as increased team unity at work, and a greater reflection on what matters in life.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence on the support needs of health and social care professionals amid continued and future disruptions caused by the pandemic. It also elucidates some of the successful strategies (such as mindfulness, hobbies, restricting news intake, virtual socialising activities) deployed by health and social care professionals that can support their resilience and well-being and be used to guide future interventions.

Impact of Shut-in Time on Production after Hydraulic Fracturing in Fractured Shale Gas Formation: An Experimental Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 103773
Author(s):  
Xingyuan Liang ◽  
Tianbo Liang ◽  
Fujian Zhou ◽  
Caizhong Wang ◽  
Kai Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Gas Formation

scholarly journals Numerical Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Water Effects on Shale Gas Permeability Alteration

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (2) ◽  
pp. 727-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vena. F. Eveline ◽  
I. Yucel Akkutlu ◽  
George J. Moridis
Keyword(s):  
Numerical Simulation ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Gas Permeability ◽  
Water Effects ◽  
Permeability Alteration
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document