Category Archives: earthquakes

Fracking quakes-It’s time for a focused analysis of the recent temblors in Oklahoma

While FrackingData.org provides fracking and earthquake-centric datasets suitable for most any citizen-scientist or analyst to consume, it does so with a bend towards the generic.  After the latest significant magnitude 5.0 earthquake to hit Oklahoma near the town of Cushing at or about 7:44 PM on November 6, 2016, as well as the magnitude 5.8 earthquake to hit 8 miles northeast of Pawnee on September 3, 2016, I’ve decided to apply my data analysis and mapping skills to making focused datasets concentrating on the State of Oklahoma’s earthquakes and underground injection wells.

When the State of Kansas experienced fracking-operation related earthquakes, reports were that they reduced the volume of wastewater injected into their underground disposal wells, whereas sources have reported that the State of Oklahoma initially changed not the volume of the wastewater disposed, but the depths at which it was injected.  Therefore, it would seem beneficial if a review of the practices of both states were undertaken, as well as any accrued benefits.

With the preceding in mind, I posit the following:

  • Pull all magnitude 0.0 and above earthquakes,from 1898 to present, from the NCEDC website.
  • Reverse-geocode the aforementioned earthquakes, adding the country, state, county, and nearest city/village in the process.
  • Locate the oil well location datasets for the states of Oklahoma and Kansas, if such are available.
  • Locate the underground injection well datasets for the states of Oklahoma and Kansas, if such are available.
  • Extract, transform, and load (ETL) the aforementioned oil and injection well datasets into a standardized layout suitable for singular and multiple state analyses.
  • Locate the volume of wastewater injection datasets for both states, if such exist.
  • ETL the volume of wastewater injection datasets into a standardized layout suitable for singular and multiple state analyses.
  • Publish the subsequent datasets, along with the methodology used to ETL them, for use by the fracking data analysis community.
  • Produce a step-by-step guide of the subsequent analyses, complete with SQL or source code, as an example of using the datasets for research.
  • Submit my study(ies) to the State of Oklahoma as well as various media outlets for their use or commentary, whichever is more appropriate based upon the nature of the receiving entity.

Please note that I’ll post my progress on the bullet points listed above, as well as build out a “living document” of my adventures in doing so at FrackingData.org’s sister site: FrackingData.info.

In the meantime, I hope that no loss of life occurs due to the continued practice of wastewater injection into underground wells.  That being said, given the State of Oklahoma’s economic dependence upon oil as a means of income and its reluctance to date in reining its activities, I fear that loss of life will be inevitable.  “Loss of life” seems such an abstract phrase, especially when it appears in print, but given that I’ve experienced its direct effects more than once, I can assure all that might read this post that it is deeply personal and most certainly not abstract to those that encounter it on a first-hand basis.

Khepry Quixote
7 November 2016

MS Access: Database posted to downloads site

Microsoft Access, while not SQL-92 compliant, is a very popular database program suitable for analytical use by many people that don’t use R, SAS, or Tableau for analysis and reporting purposes.

Concerning FracFocus.org-related data, and back again by popular demand, FrackingData.org is now providing (see link below) a Microsoft Access database in “accdb” format containing various tables as follows:

  • FracFocus.org-related tables
    • dbo_RegistryUpload
    • dbo_RegistryUploadPurpose
    • dbo_RegistryUploadIngredients
  • Earthquakes-related tables
    • NCEDC_earthquakes_reverse_geocoded (worldwide, 1898 to date, magnitude 0 and up)
  • Toxicities-related tables
    • Chemical_Toxicities_Blended_Sorted
    • Chemical_Toxicities_Blended_Grouped
    • Chemical_Toxicities_Blended_Flattened_Boolean
  • Views utilizing the above tables
    • vue_Registry_Upload_Purpose_Ingredients
    • vue_Registry_Upload_Purpose_Ingredients_Toxicities
  • Link(s) to Microsoft Access database(s), compressed with the 7-Zip program:

Henceforth, this database will be available on the same schedule as the CSV, SQLite, and PostgreSQL files and a page holding the latest link can be found on the FracFocus Data page of FrackingData.org’s site (link below):

Khepry Quixote
10 June 2016

Earthquakes: Reverse-geocoder published on GitHub

Making good on my previous promise, I have released the source code for the NCEDC-formatted earthquake CSV file reverse-geocoder, written in Python 3, on GitHub as both as “Gist” and as an Eclipse-PyDev project .

Each of the above links has a README file with instructions on its use, arguments, and dependencies.

I dedicate this project and Gist to those about to endure the dubious “benefits” of fracking operations in the United Kingdom.

Khepry Quixote
7 June 2016

Earthquakes: Reverse-Geocoded Files Posted to frackingdata.info/downloads

As I promised earlier, I’ve downloaded earthquakes from NCEDC’s web site (1898 to date), reverse-geocoded them via GeoNames and K-D Trees (thereby obtaining their country, state, county, and city/village values), archived the resulting files via 7-ZIP and uploaded both the CSV and SQLite datasets to:

I have authored a program in Python 3 that reverse-geocodes (via GeoNames and K-D Trees) the lat/longs into their respective countries, states, counties, and cities/villages.  I will post a link to the open-source project shortly once I’ve vetted its license and repository.  The program processes nearly 3 million rows in approximately 240 seconds.

Earthquakes – Reverse Geocoding Coming Soon

One of the most vexing sets of data to make usable for a data analyst is the earthquake dataset available via the NCEDC search site.  While the site returns results quickly enough to an anonymous FTP site, they do not contain any columns representing the country, state, county, or city.  These columns are some of the most useful for analysis of questions such as: “Oklahoma now rivals and even exceeds California for the number of significant earthquakes?”

Believe it or not, the answer to the preceding question is “True,” especially when one can analyze reverse-geocode earthquakes using relatively simple SQL queries.

The difficulty was in the reverse-geocoding of the latitudes and longitudes to their respective countries, states, counties, and cities.  Originally, I had authored a Java program that used various ESRI shape files and discerned to which administrative units a lat/long belonged.  That is, if you wanted to wait 12 hours for it to run.

Given the long run time and inconvenience of obtaining the shape files, I declined to publish it except as source code with little, if any, explanation as to its operation and use.  I just didn’t think it was suitable for public consumption yet, as the reverse-geocoding was only tediously repeatable.  I knew there was a better way, and as of a few weeks ago, after some research, I authored a better mousetrap:

  • a Python 3.4 script
  • using the reverse-geocoder package
  • which uses K-D trees
  • and datasets from GeoNames
  • reverse-geocoding 2.8 million rows in approximately 210 seconds

So, in the next few weeks, the Python script will be pushed to GitHub and the reverse-geocoded earthquake dataset to http://frackingdata.info/downloads.  A posting or postings will be pushed when this is done.

How cool, from 12 hours to 210 seconds.

Finally, some progress…

Khepry Quixote
12 April 2016

Breaking the “Fracking Wall”

This post describes why I’ve resolved to break the “fracking wall” surrounding the data sources of oil well locations, fracking chemical disclosures, and earthquake sources.

BACKGROUND

I am a software/database/systems developer/designer/analyst with over thirty (30) of IT experience in a variety of domains: petrochemical plant applications, tax appraisal, county-level governmental agencies, law enforcement applications, point-of-sale systems, data warehousing and analysis, insurance, near-realtime aircraft/vessel dispatch and tracking, mapping applications, search engines, desktop and web applications, health care extraction, transformation, loading (ETL) and analysis. In short, there’s not a lot I haven’t done over my career.

SELF-EDUCATION

One of my continuing challenges is to self-educate on emerging languages, databases, and software on a frequent basis. This I do as a “night job” a few nights each week, every week, every month of every year. Having enjoyed applications involving mapping the most, in the Spring of 2012 I decided on a course of self-education with variety of mapping packages, but covering a single domain with free information: earthquakes. I choose this domain for no other reason than the data was freely available and of modest size, sources of publicly-available data being just a few million records.

EARTHQUAKES

And so I merrily went about my self-education on various mapping packages using the free source of earthquake data, enjoying positive results and pretty graphics along the way. Then, quite to my surprise, “swarms” of earthquakes began to materialize on the various maps I was creating. Interestingly enough, some of those swarms were in Oklahoma, a state of the union in which I had the privilege of living in from 1979 through 1982. What struck me as interesting was that I didn’t recall that many, actually relatively few, earthquakes during those three years I lived in that state. Needless to say, my interest was piqued.

SWARMS EMERGE

So, I began to plot out the earthquakes for Oklahoma on a wider scale, on a year-by-year basis, and I could discern that there were “swarms” of earthquakes materializing in places where there had been very few in the preceding decades. As I have a B.S. in Zoology, a scientific bend to my mind and an absolute passion for the discernment of emerging patterns, mental alarm bells went off that I was seeing an emerging pattern that might have a more anthropogenic than natural origin. Casually, as this was a “night job,” I began searching the Internet for possible causalities and ran across the hypothesis that hydro-fracturing a.k.a. “fracking” operations, specifically the injection of water and chemicals into “fracking” and underground “disposal” wells, was causing the emerging swarms of earthquakes.

EARTHQUAKE SWARMS vs. OIL WELL LOCATIONS

At a magnitude of 5.6, the largest earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma up to that time struck on November 5, 2011, being preceded by 4.7 through 5.0 foreshocks earlier in the day. It was this earthquake and its foreshocks that really raised my interest as I was mapping not only the locations of the earthquakes on the map but also their intensity via color, the more reddish the stronger the quake. To me, where there’s smoke there’s fire, and that being said I resolved to start mapping out well locations as well. It was my quest for well locations on a state-by-state basis that turn self-education into an avocation of sorts, and introduced me to the “fracking wall.”

HITTING THE “FRACKING WALL”

In an effort to obtain the locations of oil wells, I contacted various state agencies of the State of Oklahoma with virtually no results. It wasn’t that the data wasn’t available, it’s that what data was available was not easily downloaded and most importantly did not contain the latitudes and longitudes of the wells. In other words, I could roll the cigar between my fingers but I could neither light nor puff upon it. I was told by one state official, emphatically, that such location data was not available. Agency-by-agency, I wrote and/or called the appropriate personnel, and although most of the employees were polite, they were also equally unhelpful. It took me several months to find out where the data sets containing oil well location data had been posted. There was one, I repeat one, mention of a link to Oklahoma’s oil well location datasets in an obscure forum in a backwater of the Internet. This was the clue I needed, and finally I was able to plot the oil well locations against the occurrence of earthquakes and confirm that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” The refusal of the State of Oklahoma to point me to the location(s) of oil well location data was my first experience with the “fracking wall,” and it wouldn’t be my last although the “fracking wall” would be manifested by different states and agencies in different ways.

BREAKING THE “FRACKING WALL”

Because of the State of Oklahoma’s behavior and lack of cooperation, I resolved to break the “fracking wall” for both myself and all others needing access to the same type of data. In an effort to collect all of the oil well location and fracking chemical disclosure hyperlinks in one place, as well as offer curated datasets of the aforementioned data, I created the frackingdata.org website with curated FracFocus data extracts, chemical toxicities and their datasets, state-by-state sources of well location data, and the source code used to extract the datasets into more usable forms. In short, I created frackingdata.org to be a one-stop shop for anyone wishing to conduct analysis of fracking-related data.

FUTURE INITIATIVES

+ Link earthquake data to oil well locations in a manner convenient to anyone wishing to analyze such data (In progress)

+ Automate the download, extraction, transformation, and loading of FracFocus.org data into datasets more suitable for use by analysts or citizen-scientists. (Done)

+ Transform the FracFocus.org GUID keys into more user-friendly integer keys that also reduce storage by over 25% (Done)

+ Push the curated data sets to ODATA repositories, e.g. Google Fusion Tables, so that analysts can more easily access the data via packages like Tableau, SAS, or R. (In progress)

+ Push more of the source code used to do this extraction, transformation, and loading to repositories like GitHub so that all may share in its presence and perhaps even contribute to its maintenance. (Partially done)

As I have a “day job,” progress is painful but the results are worth it.

Khepry Quixote
11 March 2016

Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma

[editor’s note: the full report from the Oklahoma Geological Survey is available as a downloadable PDF at the link below]

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf

Summary

On January 18, 2011, The Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) received a phone call from a resident living south of Elmore City, in Garvin County, Oklahoma, that reported feeling several earthquakes throughout the night. The reporting local resident had also offered that there was an active hydraulic fracturing project occurring nearby. Upon examination there were nearly 50 earthquakes, which occurred during that time. After analyzing the data there were 43 earthquakes large enough to be located, which from the character of the seismic recordings indicate that they are both shallow and unique. The earthquakes range in magnitude from 1.0 to 2.8 Md and the majority of earthquakes occurred within about 24 hours of the first earthquake. Careful attention and significant effort was put into obtaining the most accurate locations possible and gaining a reasonable estimate in the error in locations. The nearest seismic station is 35 km away from where the earthquakes occurred. Formal errors in location are on the order 100-500 m horizontally and about twice that for depth. Examination of different velocity models would suggest that the uncertainties in earthquake locations should be about twice the formal uncertainties. The majority of earthquakes appear to have occurred within about 3.5 km of the well located in the Eola Field of southern Garvin County. The Eola Field has many structures, which may provide conduits for fluid flow at depth. The well is Picket Unit B well 4-18, and about seven hours after the first and deepest hydraulic fracturing stage started the earthquakes began occurring. It was possible to model 95% of the earthquakes in this sequence using a simple pore pressure diffusion model with a permeability of about 250 mD (milliDarcies). While this permeability may be high it is less than those reported for highly fractured rock. The strong correlation in time and space as well as a reasonable fit to a physical model suggest that there is a possibility these earthquakes were induced by hydraulic-fracturing. However, the uncertainties in the data make it impossible to say with a high degree of certainty whether or not these earthquakes were triggered by natural means or by the nearby hydraulic-fracturing operation.