page 1 (pages 1-4) · pdf file10· · · · ···...

COOPER vs. NEW DOMINION, LLC, et al. Austin Holland, PHDCJ-2015-24 October 11, 2017

(Pages 1-4)

WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES -- COURT REPORTING SERVICE505-843-7789

Page 1

· · · · · · THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY·1·· · · · · · · · · · · STATE OF OKLAHOMA· ···2··· ··JENNIFER LIN COOPER,·3··· ···4·· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,· ···5··· ··v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · ··Case No. CJ-2015-24·6··· ···7··NEW DOMINION, LLC,· ··SPESS OIL COMPANY, and·8··JOHN DOES 1-25,· ···9··· ·· · · · · · · · · Defendants.10··· ··11··· ··12··· ··13·· · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D.· ·· · · · · · · · · · · October 11, 201714·· · · · · · · · · · · · · 9:04 a.m.· ·· · · ·· New Mexico State Bar Association Board Room15·· · · · · · · · · 5121 Masthead Street, NE· ·· · · · · · ·· Albuquerque, New Mexico··8710916··· ··17·· · · ·· PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE RULES OF CIVIL· ··PROCEDURE, this deposition was:18··· ··19··TAKEN BY:· · · ·GARVIN A. ISAACS· ·· · · · · · · · · ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS20··· ··21··REPORTED BY:· ··Debra L. Williams, NM CCR #92· ·· · · · · · · · · WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES REPORTING, LLC22·· · · · · · · · · 1608 Fifth Street, NW· ·· · · · · · · · · Albuquerque, New Mexico··8710223··· ··24··· ··25·

Page 2

· · · · · · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S·1·· ··2·· ·For the Plaintiffs:· ·· ··3·· · · · ·· GARVIN A. ISAACS· ·· · · · ·· Attorney at Law·4·· · · · ·· 1400 N. Shartel Avenue· ·· · · · ·· Oklahoma City, Oklahoma··73103·5·· · · · ·· [email protected]· ·· ··6·· · · · ·· POYNTER LAW GROUP· ·· · · · ·· 400 W. Capitol Avenue·7·· · · · ·· Suite 2910· ·· · · · ·· Little Rock, Arkansas··72201·8·· · · · ·· BY:··SCOTT POYNTER· ·· · · · ·· [email protected]·9·· · · · ·· THE LAW OFFICES OF BAILEY & POARCH10·· · · · ·· 301 E. Eufaula· ·· · · · ·· Norman, Oklahoma··7306911·· · · · ·· BY:··DAVID A. POARCH· ·· · · · ·· [email protected]·· ·13·· ·For the Defendant New Dominion, LLC:· ·· ·14·· · · · ·· GUM, PUCKETT & MacKECHNIE, LLP· ·· · · · ·· 105 North Hudson15·· · · · ·· Suite 900· ·· · · · ·· Oklahoma City, Oklahoma··7310216·· · · · ·· BY:··ROBERT G. GUM· ·· · · · ·· [email protected]·· ·18·· ·For the Defendant Spess Oil:· ·· ·19·· · · · ·· DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK, PC· ·· · · · ·· 920 North Harvey20·· · · · ·· Oklahoma City, Oklahoma··73102-2510· ·· · · · ·· BY:··E. EDD PRITCHETT, JR.21·· · · · ·· [email protected]· ·· ·22·· ·23·· ·24·· ·25·

Page 3

· · · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S (continued)·1·· ··2·· ·For the USGS:·3·· · · · ·· CHARLES BABST·4·· · · · ·· U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR· ·· · · · ·· 7906 East 33rd Street·5·· · · · ·· Tulsa, Oklahoma··74145· ·· · · · ·· [email protected]·6·· ··7·· ·Also Present:· ·· ··8·· · · · ·· J. Daniel Arthur, PE· ·· · · · ·· Jacqueline Stone·9·· · · · ·· David Newquist, Videographer· ·· ·10·· ·11·· ·12·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X13·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· PAGE· ·· ·14·· ·EXAMINATION OF AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D.15·· · ·· By Mr. Isaacs· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·816·· · ·· By Mr. Pritchett· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··10617·· · ·· By Mr. Gum· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··20018·· · ·· By Mr. Isaacs· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·22719·· · ·· By Mr. Pritchett· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··23520·· ·SIGNATURE/CORRECTION PAGE· · · · · · · · · · · · · ··23821·· ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·23922·· ·23·· ·24·· ·25·

Page 4

· ·EXHIBITS· · · · · · · · · · ··FORMALLY MARKED/IDENTIFIED·1·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· PAGE· ·· ··2·· ·PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS:· ·· ··3·· ·1.· · ·Curriculum Vitae· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·11· ·· ··4·· ·2.· · ·Article Entitled "Oklahoma Wonders Why· · · · ·30· ·· · · · ·· The Earth is Shaking"·5·· ·3.· · ·Article Entitled "Holland Resigns as· · · · · ·76·6·· · · · ·· State Seismologist"· ·· ··7·· ·4.· · ·Article Entitled "Top Quake Scientist· · · · ··80· ·· · · · ·· in State to Leave Post"·8·· ·5.· · ·Article Entitled "Big Oil Pressured· · · · · ··60·9·· · · · ·· Scientists Over Fracking Wastewater's· ·· · · · ·· Link to Quakes"10·· ·6.· · ·Article Entitled "Earthquakes Triggered· · · ··7211·· · · · ·· by Hydraulic Fracturing in South-Central· ·· · · · ·· Oklahoma"12·· ·9.· · ·Article Entitled "Coping With Earthquakes· · ··4813·· · · · ·· Induced by Fluid Injection"· ·· ·14·· ·10.· ··Subpoena· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ··5· ·· ·15·· ·11.· ··Article Entitled "Recent Earthquakes· · · · · ·50· ·· · · · ·· in Oklahoma and the Mid-Continent:16·· · · · ·· Significance and Potential for Induced· ·· · · · ·· Seismicity"17·· ·18·· ·DEFENDANT SPESS OIL EXHIBITS:· ·· ·19·· ·1.· · ·OGS Document Dated 3/22/13· · · · · · · · · ··14320·· ·2.· · ·Article Entitled "Examination of· · · · · · ··16121·· · · · ·· Injection Energy near the Wilzetta· ·· · · · ·· Fault, Lincoln County, Oklahoma"22·· ·3.· · ·Potential for Induced Seismicity in· · · · · ·17023·· · · · ·· Oklahoma:··Examples and Understanding· ·· · · · ·· Gaps"24·· ·25·


(Pages 5-8)


Page 5

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Everybody ready?··Let the·1·

· ·record reflect that this is the deposition of Austin·2·

· ·Holland, and that today is the 11th day of October 2017,·3·

· ·and that Austin has been subpoenaed to appear for a·4·

· ·trial video deposition, which I've marked as Plaintiff's·5·

· ·Exhibit Number 10.·6·

· · · · · · · · (Plaintiff Exhibit 10 marked for·7·

· ·identification.)·8·

· · · · · · · · This deposition is being taken at the New·9·

· ·Mexico Bar Association in a conference room, and I10·

· ·wanted that record to be clear.11·

· · · · · · · · Madam Court Reporter, would you --12·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Before we proceed, should we13·

· ·address any stipulations we're gonna make in terms of14·

· ·objections, nonwaiver, waiver, that sort of thing?15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··No, I think make the record,16·

· ·since this is a trial deposition.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I assumed so.··I just wanted to be18·

· ·clear on it.19·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Well, but --20·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··All objections are either to be21·

· ·made today or waived, one or the other.22·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··No.··All objections to be made23·

· ·today would be objections submitted to be ruled on at a24·

· ·later date.25·

Page 6

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Okay.··I understand that part.·1·

· ·But we're not reserving the right to make additional·2·

· ·objections later; we're gonna make all of them today or·3·

· ·hold our peace, right?·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Well, you know, the latest·5·

· ·events we may learn later in discovery, which we have·6·

· ·not discussed or addressed.··So I don't think we ought·7·

· ·to waive.·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I'm okay.··I'm okay.·9·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Okay.10·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I just want us all to be on the11·

· ·same sheet of music before we get too far down the12·

· ·highway.··So we're gonna reserve our right to make13·

· ·objections later; and any that are made will be ruled on14·

· ·by the Court at the proper time.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··I think you just said two16·

· ·things.··So you're reserving objections?17·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Yeah.18·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··That's fine with me.19·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Okay.20·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··So will you do like "Object to21·

· ·the form" to preserve the record?22·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Yes.23·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Okay.24·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··But if you don't object, you25·

Page 7

· ·still can make objections later on.·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··No, no.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··It's the usual stipulations.·3·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··No.··I do not stipulate to if·4·

· ·you don't make the objection you can make the objection·5·

· ·later on, because if the objection is made and that·6·

· ·objection is one that can be cured with a couple of·7·

· ·questions --·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Right.·9·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··-- I don't want to go that down10·

· ·the road.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··We're gonna make objections as to12·

· ·form today so they can be cured.··But other objections13·

· ·not to form, they can be reserved.14·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Well --15·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··That's the normal stipulation, as16·

· ·I understand it.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Well, this is a different18·

· ·deposition.··This is an expert witness called to talk19·

· ·about what he did and what he learned as a seismologist20·

· ·working in Oklahoma.21·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I understand.··I just want to know22·

· ·what the rules are gonna be.··Do you want us to make all23·

· ·objections today?··Are they waived or not?24·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I think they need to be made25·

Page 8

· ·today on the record so that if we need to address them,·1·

· ·we have Austin here to do it.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Okay.··I'm okay with that, as long·3·

· ·as everybody understands that's what we're doing.·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Okay.··Are you all right, Edd?·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··No, I'm fine with that.··I·6·

· ·just want to make sure we're on the same page.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Well, that's why I keep asking.·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··And that's why I made sure I·9·

· ·clarified it.10·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Madam Court Reporter, will you11·

· ·swear the witness at this time.12·

· · · · · · · · · · · AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D.13·

· · · · · · Having been first duly sworn under oath,14·

· · · · · · was questioned and testified as follows:15·

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·· EXAMINATION16·

· ·BY MR. ISAACS:17·

· · ·· Q.··Dr. Holland, would you tell the ladies and18·

· ·gentlemen of the jury a little bit about your background19·

· ·growing up in Idaho.20·

· · ·· A.··So I moved to Idaho when I was -- I don't know,21·

· ·let's see, 12, and there I discovered the outdoors and I22·

· ·also discovered a love for science.··And so as I was23·

· ·going through my secondary education, I was getting24·

· ·extra permission to take all the science I could as25·


(Pages 9-12)


Page 9

· ·electives.··I took computer science classes, as well,·1·

· ·and I worked for the school district as a computer·2·

· ·programmer and doing data backups of school records and·3·

· ·that sort of thing.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Was this in your high school days?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes, this was in my high school days.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Where was your high school?·7·

· · ·· A.··It was Idaho Falls High School.··It's, I guess, a·8·

· ·relatively small high school in southeastern Idaho.·9·

· · ·· Q.··And as the computer guru at that time, what other10·

· ·interests did you have in the study of geophysics or11·

· ·even Mother Earth?12·

· · ·· A.··So I was active in scouting, and I liked to13·

· ·backpack, rock climb, downhill ski, cross-country ski,14·

· ·anything that got me outside.··I was always out in the15·

· ·mountains doing things and enjoying life.··I did a lot16·

· ·of rock climbing.17·

· · ·· Q.··What mountains did you climb?18·

· · ·· A.··So I've climbed the Grand Teton, I did a lot of19·

· ·climbing in the Jackson Hole area, spent a lot of time20·

· ·in Yellowstone with my family and people that would come21·

· ·visit.··And so, you know, I could sort of consider those22·

· ·my backyards or my playgrounds.23·

· · ·· Q.··Tell us a little bit about Mom and Dad.24·

· · ·· A.··So they were very supportive of the sciences.25·

Page 10

· ·They had to fight to -- when I was in the 9th grade, I·1·

· ·had to get special permission to take a second science·2·

· ·class, and so they fought very hard to make that happen.·3·

· ·And they also worked to get me into -- to find things to·4·

· ·encourage that.··So they got me into a mineral education·5·

· ·program for young scholars.··It was a National Science·6·

· ·Foundation program where I spent just over a month at·7·

· ·the dorms at Montana Tech and learned about·8·

· ·environmental science and geology and mining engineering·9·

· ·and all sorts of different avenues related to geology.10·

· · · · ·· As part of that project, we were expected to do a11·

· ·science project away from the program, and so I chose to12·

· ·build the gas chromatograph.··And this gas chromatograph13·

· ·helped me win the Eastern Idaho State Fair because I had14·

· ·a working gas chromatograph that could separate15·

· ·compounds, and it was a lot of fun to make.··I got to do16·

· ·it with my grandfather.··He was a very handy man and it17·

· ·was a great exercise.18·

· · · · ·· And, you know, winning the science fair opened up19·

· ·other avenues.··For instance, the Navy tried recruiting20·

· ·me for a new school from the day I won the science fair21·

· ·until I was off at college.··So they tried hard to22·

· ·recruit me after winning the science fair.23·

· · ·· Q.··In high school, did you spend all of your summers24·

· ·in those investigative activities and climbing mountains25·

Page 11

· ·and looking at different scientific issues?·1·

· · ·· A.··So, you know, for my summers in Idaho, I spent a·2·

· ·fair amount of it working to save up money for college,·3·

· ·and when I wasn't working, I was mostly rock climbing.·4·

· ·So I was, you know, handling the rocks instead of·5·

· ·studying them more so, or conquering the rocks.··But --·6·

· ·yeah.··So that's a big part of what I did throughout·7·

· ·high school.··I volunteered at, you know, church camps·8·

· ·and did things like that.··I was involved in Boy Scouts;·9·

· ·I obtained my Eagle Scout there.10·

· · ·· Q.··After you graduated from high school, where did11·

· ·you go to college?12·

· · ·· A.··I started out my undergrad at New Mexico Tech.13·

· ·It's a science and engineering school in Central New14·

· ·Mexico, in Socorro, New Mexico.··I did my first two15·

· ·years there and then I transferred to the University of16·

· ·Idaho and finished my bachelor's in another two years.17·

· ·My bachelor's is in geology; I got that in 1997.18·

· · · · · · · · (Plaintiff Exhibit 1 marked for19·

· ·identification.)20·

· · ·· Q.··I want to hand you what I've marked for21·

· ·identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1.22·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Edd, would you pass down copies23·

· ·of these.24·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, would you tell the jury what you have25·

Page 12

· ·included in Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1.·1·

· · ·· A.··This is my curriculum vitae from sometime in·2·

· ·2015.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And it shows you received your bachelor of·4·

· ·science in geology from University of Idaho in 1997?·5·

· · ·· A.··That is correct.·6·

· · ·· Q.··What did you do after you received your bachelor·7·

· ·of science in geology?·8·

· · ·· A.··Well, I did a one-year postbaccalaureate·9·

· ·internship at the Idaho National Laboratories, working10·

· ·on a seismic monitoring program.11·

· · ·· Q.··When you worked in the seismic monitoring12·

· ·laboratories there in Idaho, had they had any13·

· ·earthquakes?14·

· · ·· A.··Absolutely.··So I had worked at the Idaho15·

· ·national seismic monitoring program as a summer intern16·

· ·all throughout my undergrad experience, and then I did17·

· ·this postbaccalaureate, as well.··So I was completely18·

· ·familiar with what went on in the seismic monitoring19·

· ·program and the seismicity that occurred within Idaho.20·

· · · · ·· So when I was a summer intern in Idaho, there was21·

· ·a magnitude -- I don't know -- four-and-a-half or22·

· ·something like that near Challis.··And I went out and --23·

· · ·· Q.··Near which city?24·

· · ·· A.··Challis, Idaho.25·


(Pages 13-16)


Page 13

· · ·· Q.··And would you for the jury -- we're Oklahomans.·1·

· ·Explain where Challis is.·2·

· · ·· A.··Challis is in central Idaho.··It's on the edge of·3·

· ·a very large wilderness area, and so it's up in the·4·

· ·Basin and Range.··There's been very large earthquakes·5·

· ·there in the past.··In 1982, just south of Challis,·6·

· ·there was a magnitude 7.2 earthquake that was a very·7·

· ·large normal faulting earthquake that raised the·8·

· ·mountains and lowered the valley.··And that fault scar·9·

· ·is still visible today.10·

· · ·· Q.··When you said "normal fault," would you explain11·

· ·what you mean by a normal fault in that earthquake?12·

· · ·· A.··A normal fault is a fault in which the earth is13·

· ·being stretched or pulled apart.··And so what happens is14·

· ·that when the earthquake ruptures, the mountains go up15·

· ·and the valley goes down.··And then that way, you're16·

· ·actually stretching and extending the crust and creating17·

· ·new earth.··In this case it was only, you know, a few18·

· ·feet of horizontal new earth, but the mountains -- I19·

· ·think the mountains went up approximately 14 feet.··So20·

· ·there was quite a bit of shaking associated with that.21·

· · · · ·· So a large part of the function of the seismic22·

· ·monitoring program was to track the seismicity within23·

· ·the region to understand how that affected the seismic24·

· ·hazard for the DOE facilities located at the Idaho25·

Page 14

· ·National Labs.·1·

· · ·· Q.··DOE?·2·

· · ·· A.··Department of Energy.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And the Department of Energy is which·4·

· ·governmental entity?··United States or Idaho?·5·

· · ·· A.··It's United States.·6·

· · ·· Q.··And so at that time when you made that report, it·7·

· ·was one made for the United States government?·8·

· · ·· A.··So I did a lot of different reports, and most of·9·

· ·those are protected through confidentiality agreements.10·

· ·So the national labs like to own everything that comes11·

· ·out, every thought that comes out of the labs.··There12·

· ·are some publications that are public from my time at13·

· ·the national lab, seismicity reports from when I was14·

· ·there.15·

· · · · ·· But there was a number of earthquakes formed, and16·

· ·so there was the aftershock sequence and the main17·

· ·earthquakes there in Challis.··But throughout the18·

· ·region, it's a very active seismic region called19·

· ·intermountain seismic belt.··And so we also had20·

· ·seismicity in southeastern Idaho.··There's currently21·

· ·another swarm occurring there.22·

· · · · ·· But there's a large amount of activity.··And I23·

· ·became familiar with operating seismic networks and24·

· ·doing other things, looking at different non-seismic25·

Page 15

· ·sources and characterizing them using the seismic·1·

· ·instruments, which are very sensitive to ground motion·2·

· ·and act sort of like very sensitive microphones inside·3·

· ·the ground.·4·

· · ·· Q.··In southeastern Idaho where that activity was·5·

· ·occurring, how far was that from Yellowstone National·6·

· ·Park?·7·

· · ·· A.··So that's a couple hours away.··And, of course,·8·

· ·we always monitored seismicity within Yellowstone when I·9·

· ·was there at the national lab.··But we cut that out of10·

· ·our reporting and efforts because sometimes there were11·

· ·so many earthquakes in Yellowstone that it can be12·

· ·overwhelming to even try and process all of those.··And13·

· ·there are other entities that process earthquakes within14·

· ·Yellowstone that are authoritative, which is the term we15·

· ·use in the seismic community.16·

· · ·· Q.··And that experience that you had working there17·

· ·with seismic operations and checking the seismicity, did18·

· ·that have an impact on you and your future decision that19·

· ·you wanted to obtain a masters of science in geophysics?20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So when I started my undergrad, I wanted to21·

· ·be a geological engineer, and that was partly because my22·

· ·dad said they make more money than geologists.··And23·

· ·maybe they still do, and I probably should have chosen24·

· ·to be a geological engineer in that regard.··But I fell25·

Page 16

· ·in love with seismology.··It's a perfect blend of using·1·

· ·geology, which I love, and my computer skills.·2·

· · · · ·· And so early on in my internship at the national·3·

· ·lab, I realized what I really wanted to be is a·4·

· ·geophysicist and a seismologist.··So that's how I built·5·

· ·my career.··So when I left New Mexico Tech --·6·

· · ·· Q.··And that was two years at New Mexico Tech in·7·

· ·Socorro.·8·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So New Mexico Tech had a geophysics·9·

· ·program and the University of Idaho did not.··But when I10·

· ·went to the University of Idaho, I did a geology degree11·

· ·with a lot of math and physics, and it was roughly12·

· ·equivalent to a geophysics degree, which helped a lot13·

· ·then for my masters in geophysics that I got from14·

· ·University of Texas El Paso.15·

· · ·· Q.··And you got your masters in 2002?16·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.17·

· · ·· Q.··Did you write a thesis?18·

· · ·· A.··I did.··My thesis is somewhere probably in my19·

· ·publications here.··Where is that?··Oh, there we are.20·

· ·It was a microearthquake study that was titled21·

· ·"Microearthquake Study of the Salton Sea Geothermal22·

· ·Field, California:··Evidence of Stress Triggering."23·

· · ·· Q.··And what page is that on in Plaintiff's Exhibit 124·

· ·here, your CV?25·


(Pages 17-20)


Page 17

· · ·· A.··It's the second page.·1·

· · ·· Q.··The second page.·2·

· · ·· A.··At the bottom of the publications list.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And when that was published, did you focus on any·4·

· ·particular area of the United States to write that·5·

· ·paper?·6·

· · ·· A.··So the way a masters works is you're really just·7·

· ·given some old dataset and told to do something with it,·8·

· ·for the most part.··So this was a dataset that was given·9·

· ·to me.··So the Salton Sea geothermal field is in10·

· ·Southern California.··It's at the southern end of the11·

· ·Salton Sea in Imperial Valley.··So what I was looking at12·

· ·there is there's a local seismic monitoring network for13·

· ·the geothermal field because it's recognized that you14·

· ·have triggered seismicity in these geothermal fields.15·

· · ·· Q.··When you say "triggered seismicity," would you16·

· ·explain that term for the ladies and gentlemen of the17·

· ·jury.18·

· · ·· A.··So triggered seismicity is seismicity that is19·

· ·caused by -- it can be a number of factors, but in this20·

· ·case it was by the injection of fluid deep into the21·

· ·earth, into the hot rock.22·

· · ·· Q.··Who was injecting fluid into the earth at that23·

· ·time in Southern California?24·

· · ·· A.··I can't remember the name of the operator that25·

Page 18

· ·was injecting -- that was running the geothermal field·1·

· ·at that time.··I'm sure it's in my masters thesis.··But·2·

· ·these are sort of like once you write a thesis or a·3·

· ·dissertation, you don't usually pick it back up and go·4·

· ·reread it.··You want to put it as far behind you as·5·

· ·possible, generally.·6·

· · · · ·· So in this case, the triggered or induced·7·

· ·seismicity was primarily from the cooling of rocks.··And·8·

· ·this causes a contraction in the rocks themselves, and·9·

· ·they crack and break.··And it's generally in very small10·

· ·earthquakes.··That's why we call it the microearthquake.11·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.12·

· · ·· A.··In this case, there was -- so we could use those13·

· ·microearthquakes to determine the orientation of the14·

· ·stresses within the geothermal field.··And then in this15·

· ·case, there was the 1987 Superstition Hills earthquake16·

· ·sequence, so it's just two earthquakes just outside of17·

· ·the geothermal area.··And these are tectonic, very large18·

· ·earthquakes on the Eleanor Hills fault.19·

· · · · ·· They then changed the stresses in the geothermal20·

· ·field, so then the microearthquakes that occurred within21·

· ·the geothermal field then reflected the stresses for the22·

· ·regional tectonics instead of the stresses that were23·

· ·being caused by the cooling of the reservoir and the24·

· ·additional fluid within the geothermal reservoir.25·

Page 19

· · ·· Q.··Who was putting fluid into the geothermal·1·

· ·reservoir at that time?·2·

· · ·· A.··It was a geothermal operator.··I don't know the·3·

· ·name of the company.·4·

· · ·· Q.··And those were reports that had to be made on how·5·

· ·much they injected into Mother Earth?·6·

· · ·· A.··I don't know what regulations surrounded the·7·

· ·geothermal industry at that point at the time.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Your degree, you obtained it from University of·9·

· ·Texas El Paso in 2002.··And at that time, what was your10·

· ·goal?11·

· · ·· A.··My goal was to run a seismic monitoring network12·

· ·and then continue to do science and learn about the13·

· ·earth.··And so while I was getting my masters after I'd14·

· ·left that first year, the Idaho National Labs called me15·

· ·and said, "Hey, we really like having you around.··We16·

· ·want you to come back.··We'll work with you to finish17·

· ·your masters," which is partly why I started my masters18·

· ·in 1988 and it took until 2002, because I was working as19·

· ·well as working on my masters.20·

· · · · ·· And so I always wanted -- I knew I wanted a Ph.D.21·

· ·at some point, but I always wanted to be one of those22·

· ·professors that had experience, that had real-life23·

· ·experience so that I could provide that to students.24·

· ·Because most students don't end up going into academia,25·

Page 20

· ·they go into jobs in other career paths.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Did the professors you had leading up to that·2·

· ·have experience out in the field?·3·

· · ·· A.··Not as many as one might think.··Most professors·4·

· ·go straight through school and then straight into an·5·

· ·academic position, with maybe a post-doc that could be·6·

· ·considered more practical, or a real job for some amount·7·

· ·of time.··But primarily they were in the realm of·8·

· ·academics their entire career.·9·

· · ·· Q.··What made you choose the University of Arizona at10·

· ·Tucson as a place to seek your Ph.D.?11·

· · ·· A.··So the University of Arizona at the time had a12·

· ·really amazing geophysics program and a very vibrant13·

· ·sort of student body -- I like the desert southwest;14·

· ·there's a theme, I keep coming back to the desert15·

· ·southwest -- and so it was a great opportunity and a16·

· ·great school.··So I didn't apply to very many schools to17·

· ·go get my Ph.D.··I applied to University of Arizona and18·

· ·University of Texas El Paso, and I'm not sure, there may19·

· ·have been one or two others.··So I didn't apply to that20·

· ·many schools.21·

· · ·· Q.··In your CV, Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1, you've22·

· ·got a "Publications (Selected)"··list there.··Were these23·

· ·ones you selected that dealt with the study of24·



(Pages 21-24)


Page 21

· · ·· A.··So they were mostly selected to be a·1·

· ·cross-section of what I've done.··Of course, the ones·2·

· ·that are more often cited were included in here.··I'm·3·

· ·not -- so, for instance, I did not put in here the·4·

· ·annual reports on the seismic monitoring we did at Idaho·5·

· ·National Laboratory.··Those were pretty -- we had a·6·

· ·boilerplate template; they were pretty cut and dry.·7·

· ·There's nothing interesting about them in some sense.·8·

· ·So, you know, those were left out.·9·

· · · · ·· But -- yeah.··So there's some publications in10·

· ·here that -- or some publications I have that are not11·

· ·listed, you know.··Articles for the notes that the12·

· ·Oklahoma Geological Survey does, their little newsletter13·

· ·type publication, those aren't included in here and that14·

· ·sort of thing.··It would be a much thicker document had15·

· ·I included those.16·

· · ·· Q.··Weighed a couple pounds, maybe.17·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.18·

· · ·· Q.··In your CV, you talk about invited professional19·

· ·presentations, and you've got several pages, from page 220·

· ·to page -- top of page 4, and then "Recent Professional21·

· ·Presentations (Selected)."··These are just the ones that22·

· ·you have selected and put into your CV?23·

· · ·· A.··That's right.··When I was at the Oklahoma24·

· ·Geological Survey, obviously I got invited to give a lot25·

Page 22

· ·of talks because of the significant increase in the rate·1·

· ·of seismicity that was occurring within Oklahoma.··But·2·

· ·then there are a lot of talks that I was expected to go·3·

· ·to for different scientific meetings, and then also work·4·

· ·I had with collaborators and students.··And so those·5·

· ·presentations are listed there.··And I tried to pick the·6·

· ·ones -- you know, some of them were given a couple·7·

· ·times, and I only listed maybe the first time it was·8·

· ·presented, or after it had been refined by my students·9·

· ·and that sort of thing.··So --10·

· · ·· Q.··After you got your Ph.D. at University of11·

· ·Arizona, you went back and worked at the Idaho lab,12·

· ·correct?13·

· · ·· A.··After I got my masters thesis.14·

· · ·· Q.··Masters.··And then after you got your Ph.D.,15·

· ·where did you go next?16·

· · ·· A.··So while I was working on my Ph.D., I was at one17·

· ·of these scientific conferences, the Seismological18·

· ·Society of America meeting.··And Dr. Randy Keller, who19·

· ·was on my committee for my masters at the University of20·

· ·Texas El Paso, was now the director of the Oklahoma21·

· ·Geological Survey, so he knew I had run seismic22·

· ·networks.23·

· · · · ·· And they were looking for a seismologist.··The24·

· ·seismologist for Oklahoma had recently passed away, and25·

Page 23

· ·they were trying to locate a seismologist right away·1·

· ·because the National Science Foundation earth scope·2·

· ·project was coming through.··And so what that meant was·3·

· ·there were an additional 40 seismic stations within the·4·

· ·state of Oklahoma at the time and/or going in at the·5·

· ·time I came across him at the scientific meeting in·6·

· ·2009.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Why were there 40 more going into Oklahoma at·8·

· ·that time?··This was in 2009, right?·9·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So this was part of this large National10·

· ·Science Foundation project where they were taking11·

· ·instruments and they were installing them from the12·

· ·southern border of the United States to the northern13·

· ·border, in a swath of about 400 instruments at a time at14·

· ·about a 70-kilometer, roughly 50-mile spacing from north15·

· ·to south and east and west.··And so they started, and16·

· ·then they'd pick up instruments and move them and pick17·

· ·them up and move them.··So it was a very long, drawn-out18·

· ·scientific process to get these things to stay in one19·

· ·place 18 months to two years and move them all the way20·

· ·from the West Coast to the East Coast, and they're now21·

· ·finishing up the installation of equipment in Alaska.22·

· · · · ·· So this was just the National Science Foundation23·

· ·project that was occurring, but as -- they wanted -- the24·

· ·Oklahoma Geological Survey wanted to take advantage of25·

Page 24

· ·the fact that these instruments were being installed, to·1·

· ·use those to augment their regional network which had·2·

· ·been suffering since the death of their seismologist.·3·

· · · · ·· And so he'd known that I had run a seismic·4·

· ·monitoring program there at Idaho National Lab, and he·5·

· ·recruited me to apply for the position they had open.·6·

· ·And so I made the difficult decision to try and finish·7·

· ·my Ph.D. long distance while working.··So I did this·8·

· ·twice to myself.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Now, were you married at that time?10·

· · ·· A.··I was married.··So I got married during my Ph.D.11·

· ·and I had two children.··So the financial aspects of12·

· ·stepping away from making $20,000 a year to something a13·

· ·little more than that was an exciting prospect as I was14·

· ·finishing up my Ph.D. dissertation.15·

· · ·· Q.··And is that when you moved to Oklahoma?16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.17·

· · ·· Q.··What year was that?18·

· · ·· A.··So we moved in 2010.··I was hired in late 2009.19·

· · ·· Q.··And where was your office located?20·

· · ·· A.··My office was in the Mewbourne College of Earth &21·

· ·Energy.··And the OGS, the Oklahoma Geological Survey,22·

· ·occupies the basement within the -- what's the name of23·

· ·the building -- within the building there at the OU24·

· ·campus.25·


(Pages 25-28)


Page 25

· · ·· Q.··And how many people worked with you in that·1·

· ·position?·2·

· · ·· A.··So when I was first hired on, we had two seismic·3·

· ·technicians, and then there was a geological engineer·4·

· ·that had been at the Oklahoma Geological Survey for a·5·

· ·very significant amount of time.··And so he sort of·6·

· ·helped me understand the history of what had occurred in·7·

· ·Oklahoma.·8·

· · ·· Q.··What did he tell was the history that had·9·

· ·occurred in Oklahoma?10·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, hearsay,11·

· ·relevance.··You can go ahead and answer.··I've got to12·

· ·make objections for the record because otherwise we13·

· ·waive them, and so later on we may want to take it up14·

· ·again.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··So let me say this:··An expert16·

· ·witness is allowed to consider all types of evidence.17·

· · ·· Q.··Go ahead and answer.18·

· · ·· A.··So a lot of it was he shared the historical19·

· ·catalog with me and explained how it was built, the20·

· ·references that helped to create this historical catalog21·

· ·of earthquakes and help explain to me the work that my22·

· ·predecessor had done.23·

· · · · ·· So the previous seismologist in Oklahoma was not24·

· ·very good at publishing and getting things in the25·

Page 26

· ·published record.··And so there are a number of things·1·

· ·that he had worked on that half made it into the·2·

· ·published record, but he wanted me to be aware of how·3·

· ·and why things had been done.··And so he shared that·4·

· ·information with me, which was invaluable in allowing me·5·

· ·to begin publishing and using the historical data·6·

· ·quickly.·7·

· · ·· Q.··At the time that you went to work there, was·8·

· ·Katie Keranen also working for the Mewbourne College?·9·

· · ·· A.··Yes.10·

· · ·· Q.··What was her position at that time?11·

· · ·· A.··She was an assistant professor -- is that12·

· ·right? -- at the School of Geo- -- Conoco School of13·

· ·Geology & Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.··She14·

· ·had just been hired the summer before I accepted the15·

· ·position there in Oklahoma.16·

· · ·· Q.··And were you teaching any classes at that time at17·

· ·the University of Oklahoma?18·

· · ·· A.··No.··I was only a guest lecturer at the19·

· ·University of Oklahoma.··So the Oklahoma Geological20·

· ·Survey is a nonacademic department within the University21·

· ·of Oklahoma.22·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And would you tell the ladies and23·

· ·gentlemen of the jury who Amberlee Darold was?24·

· · ·· A.··Well, let me go back to finish answering your25·

Page 27

· ·question about who was there at Oklahoma Geological·1·

· ·Survey when I was there.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.·3·

· · ·· A.··So when I started, I had an analyst, Amy Gibson,·4·

· ·and then I had a technician/groundskeeper that worked at·5·

· ·the Leonard Observatory.··So I managed the seismic·6·

· ·facility that was based near Tulsa and operated for a·7·

· ·long time under the OGS.··And so I basically had two·8·

· ·employees working for me at the time.·9·

· · ·· Q.··And this is during the year 2010.10·


· · ·· Q.··How many earthquakes happened in Oklahoma in that12·

· ·year 2010?13·

· · ·· A.··Well, I don't have any exact notes to refer to,14·

· ·but there were roughly 40 magnitude three or greater15·

· ·earthquakes within 2010.16·

· · ·· Q.··And you continued on in 2011.17·

· · ·· A.··So in 2011, that rate of magnitude three18·

· ·earthquakes goes up.19·

· · ·· Q.··How much did it go up?20·

· · ·· A.··It was roughly at -- magnitude three or greater21·

· ·earthquakes, it was roughly at 65, 70, I want to say.22·

· ·But the vast majority of those represent aftershocks and23·

· ·the main shocks for the 2011 Prague earthquake sequence.24·

· · ·· Q.··Let us focus -- this case in which you are an25·

Page 28

· ·expert witness is the case of Jennifer Lin Cooper, on·1·

· ·behalf of herself and other residents of Central·2·

· ·Oklahoma similarly situated, versus New Dominion, LLC,·3·

· ·Spess Oil Company and others, and it's CJ-2015-24, class·4·

· ·action.··You are giving this deposition in that case,·5·

· ·correct?·6·


· · ·· Q.··In 2011, after you had that increase in·8·

· ·earthquakes, what happened in 2012?·9·

· · ·· A.··So in 2012, the earthquakes settled back down to10·

· ·a little more -- nothing in the rates is normal.··So by11·

· ·2010, there were 40 magnitude or greater earthquakes.12·

· ·The average number of magnitude three or greater13·

· ·earthquakes that had previously occurred in Oklahoma had14·

· ·remained fairly constant through time, at an average of15·

· ·about one-and-a-half magnitude three or greater16·

· ·earthquakes.··You know, some years there would be three,17·

· ·some years there would be none.18·

· · · · ·· But long-term, over the history of the seismic19·

· ·monitoring program there in Oklahoma, it had averaged20·

· ·this.··And that really became effective in 1977 or '78.21·

· ·It had maintained this really relatively constant22·

· ·average of one-and-a-half magnitude three or greater23·

· ·earthquakes each year.··So 40 in 2010 represents a24·

· ·significant departure from that historical naturally25·


(Pages 29-32)


Page 29

· ·occurring background seismicity rate.·1·

· · ·· Q.··On the issue of people who worked there with you·2·

· ·in your position at the University of Oklahoma, did any·3·

· ·of them have a Ph.D. in any part of the geophysics·4·

· ·science?·5·

· · ·· A.··So the director of the Geological Survey had a·6·

· ·Ph.D. in geophysics, Dr. Randy Keller.··There were no·7·

· ·other -- oh, and later on in, I want to say 2013, Kevin·8·

· ·Crain joined the OGS part-time and was also partly·9·

· ·employed by the school of geology and geophysics.··Maybe10·

· ·it was 2012.··But he had a Ph.D. in geophysics, as well.11·

· ·And I have some presentations that we coauthored12·

· ·together.13·

· · ·· Q.··In that timeframe, 2011, were you asked to do any14·

· ·studies before November of 2011?15·

· · ·· A.··So the studies I did were primarily -- well, to16·

· ·some degree of my own choosing.··But there was a case17·

· ·where we thought we may have seen earthquakes triggered18·

· ·by hydraulic fracturing in 2011 which have been that19·

· ·well documented.··There is a case that was being20·

· ·discussed that had occurred in England at the time, but21·

· ·nothing had been published at that point in time.··And22·

· ·so I was asked to look into that further by the23·

· ·Geological Survey and the Corporation Commission.24·

· · · · ·· And so I wrote an Oklahoma Geological Survey open25·

Page 30

· ·file report detailing that sequence, and later on, after·1·

· ·I was able to work with the oil and gas operator that·2·

· ·was conducting that hydraulic fracturing project, I was·3·

· ·able to get injection rates from them and do some more·4·

· ·research and was able to refine that work into a·5·

· ·peer-reviewed, published paper.·6·



· · ·· Q.··I want to show you what I've marked as·9·

· ·Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2.··This is an article from10·

· ·2014.··Do you know Denver Nicks?11·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I'm objecting, relevance and12·

· ·hearsay.··And if you'd like to have a continuing13·

· ·objection over the likely admissibility of something14·

· ·like this, I'd request that.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··No.··You make your objection so16·

· ·we've got a record.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Right.··And I made my18·

· ·objection.··I think this is hearsay and relevance.··Now,19·

· ·the question is after you start asking him questions20·

· ·about this, do you want me to redo my objection every21·

· ·question?··Or do I get a continuing objection on it?22·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··When I ask him a question about23·

· ·who authored this, you can make all the objections you24·

· ·want to.··But I'm not going to waive anything that I say25·

Page 31

· ·in this room because the jury is entitled to know what·1·

· ·led up to this, and we're gonna show them.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Well, Garvin, I'm not·3·

· ·arguing with you on that.··I'm just --·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Yeah, you are.·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··No, I'm not.··You're·6·

· ·arguing.··I'm not the one that started this.··I'm asking·7·

· ·you as a courtesy whether you want me to object after·8·

· ·every question you ask about this, or whether I get a·9·

· ·continuing -- and interrupt your deposition, or whether10·

· ·you'll let me have a continuing objection.··That's all11·

· ·I'm asking.12·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Well, if you've got something13·

· ·you want to object to, make an objection.14·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··All right.··We'll just do it15·

· ·the hard way.··Go ahead.16·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··Austin, on this article, which17·

· ·is published February the 18th of 2014, you saw this,18·

· ·right?19·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form.20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··This article, I did not see an actual21·

· ·publication until my father sent it to me, but that same22·

· ·day my employee, Amberlee Darold, was reprimanded for23·

· ·speaking to the -- I believe she's in here -- oh, no.··I24·

· ·guess it's me.··I'm on the -- okay.··This is a different25·

Page 32

· ·article than what I thought it was.·1·

· · · · ·· So, yes.··I believe this is -- well, yeah.··I·2·

· ·believe this is at about the point at which after this·3·

· ·publication -- previously we'd been encouraged to·4·

· ·interact with the press and media, much to my chagrin.·5·

· ·It took a lot of time and effort away from actually·6·

· ·doing research.··But after this article, we were asked·7·

· ·to no longer speak to the media and to direct all media·8·

· ·requests to the Office of Public Relations at the·9·

· ·University of Oklahoma.10·

· · ·· Q.··Now, you're quoted in this article on page 2 as11·

· ·saying that this increase in the swarm of earthquakes is12·

· ·incredibly unusual.13·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection.··And at this point, I15·

· ·want to explain the objection.··I don't have an16·

· ·objection to you establishing with him that he may have17·

· ·relied upon this article in forming professional18·

· ·opinions.··But to the extent that you're gonna publish19·

· ·the content of this hearsay to the jury through your20·

· ·question, I do object to that absent a finding by the21·

· ·Court that it should be -- that the content should be22·

· ·published.··So if it's -- and perhaps it might help to23·

· ·voir dire the witness as to whether or not this24·

· ·represents something he relied upon in forming an25·


(Pages 33-36)


Page 33

· ·opinion or whether this is just general hearsay as part·1·

· ·of this proceeding.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··And I didn't do the·3·

· ·relevance objection, but that's why I'm objecting to·4·

· ·form.·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··This document documents what·6·

· ·happened in history and helps the witness refresh his·7·

· ·recollection about what's going on and shows that the·8·

· ·government in the state of Oklahoma and certain people,·9·

· ·to-wit the people involved in disposal well operations,10·

· ·were on notice that the earthquakes were being11·

· ·increased, and this is a reckless disregard for the12·

· ·safety of the public.··That's how I'm using this as a13·

· ·trigger to get to that point.14·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··We'll object to the jury speech15·

· ·and we'll move to strike that from reading it to the16·

· ·jury.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Same objection.18·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··Dr. Holland, the importance of19·

· ·your position, one of the most important things is to20·

· ·protect the people and the property in Oklahoma,21·

· ·correct?22·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, leading.23·


· · ·· A.··The Oklahoma Geological Survey's mission25·

Page 34

· ·statement has nothing about protecting the population of·1·

· ·Oklahoma in its mission statement -- well, I guess maybe·2·

· ·loosely.··I have a presentation where I spell out that·3·

· ·mission statement.··But the primary role of the Oklahoma·4·

· ·Geological Survey was help the state understand its·5·

· ·natural resources and appropriately exploit those·6·

· ·natural resources.·7·

· · ·· Q.··In the article which is marked as Plaintiff's·8·

· ·Exhibit Number 2, the quote from you is -- one of the·9·

· ·quotes in the article is about state authorities are now10·

· ·trying to get to the bottom of the unusual seismic11·

· ·activity.··Did you have some conversations with anyone12·

· ·requesting that you do research on the seismic triggers13·

· ·of these earthquakes?14·


· · ·· Q.··Go ahead.16·

· · ·· A.··So the Oklahoma Geological Survey worked closely17·

· ·with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and I did a18·

· ·large number of tasks at their request.··Beginning in19·

· ·2010, we began this dialogue of induced seismicity and20·

· ·studying induced seismicity, and then continuing into21·

· ·2011.··And so by 2012, I had established a strong22·

· ·working relationship with the oil and gas regulators in23·

· ·Oklahoma at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.24·

· · ·· Q.··Were there studies being done by your entity, the25·

Page 35

· ·Oklahoma Geologic Survey, that tried to determine what·1·

· ·was triggering the earthquakes in Oklahoma?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So some of that began before I arrived.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Who started that, if you know?·4·

· · ·· A.··So there were -- my predecessor, Jim Lawson, did·5·

· ·some work on looking at triggered and induced seismicity·6·

· ·in the oil and gas industry.··And some of those·7·

· ·results -- I mentioned that he wasn't very good at·8·

· ·publishing -- some of the those results are contained in·9·

· ·other publications.··There's a USGS open file report by10·

· ·Nickelson and Wesson that I reference in a number of my11·

· ·papers that describe some of those historical cases.12·

· · · · ·· But then the geologic engineer, Ken Luza, took me13·

· ·in and told me how the historical catalog was made and14·

· ·that sort of thing, he explained to me that the majority15·

· ·of the seismic stations that the Oklahoma Geological16·

· ·Survey was operating were provided by an oil and gas17·

· ·operator partly out of concerns for and regarding18·

· ·induced seismicity.19·

· · ·· Q.··Was there any investigation into disposal wells20·

· ·at that time?21·

· · ·· A.··Yes.22·

· · ·· Q.··How did that start?23·

· · ·· A.··So there were some earthquakes in 2009, is when24·

· ·the seismicity rate in Oklahoma began to pick up.··And25·

Page 36

· ·these earthquakes were in the Oklahoma City metro area.·1·

· ·And so a magnitude three or greater earthquake was felt·2·

· ·by a very large number of people and was generating a·3·

· ·lot of excitement.·4·

· · · · ·· And so these -- there are some very large·5·

· ·disposal wells within the Oklahoma City metropolitan·6·

· ·area.··And so I know discussions occurred before my·7·

· ·time, but I can't speak to what happened in those·8·

· ·discussions.··But we had, oh, two or three seismic·9·

· ·stations that were operating in the Oklahoma City metro10·

· ·area when I arrived in Oklahoma.11·

· · ·· Q.··Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the12·

· ·jury who Katie Keranen is?13·

· · ·· A.··So Katie Keranen was an assistant professor at14·

· ·the University of Oklahoma.··We were collaborating15·

· ·together on the Prague earthquake sequence and16·

· ·deploying --17·

· · ·· Q.··We're gonna get to that.18·

· · ·· A.··So that's who Katie was.19·

· · ·· Q.··In that timeframe that I've been talking about,20·

· ·when this was published on February 18th, 2014, was21·

· ·Katie involved in any way with the University of22·

· ·Oklahoma?23·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form,24·

· ·relevance.25·


(Pages 37-40)


Page 37

· · ·· A.··She had left to go be a professor at Cornell.·1·

· · ·· Q.··At the time of the Oklahoma Geologic Survey·2·

· ·conference in January of 2014, did you do a study of·3·

· ·induced seismicity from fluid injection and draft best·4·

· ·practices?·5·

· · ·· A.··We developed best practices actually in 2013.·6·

· ·And this was done by working with Dr. Keranen before she·7·

· ·had left for Cornell.··Myself and the director of the·8·

· ·Geological Survey took the published literature and·9·

· ·began to design these sets of best practices, and then10·

· ·we provided these best practices to respected11·

· ·researchers in the field of triggered and induced12·

· ·seismicity and got their comments back.13·

· · · · ·· And then in the summer of 2013, we held a14·

· ·conference where we invited oil and gas operators,15·

· ·environmental groups and other regulators and other16·

· ·interest groups from both within Oklahoma and outside of17·

· ·Oklahoma to a workshop.··And we spent the first half of18·

· ·the workshop hearing from -- I gave a presentation,19·

· ·Ernie Majer from the Department of Energy's geothermal20·

· ·energy program gave a presentation, and then we had a21·

· ·presentation from an oil and gas operator regarding best22·

· ·practices for induced seismicity.23·

· · · · ·· So the geothermal program at DOE had already24·

· ·created a set of best practices.··Some of the best25·

Page 38

· ·practices may be more geared towards the geothermal·1·

· ·industry, but nonetheless they can provide a good·2·

· ·template.··And we also used those in building the best·3·

· ·practices that we were attempting to build.·4·

· · · · ·· And so then we invited operators and regulators,·5·

· ·environmental groups, and we had these talks.··And then·6·

· ·we broke out into small groups and let people provide·7·

· ·comments on the bullet points of these best practices.·8·

· ·And --·9·

· · ·· Q.··We're down the road a ways from the Prague10·

· ·earthquake.··And what I want to do is go back to11·

· ·November 5, 2011.··Were you on duty at that time?12·

· · ·· A.··Well, that was the challenge of being the only13·

· ·seismologist in Oklahoma, is I was always on duty.14·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··You were at that time the only15·

· ·seismologist.16·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··And it seemed like all the17·

· ·earthquakes would occur on nights and weekends and that18·

· ·sort of thing.··But yes, so the -- on November 5th,19·

· ·there was a magnitude 4.8 very early in the morning, and20·

· ·I got woken up not by the shaking of the earthquake but21·

· ·by the media calling my cell phone.22·

· · ·· Q.··Were you at home?23·

· · ·· A.··I was at home, asleep in bed.24·

· · ·· Q.··What time did you get those phone calls?25·

Page 39

· · ·· A.··I think it was about 2:00 in the morning the·1·

· ·calls started.··But, you know, it was certainly early in·2·

· ·the morning.··So I went to the office so that my wife·3·

· ·could sleep, and I started processing the earthquakes.·4·

· · · · ·· And so Katie Keranen came into my office that·5·

· ·morning and began talking to me, and she had some·6·

· ·instruments she wanted to --·7·

· · ·· Q.··What time did Katie Keranen come in?·8·

· · ·· A.··I honestly couldn't say.··I had been on the phone·9·

· ·with, you know, the FBI and FEMA and all sorts of people10·

· ·already at that point, and essentially every news outlet11·

· ·in Oklahoma and some national news outlets.12·

· · · · ·· So I was sitting there working on -- looking at13·

· ·earthquakes, and she said, "I have instruments I want to14·

· ·put out."15·

· · · · ·· And I said -- well, I already had been in the16·

· ·area, because 18 months prior there had been a magnitude17·

· ·4 in the area, and I'd gone out to try to identify18·

· ·places where I could put instrumentation.19·

· · ·· Q.··Where did you go put your instrumentation on that20·

· ·prior one?21·

· · ·· A.··So I didn't -- I was unable to procure any22·

· ·instruments to go out and actually put any instruments23·

· ·out.··So I had gone out and talked to people, asked them24·

· ·about their experiences, because the reports I was25·

Page 40

· ·getting was the ground motion was quite strong for, I·1·

· ·believe it was a magnitude 4.2 earthquake.·2·

· · · · ·· So I went out and talked to the residents right·3·

· ·in the epicentral area.··And so I had a number of·4·

· ·contacts in the area, so when she said she wanted to put·5·

· ·instrumentation out, I said "That's great."··And we went·6·

· ·out and deployed instrumentation into that essential·7·

· ·area.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Now, Katie Keranen is a professor at the·9·

· ·University of Oklahoma who teaches classes to geology10·

· ·and geophysics students, correct?11·


· · ·· Q.··And she does not work for the Oklahoma Geologic13·

· ·Survey; you do.14·


· · ·· Q.··You are the doctor in charge of the Oklahoma16·

· ·Geological Survey.17·

· · ·· A.··Not of the whole Survey, just the seismic18·

· ·monitoring program.19·

· · ·· Q.··Well, yeah.··And had there been any investigation20·

· ·into the number of disposal wells located around the21·

· ·epicenter of this first quake that you heard about in22·

· ·the early morning hours?23·

· · ·· A.··So I had already done some work as part of a24·

· ·grant proposal looking at potential areas where we're25·


(Pages 41-44)


Page 41

· ·seeing and trying to identify areas where we're seeing·1·

· ·induced seismicity.··So you've shown this article here·2·

· ·from 2014.··One of the statements in here --·3·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.·4·

· · ·· A.··-- is we do know there have been -- and this is a·5·

· ·statement by me -- there have been earthquakes caused by·6·

· ·oil and gas activity in the state, and then I go on to·7·

· ·say, "The hard part is figuring out which is which."·8·

· · · · ·· And so that was -- you know, we suspected there·9·

· ·were a very large number of earthquakes being triggered10·

· ·by oil and gas activity in the state of Oklahoma at the11·

· ·time, but the hard part was figuring out which is which.12·

· ·So --13·

· · ·· Q.··Now, the first one that you got the call about,14·

· ·what size was it?15·

· · ·· A.··That was a magnitude 4.8.16·

· · ·· Q.··4.8.17·

· · ·· A.··So --18·

· · ·· Q.··And then -- go ahead.··Tell us what happened19·

· ·later.20·

· · ·· A.··So the magnitude 4.8 earthquake did some damage21·

· ·to unreinforced masonry, brick facades, brick chimneys,22·

· ·that sort of thing.23·

· · ·· Q.··Right.24·

· · ·· A.··There is a really impressive shearing of a25·

Page 42

· ·chimney at one residence where we ended up putting a·1·

· ·seismic station where you get this -- basically the·2·

· ·entire top of the chimney was detached from the base of·3·

· ·the chimney, and it was only being held by the·4·

· ·stovepipe.··And that was a place -- right underneath·5·

· ·that chimney is where their children slept, their·6·

· ·children's bedroom.·7·

· · · · ·· And so I told the people living there, I was·8·

· ·like, "If there's a large aftershock, or in the unlikely·9·

· ·event that there's a larger earthquake, that chimney10·

· ·will fall down."··So we observed a number of damages to11·

· ·unreinforced masonry at the time we went out for the 4.812·

· ·in the epicentral area when we were putting out seismic13·

· ·stations.··There was one building where the brick facade14·

· ·was peeling away from the wall structure.15·

· · · · ·· And so we finished putting out our seismic16·

· ·stations, drove back to the --17·

· · ·· Q.··Now, this -- we're still on the November 11th --18·

· ·November 5th, 2011.19·

· · ·· A.··Yes.20·

· · ·· Q.··We're not on the 6th yet.21·

· · ·· A.··No.··So we go back and we -- you know, I'd had a22·

· ·very long day, I'm laying down in bed, and then the23·

· ·magnitude 5.7 occurred.24·

· · ·· Q.··When?25·

Page 43

· · ·· A.··Or 5. -- well, I guess -- yeah, it may have been·1·

· ·upgraded to a 5.8 at this point.··But yeah, the·2·

· ·magnitude 5.7 occurred at that moment when I had just·3·

· ·fallen asleep.·4·

· · ·· Q.··What time was it when you fell asleep?·5·

· · ·· A.··It was right about 10:00, I believe.··And so I·6·

· ·was actually logged back into my computer on my desk·7·

· ·there in my bedroom before the shaking actually stopped.·8·

· · ·· Q.··What went through your mind after having the 4.8·9·

· ·and then you've got a 5.6, what flashed through your10·

· ·mind about the homes where you'd seen the bricks falling11·

· ·off the walls over a room full of kids?12·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form.··Go13·

· ·ahead.14·

· · ·· A.··So the fact that I had witnessed significant15·

· ·damage done to unreinforced masonry, I knew the damage16·

· ·was gonna be worse.··By the direction in which I felt17·

· ·the motion come through, I knew the earthquake had been18·

· ·located in the same location.··And so I knew that the19·

· ·damage would be more significant and -- for instance,20·

· ·that chimney that collapsed -- or that chimney that was21·

· ·damaged had likely collapsed, and that brick wall I had22·

· ·seen that was separating was most likely laying on the23·

· ·ground.24·

· · · · ·· But I also knew that there was gonna be more25·

Page 44

· ·significant damage.··There's a lot of older buildings in·1·

· ·the area, in Prague and Meeker and -- so I knew that·2·

· ·there could be some significant damage as I began to·3·

· ·work on the earthquake and analyze the magnitude.·4·

· · ·· Q.··And you're in your bedroom on your computer, and·5·

· ·it's 10:00 at night when this happens, right?·6·

· · ·· A.··Yep.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Do you guys want to take a·8·

· ·break for a pit stop?··And then we'll come back and pick·9·

· ·it up right here.··Let's take five minutes.10·

· · · · · · · · (A recess was taken from 10:04 a.m. to11·

· ·10:12 a.m., and testimony continued as follows:)12·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··You okay?13·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.14·

· · ·· Q.··After you received -- felt the shock and got up15·

· ·on your computer, did you receive any phone calls?16·

· · ·· A.··Oh, yeah.··You know, at this time it wasn't just,17·

· ·you know, the local NBC, it was the national news.··So18·

· ·again, I left the house and went to the office so I19·

· ·could handle those phone calls.··So I spent the whole20·

· ·rest of the night analyzing earthquakes and speaking to21·

· ·press and again FEMA and that sort of thing.22·

· · · · ·· And I had a family engagement, so I was actually23·

· ·later on that day in Kansas doing photographs, family24·

· ·photographs while in between shots talking to the press.25·


(Pages 45-48)


Page 45

· ·So it was quite busy.··I was talking to New Zealand·1·

· ·press and global press outlets, as well.·2·

· · ·· Q.··What research had been done into disposal wells·3·

· ·in the Prague area at the time of the earthquakes that·4·

· ·we've been talking about here that occurred on·5·

· ·November 5th and 6th?·6·

· · ·· A.··So at that time I'd worked on a grant proposal,·7·

· ·and the grant didn't get funded, partly because some of·8·

· ·the ideas in there weren't well-formulated.··It was, you·9·

· ·know, early on trying to figure out what can we really10·

· ·use to identify these things.··But the Prague area was11·

· ·one of these areas where we identified in that grant12·

· ·proposal that it was possible that there was triggered13·

· ·seismicity in the area.14·

· · · · ·· And so that was looking at, you know, the15·

· ·earthquakes in spatial proximity to disposal wells and16·

· ·the temporal -- potential temporal correlations to17·

· ·actual injection volumes and pressures.··The challenge18·

· ·with that is there's a very large number, about 6,000,19·

· ·Class II injection wells in the state of Oklahoma, so20·

· ·you're always gonna have these spatial correlations.21·

· ·And then the injection data is self-reported on pressure22·

· ·and volume, so that also makes it a difficult challenge23·

· ·to know if the data you're looking at was meaningful or24·

· ·not.25·

Page 46

· · · · ·· But one of the things we saw in the Prague area·1·

· ·that set it apart from nearly all other areas in·2·

· ·Oklahoma at the time was when we had large earthquakes·3·

· ·elsewhere in the world.··Those waves travel around the·4·

· ·globe.··And as seismic waves came through the Prague·5·

· ·area, we would often see dynamic triggering.··So a·6·

· ·little tiny earthquake would pop off.··While this large·7·

· ·earthquake is coming through and these waves are·8·

· ·exciting the ground, we'd see a little tiny earthquake·9·

· ·pop off in the Prague area.10·

· · · · ·· And so, you know, if this happens once, it's not11·

· ·a big deal, right?··Because that does happen in the12·

· ·natural earth all the time when these very large waves13·

· ·come through.··But what happens was we'd see this14·

· ·activation, this dynamic triggering often when we had15·

· ·these large earthquakes come through.··And we saw these16·

· ·on those National Science Foundation seismic stations17·

· ·that were installed in the area.18·

· · ·· Q.··In that timeframe when we had the Prague19·

· ·earthquake, did you form an opinion to a reasonable20·

· ·degree of certainty that it was caused by the disposal21·

· ·wells?22·

· · ·· A.··Not at the time.23·

· · ·· Q.··How about today?24·

· · ·· A.··So today, I think it's very likely that the25·

Page 47

· ·Prague earthquake was triggered by wastewater disposal.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Tell us how you arrived at that opinion today.·2·

· · ·· A.··So the OGS released a statement in 2015 saying·3·

· ·that it's very likely that the vast majority of·4·

· ·earthquakes within Oklahoma are triggered by wastewater·5·

· ·disposal.··And so since then, there have been a·6·

· ·significant number of magnitude five or greater·7·

· ·earthquakes, which strengthens some of the arguments·8·

· ·against the Prague earthquake being triggered was the·9·

· ·fact that we've never seen a triggered earthquake from10·

· ·these low pressures of this magnitude before.··So I11·

· ·think we can clearly demonstrate that these earthquakes12·

· ·are triggered by wastewater disposal, such as the13·

· ·Fairview or other areas.14·

· · ·· Q.··Let's stay on Prague here just for a minute.··I15·

· ·want to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 9.16·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Edd, I've got one with "9" on17·

· ·it and two of them don't.··I don't know how that18·

· ·happened.19·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··That's fine.20·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I've got two with "9" and one21·

· ·with --22·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Got it.23·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Which one of you got the one24·

· ·that didn't have "9" on it?25·

Page 48

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··It's got a "9" on it now.·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Thanks.·2·



· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··Austin, who are the authors·5·

· ·here?··Oklahoma U.S. Geologic Survey -- Menlo Park is·6·

· ·cited there, but who are the authors?··That's by·7·

· ·A. McGarr, B. Bekins, N. Burkhardt, J. Dewey, P. Earle,·8·

· ·W. Ellsworth, S. Ge, S. Hickman, A. Holland, E. Majer,·9·

· ·J. Rubenstein, and A. Sheehan?10·

· · ·· A.··These are primarily USGS employees, with some11·

· ·exceptions.12·

· · ·· Q.··And you're listed in there as one of the13·

· ·co-authors.14·

· · ·· A.··That is correct.15·

· · ·· Q.··Would you explain to the jury what this paper16·

· ·communicates scientifically about the causation of an17·

· ·earthquake?18·


· ·relevance.··Go ahead.20·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Object to publishing the content21·

· ·of this article to the jury as hearsay.22·

· · ·· A.··The USGS considers this publication public23·

· ·record, and so I can't speak to the paper itself.24·

· · ·· Q.··You what?25·


(Pages 49-52)


Page 49

· · ·· A.··I can't speak to the paper itself.··The USGS·1·

· ·considers that public record, and as a USGS employee, I·2·

· ·can't speak to that.··I don't have the authority to.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And was this paper, was this USGS's opinion that·4·

· ·you contributed to?·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Same objections.·6·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··I'm gonna have to object to·7·

· ·that, as well.··This is Charles Babst; I'm counsel for·8·

· ·the Department of Interior, the United States Department·9·

· ·of Interior.··USGS is a -- United States Geological10·

· ·Survey is a bureaucratic subdivision of the Department11·

· ·of Interior, and in the context of his current12·

· ·employment, he is not authorized to speak with respect13·

· ·to anything he may have learned while a state of14·

· ·Oklahoma employee in concert with the USGS.··Go ahead15·

· ·and answer.16·

· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:··Well, that was my answer.··So17·

· ·that's what I was gonna answer.18·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Okay.19·

· · ·· Q.··This article says "Wastewater injection directly20·

· ·into the crystalline basement has induced earthquakes of21·

· ·particular notoriety."··And that's a citation from the22·

· ·USGS.23·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Object with regard to the24·

· ·question, compared to the reading in the question.25·

Page 50

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··And the USGS report speaks for·1·

· ·itself.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you disagree with that?·3·

· · ·· A.··The USGS report speaks for itself.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··I have here a Mewbourne paper which is·5·

· ·authored by Austin Holland, state seismologist.··I'll·6·

· ·give you --·7·

· · ·· A.··I was scared.··I was like, I didn't write a stack·8·

· ·that thick, ever.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Well, that's my copy.10·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Edd, grab these.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··What's the number on this?12·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··This is Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.13·

· ·Everybody got one?14·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··I would like to look at it.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I've got two more.··Sorry.16·

· ·These things are too thick.17·

· · · · · · · · (A discussion was held off the record.)18·



· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··Dr. Holland, who authored this21·

· ·Mewbourne College of Earth & Energy paper?22·

· · ·· A.··So this is a presentation that I produced.··I'm23·

· ·not sure where this one was given; it may have been24·

· ·multiple places.··So I produced this in conjunction with25·

Page 51

· ·my colleagues at the University of Oklahoma, at the·1·

· ·Oklahoma Geological Survey.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··And I'll object to the form·3·

· ·on this and the introduction of this document.··Go·4·

· ·ahead.·5·

· · ·· Q.··In this particular paper, this is three years·6·

· ·after the earthquakes that injured Ms. Cooper's house --·7·

· ·damaged her house.··Is the Prague earthquake issue one·8·

· ·that is the subject of this paper?·9·

· · ·· A.··Yes, to some degree.··So clearly, the Prague10·

· ·earthquake in this affected -- so in the outline I talk11·

· ·about seismicity rates as one of the first bullets.12·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.13·

· · ·· A.··Clearly, the Prague earthquake affected our14·

· ·seismicity rates because we saw the normal main15·

· ·shock/aftershock sequence, so you have a very large16·

· ·number of earthquakes following the Prague earthquake;17·

· ·implications for these; the potential for induced18·

· ·seismicity; and then I also talk about three case19·

· ·examples of induced seismicity from the mid-continent;20·

· ·and then what we were doing to try and address those.21·

· · ·· Q.··And when this paper was published, did you have22·

· ·an opinion to a reasonable degree of seismological23·

· ·certainty that it was -- the Prague earthquake was24·

· ·caused by injections?25·

Page 52

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form.·1·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·2·

· · ·· Q.··And what was the basis for your opinion that the·3·

· ·Prague earthquake of a 5.6 was caused by injection·4·

· ·wells?·5·

· · ·· A.··Not much of the material in here.··So as I·6·

· ·mentioned, we were seeing dynamically-triggered·7·

· ·earthquakes within the region.··We saw elevated·8·

· ·seismicity throughout the region that followed the rapid·9·

· ·increase and wastewater disposal throughout central10·

· ·Oklahoma.··Understanding that these pressures can be11·

· ·transmitted very large distances and that then these12·

· ·small pressures can trigger earthquakes when you're not13·

· ·in a saturated environment.··So there's some work that14·

· ·other researchers have done, published papers on that15·

· ·have helped form that opinion.16·

· · · · ·· So there were a large number of researchers17·

· ·examining this, looking at the stress in the region,18·

· ·which is part of where my research was focused on, and19·

· ·there were other papers in that area, as well.··The20·

· ·Keranen paper was helpful.··Although there are a number21·

· ·of scientific issues I have with the Keranen paper, it22·

· ·certainly was helpful in bringing out some of these23·

· ·issues.··So it was a large growing body of scientific24·

· ·literature and effort and discussions at scientific25·


(Pages 53-56)


Page 53

· ·meetings that really led to that conclusion.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And at the time that this was published, your·2·

· ·opinion was that there were previously-recognized rates·3·

· ·that triggered seismicity about one in 4,000 wells?·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, leading.·5·


· · ·· A.··So there was a recent study that came out in·7·

· ·2012, right after the -- right after the Prague·8·

· ·earthquake.··And I've actually -- this was done by the·9·

· ·National Research Council.··So that was one of the10·

· ·challenges that we faced in Oklahoma, was that there11·

· ·were so many wells, and nothing on the scale like what12·

· ·we were observing in Oklahoma had been observed before.13·

· ·So that really left a lot of scientists in a bit of a14·

· ·quandary as to what was occurring and what made Oklahoma15·

· ·special.··And I think there are some people that would16·

· ·have some thoughts as to why Oklahoma is special in the17·

· ·regard of just the incredible number of earthquakes18·

· ·triggered by wastewater disposal.19·

· · · · ·· But, yeah, that speaks really to the challenge of20·

· ·trying to address this question as we've tried to21·

· ·continue researching.22·

· · ·· Q.··In your paper, Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, under the23·

· ·portion on "Recent potential cases of earthquakes24·

· ·triggered by disposal" --25·

Page 54

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.·1·

· · ·· Q.··-- would you explain to us the significance of·2·

· ·that research in determining what's triggering·3·

· ·earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the Prague earthquake?·4·


· · ·· A.··So some of these -- so here I have recent cases,·6·

· ·but we also have some historical cases.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.·8·

· · ·· A.··But some of these helped show that it is·9·

· ·potentially much more common than previously recognized10·

· ·because a lot of these occurred while that 2002 National11·

· ·Research Council publication was being developed or12·

· ·after that publication was being written.··And so a13·

· ·number of these may speak to the fact that it might be14·

· ·more common than previously recognized to have15·

· ·seismicity triggered by wastewater disposal.16·

· · ·· Q.··In your study that is produced here as part of17·

· ·the Mewbourne College of Earth & Energy, was this18·

· ·published sometime in March of 2014 -- 2015?19·


· · ·· Q.··What was the date of it?21·

· · ·· A.··So this is a talk I gave -- let's see if it's in22·

· ·my selected -- in my talks.··It is not.··It's a talk I23·

· ·gave to the Tulsa Geological Foundation in 2015, it24·

· ·looks like from the abstract.25·

Page 55

· · ·· Q.··In the talks that you gave around Oklahoma, did·1·

· ·you do one sometime at or near March 16th, 2015 for the·2·

· ·FOX 25 Town Hall meeting at Oklahoma City University?·3·


· · ·· A.··I did.·5·

· · ·· Q.··And what did you speak about there?·6·

· · ·· A.··I mostly spoke about the hazard that induced·7·

· ·seismicity and increased seismicity rates pose within·8·

· ·Oklahoma.·9·

· · ·· Q.··At that time when you gave that talk, did you10·

· ·tell the audience what your opinion was about the11·

· ·causation of the earthquakes in Oklahoma?12·


· · ·· A.··So the Oklahoma Geological Survey was14·

· ·preparing -- or, yeah.··We were in the process of15·

· ·preparing a statement that had a number of statements in16·

· ·there.··But the primary one and the one that I expressed17·

· ·at that Town Hall was that it was very likely that the18·

· ·vast majority of earthquakes occurring in Oklahoma were19·

· ·earthquakes triggered by wastewater disposal.20·

· · ·· Q.··And in that meeting, attending that meeting were21·

· ·Harold Hamm and Larry Nichols, right?22·


· · ·· A.··I can't speak to that.24·

· · ·· Q.··Did you know -- at that meeting at FOX 25 news,25·

Page 56

· ·one of your associates, Amberlee Darold, was there,·1·

· ·right?·2·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.·3·


· · ·· Q.··And Amberlee Darold had worked with you on these·5·

· ·different surveys, correct?·6·

· · ·· A.··So Amberlee Darold was the junior seismologist·7·

· ·there at the Oklahoma Geological Survey.··In 2014 she·8·

· ·came on board and helped to run the seismic monitoring·9·

· ·network and conduct research there at the Oklahoma10·


· · ·· Q.··What happened after you made that statement at12·

· ·the FOX 25 Town Hall meeting?··What happened that13·

· ·involved Harold Hamm and David Boren?14·


· · ·· A.··I'm not aware of anything happening at that16·

· ·point.··I did have interactions with the president and17·

· ·Mr. Hamm at other points.18·

· · ·· Q.··How far after that meeting where you announced it19·

· ·was disposal wells that you had contact with David Boren20·

· ·and Harold Hamm?21·


· · ·· A.··I actually had -- I was called in to meet with23·

· ·Mr. Hamm and President Boren after my paper discussing24·

· ·hydraulic fracturing triggering earthquakes within25·


(Pages 57-60)


Page 57

· ·Oklahoma.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And where did that meeting take place?·2·

· · ·· A.··That meeting took place at the president's·3·

· ·office.·4·

· · ·· Q.··At the University of Oklahoma?·5·

· · ·· A.··At the University of Oklahoma.·6·

· · ·· Q.··What was said to you in that meeting?·7·

· · ·· A.··Well, the president of the university expressed·8·

· ·to me that it had complete academic freedom, but that as·9·

· ·part of being an employee of the state survey, I also10·

· ·have a need to listen to, you know, the people within11·

· ·the oil and gas industry.12·

· · · · ·· And so Harold Hamm expressed to me that I had to13·

· ·be careful of the way in which I say things, that14·

· ·hydraulic fracturing is critical to the state's economy15·

· ·in Oklahoma, and that me publicly stating that16·

· ·earthquakes can be caused by hydraulic fracturing was --17·

· ·you know, could be misleading, and that he was nervous18·

· ·about the war on fossil fuels at the time.19·

· · ·· Q.··How did you feel when you had those20·

· ·communications to you?21·

· · ·· A.··Honestly, it was nothing different than what I'd22·

· ·heard from those in the oil and gas industry since I23·

· ·basically showed up in Oklahoma.··So it wasn't anything24·

· ·new.··And I've been yelled at before; at least I wasn't25·

Page 58

· ·getting yelled at.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Not at that moment.·2·

· · · · ·· When did you have any conversations with Amberlee·3·

· ·Darold about what was in that meeting with Boren and·4·

· ·Hamm?·5·


· · ·· A.··So Amberlee and I discussed a lot of stuff.··We·7·

· ·spent a lot of time working in the field together and in·8·

· ·the office, and I couldn't tell you when or what·9·

· ·Amberlee and I discussed.10·

· · ·· Q.··Did you feel like that there were politics11·

· ·involved in what was said to you?12·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, calls for speculation.13·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to form.··Go ahead.14·

· · ·· A.··There were certainly times where -- and I was15·

· ·well aware that politics were playing a role in what I16·

· ·was allowed to say, the words I was allowed to use in17·

· ·the public sphere.··So --18·

· · ·· Q.··Could you give us -- give the jury insight into19·

· ·what triggered that?20·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So, you know, I was told I have academic21·

· ·freedoms but that, you know, we had to control the22·

· ·message coming out of the OGS.··And so we had press23·

· ·statements that were written by the director of the OGS24·

· ·and the dean of the college.25·

Page 59

· · ·· Q.··Who was the director of OGS?·1·

· · ·· A.··It was Dr. Randy Keller.·2·

· · ·· Q.··And who was the dean of the college?·3·

· · ·· A.··That was Dr. Grillot, Larry Grillot.··So we had·4·

· ·statements that were written that way.··They helped me·5·

· ·with presentations, they'd take a look and change -- for·6·

· ·the public, change wording and that sort of thing.··They·7·

· ·would tell me that they had gotten a bunch of calls,·8·

· ·complaints, after I'd give a news conference about some·9·

· ·earthquake or something, and they'd say they had gotten10·

· ·a lot of complaints and that we need to really watch how11·

· ·we say things and that, you know, we have to make sure12·

· ·that we're accurate.13·

· · · · ·· And, of course, that's the one thing I always14·

· ·made sure I was when I was speaking to the press.··But I15·

· ·also had points where the dean of the college asked to16·

· ·see my presentations to scientific meetings and would17·

· ·then wordsmith my presentations for scientific meetings,18·

· ·as well as at one point was asked to withdraw an19·

· ·abstract from a scientific meeting in Arkansas because20·

· ·the topic was earthquakes triggered by hydraulic21·

· ·fracture.22·

· · ·· Q.··Did you withdraw that --23·

· · ·· A.··I did.24·

· · ·· Q.··-- abstract in Arkansas?··And in the -- I'll25·

Page 60

· ·mark -- I've got another one here.·1·



· · · · · · · · Let me show you what I've marked as·4·

· ·Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 5.··Would you tell the jury·5·

· ·what Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 5 is, Austin?·6·


· · ·· A.··It's an article written by Ben Elgin and Matt·8·

· ·Philips.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Who is Ben Elgin?10·

· · ·· A.··I don't actually -- oh, a Bloomberg reporter.11·

· · ·· Q.··And who is Matthew Philips?12·

· · ·· A.··I would assume a Bloomberg reporter, as well.13·

· · ·· Q.··And this is an article where they quote you14·

· ·numerous times, do they not?15·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to form.16·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Object to the offer of this as17·

· ·hearsay, unless the witness can establish that this18·

· ·forms the basis of his professional opinions in this19·

· ·case.20·

· · ·· Q.··Does this document show the attempts of people to21·

· ·keep you from talking about the wastewater injection22·

· ·wells causing the earthquakes?23·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Object to the speech and object to24·

· ·the offer.25·


(Pages 61-64)


Page 61

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the same.··And it·1·

· ·misstates the evidence.··He just testified it was·2·

· ·fracking, not wastewater injection.·3·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··That's not what he said.··You·4·

· ·didn't listen.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, you are quoted here as saying to them,·6·

· ·"Hamm requested that Holland be careful when publicly·7·

· ·discussing the possible connection between oil and gas·8·

· ·operations and a big jump in the number of earthquakes,·9·

· ·which geological researchers were increasingly tying to10·

· ·the underground disposal of oil and gas wastewater, a11·

· ·byproduct of the fracking boom that Continental has12·

· ·helped pioneer.··'It was an expression of concern,13·

· ·Holland recalls.'"14·

· · · · ·· Do you recall talking to them and telling them15·

· ·this was an expression of concern?16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the relevance.18·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Same objection.19·


· · ·· A.··Yes.21·

· · ·· Q.··And when you had that conversation with Boren and22·

· ·Holland (sic), you're quoted as saying that it was "a23·

· ·little bit intimidating."24·


Page 62

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Same objection.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Do you remember that?·2·


· · ·· A.··Yes, I remember that.·4·

· · ·· Q.··And when you were in that meeting with Boren and·5·

· ·Hamm, they were trying to intimidate you, were they not?·6·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Renew my objection, and calls for·8·

· ·speculation.·9·

· · ·· A.··I don't know what their intent is.··I can't speak10·

· ·to their intent.11·

· · ·· Q.··Well, you just said to them in response to it12·

· ·that Hamm's a big donor -- well, Boren sits on the board13·

· ·of Continental, and Hamm is a big donor to the14·

· ·university, giving 20 million in 2011 for a new diabetes15·

· ·center.··Says Holland, "It was a little bit -- just a16·

· ·little bit intimidating."17·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Object to the form, object to the19·

· ·speech, calls for speculation, cross-examining the20·

· ·witness, sarcasm included.21·

· · ·· Q.··Do you recall saying that, Austin?22·

· · ·· A.··Yes.23·

· · ·· Q.··You told them that, didn't you?24·


Page 63

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Same.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And then on page number 2, page 2 of 5, you told·2·

· ·them that -- they "wanted to know if Mr. Holland had·3·

· ·found any information which might be helpful to·4·

· ·producers in adopting best practices that would help·5·

· ·prevent any possible connection between drilling and·6·

· ·seismic events."··They asked you that, did they not?·7·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Renew my objection and object to·9·

· ·relevance at this point.10·

· · ·· A.··So the ironic thing about that statement is that11·

· ·we'd already done our best practices workshop prior to12·

· ·this, and there were certainly a number of13·

· ·representatives from industry and the Independent14·

· ·Petroleum Association there.··So, yeah, that was15·

· ·surprising to me, but --16·

· · ·· Q.··You told Boren and Hamm that in the studies --17·

· ·that you'd become "the state seismologist in 2010, there18·

· ·wasn't much for Big Oil and state researchers to argue19·

· ·about," that "Over the previous 30 years, Oklahoma had20·

· ·averaged fewer than two earthquakes a year of at least21·

· ·3.0 in magnitude," and "In 2015 the state is on pace for22·

· ·875, according to Holland."23·


· ·misstates the record.25·

Page 64

· · ·· Q.··Does that accurately state what you said to them?·1·

· · ·· A.··If it's quoted in there, then that's what I said.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.··It's over here on page 2, Austin.·3·

· · ·· A.··So yes, that goes to the rate, which is also·4·

· ·discussed in the previous exhibit.·5·

· · ·· Q.··And that's what you were talking to Boren and·6·

· ·Hamm about, right?·7·


· · ·· A.··No.··They didn't -- mostly I was there to listen.·9·

· · ·· Q.··And in that time, there was a discussion about10·

· ·how much had to be injected for every barrel of oil,11·

· ·correct?12·



· · ·· A.··So --15·

· · ·· Q.··The next paragraph --16·

· · ·· A.··So the Mississippi line is separate from sort of17·

· ·the Prague area, but it's similar, I guess, in some ways18·

· ·to the Hunton dewatering.··But yeah, generally you19·

· ·produce a very large amount of water for a very small20·

· ·amount of oil.21·

· · ·· Q.··The wastewater disposal wells is the correct22·

· ·terminology for -- the use of those disposal wells is23·

· ·wastewater, correct?24·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··There are other forms of Class II25·


(Pages 65-68)


Page 65

· ·injection wells, but the wastewater disposal wells are·1·

· ·the ones that were primarily focused on by myself and·2·

· ·other researchers studying triggered seismicity from·3·

· ·injection wells.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Where does the wastewater come from?·5·

· · ·· A.··So the wastewater comes -- primarily in Oklahoma,·6·

· ·the wastewater comes from the production of the oil and·7·

· ·gas.··There is some wastewater that's produced from the·8·

· ·hydraulic fracturing process, as well.·9·

· · ·· Q.··In the wastewater disposal, nine out of 1010·

· ·barrels for every barrel of oil, correct?11·

· · ·· A.··In the Mississippi line play, that's an accurate12·

· ·statement.··I believe it's pretty close within the13·

· ·Hunton dewatering play, as well.··There are other areas14·

· ·where that's not the case.··But those are also areas15·

· ·where we don't find a large concentration of high-volume16·

· ·disposal wells.17·

· · ·· Q.··You talked to Harold Hamm and David Boren about18·

· ·these facts, that for every barrel of oil, we've got19·

· ·nine or 10 barrels of --20·



· · ·· A.··In my meeting with Harold Hamm and President23·

· ·Boren, I was there to listen to what Mr. Hamm had to24·

· ·say.25·

Page 66

· · ·· Q.··Well, in there, did you tell them that it is the·1·

· ·disposal wells which -- wastewater disposal wells, it is·2·

· ·this water injected near faults that these·3·

· ·seismologists, including those at the U.S. Geologic·4·

· ·Survey, say is the cause of the spikes in the·5·

· ·earthquakes?·6·


· · ·· A.··No, I did not.·8·

· · ·· Q.··In their article, there at the end of the fourth·9·

· ·paragraph, they've got that in there.10·

· · ·· A.··But that's an article that's written -- it's not11·

· ·like a recording of what occurred in that conversation.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··"In an e-mail from October 2013, Holland13·

· ·updated his superiors on a meeting he had in the office14·

· ·of Patrice Douglas, then one of the three elected15·

· ·members of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which16·

· ·regulates that state's oil and gas companies."··What did17·

· ·you tell them about what?18·

· · ·· A.··I said that --19·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to form.··Sorry, go20·

· ·ahead.21·

· · ·· A.··I said that it was clear that Continental did not22·

· ·want any discussions of induced seismicity in any shape23·

· ·or form.24·

· · ·· Q.··And you wrote, "The basic gist of the meeting is25·

Page 67

· ·that Continental does not feel induced seismicity is an·1·

· ·issue and they are nervous about any dialogue on the·2·

· ·subject."··Correct?·3·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to form.·4·


· · ·· Q.··And you wrote that, right?·6·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·7·

· · ·· Q.··And you also wrote, "Continental and Douglas were·8·

· ·concerned about" your "participation in a joint·9·

· ·statement" you'd "recently signed with the U.S. Geologic10·

· ·Survey suggesting a link between quakes and the oil11·

· ·industry."12·


· · ·· A.··That is a USGS product, and since I'm a USGS14·

· ·employee, I cannot speak to that.··But the USGS15·

· ·considers its statements public.16·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··That's correct.··It's a matter17·

· ·of public record and the document speaks for itself.18·

· ·Any USGS document does.··He's not authorized to testify19·

· ·as an expert witness from the USGS or any aspect of the20·

· ·federal government, but the record speaks for itself.21·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Sorry about that.··Just going22·

· ·back to what we got.23·

· · ·· Q.··In your meeting with Boren and Hamm there in24·

· ·Boren's office, the number of seismologists who were25·

Page 68

· ·convinced that earthquakes were being caused -- being·1·

· ·induced by wastewater disposal was discussed, correct?·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to form.·3·

· · ·· A.··No.··I was there to listen to Mr. Hamm and his·4·

· ·concerns.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Well, there in that last paragraph on page 2,·6·

· ·Austin, down here at the bottom, we've got this entry·7·

· ·that deals with the -- "In early 2013 the academic·8·

· ·journal Geology accepted a paper attributing the 5.6·9·

· ·magnitude quake that hit Oklahoma in 2011 to underground10·

· ·changes resulting from wastewater disposal wells."11·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.12·


· · ·· Q.··Did you talk to Boren and Hamm about that?14·


· · ·· A.··No.16·

· · ·· Q.··Did you talk to anybody at Bloomberg about it?17·

· · ·· A.··No.18·

· · ·· Q.··Where would this information have come from?19·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, speculation.21·

· · ·· Q.··It says "the academic journal Geology accepted a22·

· ·paper."23·

· · ·· A.··So that is the paper by Keranen and others24·

· ·discussing the Prague earthquake.25·


(Pages 69-72)


Page 69

· · ·· Q.··Now, Keranen today is a professor at Cornell,·1·

· ·right?·2·


· · ·· Q.··What is her position there at Cornell?·4·

· · ·· A.··I can't speak to that.·5·

· · ·· Q.··When you left the Oklahoma Geologic Survey, you·6·

· ·came to New Mexico and took the job with USGS, correct?·7·


· · ·· Q.··And why did you leave the University of Oklahoma·9·

· ·and Oklahoma Geologic Survey to come here?10·

· · ·· A.··I was reprimanded for publishing a peer-reviewed11·

· ·journal article and knew that I couldn't take any more12·

· ·of that and left my position -- well, began looking for13·

· ·a new position.14·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, which article was that?15·

· · ·· A.··That was the -- Exhibit 9.16·

· · ·· Q.··Let me give you Exhibit 9.17·

· · ·· A.··I have it right here.18·

· · ·· Q.··You've got it.19·

· · ·· A.··Yep.20·

· · ·· Q.··In Exhibit 9, you were a coauthor in this with a21·

· ·number of other seismologist people who'd been involved22·

· ·in the area of investigating earthquakes.23·


· · ·· Q.··And who reprimanded you for publishing this25·

Page 70

· ·article?·1·

· · ·· A.··The dean of the college.·2·

· · ·· Q.··What's his name?·3·

· · ·· A.··Dr. Larry Grillot.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Would you set the scene for the ladies and·5·

· ·gentlemen of the jury when you got reprimanded for·6·

· ·telling the truth about disposal wells causing·7·


· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to leading, move to·9·

· ·strike the statements, and relevance.10·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I'm just trying to discern if11·

· ·that's --12·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Go ahead.13·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··So I was just disappointed and devastated14·

· ·and, you know, it was one of those moments in life, you15·

· ·don't have many, where you wish you would have recorded16·

· ·a conversation, because I did not expect the17·

· ·conversation to go where it went, and it was just really18·

· ·disappointing.19·

· · · · ·· So I had taken the job at the Oklahoma Geological20·

· ·Survey because it was a perfect mix of what I wanted to21·

· ·do.··Seismology is a field where you're studying22·

· ·something that has a direct impact on human -- people's23·

· ·lives.··And so it's a way to help humanity.··But then I24·

· ·enjoy the process of teaching and educating students.25·

Page 71

· · · · ·· So I had a number of students that authored·1·

· ·papers for me as undergrads, which is quite·2·

· ·impressive -- I had no publications in my record as an·3·

· ·undergrad -- and I had the ability to run a seismic·4·

· ·network and then do the public outreach and explain·5·

· ·earthquake hazards and what to do during an earthquake.·6·

· · · · ·· And so, you know, it was sort of like realizing·7·

· ·that I could no longer be a scientist in an environment·8·

· ·that I thought was my perfect job was really·9·

· ·disheartening.··Not that there hadn't been periods where10·

· ·life has been pretty difficult as a state seismologist11·

· ·in Oklahoma.··But after being reprimanded for publishing12·

· ·a paper, I felt like I had just lost my dream job in one13·

· ·conversation.14·

· · · · ·· And the warning signs were there as far as being15·

· ·asked to remove presentations from scientific meetings16·

· ·and other things.··It was -- having my words edited by17·

· ·the dean was certainly, you know, some warning signs.18·

· ·But that was pretty much the turning point.19·

· · ·· Q.··Was that one of those times, one of those life20·

· ·decisions that you make based upon everything around21·

· ·you?22·

· · ·· A.··Yes and no.··I mean, it was -- it was a challenge23·

· ·to realize that, you know, what you thought you were24·

· ·doing may not have been, you know, quite what you25·

Page 72

· ·thought at the time.··So -- yeah, it was a gut check.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Everything you did while you were in Oklahoma was·2·

· ·based upon what you, as a scientist, believed was·3·

· ·appropriate for your position.··Correct?·4·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·5·

· · ·· Q.··And you were there to protect Mother Earth and·6·

· ·the people that live there.··That was one of your goals.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Leading.··Objection.·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Same objection.·9·

· · ·· A.··I was there to serve the people of Oklahoma as a10·

· ·public servant.11·

· · ·· Q.··What is your opinion of the November 2011 Prague12·

· ·earthquake's cause?13·

· · ·· A.··My opinion is that it is the result of wastewater14·

· ·disposal within the region.15·



· · ·· Q.··And in the time that you resigned -- I want to18·

· ·show you Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6.··Let me give you19·

· ·the form.20·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Can I see the highlighted21·

· ·version you handed the witness?22·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Just don't tear it up.23·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I'm not gonna tear it up.··I24·

· ·just want to look at it and see what was highlighted.25·


(Pages 73-76)


Page 73

· · ·· A.··I'm fine with the black-and-white one.··I read·1·

· ·it -- or I wrote it, so I should be able --·2·

· · ·· Q.··No, that one is the original.·3·

· · ·· A.··I read it, too, I guess, once.·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I just wanted to see what·5·

· ·was highlighted.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, on the highlighted edition, is this·7·

· ·article one that you authored somewhere around June or·8·

· ·July of 2015?·9·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So -- well, no, 2013.··This is -- it was10·

· ·actually authored and submitted -- it doesn't have the11·

· ·submission date.··Usually they include that.··I believe12·

· ·it was submitted in the end of 2012.··So this is13·

· ·discussing earthquakes that are triggered by hydraulic14·

· ·fracturing in south central Oklahoma.15·

· · ·· Q.··And you authored this one by yourself, right?16·


· · ·· Q.··And this was submitted to the Bulletin of the18·

· ·Seismological Society of America.··Who are they?19·

· · ·· A.··So the Seismological Society of America is a20·

· ·professional society, and they're the -- the21·

· ·Seismological Society of America, they're actually an22·

· ·international seismology organization.··I've been going23·

· ·to meetings, SSA meetings on and off since sometime in24·

· ·the 1990s.··And they have both a public service mission25·

Page 74

· ·as well as advancing the science itself mission.·1·

· · ·· Q.··You cited on page 2 the periodicals and journals·2·

· ·that you relied upon.·3·

· · ·· A.··So this isn't the complete paper, this is just an·4·

· ·excerpt of the abstract.··But this is, yes, some of the·5·

· ·identified references that relate -- or were cited in·6·

· ·the paper.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Did Boren or Hamm ever talk to you about that?·8·

· · ·· A.··About this paper?·9·

· · ·· Q.··About this one.10·

· · ·· A.··So that's -- primarily meeting with Harold Hamm11·

· ·was surrounding this paper and the fact that when asked12·

· ·by the public or the press whether earthquakes could be13·

· ·caused by hydraulic fracturing, I answered yes, because14·

· ·we had scientific evidence that that was possible.15·

· · ·· Q.··But your opinion here today is what, that they're16·

· ·caused by which -- it's your opinion as the seismologist17·

· ·of the Oklahoma Geologic Survey, before you left there,18·

· ·your opinion was that the earthquakes are caused by19·

· ·what?20·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to form.··Go ahead.21·

· · ·· Q.··Go ahead.22·

· · ·· A.··In Oklahoma, there are earthquakes triggered by23·

· ·both hydraulic fracturing as well as wastewater24·

· ·disposal.··And so the earthquakes triggered by hydraulic25·

Page 75

· ·fracturing actually represent a much easier target to·1·

· ·address and understand and perhaps mitigate because·2·

· ·you're looking at much shorter time scales, much smaller·3·

· ·distances of affected area.··And so they also may·4·

· ·provide additional information about what's going on on·5·

· ·the subsurface.·6·

· · · · ·· So I focused some of my research, a large portion·7·

· ·of my research, on earthquakes triggered by hydraulic·8·

· ·fracturing as an analog to understand what's occurring·9·

· ·for the larger issue of wastewater disposal wells.··So10·

· ·at any given time there are a lot more wastewater11·

· ·disposal wells operating within Oklahoma.12·

· · · · ·· And so as we said, in the state in 2015, the vast13·

· ·majority of earthquakes are triggered by wastewater14·

· ·disposal injection wells and not hydraulic fracturing.15·

· ·Not that we don't have earthquakes triggered by16·

· ·hydraulic fracturing, but the vast majority are actually17·

· ·caused by wastewater disposal.18·

· · ·· Q.··The ones that occurred in 2011 in Prague were19·

· ·caused by which part?20·

· · ·· A.··So there were no hydraulic fracturing operations21·

· ·occurring within the Prague area during the Prague22·

· ·earthquake sequence or immediately prior, and it is23·

· ·pretty clear from the body of research that the24·

· ·wastewater disposal wells are the triggers for the25·

Page 76

· ·Prague earthquake sequence.·1·



· · ·· Q.··And in the time that you decided to step in, I·4·

· ·have here a newspaper article written by -- it's in the·5·

· ·Journal Record -- which I've marked as Plaintiff's·6·

· ·Exhibit Number 3.··Do you remember being interviewed by·7·

· ·Sarah Terry-Cobo?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I do.·9·

· · ·· Q.··And is that interview one you did after you10·

· ·decided to step down?11·


· · ·· A.··That is an interview that I gave when I made the13·

· ·decision to step down, and it had become public14·

· ·knowledge that I was resigning from the Oklahoma15·


· · ·· Q.··And were you asked by any of the Journal Record17·

· ·people why you were leaving?18·

· · ·· A.··I was very careful in the way I stated why I was19·

· ·leaving.··I just stated that I have always wanted to20·

· ·live in New Mexico, which is absolutely true, and that21·

· ·it was time to move on.··And I needed time with my22·

· ·family.··I'd been averaging 80 to 100 hours a week.··The23·

· ·same dean that reprimanded me for publishing the paper24·

· ·asked me to publish a product which I had been working25·


(Pages 77-80)


Page 77

· ·on, but that also meant that -- and he gave me a·1·

· ·deadline -- but that meant for the next week I was not·2·

· ·going to see my family, I was simply going to work on·3·

· ·that product.··And while it was certainly a product I'm·4·

· ·proud of and glad to have out, the expectation was that·5·

· ·I would, you know, give up that time with my family to·6·

· ·do the work I needed to do at the OGS.·7·

· · ·· Q.··In the article that Terry-Cobo wrote, she says·8·

· ·"Holland became the epicenter or criticism about the·9·

· ·state's research and response to the ongoing earthquake10·

· ·swarms.··In April, he acknowledged oil and gas11·

· ·wastewater injection wells were likely correlated to12·

· ·earthquake swarms, and the state's seismic activity13·

· ·wasn't the result of natural phenomena.14·

· · · · ·· "Continental Resources geologist Glen Brown15·

· ·addressed the Oklahoma City Geological Society in the16·

· ·summer of 2014 and said the temblors could be linked to17·

· ·major tectonic shifts in the earth's crust, triggered by18·

· ·earthquakes in Japan and Haiti."19·

· · · · ·· Is that something that any seismologist would --20·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form.··Go21·

· ·ahead.22·

· · ·· A.··I was present for that talk.··I have not found a23·

· ·colleague that would agree with Glen Brown's assessment,24·

· ·but there may be some out there.··I haven't had a chance25·

Page 78

· ·to poll the entire seismic community.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And did you know Todd Halihan, the geology·2·

· ·professor geophysicist at Oklahoma State?·3·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I know Todd Halihan.··He served on the·4·

· ·governor's coordinating council.·5·

· · ·· Q.··He's quoted as -- well, not quoted, but·6·

· ·referenced -- "Oklahoma State University geophysicist·7·

· ·Todd Halihan was critical that Holland's research didn't·8·

· ·make the connection with injection wells sooner."··Did·9·

· ·you --10·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object -- sorry.11·

· · ·· Q.··Did you ever have any debates with him?12·


· · ·· A.··So, yes, Todd Halihan and I had some14·

· ·disagreements, but he was not aware of the political15·

· ·pressures I was under and that I didn't have the ability16·

· ·to say publicly what scientists were all coming to as17·

· ·far as conclusions.18·

· · · · ·· So while I didn't have that ability to say that19·

· ·publicly, I was expressing that to the oil and gas20·

· ·regulators and operators, explaining to them that21·

· ·earthquakes are being caused by wastewater disposal.22·

· · ·· Q.··And Austin, when you told all of them that, that23·

· ·takes us back to the days when you were a young man up24·

· ·in Idaho enjoying Mother Earth, climbing mountains,25·

Page 79

· ·looking at majoring in geology and what you did to·1·

· ·become who you are today, right?·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, relevance.·3·


· · ·· A.··So most geophysicists end up working in the oil·5·

· ·and gas industry.··That's where the jobs are; that's·6·

· ·where the money's at.··I always chose not to work in the·7·

· ·oil and gas industry because for a lot of people, that·8·

· ·was their dream job.··For me, I had no desire to help·9·

· ·pollute the earth.··I figure that's someone else's dream10·

· ·job.··But it happened.··Now, I'm also a pragmatist and11·

· ·realize we all need a job and need to eat.··But, yeah,12·

· ·for me I chose a different path.13·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, nonresponsive.··Move to14·

· ·strike.15·

· · ·· Q.··And you said "pollute the earth."··Is that what16·

· ·you learned they were doing in Oklahoma with the17·

· ·hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal wells?18·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, relevance.20·

· · ·· A.··So I did learn about a number of environmental21·

· ·issues surrounding the oil and gas industry that I was22·

· ·not aware of prior to my work in Oklahoma.23·

· · ·· Q.··With regard to your resignation -- I've got24·

· ·another one here.··This one is from the Oklahoman, and25·

Page 80

· ·it's "Top Quake Scientist in State to Leave Post."··Do·1·

· ·you remember that one?·2·

· · ·· A.··No, I don't.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Do you ever remember Paul Monies interviewing·4·

· ·you?·5·

· · ·· A.··No, but I've done thousands of interviews.·6·



· · ·· Q.··You said in this article you've averaged about 80·9·

· ·hours each -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 -- "...averaged10·

· ·about 80 hours each week for the five-and-a-half years11·

· ·I've been here.··I want to change my work-life balance,12·

· ·and this opportunity is a good way to do it."··And then13·

· ·they talk about the increase in earthquakes, some of14·

· ·which have been linked to disposal wells producing water15·

· ·from oil and gas, and then they talk about different16·

· ·quotes from different people.17·

· · · · ·· Does this make you feel good to know that you18·

· ·were recognized as somebody that would stand up for the19·

· ·people in the face of oil and gas political people20·

· ·trying to intimidate you?21·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Object to the leading, relevance.22·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Misstates the evidence.23·

· · ·· A.··It was certainly nice to see some of these quotes24·

· ·by Chad Warmington and others that I've worked with25·


(Pages 81-84)


Page 81

· ·through the years.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And who is Chad Warmington?·2·

· · ·· A.··He was the Oil and Gas Association.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.··Yeah.··In the time that you worked for the·4·

· ·state of Oklahoma and were here and formed these·5·

· ·opinions about disposal wells triggering the earthquakes·6·

· ·and made those known publicly to try to help the public·7·

· ·understand and help the oil and gas industry recognize·8·

· ·the dangers, were there ever any times when you felt·9·

· ·comfortable around our politicians or politics?10·

· · ·· A.··So Representative Murphey is a politician who his11·

· ·district started experiencing a very large number of12·

· ·earthquakes in 2014.··And so in that sense -- and he was13·

· ·the politician I interacted with the most and generated14·

· ·a rapport with.··But as far as like the general overall15·

· ·state politics, it was a very bizarre sequence.··I did16·

· ·not have much interactions with politicians in the state17·

· ·of Oklahoma regarding this issue.18·

· · ·· Q.··How do you feel, looking back on it, to know what19·

· ·you know today and look back on what happened in20·

· ·Oklahoma?21·

· · ·· A.··I guess I'm not sure I understand the question.22·

· · ·· Q.··When you look back on what happened in Oklahoma,23·

· ·was that one great learning experience about the control24·

· ·that big money in oil and gas can have over government?25·

Page 82

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, relevance, leading.·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Yeah.··Same objection.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAAC:··He's an expert.··I'm asking for·3·

· ·his opinion.·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I want to voir dire the witness if·5·

· ·you're gonna ask him opinions about being an expert in·6·

· ·Oklahoma politics.··Are you, sir, an expert in Oklahoma·7·

· ·politics?·8·

· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:··No, I am not.·9·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I didn't think so.··Objection,10·

· ·move to strike.11·


· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··They keep making these13·

· ·objections because they don't want the jury to hear what14·

· ·politics do in Oklahoma.··How about telling the jury15·

· ·right now what we need to do here in this courtroom to16·

· ·stand up for people like Ms. Cooper, whose house was17·

· ·damaged during the Prague earthquake?18·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection to the question, move to19·

· ·strike the speaking, no relevance.20·


· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··This is an expert witness and22·

· ·it's a hypothetical question.··It's a proper question.23·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Sir, does this call upon your25·

Page 83

· ·expertise as a seismologist?·1·

· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:··I'm not sure it does, no.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I'm not sure it does either.··We·3·

· ·object.·4·


· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··You're a human being; you've·6·

· ·experienced it.··What do you take away from it, Austin?·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, relevance.·8·

· · ·· A.··I guess I'll take a stab at walking this line and·9·

· ·seeing what happens.··So, you know, I think that science10·

· ·has grown to a point where we can be fairly confident11·

· ·that, again, the vast majority of earthquakes in12·

· ·Oklahoma are being caused by wastewater disposal and13·

· ·that, you know, there are certainly steps that have been14·

· ·identified that could reduce those risks.··The challenge15·

· ·has been getting those steps adopted as a general16·

· ·practice.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Let's take a break for 1018·

· ·minutes.19·

· · · · · · · · (A recess was taken from 11:18 a.m. to20·

· ·11:28 a.m., and testimony continued as follows:)21·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··Austin, after the Prague22·

· ·earthquakes occurred in November 2011 that we've talked23·

· ·about, did anyone from New Dominion pressure you to not24·

· ·connect the seismicity to wastewater disposal?25·

Page 84

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure "pressure" is the right word, but we·1·

· ·certainly met and discussed things with people from New·2·

· ·Dominion.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Who did you meet with?·4·

· · ·· A.··Primarily Jean Antonides.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Where did that meeting take place?·6·

· · ·· A.··We've primarily had meetings at New Dominion's·7·

· ·headquarters in Tulsa.·8·

· · ·· Q.··And when you had that meeting, reconstruct that·9·

· ·for us, who was there and what was said.10·

· · ·· A.··That's gonna be a challenge without going further11·

· ·into my notes.··I can say that at one point, Jean12·

· ·provided a paper to us where he was looking at the13·

· ·contribution of shallow aquifer to triggering of14·

· ·earthquakes, and he was looking at those as potential15·

· ·triggers for the Prague earthquake and others within16·

· ·Oklahoma.··But we also met and they provided things like17·

· ·the pressure falloff for their wells and other18·

· ·geotechnical information within the area to help us19·

· ·better understand the geology.20·

· · ·· Q.··Who else was in that meeting with you?21·

· · ·· A.··The director of the geological survey, Dr. Randy22·

· ·Keller.23·

· · ·· Q.··And in that meeting that we're talking about, how24·

· ·much of the time was about talking about wastewater25·


(Pages 85-88)


Page 85

· ·disposal's connection to seismicity?·1·

· · ·· A.··There was some discussion of this.··This was·2·

· ·after Katie Keranen's paper had been published, and so·3·

· ·there was quite a bit of concern.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Just so the jury understands this, what was the·5·

· ·subject matter of Katie Keranen's paper that she just·6·

· ·published?·7·

· · ·· A.··She was discussing the Prague 2011 earthquake.·8·

· · ·· Q.··And what did she attribute the causation to?·9·

· · ·· A.··That's a USGS publication.··The publication10·

· ·speaks for itself, and I cannot speak to that as an11·

· ·employee of the U.S. Geological Survey.12·

· · ·· Q.··In this same time period, when you're in that13·

· ·meeting with New Dominion, were you shown any documents14·

· ·or any reports from anybody else?15·

· · ·· A.··Just the report from New Dominion on what they16·

· ·were looking at for the aquifer triggering of the17·

· ·earthquakes.18·

· · ·· Q.··With regard -- let's switch now to Spess Oil.19·

· ·Did you feel pressure -- oh, okay.··What was said about20·

· ·Katie Keranen and her published study there when you21·

· ·were in the New Dominion meeting?22·

· · ·· A.··We were told that they were looking at ways to23·

· ·file a lawsuit against her.24·

· · ·· Q.··What did they tell you was New Dominion's plan in25·

Page 86

· ·dealing with her in the future?·1·

· · ·· A.··They just wanted to make things uncomfortable for·2·

· ·her, is what they said.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Now, had Katie Keranen left and gone to Cornell·4·

· ·yet, or was she still here in Oklahoma?·5·

· · ·· A.··I believe she was still at the University of·6·

· ·Oklahoma at the time of that meeting.·7·

· · ·· Q.··In the Spess Oil issue that we were gonna talk·8·

· ·about, did you feel pressure from them not to publicly·9·

· ·make the link between seismicity and wastewater disposal10·

· ·operations?11·

· · ·· A.··I tried contacting Spess a number of times and12·

· ·was unable to make contact.··I was trying to get13·

· ·technical information regarding their wells, and so I14·

· ·was unable to make contact with Spess and didn't have15·

· ·any interactions with them, that I'm aware of.16·

· · ·· Q.··Did any others pressure you not to link17·

· ·seismicity near Prague in November of 2011 and18·

· ·wastewater disposal injection or disposal?19·

· · ·· A.··The director of the Geological Survey and the20·

· ·dean of the college.21·

· · ·· Q.··Who was the director of the Geological Survey?22·

· · ·· A.··Dr. Randy Keller.23·

· · ·· Q.··And who was the dean of the college?24·

· · ·· A.··Dr. Larry Grillot.25·

Page 87

· · ·· Q.··So Grillot and the college told you not to make·1·

· ·that connection.·2·

· · ·· A.··I provided Dr. Keller and Dr. Grillot a set of·3·

· ·where we stand in the research, and I said that we can't·4·

· ·reject the normal -- at that time we couldn't reject the·5·

· ·normal hypothesis that the earthquakes were induced --·6·

· ·or that we couldn't reject the hypothesis that the·7·

· ·earthquakes were natural.··But if we assumed the·8·

· ·earthquakes were induced, we could not reject that·9·

· ·normal hypothesis either, such that we couldn't really10·

· ·say scientifically at that point one way or the other11·

· ·whether the earthquakes were induced by wastewater12·

· ·disposal or not.13·

· · · · ·· And then that got turned into a statement saying14·

· ·that the earthquakes were naturally-occurring15·

· ·earthquakes -- or consistently naturally-occurring16·


· · ·· Q.··What was your opinion at that time?18·

· · ·· A.··My opinion at that time was that more research19·

· ·needed to be done and that a public statement was20·

· ·perhaps inappropriate and misleading, particularly when21·

· ·it had been curated at that point.22·

· · ·· Q.··Had you formed any opinion at that time that it23·

· ·was the wastewater disposal wells causing the Prague24·


Page 88

· · ·· A.··No.··I was still working with the information·1·

· ·provided to me to formulate an opinion.·2·

· · ·· Q.··And when did you come to that conclusion, that·3·

· ·the wastewater disposal wells were causing the Prague·4·


· · ·· A.··So in this particular case of causation, I would·6·

· ·say that it was at the -- towards the end of my time at·7·

· ·the Oklahoma Geological Survey.··As more research came·8·

· ·out, other studies came out -- there's Walsh and Zoback,·9·

· ·a number of papers that really helped to solidify my10·

· ·understanding of the Prague earthquake.11·

· · · · ·· And probably the -- at the point where the12·

· ·additional magnitude five earthquakes that have occurred13·

· ·since I left Oklahoma certainly strengthens the14·

· ·argument, because one of the arguments is, "Well, we've15·

· ·never had an earthquake of this size triggered by16·

· ·wastewater disposal."··So that scientific argument or17·

· ·that sort of coincidental argument is now a bit null and18·

· ·void.··And Art McGarr has refined some of his concepts19·

· ·on wastewater volume and triggering and things that help20·

· ·us understand it better.21·

· · · · ·· So there is a large number of researchers working22·

· ·both within the United States and around the world.23·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Let me stop you right there.24·

· ·Professor Walsh is at Stanford, is he not?25·


(Pages 89-92)


Page 89

· · ·· A.··He was a student at Stanford.··He was not a·1·

· ·professor there at Stanford.··I don't know where he's at·2·

· ·today.·3·

· · ·· Q.··It was Professor Walsh who was the person you·4·

· ·referred to as one believing that it was wastewater·5·

· ·disposal causing the earthquakes in Prague, correct?·6·

· · ·· A.··So it was the work he did with Dr. Mark Zoback.·7·

· · ·· Q.··And Dr. Zoback is at what university?·8·

· · ·· A.··He's at Stanford.·9·

· · ·· Q.··So Zoback and Walsh publicly published a paper10·

· ·that treated the fault for the Prague earthquakes to be11·

· ·wastewater disposal wells, correct?12·

· · ·· A.··I think that's an oversimplification of some of13·

· ·their research.··Dr. Zoback demonstrated that it's14·

· ·actually more likely to have triggered seismicity when15·

· ·you're in an under-pressured system.··And that's16·

· ·important because the formations that are primarily used17·

· ·for disposal in Oklahoma are under-pressured systems.18·

· ·And, you know, that's an important step in understanding19·

· ·that you can have these cases of triggered seismicity in20·

· ·an under-pressured system like that.21·

· · · · ·· The vast majority of cases that occurred22·

· ·previously in the published literature have been in23·

· ·these over-pressured systems, similar to hydraulic24·

· ·fracturing cases where you're over-pressuring to break25·

Page 90

· ·the rock.·1·

· · ·· Q.··What was the location of those over-pressured·2·

· ·systems?·3·

· · ·· A.··So we have examples of over-pressured triggered·4·

· ·seismicity all over the world for decades.·5·

· · ·· Q.··The under-pressured systems are the ones --·6·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.·7·

· · ·· Q.··-- that dispose of the water, correct?·8·


· · ·· Q.··The water is disposed into the under-pressured10·

· ·systems.11·


· · ·· Q.··And has Zoback or Walsh, either one, published13·

· ·any other learned treatise or any other article about14·

· ·disposal wells causing earthquakes?15·

· · ·· A.··Yes.16·

· · ·· Q.··When did they publish those?17·

· · ·· A.··I can't answer that question accurately at this18·

· ·time, but that's something that is readily available.19·

· ·Zoback did publish an article in 2012 that discussed20·

· ·steps industry could take to address induced seismicity21·

· ·in oil and gas operations.··And one of those is don't22·

· ·inject wastewater into faults and, you know, understand23·

· ·the stresses, be prepared to change your injection24·

· ·activities if there's seismicity within the area.··So he25·

Page 91

· ·gave a number of guidelines.··It was sort of like a best·1·

· ·practices line in 2012 that's highly cited.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Do you agree with what Walsh has said, and·3·

· ·Zoback?·4·

· · ·· A.··As far as in their published literature, yeah.··I·5·

· ·don't -- I may be able to find one sentence that I·6·

· ·wouldn't agree with.··But overall, absolutely.·7·

· · ·· Q.··On Spess Oil, did anyone from Spess pressure you·8·

· ·not to connect the seismicity to wastewater disposal?·9·

· · ·· A.··I had no interactions with Spess Oil.10·

· · ·· Q.··Ever?11·

· · ·· A.··Not that I'm aware of.12·

· · ·· Q.··Did anybody from --13·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Is it "Speese" or "Spess"?14·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··"Spess."15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··"Spess."··Okay.16·

· · ·· Q.··Did Spess Oil ever at any time make a statement17·

· ·that there was no connection between seismicity and18·

· ·wastewater disposal operations?19·

· · ·· A.··I can't speak to that.20·

· · ·· Q.··Were there any others who pressured you not to21·

· ·link the seismicity near Prague in November of 2011 to22·

· ·wastewater injection or disposal?23·

· · ·· A.··I did have a meeting with Devon that got --24·

· · ·· Q.··Devon Energy?25·

Page 92

· · ·· A.··Devon Energy.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Oklahoma City?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yes, where I was asked to go to a meeting with·3·

· ·Randy Keller.··And at that point, they showed us a·4·

· ·letter that they were going to provide to, I believe the·5·

· ·Secretary of Energy or the Governor, and that they·6·

· ·expressed concerns about triggered seismicity because·7·

· ·they knew that we had been looking into triggered·8·

· ·seismicity prior to the Prague earthquake occurring.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, can you give us, to the best of your10·

· ·recollection, what that letter said?11·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, relevance and12·

· ·hearsay.13·

· · ·· A.··I cannot recall exactly what it said, but it was14·

· ·primarily that the Prague earthquake was an actual15·

· ·earthquake and that it was unlikely that any triggered16·

· ·seismicity has occurred in Oklahoma, or something along17·

· ·those lines.··I don't know the wording, and it would be18·

· ·speculative to say anything beyond that.19·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Did any other oil and gas company contact20·

· ·you and give you any -- put any pressure on you or try21·

· ·to influence your opinion about wastewater disposal and22·

· ·fracking?23·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··There's something like 3,000 oil and gas24·

· ·operators in the state of Oklahoma, maybe more, and just25·


(Pages 93-96)


Page 93

· ·like the public could call and express their opinions, I·1·

· ·heard from plenty of people within the industry.·2·

· ·Honestly, I got just as much pressure from·3·

· ·environmentalists screaming at me why I haven't said·4·

· ·more about earthquakes and triggered -- induced·5·

· ·seismicity.·6·

· · · · ·· So I absolutely heard from a lot of people and a·7·

· ·lot of opinions.··And I put those aside and tried to do·8·

· ·science.·9·

· · ·· Q.··That's good.··Did the Oklahoma Oil and Gas10·

· ·Association, through one of its officers or members,11·

· ·pressure you to not publicly make the connection between12·

· ·disposal wells and earthquakes between any operation of13·

· ·fracking causing earthquakes?14·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection to the form.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, relevance.16·

· · ·· A.··So most of the oil and gas associations within17·

· ·the state of Oklahoma try to help understand where we're18·

· ·at with the science and explain that to their members.19·

· ·I did not receive pressure from any organized20·

· ·associations.21·

· · ·· Q.··How about the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum22·

· ·Association?23·

· · ·· A.··Again, I was lumping them in with that same24·

· ·group.25·

Page 94

· · ·· Q.··Okay.·1·

· · ·· A.··Certainly, they were concerned about things, but·2·

· ·as a group, there was no intimidation or anything like·3·

· ·that.··They were trying to help their members navigate·4·

· ·the changing landscape.·5·

· · ·· Q.··In that timeframe, is there anybody else that·6·

· ·contacted you that tried to get you to change something?·7·

· · ·· A.··Like I said, I got contacted by people from all·8·

· ·over the country, all over the state.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.10·

· · ·· A.··So, yeah, there were lots of people that tried to11·

· ·change my opinions or change how we were perceiving12·

· ·things.13·

· · ·· Q.··Let me change subjects now.··In that conversation14·

· ·you had with Larry Grillot and Devon involving your15·

· ·reprimand, what -- can you reenact that for us?16·


· · ·· Q.··Tell us what happened, who said what.18·

· · ·· A.··So I went up to him and -- up to his office.19·

· · ·· Q.··That's in Devon Tower?20·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.21·

· · ·· Q.··Downtown Oklahoma City?22·

· · ·· A.··Is it Devon?··I can't remember.23·

· · ·· Q.··Oh, I'm sorry.··I'm -- Grillot is the dean down24·

· ·at the university.25·

Page 95

· · ·· A.··Yeah.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Did Grillot meet you at the university?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So Dr. Grillot asked me to come up to his·3·

· ·office.··It was the day that this had been released for·4·

· ·pre-review for the press.··Now scientific journals are·5·

· ·trying to get in on the media hype, so the media gets·6·

· ·scientific journals before the scientists do.··I'm not·7·

· ·sure how I feel about that.··Actually, I am, but --·8·

· · · · ·· So anyway, I provided him the media copy that I·9·

· ·had, and he asked me to come up to his office.··And when10·

· ·I got to his office, he said "This is unacceptable."11·

· ·And I --12·

· · ·· Q.··How did you feel about that, when he said "This13·

· ·is unacceptable"?14·

· · ·· A.··It was disappointing.15·

· · ·· Q.··Did it make you angry?16·

· · ·· A.··So -- yeah.··It was -- I don't know if "angry" is17·

· ·the right word, but just disappointed, you know, that18·

· ·I'd spent my time, you know, working towards something,19·

· ·and I thought I was in my dream job, and then I couldn't20·

· ·be a scientist and do what scientists do, and that's21·

· ·publish with colleagues.22·

· · ·· Q.··What did it mean to you when he said that?23·

· · ·· A.··Well, that's the point at which I realized that24·

· ·for my scientific credibility, I had to leave the25·

Page 96

· ·position I was in.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Can you tell the jury today what about that was·2·

· ·unacceptable to him?·3·

· · ·· A.··So it was the fact that --·4·

· · ·· Q.··To Dean Grillot.·5·

· · ·· A.··So, for instance, it says it's a·6·

· ·policy -- Science "Policy," I believe, is the section·7·

· ·it's in.··But he -- let me find it.··There's a key·8·

· ·sentence that -- but it was the fact that it was a·9·

· ·policy statement even though it was produced by10·

· ·scientists in a scientific journal.11·

· · ·· Q.··Now, what's the exhibit number on that?12·

· · ·· A.··That is Exhibit 9.13·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.··Okay.14·

· · ·· A.··But -- oh, I don't know if I'm gonna be able --15·

· ·so there are a certain number of things in here that he16·

· ·was unhappy with.··But the primary -- oh, I guess17·

· ·"Policy" is right here in the margin.··So the primary18·

· ·issue was that it was a policy statement and it made19·

· ·recommendations.20·

· · ·· Q.··Would you read that part of that area to the21·

· ·jury, which --22·

· · ·· A.··I cannot read that -- I cannot read that section23·

· ·because it's a USGS publication, and as a USGS employee,24·

· ·the publication is available and speaks for itself.25·


(Pages 97-100)


Page 97

· · ·· Q.··Can we flash back to --·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··I don't understand why the·2·

· ·person with whom he's having the conversation can't·3·

· ·testify to that.·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··We haven't done his deposition·5·

· ·yet.··He may change his mind and want to manufacture·6·

· ·something.··You know what I mean?·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··I'll tell you what.··I will·8·

· ·allow it for the purposes of recollection of what·9·

· ·Dr. Holland believes happened that day.··But other than10·

· ·that, conclusions as to the paper itself, the paper11·

· ·speaks for itself.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.13·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··So it's the fact that it was a policy14·

· ·paper in Science magazine, which Science is a very15·

· ·respected magazine.··There is a statement in here -- oh.16·

· ·"Even if a network is owned and operated by industry,17·

· ·regulators must ensure that seismic data are not18·

· ·withheld from the public.··Similarly, making injection19·

· ·data, such as daily injection rates, wellhead pressures,20·

· ·depth of the injection interval, and properties of the21·

· ·target formation, publicly accessible can be invaluable22·

· ·for attaining a better understanding of fluid-induced23·

· ·earthquakes.··Open sharing of data can benefit all24·

· ·stakeholders, including industry, by enabling the25·

Page 98

· ·research needed to develop more effective techniques for·1·

· ·reducing the seismic hazard."·2·

· · · · ·· That's in the concluding paragraph.··And that was·3·

· ·what we spent most of the time discussing.·4·

· · ·· Q.··The concluding paragraph?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Was that the part that he found unacceptable?·7·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I believe so.··And the fact that it was a·8·

· ·policy paper issued in a "Policy" section of a·9·

· ·scientific journal.10·

· · ·· Q.··Did Grillot say anything else to you critical of11·

· ·what was included in Plaintiff's Exhibit 9, "Coping with12·

· ·earthquakes induced by fluid injection"?13·

· · ·· A.··As I mentioned, that was one of those14·

· ·conversations where I was not expecting what occurred,15·

· ·and I wish I would have had a recording of it, and I did16·

· ·not have the foresight to go make notes.··I was sort of17·

· ·washing my hands of where I was at and what I was doing18·

· ·at that point.19·

· · ·· Q.··Did he ever send you any reprimand in writing?20·

· · ·· A.··No, not generally.··After a large number of open21·

· ·records requests, primarily the way that internal22·

· ·conversations occurred was over the phone or in person,23·

· ·so that there was not a searchable record of24·

· ·conversations.25·

Page 99

· · ·· Q.··Now, in addition to Dean Grillot, why was·1·

· ·Amberlee Darold reprimanded?·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, relevance.·3·

· ·Sorry.··Go ahead.·4·

· · ·· A.··Amberlee was reprimanded for in time saying that·5·

· ·it looked like the majority of earthquakes were induced.·6·

· ·And she was fairly new to the job, and I was out giving·7·

· ·a talk somewhere, and the scientific consensus had grown·8·

· ·to that point, and I certainly don't fault her for·9·

· ·saying where the science had gone and the understanding10·

· ·of the scientific community at that point.··But she did11·

· ·get reprimanded because a number of people saw this12·

· ·article, and it was expressed to her that she should not13·

· ·be speaking to the press.14·

· · ·· Q.··Did you and Amberlee have any reprimand from15·

· ·anybody for being at the FOX 25 Town Hall meeting at16·

· ·Oklahoma City University's business school?17·

· · ·· A.··No.18·

· · ·· Q.··So you never got one on that.19·

· · ·· A.··No.20·

· · ·· Q.··What was the product that Dean Grillot wanted you21·

· ·to work on, but you didn't perform due to your22·

· ·resignation?23·

· · ·· A.··Oh, no.··I performed the product, but it was -- I24·

· ·was working nights and weekends.··It was the preliminary25·

Page 100

· ·fault map for Oklahoma.··So I'd been having students·1·

· ·work on digitizing every fault that could be identified·2·

· ·in the published literature and creating a database of·3·

· ·those.·4·

· · · · ·· And then one product of that database, which is·5·

· ·now a published OGS open file report on the database·6·

· ·itself, was going to be an interpretive fault map.··And·7·

· ·he wanted an interpretive fault map prior to or·8·

· ·corresponding to the release of the 2015 statement where·9·

· ·we said the vast majority of the earthquakes were10·

· ·induced by wastewater disposal.11·

· · · · ·· But we still had students digitizing faults.··We12·

· ·had been given faults from industry as part of this13·

· ·effort.··And so I went through and took all these faults14·

· ·together.··And it's an example of, you know, some of the15·

· ·statements I read before where we were working together16·

· ·to try and get the answer.17·

· · · · ·· So I was given a large number of faults by oil18·

· ·and gas collaborators through the Oklahoma Independent19·

· ·Petroleum Association.··So I had to sit down with, say,20·

· ·60 different versions of faults in some areas and work21·

· ·out some average aggregate for that area and try and22·

· ·decide, "Okay.··This is from 3D seismic.··It's better23·

· ·than this fault that was mapped from, you know, well24·

· ·tops."25·


(Pages 101-104)


Page 101

· · · · ·· So it was a lot of work to take all these·1·

· ·different datasets and go through them, you know, acre·2·

· ·by acre on my computer and clean that up such that it·3·

· ·was appropriate for publication.··And, I mean, I'm proud·4·

· ·of it as a piece of my work, but it was a very big "ask"·5·

· ·that meant we didn't get as much information into the·6·

· ·fault map, which is why I called it preliminary, as we·7·

· ·could have had we waited.·8·

· · · · ·· And it probably would have been a better product·9·

· ·where there were multiple versions of a fault, such as10·

· ·the Wilzetta fault that's very obvious, that could --11·

· ·you know, could have maybe been enhanced more.··Because12·

· ·there are certainly places where -- and this is probably13·

· ·true of every map -- but there are certainly places14·

· ·where that geologic interpretation is inaccurate.15·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, do you remember the names of the property16·

· ·owners you visited with near Prague after the17·

· ·earthquakes in Prague?18·

· · ·· A.··I have -- all my notes, all my paper notes, I19·

· ·left at the Geological Survey.··I should remember a20·

· ·bunch of these names because I've exchanged a lot of21·

· ·e-mails and phone calls with them.··I'm drawing blanks22·

· ·at the moment.23·

· · ·· Q.··Did you go out and see the Coopers?24·

· · ·· A.··I did not see the Cooper house.··I saw a lot of25·

Page 102

· ·damaged houses within the area.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And Ladra, did you go to Ms. Ladra's house?·2·

· · ·· A.··I did not go to Ms. Ladra's house as well.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And did you see the pictures from Ms. Ladra's·4·

· ·house?·5·

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure if I did.·6·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection -- I'm sorry.·7·

· ·Excuse me.··I'm gonna object as outside the scope of the·8·

· ·expertise he has, and it's certainly hearsay.··Go ahead·9·

· ·and answer the question.10·

· · ·· A.··So I'm not sure if I saw pictures.··I think11·

· ·Ms. Ladra shared those with the news, so there's a12·

· ·chance that I did see them.··But I did see13·

· ·characteristic earthquake damage throughout a very large14·

· ·portion of central Oklahoma.15·

· · ·· Q.··Did you see Cooper's photos?16·

· · ·· A.··I didn't.17·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Where did you put the seismicity18·

· ·monitoring equipment after the Prague earthquake?19·

· · ·· A.··We put it right on top of the epicentral area.20·

· · ·· Q.··Would that have been right by the Ladra's house,21·

· ·at the entrance to the house, the little trail that goes22·

· ·down to where her house was?23·

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure I'm aware of her address.24·

· · ·· Q.··She's out in the country.25·

Page 103

· · ·· A.··Well, everybody out there is out in the country.·1·

· ·Let me say it this way:··We put the instruments near the·2·

· ·earthquakes and expand it outwards.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.·4·

· · ·· A.··We had a station at -- oh, what's the elderly·5·

· ·couple -- their chimney went right through their roof.·6·

· ·Oh, come on.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Renault.·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So I'd gone out, as I said, in 2010, after·9·

· ·the magnitude four earthquake.··And so we had a station10·

· ·there at their house, but we had many more.··We11·

· ·installed four that Dr. Keranen had, a few instruments12·

· ·that I had available to me, and another 11 or 12 that13·

· ·were provided through a research institution.14·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Okay.··Let's have a lunch break15·

· ·and come back at 1:00 and try to finish it up.16·

· · · · · · · · (The noon recess was taken from 12:02 p.m.17·

· ·to 1:11 p.m., and testimony continued as follows:)18·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Back on the record.19·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Isaacs)··Austin, you're back under oath.20·

· ·Okay?21·

· · ·· A.··Correct.22·

· · ·· Q.··You are a seismologist and you've been trained.23·

· ·Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of24·

· ·certainty that the disposal of wastewater into25·

Page 104

· ·formations where seismic faults are known to exist is·1·

· ·not a common practice and creates an unreasonable risk·2·

· ·of causing induced earthquakes?·3·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Based upon your education and training, is the·5·

· ·disposal of oil field wastewater into the Arbuckle·6·

· ·formation within the area of interest abnormally·7·

· ·dangerous?·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form, calls·9·

· ·for a legal conclusion, foundation.10·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··He's already laid the11·

· ·foundation.12·

· · ·· A.··I -- yes.13·

· · ·· Q.··In looking at this as an abnormally dangerous,14·

· ·ultrahazardous activity, is it inappropriate as it15·

· ·created a known high degree of induced seismicity16·

· ·resulting in numerous earthquakes and risk of great harm17·

· ·to persons and their property within the area of Prague,18·

· ·which is a risk that cannot be eliminated by the19·

· ·exercise of reasonable care?20·


· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, calls for a legal22·

· ·conclusion.23·

· · ·· A.··So as I understand -- what was the phrase that --24·

· ·"hazard"?··Or what --25·


(Pages 105-108)


Page 105

· · ·· Q.··Yes.·1·

· · ·· A.··What's that phrase?·2·

· · ·· Q.··Ultrahazardous activity.·3·

· · ·· A.··Ultrahazardous activity.··As I understand that,·4·

· ·wastewater injection would fall under an ultrahazardous·5·

· ·activity.··And probably the classic example would be the·6·

· ·case of the Rocky Mountain arsenal where it was·7·

· ·recognized that wastewater injection was causing·8·

· ·earthquakes, the Army ceased injection in the disposal·9·

· ·well, and yet the largest damaging earthquake occurred10·

· ·sometime after injection had ceased.··And as such,11·

· ·there's a risk that is inherent in wastewater disposal.12·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this13·

· ·is a risk of great harm to persons and their property14·

· ·within that area of interest, such as Prague?15·

· · ·· A.··Yes.16·


· · ·· Q.··And in your opinion, is this a risk which cannot18·

· ·be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care?19·

· · ·· A.··Yes.20·

· · ·· Q.··In your opinion, is conducting this activity, the21·

· ·disposal -- operating the disposal wells and dumping22·

· ·water into them, is that activity egregiously gross23·

· ·negligence with reckless disregard for the public safety24·

· ·of property and people?25·

Page 106

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Object to the form, calls·1·

· ·for speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, etc.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Join the objection.·3·

· · ·· A.··So as I understand the language, yes, I believe·4·

· ·it does represent that.·5·

· · ·· Q.··And based on all these facts that we have in the·6·

· ·case where we know that the disposal wells were causing·7·

· ·earthquakes, do you have an opinion to a reasonable·8·

· ·degree of certainty that this is an ultrahazardous·9·

· ·activity which endangers people and their property?10·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Same objections.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Same objections.12·

· · ·· A.··Yes.13·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··No further questions.14·

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·· EXAMINATION15·

· ·BY MR. PRITCHETT:16·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Mr. Holland, my name is Edd17·

· ·Pritchett.··I represent Spess in this case, and we met18·

· ·this morning.··You and I haven't talked before, have we?19·

· · ·· A.··No, we haven't.20·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Have you talked to Mr. Isaacs before?21·

· · ·· A.··Yes.22·

· · ·· Q.··How many times?23·

· · ·· A.··Several.24·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··When you say "several," I tend to think25·

Page 107

· ·that's three.··Is it more than three or less than three?·1·

· · ·· A.··I usually think of a few as three.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.·3·

· · ·· A.··But -- so, yes, it's definitely more than three.·4·

· ·Probably 10 or 15 times.·5·

· · ·· Q.··When were you first contacted by Mr. Isaacs?·6·

· · ·· A.··I was first contacted approximately a year ago·7·

· ·regarding being a witness in this case.·8·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And during that conversation, what·9·

· ·did Mr. Isaacs have to say to you?10·

· · ·· A.··He asked if I could do that, and I said, well, I11·

· ·would look into it.··We talked about some of the stuff12·

· ·that he talked to me today about, about my Town Hall13·

· ·meeting that I held with FOX 25.··He was impressed with14·

· ·that, and felt that the state seismologist for Oklahoma15·

· ·could offer a lot to the case involving damages from16·


· · ·· Q.··How long did these meetings take?18·

· · ·· A.··The first one that we met was over coffee, and it19·

· ·was, I don't know, maybe a half an hour or so.20·

· · ·· Q.··And what about some of these other meetings, have21·

· ·you had any physical meetings with Mr. Isaacs?22·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I have had other physical meetings with23·

· ·Mr. Isaacs.··Mr. Isaacs came over -- was it a week ago24·

· ·on the weekend -- to prepare me for what he was going to25·

Page 108

· ·ask me and go through some of the materials he showed as·1·

· ·exhibits.·2·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··You said that -- did he show you any·3·

· ·other documents that we haven't seen here today?·4·

· · ·· A.··He provided me the Cooper deposition, which I·5·

· ·have not had a chance to look at.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Anything else?·7·

· · ·· A.··No.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Are you being paid for your testimony in this·9·

· ·case?10·

· · ·· A.··No, I am not.11·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··How about other attorneys for the12·

· ·plaintiff; Scott Poynter, have you met with him before?13·

· · ·· A.··I have not.14·

· · ·· Q.··How about David Poarch?15·

· · ·· A.··David Poarch was at the first meeting I had with16·

· ·Mr. Isaacs.17·

· · ·· Q.··Was that your only meeting with him?18·

· · ·· A.··Yes.19·

· · ·· Q.··How about Larry Lenora?20·

· · ·· A.··Never had any interactions with Larry Lenora.21·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Now, in what disciplines are you22·

· ·holding yourself out as an expert in this case?23·

· · ·· A.··Seismology.24·

· · ·· Q.··How about geophysics?25·


(Pages 109-112)


Page 109

· · ·· A.··Yes.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Geology?·2·

· · ·· A.··To some degree, yes.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So partly an expert on that.·4·

· · ·· A.··Well, there are certainly people a lot more·5·

· ·qualified to speak about geology than I.·6·

· · ·· Q.··How about rock mechanics?·7·

· · ·· A.··To some degree, yes, but in the confines of sort·8·

· ·of earthquake seismology and earthquake nucleation and·9·

· ·those areas.10·

· · ·· Q.··How about mineralogy?11·

· · ·· A.··No.12·

· · ·· Q.··Igneous petrology?13·

· · ·· A.··No.14·

· · ·· Q.··Paleomagnetics?15·

· · ·· A.··No.16·

· · ·· Q.··Geochemistry?17·

· · ·· A.··No.18·

· · ·· Q.··Hydrology?19·

· · ·· A.··I've had some training and experience in20·

· ·hydrology through my work at the Oklahoma Geological21·

· ·Survey.··I am certainly not the foremost expert on22·

· ·hydrology.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··How about petroleum engineering?24·

· · ·· A.··No.25·

Page 110

· · ·· Q.··Have you ever worked for an oil and gas company?·1·

· · ·· A.··No, I have not.·2·

· · ·· Q.··In fact, I think you testified about that·3·

· ·earlier, that you chose not to work for oil and gas·4·

· ·companies, correct?·5·


· · ·· Q.··Though they do hire a number of seismologists and·7·

· ·geophysicists, I guess.·8·

· · ·· A.··That is correct.··So I had an internship·9·

· ·opportunity with BP in their research department, but10·

· ·I'd forego that to go do a summer of field work in11·

· ·Iceland.12·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Did counsel for plaintiffs provide13·

· ·you any documents that you're relying upon in forming14·

· ·your opinions in this case?15·

· · ·· A.··No, they did not.16·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Did you bring any documents with you17·

· ·today?18·

· · ·· A.··I did, the ones that were requested in the19·

· ·subpoena.20·

· · ·· Q.··And where are those located?21·

· · ·· A.··I have them right here.22·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Let's go off the record,23·

· ·please.24·


Page 111

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··All right.··Let's go back on·1·

· ·the record.·2·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Pritchett)··All right, sir.··I noticed in·3·

· ·looking at that packet that you have had some e-mail·4·

· ·correspondence with Scott Poynter.··Do you recall that?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··You asked about any physical meetings.·6·

· · ·· Q.··I understand that, and so that's why I'm·7·

· ·clarifying that.··But you have had some e-mail·8·

· ·correspondence with Mr. Poynter?·9·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I have.10·

· · ·· Q.··How about these other gentlemen, Mr. Poarch or11·

· ·Mr. Isaacs?12·

· · ·· A.··I have with Mr. Isaacs, but I have not had any13·

· ·e-mail correspondence with Mr. Poarch, that I'm aware14·

· ·of.15·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Let's talk real quickly about -- and16·

· ·I may jump around a little bit because I'm trying to go17·

· ·quickly, and also because you brought up a lot of areas.18·

· · · · ·· But let's talk about the meetings and political19·

· ·pressure that you testified to.··You never talked to20·

· ·anyone from Spess Oil Company, did you?21·

· · ·· A.··No, I don't believe I did.22·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you know who Carol Spess is?23·

· · ·· A.··I assume she's part owner or owner of Spess Oil24·

· ·Company.25·

Page 112

· · ·· Q.··Yeah, he.·1·

· · ·· A.··He.··Oh, see?·2·

· · ·· Q.··So you don't know him.·3·

· · ·· A.··No.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··You never met with Frank Spess?·5·

· · ·· A.··Not that I'm aware of.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And you don't have any evidence or any·7·

· ·information that anyone from Spess tried to influence·8·

· ·Harold Hamm, do you?·9·

· · ·· A.··No.10·

· · ·· Q.··And you don't have any evidence or information11·

· ·that anyone from Spess tried to influence Patrice12·

· ·Douglas?13·

· · ·· A.··No.14·

· · ·· Q.··Or Dr. Keller or Dr. Garrett (sic)?15·

· · ·· A.··Grillot, but no.16·

· · ·· Q.··How about Devon or New Dominion, do you have any17·

· ·idea -- or any information that anyone from Spess has18·

· ·anything to do with these conversations you had with19·

· ·them?20·

· · ·· A.··No.21·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have any evidence or information from any22·

· ·meetings you had where someone was trying to possibly --23·

· ·or conceivably trying to pressure you or alter your24·

· ·work, that Spess had any involvement in any of that?25·


(Pages 113-116)


Page 113

· · ·· A.··No.·1·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··You've also had some good experience·2·

· ·with the oil and gas industry, I understand.·3·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·4·

· · ·· Q.··In fact, you note that you'd worked closely with·5·

· ·the OCC beginning in 2010 to begin a dialogue about this·6·

· ·issue, is that right?·7·


· · ·· Q.··This idea of induced seismicity caused by·9·

· ·injection wells is not new, is it?10·

· · ·· A.··No, it's not.11·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··When the earthquakes in Oklahoma12·

· ·started increasing, was this one of the issues that13·

· ·people were looking into?14·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··From the moment I got into Oklahoma, that15·

· ·was one of the questions I was asked to examine, and of16·

· ·course that was the question everybody wanted answers17·

· ·to.··There had recently been cases in Texas, and18·

· ·Oklahoma now was seeing this increase in seismicity,19·

· ·yeah.20·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So starting at least in 2010, it was21·

· ·certainly part of the public knowledge that injection22·

· ·activities may induce seismicity?23·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Object to form.24·

· · ·· A.··Yes.25·

Page 114

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And then you think -- you said you also·1·

· ·met with some of the oil and gas associations, and they·2·

· ·were more interested in finding out what was happening·3·

· ·than trying to pressure you into taking a position on·4·

· ·it.·5·

· · ·· A.··As a body.··So as the OIPA or the Oklahoma Gas·6·

· ·Association or those sorts of things, yes, absolutely.·7·

· · ·· Q.··In fact, I think you said that they were trying·8·

· ·to -- interested in trying to help their members·9·

· ·navigate these changing times.··Is that right?10·


· · ·· Q.··So instead of trying to pressure you into hiding12·

· ·information, they were actually just trying to learn13·

· ·what was going on so they could hopefully make better14·

· ·decisions.··Is that fair?15·

· · · · · · · · MR. POARCH:··Object to form.16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.17·

· · ·· Q.··Now, this Harold Hamm meeting that you had with18·

· ·David Boren -- or President Boren, I think you19·

· ·testified, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you20·

· ·testified it was after a paper you had on hydraulic21·

· ·fracking, is that correct?22·


· · ·· Q.··And that was the Eola study that you did?24·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··It was following the peer review25·

Page 115

· ·publication of that work.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And so he was more concerned about the·2·

· ·image of fracking than he was about injection wells.·3·

· · ·· A.··In that meeting, yes.·4·

· · ·· Q.··In that meeting, did injection wells even come·5·

· ·up?·6·

· · ·· A.··He spent more time talking about coal than oil·7·

· ·and gas.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··What did coal have to do with this?·9·

· · ·· A.··The war on fossil fuel.10·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Just the general war on fossil fuels?11·

· · ·· A.··Yes.12·

· · ·· Q.··But the meeting was not directed toward injection13·

· ·wells or trying to cover up any tie between injection14·

· ·wells and seismicity, was it?15·

· · ·· A.··No.16·

· · ·· Q.··This meeting with Patrice Douglas, was that17·

· ·involving fracking, as well?18·

· · ·· A.··No.··That was a more broad discussion involving19·

· ·injection wells -- particularly injection wells.20·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··What about this pressure that you seem to21·

· ·feel -- or I think you said -- "wordsmithing" was the22·

· ·term that you used -- by Dr. Keller and Dr. Grillot.23·

· ·Was that involving fracking or injection wells?24·

· · ·· A.··Both.25·

Page 116

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Let's turn to Exhibit 5.··I think you·1·

· ·should have Exhibit 5 in front of you.··And would you·2·

· ·turn to the last page of that exhibit, please.·3·

· · · · ·· And you weren't asked about this last page, but·4·

· ·it indicates that you bristled at any suggestion that·5·

· ·industry pressure slowed you down from reaching a·6·

· ·conclusion.··Is that accurate?·7·

· · ·· A.··I don't know if that's accurate.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Well, what was your statement?·9·

· · ·· A.··Well --10·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Let him answer.··I object.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Thank you.12·

· · ·· A.··So here it says I bristled.··This was a phone13·

· ·interview.··I also at the time that this article was14·

· ·published had been under extreme fire, and I was -- the15·

· ·OGS had released a statement that was poorly-timed and16·

· ·poorly-worded that took us back in our discussion of17·

· ·induced seismicity.··And I was trying to navigate a18·

· ·political dynamic, and so I had to -- and I did blanket19·

· ·deny.20·

· · · · ·· So I wasn't being coerced by industry, I was21·

· ·being coerced by my superiors.··I mean, I certainly had22·

· ·industry people telling me, you know, what I can and23·

· ·can't say.··I had industry people telling me, you know,24·

· ·all sorts of things.··But I also had, again,25·


(Pages 117-120)


Page 117

· ·environmentalists telling me what I can and can't say·1·

· ·and all sorts of things.·2·

· · · · ·· So I was navigating a difficult landscape, but I·3·

· ·was not pressured by industry to change what I'm doing,·4·

· ·I was pressured by staff.··Now, I did -- was pressured·5·

· ·by Harold Hamm to change the way I spoke about things in·6·

· ·public.·7·

· · ·· Q.··About fracking?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··And I did have people in the industry say,·9·

· ·"Well, you can't say that" or "You can't say this."··But10·

· ·the ones that actually write the paycheck control what I11·

· ·say in the public eye and what I don't.12·

· · ·· Q.··Did anyone from the oil and gas industry alter or13·

· ·wordsmith any of your reports or publications?14·

· · ·· A.··Only when I asked them to.··So, for instance, the15·

· ·best practices workshop where we asked for industry16·

· ·contributions to help us out.··When I published the17·

· ·paper on the oil field, I offered both the open file18·

· ·report and the report that would go for peer review to19·

· ·the oil company to make comments before I published20·

· ·either of those, to allow them to see it and to suggest21·

· ·potential word changes for accuracy or, you know, just22·

· ·perception.··There was no major changing that occurred23·

· ·in those documents, but I provided that as a courtesy.24·

· · ·· Q.··Sure.··And I guess what I'm looking at is the25·

Page 118

· ·negative aspect of it where, for example, I think you·1·

· ·talked about feeling pressure to revise or wordsmith·2·

· ·your reports coming from your employers.·3·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·4·

· · ·· Q.··And what I want to know is did anyone from the·5·

· ·industry ever actually pester you to say or not say·6·

· ·something that you felt was accurate and truthful?·7·

· · ·· A.··Not me directly.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, and do you know that -- did you have·9·

· ·any conversations where they pressured --10·

· · ·· A.··So --11·

· · ·· Q.··Well, let me finish my question.12·

· · ·· A.··All right.13·

· · ·· Q.··Did you have any conversations where they14·

· ·pressured Mr. Keller -- or Dr. Keller or Dr. Grillot?15·

· ·Were you privy to any of those conversations?16·

· · ·· A.··I was not privy to those conversations.··What was17·

· ·expressed to me is that they got multiple calls from18·

· ·people in the industry and that I need to change this or19·

· ·do this.20·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know who called from the industry?21·

· · ·· A.··No.··I cannot speak to that.22·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And you weren't a party to any of those23·

· ·calls, correct?24·

· · ·· A.··No.25·

Page 119

· · ·· Q.··And again, going back to my client, Spess, you·1·

· ·have no information or evidence that they did anything·2·

· ·to try and alter or change any of your opinions or·3·

· ·views, correct?·4·


· · ·· Q.··All right.··You agree that Oklahoma, along with·6·

· ·much of the central United States, is home to thousands·7·

· ·of faults and has a history of quakes?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·9·

· · ·· Q.··When you worked in Idaho, you talked about10·

· ·several earthquakes -- or earthquakes that you were11·

· ·involved in in Idaho, correct?12·

· · ·· A.··Yes.13·

· · ·· Q.··In fact, there were several thousands of14·

· ·earthquakes in Idaho over a couple of years, weren't15·

· ·there?16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··There was what we call an earthquake swarm17·

· ·in southeastern Idaho.18·

· · ·· Q.··And then it went quiet, right?19·


· · ·· Q.··Was oil and gas responsible for any of that?21·

· · ·· A.··No.22·

· · ·· Q.··Is it accurate that five of the state's 1523·

· ·largest recorded earthquakes occurred before the ongoing24·

· ·swarm starting in 2009?25·

Page 120

· · ·· A.··Of Oklahoma's earthquakes?·1·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.·2·

· · ·· A.··How far back are you taking that record?·3·

· · ·· Q.··Prior to 2009, five of the 15 largest occurred·4·

· ·before 2009.·5·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··I guess we still need a beginning time·6·

· ·point there to that question.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Well, the beginning of history, I guess.·8·

· · ·· A.··Okay.·9·

· · ·· Q.··I'm trying to say before 2009, this uptake in10·

· ·earthquakes --11·

· · ·· A.··That's right.··So from 1882, five of the largest12·

· ·earthquakes occurred prior to this uptick in seismicity.13·

· ·But that's from 1882.··So it's a very different14·

· ·timeframe.15·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And the El Reno earthquake was a 5.516·

· ·magnitude earthquake in 1952, is that right?17·


· · ·· Q.··And prior to Prague, that was the largest19·

· ·reported earthquake in Oklahoma.··Is that accurate?20·

· · ·· A.··Yes, it is.21·

· · ·· Q.··And that had nothing to do with oil and gas, did22·

· ·it?23·

· · ·· A.··That's actually been debated in more recent24·

· ·papers and in some of the logs from drillers and oil and25·


(Pages 121-124)


Page 121

· ·gas operations from the historical logs.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Has that been conclusively proved by anyone, that·2·

· ·that was caused oil and gas activity?·3·

· · ·· A.··No, and it's not likely to be, since there was no·4·

· ·seismic monitoring equipment in the state of Oklahoma at·5·

· ·the time.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Is this accurate, that half of the world's·7·

· ·reported magnitude eight or greater quakes have happened·8·

· ·over the past 10 years?·9·

· · ·· A.··I can't speak to the accuracy of that statement10·

· ·at this time.11·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether the other half occurred12·

· ·during the 1950s?13·

· · ·· A.··That's not an accurate statement.14·

· · ·· Q.··Is it possible that -- well, I'll get into that15·

· ·in a little bit.··Is it accurate that in most areas,16·

· ·disposal wells do not pose a problem?17·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··Well, I may have to refine that answer a18·

· ·little.··So prior to 2012, the recognized rate of19·

· ·induced seismicity from disposal wells was about one20·

· ·case of induced earthquakes per 4,000 wells.21·

· · ·· Q.··So most disposal wells do not cause earthquakes,22·

· ·correct?23·

· · ·· A.··Previously, that is a fair statement.24·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.25·

Page 122

· · ·· A.··Our understanding has changed scientifically·1·

· ·regarding what's gone on in Oklahoma in the recent past.·2·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Let's talk about you leaving the OGS.·3·

· ·Did you ever tell any of the reporters that asked you·4·

· ·about your reasons for leaving OGS that a part of it was·5·

· ·because you had been reprimanded by Dr. Garrett?·6·

· · ·· A.··Grillot.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Grillot.·8·

· · ·· A.··No, I did not.··I did not want to air dirty·9·

· ·laundry while I was taking a new position that could10·

· ·reflect poorly on my new employer.11·

· · ·· Q.··So when you were asked by these numerous12·

· ·reporters as to why you left, you explained that you'd13·

· ·averaged 80 hours each week for five-and-a-half years14·

· ·and that you wanted to change for family reasons.15·

· · ·· A.··And all of that is very true.16·

· · ·· Q.··So it's just not the whole truth.17·


· · ·· Q.··Is it true that OU actually offered to increase19·

· ·your salary --20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.21·

· · ·· Q.··-- to keep you there?22·

· · ·· A.··Yes, they did.23·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Let me ask you this about earthquakes24·

· ·and see if I can understand some of this stuff you've25·

Page 123

· ·written before.··There are two possible causes of·1·

· ·induced seismicity, either increase in shear stress or·2·

· ·increase in pore pressure, is that right?·3·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··That's generally the cause.··For·4·

· ·geothermal, there are other additional causes that·5·

· ·aren't discussed there.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··What is shear stress or changes in shear·7·

· ·stress?··Can you explain that?·8·

· · ·· A.··Shear stress is -- if I had a pencil, it would be·9·

· ·a good example.··So as I begin to pull down on both ends10·

· ·of the pencil with my thumb in the middle, I begin to11·

· ·create stress -- and that's the cracking of this12·

· ·bottle -- and those cracks, you can actually think of as13·

· ·similar to earthquakes, pops.··So I've increased the14·

· ·shear stress.··And the bottle deforms differently than15·

· ·the earth, but -- so the shear stress can be the stress16·

· ·which pushes one body of rock past another.··So it's17·

· ·this driving force, but it's just this force that's18·

· ·transmitted through the body of rock.19·

· · · · ·· And so you have this stress pushing one body of20·

· ·rock past another, but friction holds those in place21·

· ·until the shear stress overcomes that friction and you22·

· ·can slip across a point of weakness, which is a fault in23·

· ·the case of an earthquake.24·

· · ·· Q.··Is that what happens when you have reservoir25·

Page 124

· ·impanelment?·1·

· · ·· A.··It can happen from reservoir impanelment because·2·

· ·you change the stresses because you've added weight·3·

· ·above the rock that is sitting there.··But it looks that·4·

· ·in most reservoir-induced seismicity, a significant·5·

· ·portion of it is contributed also by the increase in·6·

· ·pore pressure in the subsurface combined with those·7·

· ·stresses.··So you have the stressing acting, but the·8·

· ·pore pressure gets into these faults and cracks and acts·9·

· ·as a lubricant, effectively reducing the friction on the10·

· ·fault, that resisting force to resist earthquakes.11·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And when we talk about reservoir12·

· ·impanelment, that's like when they -- like Mead.13·


· · ·· Q.··That pattern that they had at Lake Mead, there15·

· ·were a number of earthquakes because now all the weight16·

· ·of this water is now on top of the earth, and that17·

· ·caused a change in the stress and pore pressure?18·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··And then as the water level in19·

· ·Lake Mead has gone down, there's an uptick in the rate20·

· ·of earthquakes again as that weight is also removed.21·

· · ·· Q.··And during the drought periods, you sometimes22·

· ·will have earthquakes caused because the water weight23·

· ·has now been removed?24·



(Pages 125-128)


Page 125

· · ·· Q.··There's also geothermal reduction and thermal·1·

· ·contraction.·2·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Is that where the heat or the temperature down·4·

· ·where the fault is has changed the rocks, and that's·5·

· ·caused a difference in the pressure?·6·

· · ·· A.··So when you inject cold water into hot rock, it·7·

· ·contracts, and then that creates stresses in the rock·8·

· ·because now you have rock that's being held in place·9·

· ·over here with rock that's colder that is being held in10·

· ·place.··So you create these stresses, and then that can11·

· ·create fractures and faults and earthquakes, as well, or12·

· ·microearthquakes.13·

· · ·· Q.··And that's different than the injection wells?14·


· · ·· Q.··What they're doing is what we're talking about16·

· ·here, right?17·

· · ·· A.··So the injection wells --18·

· · ·· Q.··I'll get to the injection wells.··I just want to19·

· ·know, that's a geothermal -- that cause for earthquakes20·

· ·is different than what we're dealing with here in this21·

· ·case.22·

· · ·· A.··That is correct, yes.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And then you've got mass removal oil24·

· ·production that sometimes can trigger earthquakes25·

Page 126

· ·because you're removing oil, and again, you're removing·1·

· ·the weight or the pressure?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So you can actually get to the point where·3·

· ·you can get some collapse of materials depending on --·4·

· ·but this is mostly issues in Saudi Arabia where the oil·5·

· ·is actually holding up some of the geologic formation·6·

· ·just from the pressure of the oil.··And as you remove·7·

· ·that, it can collapse.··But mostly what that's referring·8·

· ·is as you remove mass, you change the forces acting on a·9·

· ·body of rock in the subsurface.··So that's, again, like10·

· ·removing water from a reservoir.11·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··You also have a number of natural causes12·

· ·that obviously can cause earthquakes, correct?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes.14·

· · ·· Q.··Like the big ones we think about are the plates15·

· ·moving and that causing or triggering an earthquake,16·

· ·right?17·


· · ·· Q.··There's also natural fluid movement that can19·

· ·cause earthquakes, is that right?20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.21·

· · ·· Q.··What is hydrologic lows?··How is that a natural22·

· ·cause?23·

· · ·· A.··There are cases where extreme rainfall events24·

· ·can -- there's an example from Taiwan of an extreme25·

Page 127

· ·rainfall event changing the maps on the surface of the·1·

· ·earth, again changing the forces in the subsurface to·2·

· ·then cause some earthquakes.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Now, when you're dealing with induced·4·

· ·seismicity from fluid injection -- before I go further·5·

· ·with that, you mentioned the Colorado National Armory?·6·

· · ·· A.··The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, yes.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal situation.··That·8·

· ·wasn't oil or wastewater injection, was it?·9·

· · ·· A.··No.··It was -- well, other types of wastewater10·

· ·that were being injected.11·

· · ·· Q.··Nuclear waste, wasn't it?12·

· · ·· A.··I think it was actually chemical weapons, but --13·

· · ·· Q.··And that's why it was an empty armory.14·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.15·

· · ·· Q.··Yes?··I'm sorry.··I asked "Yes?" so we can --16·

· · ·· A.··Oh.··Yes.··Yes.··Sorry.17·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··When you're dealing with earthquakes that18·

· ·are caused by fluid injection, that's primarily an19·

· ·increase in the pore pressure, is that right?20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.21·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And so the water that's injected22·

· ·somehow increases the pore pressure of the fault, right?23·

· · ·· A.··It increases the pore pressure -- the pressure of24·

· ·the water.··And that water is in the little spaces25·

Page 128

· ·inside the rock and also the little spaces inside the·1·

· ·fault.··So then the pressure of the water pushes against·2·

· ·the sides of the rock in which it's in contact with.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Right.·4·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.·5·

· · ·· Q.··But it's in the fault that this earthquake·6·

· ·occurs, right?·7·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·8·

· · ·· Q.··So it's the pore pressure change where the water·9·

· ·pushes apart the fault --10·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.11·

· · ·· Q.··-- and it causes a change in pore pressure that12·

· ·results in a slippage and an earthquake, right?13·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So the water has to get to the -- the15·

· ·trajecting has to actually get to that fault to make it16·

· ·change its pore pressure, correct?17·

· · ·· A.··No.··The water that you're injecting doesn't have18·

· ·to move to change the pressure.19·

· · ·· Q.··It has to change the pressure in the fault.20·

· · ·· A.··It changes the pressure through -- oh, what's the21·

· ·best term -- there's a correct term.22·

· · ·· Q.··Let me ask it this way:··Does there have to be23·

· ·some type of connection between the water that you're24·

· ·injecting and the pressure in the fault?25·


(Pages 129-132)


Page 129

· · ·· A.··There has to be a hydrologic connection.··So·1·

· ·water is a fairly incompressible fluid, and so that·2·

· ·means that each molecule of water passes the pressure·3·

· ·information, if you will, onto the next molecule of·4·

· ·water to the next molecule of water.··So there has to be·5·

· ·this connected portion of water.··It has to have that·6·

· ·hydrologic connection.·7·

· · ·· Q.··And I think we're saying the same thing in·8·

· ·different ways, and it's probably my fault because I'm·9·

· ·not an expert on this.··But the molecules of water that10·

· ·are injected don't necessarily have to reach the fault,11·

· ·but they have to be connected to water that is in the12·

· ·fault.13·


· · ·· Q.··So when you put it in the ground and it -- that15·

· ·molecule may not travel that far, but there has to still16·

· ·be a connection.··If there's a wall between the two,17·

· ·it's not gonna cause the earthquake, right?18·


· · ·· Q.··Is it true that most of the earthquakes still20·

· ·tend to occur very near the injection interval?21·

· · ·· A.··No, not necessarily.··So that was the previous22·

· ·understanding, and that's where Oklahoma has really23·

· ·rewritten the book on induced seismicity.··So in most24·

· ·previous cases, the earthquakes occurred in close25·

Page 130

· ·proximity.··And "close" -- there's some argument as to·1·

· ·what "close" is.·2·

· · · · ·· But previously, I think the presentation you're·3·

· ·looking at, it showed earthquakes out to 14 kilometers·4·

· ·for the Paradox Valley wastewater disposal.··But in that·5·

· ·sequence, there are now earthquakes out to 20·6·

· ·kilometers.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.·8·

· · ·· A.··So we're beginning to learn more and understand·9·

· ·more also with all the additional information in10·

· ·Oklahoma.11·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Have you done any of the studies that12·

· ·relate to this change in view on whether they have to be13·

· ·close to the wells?14·

· · ·· A.··No.··I have read and referenced many of them.15·

· · ·· Q.··Now, I want to ask you a little bit about that16·

· ·study that you did, the geological open file report on17·

· ·the possibility of induced seismicity from hydraulic18·

· ·fracturing in the Eola Field in Garvin County, Oklahoma.19·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.20·

· · ·· Q.··In that report, you looked at seven questions21·

· ·that were designed to help in examining whether or not22·

· ·earthquakes had been induced by fluid injection at23·

· ·depths that were first postulated by Davis and Fröhlich24·

· ·in 1993, is that right?25·

Page 131


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So back in 1993, they were already·2·

· ·figuring out ways to try and determine whether injection·3·

· ·was causing the specific earthquake?·4·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And these questions are -- the first one·6·

· ·is:··"Are these events the first known earthquakes of·7·

· ·this character in the region?"··Is that --·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·9·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Did you do any analyses on the Prague10·

· ·earthquakes with regard to these seven questions that11·

· ·Davis and Fröhlich came up with?12·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I did.··And I also reevaluated them using a13·

· ·probability matrix that Ivan Wong developed to recast14·

· ·these seven questions as more of a probability matrix,15·

· ·so that you can say "I can assign a probability to that"16·

· ·instead of a yes or no, because that's sometimes very17·

· ·black-and-white.··In science we deal more in, "I know18·

· ·this to this certainty" or "I don't know this to this19·

· ·sort of certainty."20·

· · · · ·· So I have looked at the Prague event in that21·

· ·probability matrix.··That probability matrix should be22·

· ·in that set of electronic documents provided to you.23·

· · ·· Q.··When did you do this?24·

· · ·· A.··After Ivan Wong provided his probability matrix25·

Page 132

· ·to me.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And when was that?·2·

· · ·· A.··Oh, that's a fair question that I don't have an·3·

· ·answer to at this moment.··I'm gonna say circa 2013.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So while you were still with the OGS?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, did you determine whether the events·7·

· ·in Prague were the first known earthquakes of this·8·

· ·character in the region?·9·

· · ·· A.··They are and they're not.··So this one has a10·

· ·probability assignment of, say, 55 percent or 6011·

· ·percent.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··What about question number two:··"Is there13·

· ·a clear correlation between injection and seismicity?"14·

· · ·· A.··And there is not a clear correlation.··We do see15·

· ·throughout central Oklahoma and north central Oklahoma a16·

· ·delay period of several years.17·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··I'm not worried about central Oklahoma,18·

· ·I'm worried about the Prague earthquakes themselves.19·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··So Prague is in central Oklahoma, but this20·

· ·forms to the concept of answering this question.··We see21·

· ·this delay of a few years between the start of injection22·

· ·or the massive increase in injection and the onset of23·

· ·seismicity within any particular area.24·

· · ·· Q.··Well, hadn't they been injecting water in Prague25·


(Pages 133-136)


Page 133

· ·for 17 years?·1·

· · ·· A.··They've been injecting for a long time.··The·2·

· ·volumes increased dramatically with the Hunton·3·

· ·dewatering play.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··What is the Hunton dewatering play?·5·

· · ·· A.··It is a method that I can't speak to with utmost·6·

· ·authority, but it is where they found if they take·7·

· ·production wells in the Hunton and remove massive·8·

· ·amounts of water, after some amount of time they begin·9·

· ·to pull a whole bunch of oil off.··If they remove some10·

· ·pressure from the reservoir, they can start pulling a11·

· ·fair amount of oil with this large volume of water.12·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know if Spess was involved in the Hunton13·

· ·dewatering?14·

· · ·· A.··I don't believe that Spess was involved in the15·

· ·Hunton dewatering.16·

· · ·· Q.··In fact, their two wells were not necessarily17·

· ·disposal wells or injection wells, they were actually18·

· ·secondary recovery wells, weren't they?19·

· · ·· A.··That's right.20·

· · ·· Q.··And there's a difference between the two, isn't21·

· ·there?22·

· · ·· A.··There is a distinct difference.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So with regard to clear correlation, that24·

· ·would be a "No" answer on that one?··Or maybe half and25·

Page 134

· ·half?·1·

· · ·· A.··So I would refine that now to a 70 to 80 percent·2·

· ·probability of a clear correlation.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Question three:··"Are epicenters near·4·

· ·wells?"·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes, they were.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Question four:··"Do some earthquakes occur·7·

· ·at or near injection depths?"·8·

· · ·· A.··So the earthquakes occurred deeper than injection·9·

· ·depths.10·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··I understand you're gonna come back with11·

· ·me and say that, "Well, that's kind of changed now" --12·

· · ·· A.··Yes.13·

· · ·· Q.··-- but in this case, the fact of the matter is14·

· ·the epicenter of the earthquakes occurred well below15·

· ·injection depths, didn't they?16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.17·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know how far below?18·

· · ·· A.··Kilometers, so thousands of feet.··Let's say two19·

· ·kilometers, roughly.20·

· · ·· Q.··And they occurred in the -- let me make sure I've21·

· ·got my term right -- crystalline basement?22·


· · ·· Q.··And the injection was being done in the Arbuckle?24·

· · ·· A.··Correct.25·

Page 135

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether it was being done in the·1·

· ·Upper Arbuckle or the Lower Arbuckle?·2·

· · ·· A.··I believe it was the full extent of the Arbuckle·3·

· ·and into the top of the basement, but I can't say that·4·

· ·for certain.··That would be a question for the·5·

· ·Corporation Commission.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Let's see.··If there are no -- okay.·7·

· ·Question five is:··"If not, are there known geologic·8·

· ·structures that may channel flow to sites of·9·

· ·earthquakes?"··Do you know the answer to that?10·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··There are faults in the region that can11·

· ·propagate -- faults and fractures that can propagate12·

· ·fluids great distances.13·

· · ·· Q.··But you have to know whether the wells themselves14·

· ·are in some type of hydrologic connection with those15·

· ·systems, right?16·

· · ·· A.··So the wells that were injecting in the Arbuckle,17·

· ·I think clearly were in hydrologic connection to the18·

· ·basement.··And the reason for that is the Arbuckle is19·

· ·extremely under-pressured; they were able to inject at20·

· ·little to no injection pressure, which means that the21·

· ·water is able to move quite freely for large distances22·

· ·or they wouldn't be able to inject those volumes over23·

· ·that period of time without increasing the pressure of24·

· ·injection.25·

Page 136

· · ·· Q.··Well, you listed three wells that are at issue in·1·

· ·this case, the two by Spess and the one by New Dominion.·2·

· ·Are there other wells that may have caused or·3·

· ·contributed to this earthquake?·4·

· · ·· A.··There are other potential wells that could·5·

· ·contribute, Arbuckle injection wells within the region.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Have you done anything to determine what specific·7·

· ·wells may have caused or contributed to these·8·


· · ·· A.··I have worked on a piece of code and a paper that10·

· ·I never did get published, and again, I was asked to set11·

· ·it down and work on other things by the director of the12·

· ·Survey.··That draft of a paper and technique is included13·

· ·in the electronic documents provided to you in the14·

· ·disclosure.15·

· · · · ·· I have done some work and it is possible that16·

· ·other wells contributed, and there are different17·

· ·techniques you can use to look at the contributions of18·

· ·different wells.··One is to look at how much injection19·

· ·energy was added, how much energy was added through an20·

· ·injection.21·

· · · · ·· And so I did this comparison for the two Spess22·

· ·wells and the New Dominion well in the case of the23·

· ·Prague example -- and again, that's in the disclosed24·

· ·documents -- and the injection energy for the New25·


(Pages 137-140)


Page 137

· ·Dominion well is incredibly greater than the energy from·1·

· ·injection in the Spess wells, indicating that if these·2·

· ·earthquakes or because these earthquakes are likely·3·

· ·triggered seismicity from wastewater injection, that the·4·

· ·more likely or a greater contribution is likely from the·5·

· ·New Dominion injection well.·6·

· · ·· Q.··If the Spess wells are injecting under pressure,·7·

· ·does that indicate that they're in a closed system and·8·

· ·not in connection with this open -- wide-open Arbuckle·9·

· ·that you're talking about?10·

· · ·· A.··It doesn't necessarily indicate that it's in a11·

· ·closed system, but it certainly doesn't have the12·

· ·hydrologic communication that the Arbuckle formation13·

· ·has.14·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Question number six -- and we'll get back15·

· ·to pressures because I want to get back to that:··"Are16·

· ·changes in fluid pressure at well bottoms sufficient to17·

· ·encourage seismicity?"··Did you make a calculation of18·

· ·that with regard to the Spess wells?19·

· · ·· A.··Not with regard to the Spess wells.20·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether -- well, let me ask -- it's a21·

· ·basic question; I better ask it a little cleaner.··Do22·

· ·you know whether or not the Spess wells, the changes in23·

· ·fluid pressure at the well bottoms was sufficient to24·

· ·encourage seismicity on the Spess wells?25·

Page 138

· · ·· A.··I don't have any actual measurements of pressures·1·

· ·at the well bottom.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So the answer would be no to that, with·3·

· ·regard to the Spess wells?·4·

· · ·· A.··I would say that if you have enough pressure for·5·

· ·the earth to accept the fluid, there is the potential.·6·

· ·But you don't have that clear, so that's one of those·7·

· ·maybe low-percentage-probability items for the Spess·8·

· ·wells.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, you don't know whether there was a10·

· ·change in fluid pressure at the bottom -- at the well11·

· ·bottom of the Spess wells at any time, do you?12·

· · ·· A.··No, I cannot speak to that.13·

· · ·· Q.··All right.14·

· · ·· A.··I would assume so, given the fact that injection15·

· ·is --16·

· · ·· Q.··Well, we're not here to assume.··I want to know17·

· ·what you know.18·

· · ·· A.··Okay.19·

· · ·· Q.··And the question is, do you know or do you not20·

· ·know?21·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··I can say that the pressure at the wells22·

· ·had to increase if you can continue to inject.··Even23·

· ·hydrologic head adds pressure.··So if you're diving in24·

· ·the swimming pool, at the bottom of the swimming pool25·

Page 139

· ·the pressure is much greater than the pressure at the·1·

· ·surface of the swimming pool.·2·

· · ·· Q.··But you don't have those measurements, correct?·3·

· · ·· A.··I do not have those measurements, no.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Question number seven:··Are changes in·5·

· ·fluid pressure at hypocentral locations sufficient to·6·

· ·encourage seismicity?"··Have you done that analysis?·7·

· · ·· A.··It is possible that the pressures were·8·

· ·significant and appropriate for triggering seismicity.·9·

· · ·· Q.··So it's possible, but do you know if it's more10·

· ·than just possible?11·

· · ·· A.··We cannot prove what the pressures were inside12·

· ·the earth.13·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Without knowing that -- well, let me ask14·

· ·this:··Do you agree with what Davis and Fröhlich quoted15·

· ·in 1993 that "At present, it is impossible to predict16·

· ·the effects of injection with absolute certainty.··This17·

· ·uncertainty arises both because the underlying physical18·

· ·mechanisms of earthquakes are poorly understood and19·

· ·because in nearly every specific situation there is20·

· ·inadequate or incomplete information about regional21·

· ·stresses, fluid migration, historical seismicity, etc.,22·

· ·clearly a series of seven or 10 yes-or-no questions23·

· ·oversimplifies many of these issues."24·

· · ·· A.··I think that's a fair statement.25·

Page 140

· · ·· Q.··Do you agree that determining whether or not·1·

· ·earthquakes that have been induced in most portions of·2·

· ·the stable continent is problematic because of our poor·3·

· ·knowledge of historical earthquakes, earthquake·4·

· ·processes, and the long recurrence intervals for·5·

· ·earthquakes in a stable continent?·6·

· · ·· A.··So it is problematic when you're looking at a·7·

· ·single case.··When you look at a body of information,·8·

· ·that can change.··So while our historical seismicity·9·

· ·rates in Oklahoma were quite slow and steady, we can10·

· ·expect bursts of seismicity and increases -- periods11·

· ·where there could be naturally increased seismicity12·

· ·rates.··But what you can't expect is a dramatic13·

· ·seismicity rate increase that follows an uptick in14·

· ·wastewater disposal volumes throughout a region the size15·

· ·of north central and central Oklahoma.16·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··After the Prague earthquake, I guess17·

· ·you testified earlier that you put in a number of --18·

· ·after the very first one on November 5th, you and Katie19·

· ·Keranen and some students had gone out and installed20·

· ·some -- I can't remember the term, but some monitors.21·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··We went out and put out some seismic22·

· ·instruments.23·

· · ·· Q.··Did you eventually remove those instruments?24·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So over time, the instruments we have had25·


(Pages 141-144)


Page 141

· ·to go back to the research institutions they were·1·

· ·borrowed from, and the seismicity had begun to settle·2·

· ·down.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether the injection rates of any of·4·

· ·the three wells or the two Spess wells changed after the·5·

· ·2011 earthquake?·6·

· · ·· A.··I believe that the injection rates have been·7·

· ·slowly declining in the New Dominion wells, but I can't·8·

· ·speak to that.··I have some plots and some data, but I·9·

· ·can't speak to that at this moment without referring to10·

· ·notes and information.11·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Did they -- but you don't know what12·

· ·the injection rates -- whether the Spess wells slowed or13·

· ·not?14·

· · ·· A.··No.··I believe that most of the rates remained15·

· ·roughly the same as time went on after the earthquake,16·

· ·but I would have to refer to some notes and data.17·

· · ·· Q.··If they continued at the same injection rates,18·

· ·would that not cause more changes in the pressure?19·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So one of the things that you need to20·

· ·understand is that when large earthquakes happen, they21·

· ·release a lot of energy, far more than the energy that22·

· ·was put into the earth.··This is why I refer to it as23·

· ·"triggered seismicity."··A lot of my colleagues prefer24·

· ·to just refer to it as "induced seismicity" because it25·

Page 142

· ·still would not have been triggered had there not been a·1·

· ·driving force.··So the timing may be affected.·2·

· · · · ·· But the fact of the matter is the Wilzetta fault·3·

· ·was favorably oriented within the regional stress field·4·

· ·to have significant earthquakes, magnitude five,·5·

· ·magnitude six earthquakes.··So it was sitting there able·6·

· ·to produce a significant earthquake.··It may not have·7·

· ·happened for thousands or tens of thousands of years, or·8·

· ·it could happened in 10 years.··But then as you change·9·

· ·the pressures in the system, you allow this energy to be10·

· ·released earlier so that once the sequence starts, the11·

· ·earthquakes are releasing a lot more energy than fluid12·

· ·injection is adding to the system.··And so it can take a13·

· ·much longer time to have a continued response to fluid14·

· ·injection.15·

· · ·· Q.··Would you expect that after the earthquakes in16·

· ·2011, the Prague earthquakes in 2011, that the pressure17·

· ·at the well bottom would have decreased because it was18·

· ·taking off this loading that seems to be -- or that19·

· ·you're saying caused it?20·

· · ·· A.··That's more complex.··Sometimes we can see21·

· ·pressure increases after earthquakes and sometimes we22·

· ·can see pressure decreases.··So this is one of those23·

· ·areas where it depends where you are and the geology and24·

· ·some of this complexity that exists within the earth.25·

Page 143

· · · · · · · · (Defendant Spess Exhibit 1 marked for·1·


· · ·· Q.··I'm gonna hand you what I'm gonna mark as Spess·3·

· ·Exhibit 1 to your deposition, and ask if you can hand a·4·

· ·copy of this to counsel.·5·

· · ·· A.··Sure.·6·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Exhibit 1 is a -- or what do you call·7·

· ·these at the OGS?··You've seen this before, haven't you?·8·

· · ·· A.··This is a position statement.··Yes.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So this is a position statement that came10·

· ·out March 22nd, 2013, correct?11·


· · ·· Q.··All right.··At that time, going back to13·

· ·March 22nd of 2013, is it accurate that your opinion was14·

· ·that you couldn't tell whether this was a natural or15·

· ·induced seismicity?16·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Because this position paper, if you look18·

· ·down at the "Conclusions," says that "The interpretation19·

· ·that best fits current data is that the Prague20·

· ·Earthquake Sequence was the result of natural causes."21·

· ·Do you see that?22·

· · ·· A.··Yes.23·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Do you agree with that at this time?24·

· · ·· A.··No.··And it's given me heartburn ever since this25·

Page 144

· ·statement was released.·1·

· · ·· Q.··And that's where you're talking about where they·2·

· ·made it sound like it was of natural causes, but you·3·

· ·didn't have enough information at that time to tell?·4·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··So --·5·

· · ·· Q.··Did you go to the press or anybody else and tell·6·

· ·them, "Hey, this is wrong"?·7·

· · ·· A.··No, because I have to have a job.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Well, let's look at some of the data that they·9·

· ·talk about in this.··Is it true or accurate that10·

· ·"Relatively large, natural earthquakes occur in11·

· ·Oklahoma"?12·

· · ·· A.··Yes.13·

· · ·· Q.··Is it true that "the U.S. Geological Survey14·

· ·seismic hazard map shows that the seismic hazard for the15·

· ·Prague/Wilzetta area was finite (not zero) prior to the16·

· ·Prague sequence"?17·

· · ·· A.··Yes.18·

· · ·· Q.··What does that mean?19·

· · ·· A.··It means that -- that was in response to a20·

· ·statement Katie Keranen had made that said that there21·

· ·was a zero chance that an earthquake like this could22·

· ·have occurred naturally.23·

· · ·· Q.··So basically, this is saying there was a chance24·

· ·that --25·


(Pages 145-148)


Page 145

· · ·· A.··It was small, but there was a chance that a·1·

· ·natural earthquake could occur there of that size.·2·

· · ·· Q.··It says, "Oklahoma has experienced more than ten·3·

· ·magnitude 4.0 or greater earthquakes since the magnitude·4·

· ·5.0-plus El Reno earthquake of 1952."··Is that accurate?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·6·

· · ·· Q.··"This is statistically consistent with the·7·

· ·Gutenberg-Richter relationship, which describes the·8·

· ·distribution of earthquakes of differing magnitude over·9·

· ·time."··Is that accurate?10·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··And let me also respond to that11·

· ·observation.··At the time, the earthquakes of magnitude12·

· ·five and greater were consistent with what we were13·

· ·seeing for the Gutenberg-Richter relationship.··But with14·

· ·the subsequent magnitude fives and fours that followed15·

· ·this, the seismicity in Oklahoma was no longer16·

· ·consistent, nor was it consistent at the time with the17·

· ·background Gutenberg seismicity rate.··A magnitude five18·

· ·was not unexpected given the rate of earthquakes that19·

· ·we'd had in the past.20·

· · ·· Q.··So historically, a magnitude five earthquake was21·

· ·not something that was unexpected regardless of22·

· ·injection activities, correct?23·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And this Gutenberg-Richter relationship,25·

Page 146

· ·what is that?·1·

· · ·· A.··That is an earthquake recurrence in the scaling·2·

· ·law that has stood the test of time for seismologists·3·

· ·since it was proposed.··And what it basically says is·4·

· ·that for every 10 magnitude three earthquakes, you'll·5·

· ·expect one magnitude four earthquake, and so on as we go·6·

· ·up in magnitude.·7·

· · · · ·· But then the other part of that is it has this·8·

· ·recurrence factor, too, so that over some amount of·9·

· ·time, you can use this.··If you have 10 magnitude threes10·

· ·over 10 years, you'd expect possibly one magnitude four11·

· ·in that timeframe.··And you may not always get it; these12·

· ·are naturally-occurring processes.··And when you start13·

· ·talking about these large earthquakes, they have very14·

· ·large tales on the probability of when they might occur.15·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And this is all naturally-occurring,16·

· ·correct?17·


· · ·· Q.··And so what this is basically saying is that the19·

· ·Prague earthquakes, at least, could have naturally20·

· ·occurred and been consistent with what past history has21·

· ·shown of other earthquakes.22·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··It says, "Earthquakes in the Prague area24·

· ·have followed the normal Omori Law aftershock time-decay25·

Page 147

· ·that is typical of natural seismicity."··Is that·1·

· ·accurate?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yes, that is accurate.·3·

· · ·· Q.··What is the Omori Law?·4·

· · ·· A.··So the earthquakes decay quite rapidly over time.·5·

· ·So if you look at the number of earthquakes -- so the·6·

· ·number of earthquakes will decay as the inverse of time.·7·

· ·So if you start off having a hundred aftershocks a day,·8·

· ·the next day you may only have 10.·9·

· · ·· Q.··And that's an indication of natural earthquakes,10·

· ·correct?11·

· · ·· A.··No, not particularly.12·

· · ·· Q.··It's not an indication of natural earthquakes?13·

· · ·· A.··No.14·

· · ·· Q.··It's an indication --15·

· · ·· A.··Well, I mean, it's an indication that you had a16·

· ·stress release in an earthquake.17·

· · ·· Q.··And so then you'd expect some aftershocks, but --18·

· ·let me ask it this way:··Is that a -- I guess I would19·

· ·say sign or symptom that an earthquake was caused by20·

· ·natural causes, as opposed to manmade causes?21·

· · ·· A.··No.··I don't believe at this time, given the22·

· ·information I have now, that that is the case.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Back in 2013 --24·

· · ·· A.··It was --25·

Page 148

· · ·· Q.··-- that was the case, wasn't it?·1·

· · ·· A.··-- one of the factors we were considering, yes.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Well, you've talked about historical injection·3·

· ·well earthquakes such as the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.··I·4·

· ·think there's one in -- it was in Sweden or Switzerland·5·

· ·or somewhere in Europe, and there are other situations·6·

· ·where science has proven fairly conclusively that these·7·

· ·earthquakes were associated with injection well·8·

· ·activities, correct?·9·


· · ·· Q.··And they follow a certain pattern, don't they?11·

· · ·· A.··That pattern is complex, but yes.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And one of those patterns is that as13·

· ·you -- like in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, while you're14·

· ·injecting, you get earthquakes.··When you stop15·

· ·injecting, they slowly and -- maybe not directly, but16·

· ·they slowly stop.··Is that right?17·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··However, the Rocky Mountain18·

· ·Arsenal points out a good example where -- so that19·

· ·seismicity is tracking the injection really well, and20·

· ·then they stop injecting, then the largest earthquake21·

· ·occurs, and you then have a normal Omori earthquake22·

· ·aftershock sequence because the stress release of the23·

· ·earthquake is much greater than the energy added from24·

· ·injection in the past.25·


(Pages 149-152)


Page 149

· · ·· Q.··On these other examples or historical examples,·1·

· ·do they follow the Omori Law?·2·

· · ·· A.··I can't think of any others that did at this·3·

· ·moment.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was·5·

· ·different from the others in that respect.·6·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.·8·

· · ·· A.··Partly because it was probably the largest·9·

· ·well-documented triggered earthquake.10·

· · ·· Q.··Well, you don't necessarily know that because you11·

· ·didn't specifically study any of these other12·

· ·earthquakes, did you?13·

· · ·· A.··Well, I've read the papers on them.14·

· · ·· Q.··Sure.15·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.16·

· · ·· Q.··But you weren't involved --17·

· · ·· A.··No.18·

· · ·· Q.··-- in the scientific study, correct?19·

· · ·· A.··No.20·

· · ·· Q.··So you don't know whether they left it out21·

· ·because they just were careless or left it out because22·

· ·it didn't happen, do you?23·

· · ·· A.··I can't answer that question.24·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Let's go to the next one.··"The earthquake25·

Page 150

· ·occurred on a segment of the Wilzetta Fault that is·1·

· ·favorably oriented for earthquakes to occur as a result·2·

· ·of the predominant crustal stress regime in Oklahoma."·3·

· ·Is that accurate?·4·

· · ·· A.··That is accurate.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And essentially, that's what you were·6·

· ·talking about, that this fault was known to at least·7·

· ·have stress on it and known at least in the past to have·8·

· ·caused earthquakes, correct?·9·

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure it was known to have caused10·

· ·earthquakes, but it was known to be oriented such that11·

· ·it could have earthquakes, yes.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··"Water injection began in the13·

· ·Prague/Wilzetta area in 1955."··Is that accurate?14·

· · ·· A.··That is accurate.15·

· · ·· Q.··It "increased until 2004-2005 and has remained16·

· ·relatively constant since then."··Is that accurate?17·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So this increase that you were talking19·

· ·about earlier where you said it seemed like the last few20·

· ·years, the reality is the increase in that area occurred21·

· ·in 2004-2005 and remained constant after that.22·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··"Some researchers have observed that the24·

· ·earthquake activity did not increase over time as25·

Page 151

· ·injection increased, but rather occurred in a distinct·1·

· ·'swarm' more typical of a natural event."··Is that·2·

· ·accurate?·3·

· · ·· A.··I guess -- well, let me read that statement one·4·

· ·more time.··Yeah, I'm not sure that I am totally·5·

· ·comfortable with that statement.·6·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Did you contribute to writing this?·7·

· · ·· A.··I did.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you know whether you included that·9·

· ·sentence or not?10·

· · ·· A.··I would doubt it.··But it may have been reworded11·

· ·from something that I had provided.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··The next one is "3-D seismic recently made13·

· ·available demonstrates an alternative interpretation to14·

· ·the premise of a fault-bounded block, which is the15·

· ·closed compartment postulated by some researchers that16·

· ·would result in increased fluid pressures due to water17·

· ·injection."··Is that accurate?18·

· · ·· A.··Yes, that is accurate.··So that was a response --19·

· ·this statement was written as a response to the Keranen20·

· ·paper.··And that was definitely one of my scientific21·

· ·disagreements with that paper.22·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And I was wondering about that.··Do you23·

· ·still disagree with her, that this was a closed24·

· ·compartment?25·

Page 152

· · ·· A.··Yes.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··"The 3-D seismic data shows that the local·2·

· ·geological structure is not fault-bounded on all sides,·3·

· ·which further suggests that water injection is not being·4·

· ·restricted."··Is that accurate?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And basically, what that means is that·7·

· ·we're not dealing with a closed system where I keep·8·

· ·pumping in pressure or pumping in water, and that just·9·

· ·keeps increasing the pressure until something breaks.10·

· ·Is that accurate?11·

· · ·· A.··That's accurate.12·

· · ·· Q.··And that's kind of what Keranen's position was,13·

· ·wasn't it?14·

· · ·· A.··That was a portion of her argument in that paper.15·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Let's see.··"This alternative structural16·

· ·interpretation is supported by recent direct pressure17·

· ·measurements of the geologic formations where water18·

· ·injection activities are being conducted."··Is that19·

· ·accurate?20·

· · ·· A.··Can you read that again?21·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.··"This alternative structural22·

· ·interpretation is supported by recent direct pressure23·

· ·measurements of the geologic formations where water24·

· ·injection activities are being conducted."··Is that25·


(Pages 153-156)


Page 153

· ·accurate?·1·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Is that going back to this idea that it is·3·

· ·in a closed compartment?·4·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··"Measurements, undertaken by the OCC, and·6·

· ·reviewed by the EPA, show that the Hunton Formation is·7·

· ·in effect under-pressured."··Is that accurate?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·9·

· · ·· Q.··What is the Hunton formation?10·

· · ·· A.··The Hunton formation is the formation in which11·

· ·the Spess wells were injecting, if I remember correctly,12·

· ·or at least one of them.13·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So one of them wasn't even injecting into14·

· ·the Arbuckle.··Is that right?15·

· · ·· A.··I believe so, yes.16·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··How far above the Arbuckle is the17·

· ·mountain?··Or are there levels between it?18·

· · ·· A.··There are levels of different stratographic units19·

· ·in between the Hunton and the Arbuckle.20·

· · ·· Q.··And the fact that that well was injecting into21·

· ·the Hunton, does that make it less likely that it was a22·

· ·cause or contributed to this earthquake?23·

· · ·· A.··Yes, because some of those stratographic units24·

· ·are shale areas, which tend to impede hydraulic25·

Page 154

· ·conductivity.··Not to say that there can't be pathways,·1·

· ·but that's well-documented to be a minimizing factor in·2·

· ·the risk for injection-induced seismicity.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And that's that wall -- kind of the wall idea·4·

· ·that I was talking about between the hydrological·5·

· ·connection, that if you put a wall between it, that·6·

· ·keeps it from pressuring up the fault, right?·7·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And as we sit here today, do you know of·9·

· ·any -- the location of any, oh, pathway between the10·

· ·Hunton and the Arbuckle where the Spess well was11·

· ·injecting between the Hunton and the Arbuckle?12·

· · ·· A.··Probably the Wilzetta fault itself would be the13·

· ·hydraulic pathway.··There's some debate, and you can14·

· ·actually find cases probably supporting both arguments15·

· ·in the natural environment of whether a fault acts as16·

· ·seals or conduits.··So there's a lot of debate there.17·

· · · · ·· But I think in Oklahoma, we can say a lot of our18·

· ·faults do act as conduits, given what we've seen from19·

· ·the hydraulic fracturing cases where we see earthquakes20·

· ·occurring miles from an injection well or from a well21·

· ·that's being hydraulically fractured.··You'd have to22·

· ·have super-pathways.23·

· · ·· Q.··And I understand all that.··But my question is in24·

· ·this situation, as we sit here today, do you have any25·

Page 155

· ·knowledge of any direct pathway between the Hunton -- or·1·

· ·the Spess well that's injecting into the Hunton and the·2·

· ·fault?·3·

· · ·· A.··I would say that certainly, the secondary·4·

· ·features with the Wilzetta fault, the Wilzetta fault·5·

· ·itself may provide those pathways.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··It may.··I'm asking does it.··Do you know·7·

· ·one way or another?·8·

· · ·· A.··At a hundred percent certainty?·9·

· · ·· Q.··At -- well, do you know whether it's more10·

· ·probable than not?11·

· · ·· A.··I would say it is probably more probable that12·

· ·they're highly-conductive pathways.13·

· · ·· Q.··Where are they?··Tell me where they are.··Have14·

· ·you seen these pathways?··Have you done anything to15·

· ·determine where these pathways are located?16·

· · ·· A.··No, because I don't have access to the Spess17·

· ·well.18·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, so as we're sitting here, you're19·

· ·making an assumption, but you don't have any evidence to20·

· ·actually support that there is such a pathway that21·

· ·exists, correct?22·


· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··I'd like to just clarify that24·

· ·he's talking completely about what he knew the day he25·

Page 156

· ·left the employment of the state of Oklahoma.·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··That's fair enough.·2·

· · ·· Q.··I mean, let me ask this:··The line of questioning·3·

· ·I've asked, is that what you knew when you left work for·4·

· ·the state of Oklahoma?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Have you since you left work for the state·7·

· ·of Oklahoma done any additional work that has influenced·8·

· ·or changed any of your opinions?·9·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Do not answer that question.10·


· · ·· Q.··Is there any data that you're relying upon in12·

· ·forming any of your opinions that you received after you13·

· ·left the employ of the Oklahoma Geological Survey?14·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Same thing.15·


· · ·· Q.··All right.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Hey, Edd, I'd like a personal18·

· ·break if you're at a transition.19·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I'm almost done with this20·

· ·exhibit and we can move on.21·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··That's fine.··Whenever is a22·

· ·good transition for you.23·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Okay.··Let me finish real24·

· ·quickly with this, because I think I'm almost done here.25·


(Pages 157-160)


Page 157

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Pritchett)··You then had the three·1·

· ·conclusions --·2·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.·3·

· · ·· Q.··-- that are down there.··And we've already talked·4·

· ·about the first one.··The next one is "The Prague·5·

· ·Earthquake Sequence, as well as other current and·6·

· ·historically active seismic areas in Oklahoma, would·7·

· ·benefit from further study, including improved·8·

· ·earthquake monitoring and acquisition of formation·9·

· ·pressure data."··Was that accurate?10·

· · ·· A.··Yes.11·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··The third one was, "Further studies of12·

· ·seismic activity in Oklahoma will result in a better13·

· ·understanding of seismicity statewide."··Is that14·

· ·accurate?15·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··I wrote both those statements.··Those two16·

· ·sentences, I was allowed to leave.17·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Because at the time -- and I want to make18·

· ·this clear -- at the time, in 2013 when this was19·

· ·written, you didn't have an opinion that could prove one20·

· ·way or another whether the Prague earthquakes were21·

· ·caused by natural occurrences or by manmade actions,22·

· ·correct?23·


· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··All right.··Let's take a25·

Page 158

· ·break.·1·

· · · · · · · · (A recess was taken from 2:30 p.m. to·2·

· ·2:40 p.m., and testimony continued as follows:)·3·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··All right.··Let's go back on·4·

· ·the record.·5·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Pritchett)··Is it accurate that there·6·

· ·have been large spikes of natural earthquakes in the·7·

· ·past in Oklahoma where no oil and gas development was·8·

· ·occurring?·9·

· · ·· A.··There have been small earthquake swarms.··I'm not10·

· ·sure I'd say large spikes.11·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Let's go to Exhibit Number 5 again12·

· ·and go to that last page.13·

· · · · ·· In that exhibit, on the very last two sentences14·

· ·on the last page, or page 3 of 5, it says "Oklahoma has15·

· ·naturally-occurring earthquakes, he says, and there have16·

· ·been large spikes of natural earthquakes in the past17·

· ·where no oil and gas development was occurring."··Do you18·

· ·see that?19·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··I also don't see quotes around it, which20·

· ·means it's not an exact quote.··So we have seen periods21·

· ·of increased seismic activity and decreased seismic22·

· ·activity.··That is correct.23·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And then it says, "It was proper,24·

· ·Holland says, to start with the hypothesis that the25·

Page 159

· ·quakes were not manmade."··Is that accurate?·1·

· · ·· A.··That's accurate.··That's how science works.··You·2·

· ·start with what you know, and you have to be able to·3·

· ·reject that whole hypothesis before you move on.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And that's the normal hypothesis that you·5·

· ·talked about earlier --·6·


· · ·· Q.··-- that you have to have scientific evidence to·8·

· ·show that this wasn't natural, correct?·9·


· · ·· Q.··All right.··Is it accurate that large volumes of11·

· ·injected wastewater may be required for an earthquake12·

· ·response that includes events large enough to be felt,13·

· ·or even damaging?14·

· · ·· A.··It depends on which scientist you ask.··There are15·

· ·some scientists that equate the total injected volume16·

· ·within an area or region to the maximum magnitude of the17·

· ·potential earthquake that could be generated.18·

· · ·· Q.··Well, is it your opinion that large amounts of19·

· ·injected wastewater are required to create large20·


· · ·· A.··I think that both cases are correct, that there22·

· ·are times where you need large volumes to activate for23·

· ·large earthquakes.··But if you have an earthquake that24·

· ·is right at the point of -- basically, the earth's at25·

Page 160

· ·the point where it's critically stressed, and you just·1·

· ·need a small tickle, then it can take very small·2·

· ·variations.·3·

· · · · ·· For instance, the case that I documented·4·

· ·regarding hydraulic fracturing, the pressures travel·5·

· ·long distances, and it's unlikely that pressures at·6·

· ·those distances were the same at an injection, and yet·7·

· ·we have several earthquakes occurring some distance·8·

· ·away.··That's because the stored stress was already·9·

· ·there.10·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether or have you done anything to11·

· ·determine whether the fluids injected by the Spess wells12·

· ·were sufficient in and of themselves to cause the13·

· ·earthquake, the Prague earthquake?14·

· · ·· A.··I don't believe any researcher has looked at15·

· ·whether the Spess wells themselves would be capable of16·

· ·triggering the Prague earthquake.17·

· · ·· Q.··Well, do you have an opinion, since you're being18·

· ·here presented as an expert, as to whether the Spess19·

· ·wells by themselves would have caused this earthquake?20·

· · ·· A.··I would have to refer you to one of the21·

· ·electronic documents I provided to you that showed that22·

· ·the greatest contribution was likely from the New23·

· ·Dominion injection well.24·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, let me ask you my question again,25·


(Pages 161-164)


Page 161

· ·then.··Do you have an opinion that the Spess wells by·1·

· ·themselves were sufficient to trigger this earthquake?·2·

· · ·· A.··I am not sure I have asked that question, so I·3·

· ·can't answer that in a scientific fashion.·4·

· · ·· Q.··So no, you don't have an opinion or --·5·

· · ·· A.··No, I don't have an opinion.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Or you're not offering that opinion here?·7·

· · ·· A.··I don't have an opinion.·8·

· · · · · · · · (Defendant Spess Exhibit 2 marked for·9·


· · ·· Q.··I'll go ahead and mark this as Spess Exhibit11·

· ·Number 2 to your deposition.12·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Sorry, guys, I only brought13·

· ·two copies with me.14·

· · ·· Q.··And could you hand that to counsel, please.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Have you got one, Austin?16·

· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:··Yeah.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··What exhibit number is this?18·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Exhibit 2, Spess Exhibit 2.19·

· · ·· Q.··All right, sir.··Do you recognize this document?20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··That was the one I was referring to in my21·

· ·electronic disclosure I gave to you.22·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And this is titled "Examination of23·

· ·Injection Energy near the Wilzetta Fault, Lincoln24·

· ·County, Oklahoma."··Is that correct?25·

Page 162


· · ·· Q.··When was this prepared?·2·

· · ·· A.··There's not a date on there.··I don't know.··I·3·

· ·would say it was shortly after this statement that came·4·

· ·out in 2013.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So this would have been after the·6·

· ·statement came out in 2013?·7·

· · ·· A.··That would be correct.·8·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And if you look at this, the very·9·

· ·first paragraph, you state "The cumulative effect of10·

· ·fluid injection and the potential to induce earthquakes11·

· ·can be examined as an energy balance," correct?··I read12·

· ·that correctly?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes.14·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··You then say, "This analysis does not15·

· ·directly indicate whether or not an earthquake may be16·

· ·triggered or not, but rather demonstrates the amount of17·

· ·energy released in an earthquake compared to the amount18·

· ·of energy added to the system by fluid injection."··Is19·

· ·that accurate?··Did I read that right?20·

· · ·· A.··Yes.21·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And the purpose of this was to -- was22·

· ·what?23·

· · ·· A.··This is my work notes to examine -- so as I was24·

· ·researching, you know, is the Prague earthquake induced25·

Page 163

· ·or not, these were my notes.··So it's written in sort of·1·

· ·like a paper format, but I decided never to publish it·2·

· ·just because it wasn't incredibly helpful nor·3·

· ·informative.··In some regards there are key pieces of·4·

· ·information that can go into another paper at some·5·

· ·future date, but it's basically a work note product for·6·

· ·me to keep track of myself and express my ideas.·7·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··You note that the -- and essentially,·8·

· ·what you've come to the conclusion is that the seismic·9·

· ·energy released in the three Prague earthquakes that10·

· ·we're talking about in November 2011 was much larger11·

· ·than the energy possibly added to the system from fluid12·

· ·injection.··Is that accurate?13·


· · ·· Q.··Turn to page 2.··And I'm sorry, I don't have15·

· ·Bates stamps or pages numbers on this.··But sentence16·

· ·number two, the full sentence number two states, "The17·

· ·very small percentage of energy added to the system18·

· ·suggests that the ruptured faults were very near failure19·

· ·or naturally-occurring earthquakes and not triggered."20·

· ·Do you see that?21·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So because there was so little actual23·

· ·pressure added to this, at this time you concluded24·

· ·that --25·

Page 164

· · ·· A.··Well, this is referring to energy, not pressure.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Energy.··I'm sorry.·2·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·3·

· · ·· Q.··There's the energy added, so therefore, it either·4·

· ·means that the fault was very near failure or that these·5·

· ·are naturally-occurring and not triggered, correct?·6·

· · ·· A.··That's the line of reasoning in my work notes,·7·

· ·yes.·8·

· · ·· Q.··And you note in here on page 3 down at the very·9·

· ·bottom that, "The volumes injected in different wells10·

· ·may not be in contact and as such summing them may not11·

· ·be informative."··Is that another criticism of12·

· ·Keranen's?13·

· · ·· A.··That's just me thinking, right?··These are work14·

· ·notes.··So it was -- yes.··I'm not sure it had anything15·

· ·to do with the Keranen stuff, it was just me.16·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Turn to the next page, please.17·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.18·

· · ·· Q.··In the last paragraph on that, you say "A19·

· ·comparison of injection at the STASTA wells shows no20·

· ·clear correlation between injection parameters and the21·

· ·number of earthquakes and similarly for the Wilzetta's22·

· ·SWD."23·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.24·

· · ·· Q.··The STASTA wells were the two Spess wells,25·


(Pages 165-168)


Page 165

· ·correct?·1·


· · ·· Q.··And the Wilzetta SWD was the New Dominion well?·3·


· · ·· Q.··And so are you saying that you can't just do a·5·

· ·comparison of the injection to determine whether they·6·

· ·had any -- or caused or contributed to the earthquakes?·7·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So you can't just look at the number of·8·

· ·earthquakes and injection volumes or injective·9·

· ·pressures.··That is typical of a lot of the10·

· ·historical-induced seismicity cases to just say, "Oh,11·

· ·yeah, they line up perfectly."··So yeah, that's --12·

· · ·· Q.··And I guess that kind of goes back to that the13·

· ·historical cases or examples where injection wells had14·

· ·triggered earthquakes, there was a correlation.··But you15·

· ·don't have that here with this earthquake.··Is that16·

· ·accurate?17·


· · ·· Q.··And then if you turn to the next page, there's a19·

· ·Figure 6.··And you say, "At all points the moment" -- at20·

· ·least I think it was the next page.··Are you -- I21·

· ·skipped a few pages.22·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.23·

· · ·· Q.··Let's turn to Figure 6.··You say "At all points24·

· ·the moment release within the region is greater than the25·

Page 166

· ·energy from fluid injection."··So that's what you're·1·

· ·talking about, that the energy that was actually·2·

· ·released was much greater than the energy created from·3·

· ·fluid injection.·4·


· · ·· Q.··All right.··In the next paragraph, you talk about·6·

· ·"We can also compare energy from injection from a series·7·

· ·of earthquakes, which were likely triggered by hydraulic·8·

· ·fracturing."··Is that going back to that 2011 study?·9·

· · ·· A.··It is.10·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Go to the "Discussion" portion of11·

· ·your paper.··It's the second-to-the-last page.··You12·

· ·state that "The work here clearly demonstrates that if13·

· ·the 2010 and 2011 Prague foreshocks were caused by fluid14·

· ·injection at the STASTA wells the fault was already15·

· ·critically stressed."··Do you see that?16·

· · ·· A.··That is accurate, yes.17·

· · ·· Q.··And again, that's an "if," though, correct?18·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.19·

· · ·· Q.··"It also suggests that given this information we20·

· ·cannot rule out the possibility that the earthquakes21·

· ·were naturally occurring."··Is that accurate?22·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.23·

· · ·· Q.··Yes?24·

· · ·· A.··Yes.25·

Page 167

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··"This calculation is based off of simple·1·

· ·first principles of conservation of energy."··What does·2·

· ·that mean?·3·

· · ·· A.··That's Newton's first law, right, or -- oh, boy.·4·

· ·If I get this wrong as a geophysicist, they might skin·5·

· ·me.··But -- so one of the basic physics principles is·6·

· ·energy can't be created or destroyed, it has to be·7·

· ·preserved.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And so why was -- what do you mean when·9·

· ·you say this information you can't -- or that the10·

· ·calculation is based off of this principle?··Can you11·

· ·explain that to us better, us nonscientific people?12·

· · ·· A.··So I was just looking at, all right, what do we13·

· ·see in the sorts of energies.··And this isn't a closed14·

· ·system, so you don't have a true conservation of energy.15·

· ·And so, you know, it was just a way to begin to look at16·

· ·this, to take some first principles and start looking at17·

· ·some of this.··What can we say, what can we not say, you18·

· ·know, how do -- I was trained to look at new ways to19·

· ·think about some of this stuff to try and get an answer,20·

· ·because it was still unclear.··You can't say yes, these21·

· ·earthquakes were induced or no, they weren't.22·

· · · · ·· So I was looking at this, and, you know, even,23·

· ·you know, with this sort of work product I was looking24·

· ·at, it didn't help refine those, "What data do we need25·

Page 168

· ·to address whether this earthquake is induced or not"·1·

· ·is.·2·

· · ·· Q.··So at the time you wrote this, you still couldn't·3·

· ·make a determination.·4·


· · ·· Q.··And you were looking at what possible data you·6·

· ·might need to make that determination.·7·


· · ·· Q.··And one of the things you look at is in that last·9·

· ·paragraph, you say "It will be essential to determine10·

· ·the possible aquifer reservoir volume to determine the11·

· ·potential pore pressure increase associated with fluid12·

· ·injection."··Do you see that?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes.14·

· · ·· Q.··What does that mean?15·

· · ·· A.··That means I was trying to come up with a way to16·

· ·say, "All right.··We know our injection pressures.··Can17·

· ·we figure out how much pressure was transmitted where?"18·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether anyone has done an aquifer19·

· ·reservoir volume to determine the potential pore20·

· ·pressure increase in this case?21·

· · ·· A.··There was a case by Weingarten and others.22·

· · ·· Q.··On the Prague earthquakes.23·

· · ·· A.··It included the Prague earthquake source, I24·

· ·believe, but I was looking at the Jones -- it was25·


(Pages 169-172)


Page 169

· ·focused on the Jones earthquakes form, but I think they·1·

· ·included that in their modeling.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Do you remember what that showed?·3·

· · ·· A.··That pressures significantly increased to trigger·4·

· ·earthquakes in the Jones region from disposal wells,·5·

· ·large-volume disposal wells at some distance.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··But I'm talking about in the Prague case.·7·

· ·Did anyone do an aquifer or reservoir volume of the·8·

· ·Prague situation?·9·

· · ·· A.··Not to my knowledge.10·

· · ·· Q.··No.··Okay.··But that was one of the things you11·

· ·said it would be essential to determine, right?12·

· · ·· A.··Yes.13·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··In the last sentence you say, "In addition14·

· ·bottomhole pressure measurements would provide a much15·

· ·more accurate understanding of actual injection16·

· ·pressures affecting the formation whether they result17·

· ·from wellhead pressure, hydraulic head within the well,18·

· ·or a combination of both factors, as well as the actual19·

· ·frictional loss due to fluid flow within the pipe."··Do20·

· ·you know whether anyone's done this?21·

· · ·· A.··Yes.22·

· · ·· Q.··Hold on.··Strike that.··Let me ask this:··Have23·

· ·you done this?24·

· · ·· A.··No.25·

Page 170

· · ·· Q.··Have you relied on anybody else's work where·1·

· ·they've done this in forming your opinions in this case?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·3·

· · ·· Q.··And with who?·4·

· · ·· A.··Weingarten and others.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··But that's the Jones.··I'm talking about·6·

· ·with regard to the Prague earthquakes.··Have you done·7·

· ·anything or looked at anything that's completed this·8·

· ·with regard --·9·

· · ·· A.··No.10·

· · ·· Q.··-- to the Prague?11·

· · ·· A.··No.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So in 2013, in your private notes, these13·

· ·weren't influenced by your bosses, were they?14·

· · ·· A.··No.15·

· · ·· Q.··You say that there is additional work that needs16·

· ·to be done to determine whether this was natural or17·

· ·manmade, correct?18·

· · ·· A.··Yes.19·

· · ·· Q.··And then you list some of this additional work,20·

· ·but it was never done, was it?21·


· · · · · · · · (Defendant Spess Exhibit 3 marked for23·


· · ·· Q.··Let me hand you what I'll identify as Exhibit 3,25·

Page 171

· ·Spess Exhibit 3 to your deposition, and ask if you can·1·

· ·hand a copy of that to counsel there.·2·

· · · · ·· Now, Exhibit 3, have you seen this document·3·

· ·before?·4·

· · ·· A.··Well, I might have, since it's some of my slides·5·

· ·and some other slides.··But no, I'm not sure -- let's·6·

· ·see.··Is it out of order?·7·

· · ·· Q.··It may be.·8·

· · ·· A.··Oh, okay.··Yes.··This is a grant proposal.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And I was wondering if it might be out of10·

· ·order, but that's how it came down off the Internet11·

· ·where I got it -- or off the OGS documents.12·

· · · · ·· You prepared this grant proposal?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes, along with others.14·

· · ·· Q.··And when did you prepare this grant proposal?15·

· · ·· A.··It should say on here.··December of 2012.16·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And the purpose of this grant proposal was17·

· ·to do what?18·

· · ·· A.··To look at the 4-D microgravity in the central19·

· ·Oklahoma area to try and get an idea of where water is20·

· ·flowing deep in the subsurface.21·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··That's so you get a better understanding22·

· ·of what, I guess, the formations look like down there?23·

· · ·· A.··The response to formations to the injection we24·

· ·knew about, yes.25·

Page 172

· · ·· Q.··Was this ever granted?·1·

· · ·· A.··No, it was not.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So this was never actually done?·3·

· · ·· A.··No.··This work was not done.·4·

· · ·· Q.··If you'll turn to page 2, your "Abstract," I note·5·

· ·in the first paragraph, approximately the·6·

· ·second-from-the-last sentence, it says "One of the·7·

· ·greatest uncertainties in examining and demonstrating·8·

· ·which earthquakes may be induced from fluid injection is·9·

· ·that it is currently completely unknown where fluids10·

· ·injected into the subsurface may be migrating both11·

· ·laterally and vertically."··Is that accurate?12·

· · ·· A.··Yes, that is accurate.13·

· · ·· Q.··Is that accurate with regard to the Prague14·


· · ·· A.··Yes.16·

· · ·· Q.··Has anything been done to determine where the17·

· ·subsurface or where the fluids injected into the18·

· ·subsurface may be migrating both laterally and19·

· ·vertically in Prague?20·

· · ·· A.··I have seen work that addresses this.··This was21·

· ·work done by Chesapeake and not released to the public.22·

· ·Or someone at Chesapeake.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Was that in Lincoln County, then?24·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··That was concerning the Prague earthquake.25·


(Pages 173-176)


Page 173

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Did that involve or did it include the·1·

· ·area underlying the Spess wells?·2·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you know who?·4·

· · ·· A.··I can't remember his name at the moment.··I'd·5·

· ·have to go through my notes to determine that.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have a copy of that report?·7·

· · ·· A.··I did at one point.·8·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Do you remember what it showed?·9·

· · ·· A.··It showed that there was an open system that was10·

· ·basically refuting the whole block dynamics.··But he was11·

· ·a hydrogeologist, and I'm not a hydrogeologist, so some12·

· ·of his evidence, I was not clear as to what it really13·

· ·meant.··I wasn't familiar with the techniques.14·

· · ·· Q.··Well, as I understand what we're talking about15·

· ·here is that when you're injecting the fluids16·

· ·underground or into the subsurface, based on the cracks17·

· ·or the pores in the rocks, the fluids can go in any18·

· ·direction, basically, depending on what's down there,19·

· ·right?20·

· · ·· A.··That's correct, yes.21·

· · ·· Q.··And so what this is doing is it's kind of tracing22·

· ·those pathways that you were talking about earlier that23·

· ·might connect or hydrologically connect water that's24·

· ·being injected to other areas.··Is that accurate?25·

Page 174

· · ·· A.··Yes.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you remember from looking at this study·2·

· ·whether it showed any pathways relating to the STASTA·3·

· ·wells, the Spess wells?·4·

· · ·· A.··I cannot recall.··Like I said, there was a fair·5·

· ·amount of detail in there I did not comprehend and --·6·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Other than this one study that·7·

· ·Chesapeake did, has anyone else done a study to know·8·

· ·whether the fluids injected into the subsurface, which·9·

· ·direction they migrate?10·

· · ·· A.··I'm not aware of any studies.11·

· · ·· Q.··And especially with regard to the Spess wells.12·

· · ·· A.··I'm not.13·

· · ·· Q.··And the purpose of this was to try and determine14·

· ·or to model that fluid migration.··Is that accurate?15·

· · ·· A.··Yes, although the technique probably didn't have16·

· ·the resolution to actually accomplish that.··It was sort17·

· ·of a pie in the sky, let's see if it works, which is18·

· ·probably why it didn't get funded.19·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Turn to page 6, Section F, "Proposal;20·

· ·Significance of Project."··Are you there?21·

· · ·· A.··Yep.22·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··The third sentence down says, "Cases23·

· ·of clearly triggered seismicity from fluid injection are24·

· ·well-documented and show a clear correlation between the25·

Page 175

· ·number of earthquakes in an area and injection,·1·

· ·specifically injection pressures, with earthquakes·2·

· ·occurring very close to the well.··Examples of clearly·3·

· ·induced seismicity include the Rocky Mountain Arsenal,·4·

· ·Rangely, Colorado; Paradox Valley, Colorado; and the KTB·5·

· ·Deep Well in Germany."··Is that accurate?·6·

· · ·· A.··That is accurate.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So when you're dealing with these·8·

· ·historical cases of injection wells causing seismicity·9·

· ·or triggering seismicity, in those cases, the fluid10·

· ·injection is well-documented and shows a clear11·

· ·correlation between the number of earthquakes and the12·

· ·injections?13·


· · ·· Q.··On that Rocky Mountain Arsenal, that was injected15·

· ·directly into the crystalline basement, wasn't it?16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.17·

· · ·· Q.··And so that's a little different than what we've18·

· ·got going on in Prague, right?19·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··Although the Wilzetta SWD may20·

· ·have had a total depth in basement.··I'm not certain on21·

· ·that.22·

· · ·· Q.··Well, do you know?23·

· · ·· A.··I'm not certain on that.24·

· · ·· Q.··And you also note that "The cases above include25·

Page 176

· ·the simple case of a single to just a handful of·1·

· ·injection wells," and that "There are more than 7,500·2·

· ·UIC Class II injection wells within Oklahoma, and 863 of·3·

· ·those wells occur within 10 kilometers of the area of·4·

· ·increased seismicity shown in Figure 1."·5·

· · · · ·· So again, we've got -- there's a lot of wells in·6·

· ·Oklahoma, injection wells in Oklahoma, correct?·7·


· · ·· Q.··And did you-all do anything to rule out certain·9·

· ·injection wells, other than the three that we've talked10·

· ·about, as having caused or contributed to the Prague11·


· · ·· A.··In regard to the Prague earthquakes?··Is that13·

· ·what we're talking about?14·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.15·

· · ·· A.··No.16·

· · ·· Q.··And it says, "Pressure changes and pore pressure17·

· ·are often used to identify potential induced seismicity18·

· ·and generate a physical model of the earthquakes in19·

· ·relation to injection."··Did anyone do that in this case20·

· ·with regards to the --21·

· · ·· A.··Say that again.22·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.··You say down here in the second-to-last23·

· ·sentence, "Pressure changes and pore pressure are often24·

· ·used to identify potential induced seismicity and25·


(Pages 177-180)


Page 177

· ·generate a physical model of the earthquakes in relation·1·

· ·to injection."··And then you list a number of sources·2·

· ·for that.··Do you see that?·3·

· · ·· A.··Oh.··Yes.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you know whether anyone did that,·5·

· ·looked at the pressure changes and the pore pressures·6·

· ·with regards to the Spess wells to identify potential·7·

· ·induced seismicity and generate a physical model of the·8·


· · ·· A.··I don't think there's sufficiently publicly10·

· ·available info to do such a study.··But no, no one's11·

· ·done that, to my knowledge.12·

· · ·· Q.··You would agree that "Misidentifying wells that13·

· ·may be triggering earthquakes can generate substantial14·

· ·financial loss to operators and significantly impact oil15·

· ·and gas production within an area leading to financial16·

· ·loss to governments and municipalities."··Is that17·

· ·correct?18·

· · ·· A.··Yes.19·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Which page did you read from?20·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I read that from page 10.21·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Read that again.22·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I've asked my question,23·

· ·Counsel.24·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Would you read that back to me?25·

Page 178

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I don't know that I had him·1·

· ·read it or listed a specific place.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··If you're gonna refer to·3·

· ·something, tell us where it is so we can follow you.·4·

· ·Okay?·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I'll ask my questions,·6·

· ·but --·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Hey, you can --·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··-- I will -- Counsel, hold·9·

· ·on.10·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Yeah.··You shut up.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Really?12·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I asked you a decent question.13·

· ·And if you don't want to do it, just tell me.14·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Well, I thought I did.··But15·

· ·I will tell you -- I will go ahead and reread it again16·

· ·for you, for your convenience.··All right?17·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Thank you.··Yeah.18·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··"Misidentifying wells" -- at19·

· ·page 10 -- "Misidentifying wells that may be triggering20·

· ·earthquakes can generate substantial financial loss to21·

· ·operators and significantly impact oil and gas22·

· ·production within an area leading to financial loss to23·

· ·governments and municipalities."24·

· · · · · · · · Did you get it this time, sir?25·

Page 179

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Sure.·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··All right.·2·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Pritchett)··Let me ask you, if you'll·3·

· ·turn going past your "Abstract" or your "Proposal," and·4·

· ·it's after page 19.··I think you may be on that.·5·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Is this supposed to be part of your proposal?·7·

· · ·· A.··I have no idea what this is about.·8·

· · ·· Q.··So where it states that "Holland noted that the·9·

· ·recent earthquakes that occurred November 5 through 810·

· ·appear to be naturally-occurring earthquakes on a11·

· ·well-known fault line," you don't remember making that12·

· ·statement?13·

· · ·· A.··I don't recognize this.14·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Let the record reflect he's15·

· ·talking about page 20, not page 19.16·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Yeah.··I'm sorry.··I said17·

· ·after page 19, Counsel.18·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So I don't recall this.··And it might be19·

· ·part of a statement that came out immediately after the20·

· ·earthquake, I'm not sure.··But I would not write21·

· ·"hydro-fracking," so I'm not sure what this is.··I refer22·

· ·to it as "fracking" or "hydraulic fracturing."23·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··If you'll turn a number of pages, and24·

· ·it's after your last diagram here, there's a page that25·

Page 180

· ·looks like this.··It should be right after the long --·1·

· ·the number of pages with diagrams on them.·2·

· · · · ·· I'm sorry.··Next time I have more time, I'll get·3·

· ·this -- I'll have these numbered.··But --·4·

· · ·· A.··All right.··Let me see here.··After these -- ah,·5·

· ·there we go.··So it's right after the time history plots·6·

· ·of seismicity.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Yes, right after that page.·8·

· · ·· A.··"Number of earthquakes per day."·9·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Is this part of your grant proposal?10·

· · ·· A.··No, this is not part of the grant proposal.··Like11·

· ·I said, I don't know where this material came from.12·

· ·This was part of a document I provided to the dean of13·

· ·the college, where I said that we can't reject that14·

· ·normal hypothesis that the earthquakes were naturally15·

· ·occurring.16·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know when you would have provided this to17·

· ·the dean?18·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··I provided that to the dean in February of19·

· ·2013.20·

· · ·· Q.··Was this provided to educate the dean on what was21·

· ·going on or what your findings had been?22·

· · ·· A.··He wanted to release a statement in response to23·

· ·the Keranen paper.··I was providing them the information24·

· ·I had at the time to help them write that document.25·


(Pages 181-184)


Page 181

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Because if you look at the -- I guess it's·1·

· ·the second-to-the-last sentence of the very first·2·

· ·paragraph.··It says, "It does not appear that the data·3·

· ·presently available are sufficient to rule out a natural·4·

· ·cause for this earthquake sequence, and the OGS,·5·

· ·Corporation Commission, and the U.S. EPA have been·6·

· ·conducting additional studies since the Prague sequence·7·

· ·occurred."··Do you see that?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So again, this is just an indication that10·

· ·at that time, you could not rule out natural causes.11·

· · ·· A.··That's correct, yes.12·

· · ·· Q.··And in your first bullet point, you talk about13·

· ·that the "earthquakes in the Prague area have followed14·

· ·the normal Omori Law aftershock decay with time that is15·

· ·typical of naturally-occurring earthquakes."16·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.17·

· · ·· Q.··Did I read that accurately?18·

· · ·· A.··Yes.19·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So this is similar to going back to that20·

· ·OGS statement.21·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So this is some of the input that was used22·

· ·to create that statement.23·

· · ·· Q.··But this is your document that you created,24·

· ·correct?25·

Page 182

· · ·· A.··It's part of my document.··I'm not sure how it·1·

· ·got attached to other stuff.··But yes, it is part of my·2·

· ·document.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Turn to the next page, please.·4·

· · ·· A.··Sure.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Let me make sure we're on --·6·

· · ·· A.··The Gutenberg-Richter or the one after?·7·

· · ·· Q.··You should have a diagram with a bunch of red·8·

· ·dots on it.·9·

· · ·· A.··All right.10·

· · ·· Q.··And again, this also has some of those items that11·

· ·we found in the OGS position paper from March of 2013,12·

· ·correct?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes.14·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And was this something that you also15·

· ·prepared, this page here?16·

· · ·· A.··Yes.17·

· · ·· Q.··So, for example, we've got again that the18·

· ·Wilzetta fault is favorable for earthquakes, that bullet19·

· ·point number two, "The observation that favorably20·

· ·oriented faults are near failure is just as consistent21·

· ·with the Prague earthquake sequence being natural or22·

· ·triggered."··And then you've got "The USGS seismic23·

· ·hazard map" statement.24·

· · ·· A.··Yep.25·

Page 183

· · ·· Q.··And then you've got the Gutenberg-Richter·1·

· ·relationship, which talks about this being -- that "This·2·

· ·relationship would suggest that a magnitude 5-plus·3·

· ·earthquake was not unlikely to occur in Oklahoma," is·4·

· ·what you said here, right?·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.·7·

· · ·· A.··Am I allowed to ask were you got this mishmash of·8·

· ·documents from?·9·

· · ·· Q.··I got it from the OGS production -- or in10·

· ·response to a Freedom of Information --11·

· · ·· A.··Open records request.12·

· · ·· Q.··Yeah.13·

· · ·· A.··Okay.14·

· · ·· Q.··And this is how it was produced to us.15·

· · ·· A.··Okay.16·

· · ·· Q.··I didn't change -- I didn't move the pages in and17·

· ·out on you.18·

· · ·· A.··All right.19·

· · ·· Q.··Prior to the 2011 Prague earthquakes, the20·

· ·November Prague earthquake, was there any indication21·

· ·that you were aware of that gave you or put anyone on22·

· ·notice that an earthquake might occur in that area?23·

· · ·· A.··Well, there was the 2010 magnitude 4 earthquake24·

· ·that occurred in the area, so that was one indication25·

Page 184

· ·that clearly we had a seismogenic fault zone.··We also·1·

· ·then saw microearthquakes being triggered dynamically as·2·

· ·the passage of seismic waves, which is another·3·

· ·indication that we had a potential for a fault sitting·4·

· ·at these critical stresses.·5·

· · ·· Q.··And at this time you were working with the OCC,·6·

· ·correct?·7·

· · ·· A.··I'd been working -- yeah, I'd been working with·8·

· ·the OCC my --·9·

· · ·· Q.··Did you tell them that they needed to curtail10·

· ·injection in that area?11·

· · ·· A.··I did not.12·

· · ·· Q.··At that time, did you believe that they needed to13·

· ·curtail injection in that area?14·

· · ·· A.··No.··They had made no such actions at that time.15·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, I guess what I'm asking is if you16·

· ·had an opinion as to whether they should have curtailed17·

· ·injection in that area after 2010, before 2011.18·

· · ·· A.··At the time, I did not.19·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··You made some mention earlier about20·

· ·ultrahazardous.··Where did you learn -- I think you kept21·

· ·saying based on your understanding of what that means.22·

· ·Where did you learn what that means?23·

· · ·· A.··So looked at what that means in some previous24·

· ·cases.··So -- like explosives.··If you're handling25·


(Pages 185-188)


Page 185

· ·explosives, those are ultrahazardous conditions.··Now,·1·

· ·most of the time when people are handling explosives,·2·

· ·nothing happens.··Right?··But there's a chance that·3·

· ·something can go wrong, and it carries extra risk.··And·4·

· ·I don't think -- I think the scientific community would·5·

· ·agree that wastewater injection deep within the earth·6·

· ·near basement is an ultrahazardous activity.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, let me go back --·8·

· · ·· A.··Because you can't control the risk.·9·

· · ·· Q.··I understand.··Let me go back -- well, let me go10·

· ·back to a couple things on what you just said, then.11·

· · ·· A.··Sure.12·

· · ·· Q.··Did someone tell to you go look at these13·

· ·explosive cases, or is that something you did on your14·

· ·own?15·

· · ·· A.··Garvin asked me about whether I considered16·

· ·ultrahazardous.··I was like -- everybody did it at the17·

· ·time, right?··This is something that was common industry18·

· ·practice.··And so it was hard for me to understand what19·

· ·"ultrahazardous" means, because it means something20·

· ·totally different to me than it does in the legal realm.21·

· · ·· Q.··And you're not qualified to give legal opinions,22·

· ·are you?23·

· · ·· A.··No.··But I am qualified to understand risk,24·

· ·earthquake risk.··That, I can discuss.25·

Page 186

· · ·· Q.··I'm asking you a strict question about --·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I object.··Don't argue with·2·

· ·him.··He answered the question.·3·

· · ·· A.··I did say no.·4·

· · ·· Q.··I want to make it very clear for the record.·5·

· ·You're not holding yourself out as a legal expert in·6·

· ·this case, correct?·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I object.··He is giving·8·

· ·opinions that an expert witness is allowed to give in·9·

· ·this case on what an ultrahazardous activity is.10·

· · ·· Q.··You can answer my question, sir.11·

· · ·· A.··No, I'm not a legal expert.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And until Mr. Isaacs told you to look at13·

· ·it, you did not have any opinion that injection wells or14·

· ·injecting wastewater was an ultrahazardous activity, did15·

· ·you?16·

· · ·· A.··I had the opinion that it was a high-risk17·

· ·activity.18·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··But my question was you didn't have19·

· ·the opinion that it was an ultrahazardous activity,20·

· ·correct?··Until after he told you to look at it.21·

· · ·· A.··Now you're playing with nomenclature.··It is a22·

· ·high-risk activity to inject wastewater disposal near23·

· ·the crystalline basement.24·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And when you say -- how far?25·

Page 187

· · ·· A.··That is my opinion.·1·

· · ·· Q.··How far from the crystalline basement?·2·

· · ·· A.··That depends on the hydrologic conditions in the·3·

· ·subsurface.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, you've had that opinion for a long·5·

· ·time.··Is that accurate?·6·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, did you have that opinion in 2010,·8·

· ·after this 2010 earthquake?·9·

· · ·· A.··No.··It took years to develop this understanding10·

· ·of what was occurring in Oklahoma.11·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And so this opinion is something based on12·

· ·what's generally occurred in Oklahoma, not on what13·

· ·happened in 2010.··Is that accurate?14·

· · ·· A.··Yes.15·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Let me ask you this, because you say16·

· ·now that you have an opinion that the Prague earthquakes17·

· ·were most likely caused by injection activities or18·

· ·injection of wastewater.··Do you have an opinion as to19·

· ·the wells that specifically caused or contributed to the20·

· ·November 2011 earthquakes?21·

· · ·· A.··Based on published studies relating injection22·

· ·volumes to -- and, of course, those look at total23·

· ·injected volumes to the maximum size of earthquakes.··I24·

· ·would say that the Wilzetta saltwater disposal well had25·

Page 188

· ·the greatest contribution to triggering the Wilzetta·1·

· ·fault and the Prague earthquake.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have an opinion that the Spess wells·3·

· ·caused or contributed to the earthquake?·4·

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure I can separate them.··I think there·5·

· ·was injection occurring within the area.··I would say·6·

· ·that the largest contributor may be the largest·7·

· ·injectors.··But can we -- in our current understanding,·8·

· ·we cannot eliminate other contributors.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Well, can you -- what specific facts other than10·

· ·the fact that they're just injecting do you have that11·

· ·the Spess wells caused or contributed to the November12·

· ·2011 earthquakes?13·

· · ·· A.··None, other than the fact that they are14·

· ·disposing.15·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.16·

· · ·· A.··Or I guess injecting would be the more accurate17·

· ·term.18·

· · ·· Q.··After 2013 -- we've gone through quite a bit of19·

· ·your opinions back in 2013 that you couldn't tell one20·

· ·way or another whether this was being caused by21·

· ·injection activities or non-injection -- or natural22·

· ·causes.··I want to ask specifically, do you base your23·

· ·new opinion solely on the work that has been done by24·

· ·others?25·


(Pages 189-192)


Page 189

· · ·· A.··Let's see.··Let me look at my resume.··No, I·1·

· ·would base it also on the experiences and observations·2·

· ·we made of seismicity throughout the state of Oklahoma.·3·

· ·So we cannot take the occurrences in the Prague area out·4·

· ·of context of what's occurring in the larger context of·5·

· ·the state of Oklahoma.··And as such, I've continued to·6·

· ·do research and formulate opinions on my own work, as·7·

· ·well as the work of others.·8·

· · ·· Q.··What research have you continued to do on your·9·

· ·own?10·

· · ·· A.··So this was all work that I did at the Oklahoma11·

· ·Geological Survey.··So we have the optimal fault12·

· ·orientations within Oklahoma, the earthquakes triggered13·

· ·by hydraulic fracturing in south central Oklahoma is14·

· ·another peer-reviewed, published paper.··"Inventory of15·

· ·Class II Underground Injection Control Volumes in the16·

· ·Mid-Continent," published in the Shale Shaker; "Imaging17·

· ·time-dependent crustal deformation" -- this is my Ph.D.18·

· ·It has some -- a little bit new information on optimal19·

· ·fault orientations.20·

· · · · ·· And I also had Dr. Zoback as a committee member,21·

· ·and so discussions with him helped formulate many22·

· ·additional works that he and his students produced, as23·

· ·well as formulations that I came up with down the road.24·

· · · · ·· And then, of course, the 2014 summary report was25·

Page 190

· ·huge.··In 2014, we have an increase in seismicity rates·1·

· ·of another order of magnitude.··And so this was really·2·

· ·where the tide turned in our understanding of things,·3·

· ·because all of a sudden we had a lot more data, a lot·4·

· ·more well-recorded data, and a lot more researchers in·5·

· ·the field looking at triggered seismicity.·6·

· · · · ·· So the volume of papers began to explode in 2014·7·

· ·as the seismicity rates increased and began to follow·8·

· ·the Mississippi line play.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, let me stop you there real quickly.10·

· ·Did Walsh and Zoback, did they specifically study the11·

· ·Prague earthquake?12·

· · ·· A.··No.··I just said that the context of the state is13·

· ·in the larger occurrences that are occurring.··They did14·

· ·actually address and look at the Prague earthquake.··And15·

· ·you can go back and --16·

· · ·· Q.··What were their findings with regard to the17·

· ·Prague earthquake?18·

· · ·· A.··It was one where it was less clear than in other19·

· ·places, but it was consistent with other areas of20·

· ·triggered seismicity.21·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··With regard to these other sources22·

· ·that you're relying upon in forming your opinion, can23·

· ·you identify the articles or the names of the people who24·

· ·wrote those articles?25·

Page 191

· · ·· A.··I can give them my citation library, but I can't·1·

· ·do that in front of you or in front of this camera.·2·

· ·That's like asking you to recite the name of everybody·3·

· ·you've ever known or talked to.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Well, there's a little bit of difference.··You're·5·

· ·an expert witness and holding yourself out as an expert·6·

· ·witness, and you were asked to testify in this case.·7·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··And I --·8·

· · ·· Q.··Please let me finish.··And I was just asking if·9·

· ·you could identify the sources that you're relying upon10·

· ·since I haven't seen your list yet.11·

· · · · ·· And so I'll ask it again.··Can you identify the12·

· ·sources by name or article that you're relying upon in13·

· ·changing your opinion from what it was in 2013?14·

· · ·· A.··Yes, I can.15·

· · ·· Q.··Go ahead.16·

· · ·· A.··So there's Walsh and Zoback.17·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.18·

· · ·· A.··There's another paper by Zoback; I'm trying to19·

· ·think of who the additional author there is.··There's20·

· ·Weingarten and others; there are Yeck, et al.; Chen,21·

· ·et al.; a large number of -- Hough, et al.; Cochran,22·

· ·Sumy -- these are all peer-reviewed, published papers.23·

· ·That's 20.··That's pretty reasonable.24·

· · ·· Q.··Have any of them investigated specifically the25·

Page 192

· ·Prague November 2011 earthquakes?·1·

· · ·· A.··Walsh and Zoback examined that.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Other than them, anybody else?·3·

· · ·· A.··Oh, Zoback and Alton is another one, or Alton and·4·

· ·Zoback, but not -- oh, Danielle Sumy and Elizabeth·5·

· ·Cochran both wrote papers on the Prague sequence.·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Other than these other scientific·7·

· ·articles -- or let me ask it this way.··Maybe we can go·8·

· ·through it quicker.··Have you done anything since 2013·9·

· ·to specifically look at the Prague earthquakes and what10·

· ·caused or contributed to those earthquakes?11·

· · ·· A.··So as I mentioned, in 2014 the rate of seismicity12·

· ·increased another order of magnitude, which meant that I13·

· ·pretty much only was able to chase earthquakes from 201414·

· ·on.15·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.16·

· · ·· A.··We did research and we continued to go to17·

· ·scientific meetings, but we had to allow other18·

· ·researchers to take on that workload.··And so part of19·

· ·our role was providing data to other researchers from20·

· ·around the country.21·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And I appreciate that.··But I'm asking if22·

· ·you specifically did any other research or --23·

· · ·· A.··After 2014, January 2014, I did not return to24·

· ·research on the Prague earthquake sequence.25·


(Pages 193-196)


Page 193

· · ·· Q.··Did you get any additional production data or·1·

· ·injection data on wells other than the three wells, the·2·

· ·two Spess wells and the one New Dominion well, and look·3·

· ·at it with regard to the Prague earthquake?·4·

· · ·· A.··I did not do that in the Prague area.·5·

· · ·· Q.··Have you seen where anyone else has done that?·6·

· · ·· A.··No, I have not.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know what forces, pressures and stresses·8·

· ·that the Spess wells created by injection into the -- or·9·

· ·into the -- I guess it's the sedimentary formations?10·

· · ·· A.··No.11·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know whether the Prague earthquakes would12·

· ·have occurred absent Spess's injection activities?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes, they likely would have.··The timeframe,14·

· ·however, could be from years to millions of years.15·

· · ·· Q.··Well, and I'm talking just Spess's two wells.16·

· · ·· A.··Oh, Spess.17·

· · ·· Q.··If you took Spess's two wells out of this18·

· ·equation, do you know whether the Prague earthquakes19·

· ·would have still occurred?20·

· · ·· A.··I would assume it would be likely.21·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have any evidence that Spess acted22·

· ·contrary to the law or their permitted activities in23·

· ·their operation of these two wells?24·

· · ·· A.··No, but I'm not a -- I was not a regulator.25·

Page 194

· · ·· Q.··All right.··But I'm just asking, do you have any·1·

· ·evidence or knowledge that Spess acted unlawful or·2·

· ·contrary to law on their permits?·3·

· · ·· A.··No.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Do you think -- is it reasonable for an Oklahoma·5·

· ·injection well operator to rely upon the technical·6·

· ·expertise of the UIC department of the OCC to evaluate·7·

· ·and issue injection permits?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes, although I'm not sure -- because the EPA·9·

· ·grants them that authority.··So as a government10·

· ·employee, I'm not sure I should actually say that.··But11·

· ·that's --12·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Without getting into that, is it13·

· ·reasonable for an injection well operator to rely on the14·

· ·OCC's technical experience and expertise?15·

· · ·· A.··I guess I don't have the expertise or the16·

· ·knowledge to answer that.17·

· · ·· Q.··Well, did it appear to you that the OCC was18·

· ·taking this issue seriously?19·

· · ·· A.··Yes.20·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know what Spess knew or should have known21·

· ·about its injection activities prior to the earthquakes22·

· ·in 2011?23·

· · ·· A.··All I know is what they reported to the OCC.24·

· · ·· Q.··Are you aware of any regulatory proceedings or25·

Page 195

· ·advisories prior to 2011 from the OCC warning of any·1·

· ·kind of seismic hazards?·2·

· · ·· A.··No.·3·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have any evidence that Spess knew or·4·

· ·should have known that the operations could cause a·5·

· ·damaging earthquake prior to 2011?·6·

· · ·· A.··No.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Back after the 2010 earthquake, why did the OGS·8·

· ·or you not warn injection well operators that they·9·

· ·needed to stop what they were doing?10·

· · ·· A.··I had discussions with New Dominion after those11·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··How about with Spess?··Did you do anything13·

· ·to contact Spess to warn them?14·

· · ·· A.··I have tried contacting Spess in the past.··I15·

· ·have never gotten through to Spess.16·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Were you asking for information from17·

· ·Spess, or were you calling them to warn them there18·

· ·was --19·

· · ·· A.··I was calling to ask for information.20·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··You weren't calling to warn them, then.21·

· · ·· A.··No.··That was not my role as the state22·

· ·seismologist.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And I guess prior to 2011, you didn't do24·

· ·anything to try to warn Spess that their actions might25·

Page 196

· ·trigger an earthquake, correct?·1·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··I did give public presentations·2·

· ·regarding induced seismicity and also to the accounting·3·

· ·something-or-other for petroleum companies, some trade·4·

· ·organization where accountants came and it was·5·

· ·continuing education credits.··I did that in 2010,·6·

· ·talking about triggered seismicity.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So in 2010, you had given seminars?·8·

· · ·· A.··I had begun, yeah, teaching people about the·9·

· ·risks of induced seismicity and the earthquake hazards10·

· ·in general in Oklahoma.11·

· · ·· Q.··Did anyone from Lincoln County contact you after12·

· ·that 2010 earthquake to request -- or to ask whether you13·

· ·could tell whether it was caused by injection wells?14·

· · ·· A.··No one asked for the 2010 event, that I remember.15·

· ·I did go give a talk to the Prague Chamber of Commerce,16·

· ·talking about earthquake hazards and -- prior to the17·

· ·2011 earthquake.··But I can't remember what all was in18·

· ·that presentation.19·

· · ·· Q.··At that presentation, do you remember whether you20·

· ·identified the potential that injection wells could21·

· ·cause earthquakes?22·

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure whether I addressed that in that23·

· ·presentation or not.24·

· · ·· Q.··You might have?25·


(Pages 197-200)


Page 197

· · ·· A.··I might have.·1·

· · ·· Q.··After the 2011 earthquakes, did anyone from·2·

· ·Lincoln County contact you to ask whether you had any·3·

· ·opinion as to whether injection wells would cause those·4·


· · ·· A.··From the actual county government or city·6·

· ·government --·7·

· · ·· Q.··Anybody you know from Lincoln County.·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes, yes, yes.··Plenty of people.·9·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··When did they start asking you those10·

· ·questions?11·

· · ·· A.··Minutes after the earthquake occurred.12·

· · ·· Q.··So individual citizens with Lincoln County were13·

· ·contacting you -- or residents of Lincoln County were14·

· ·contacting you within minutes of the earthquake asking15·

· ·about whether it might have been induced by injection16·

· ·wells?17·

· · ·· A.··That is correct.··We had a button on our website18·

· ·at the time at the former Geological Survey that was19·

· ·"Ask a Seismologist."··And that may have been an20·

· ·ill-informed button.21·

· · ·· Q.··I'm sure that led to your 80-hour weeks.22·

· · ·· A.··Yes.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··But these were questions that were coming24·

· ·from residents of Lincoln County?25·

Page 198


· · ·· Q.··So somehow, they had gotten an indication from·2·

· ·somewhere back in 2011 that oil and gas activities might·3·

· ·have caused or triggered these earthquakes.·4·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··Nearly every time I spoke to·5·

· ·reporters, the first question was "Can drilling cause·6·

· ·earthquakes?"··And then you have to explain, "Well,·7·

· ·drilling doesn't cause earthquakes, but there are·8·

· ·potentially other activities."·9·

· · · · ·· And in the public's mind, everything is drilling.10·

· ·But that was naturally the first question that the media11·

· ·would ask.··Even in January 2011, we had two earthquakes12·

· ·in the Jones area back-to-back, and that was the first13·

· ·question I got asked in a live interview.··And I had no14·

· ·clue that question was coming.15·

· · ·· Q.··And did you then advise them that, no, it was16·

· ·more likely injection wells, or that injection wells17·

· ·could do it?18·

· · ·· A.··So in the first surprise case in 2011 -- or in19·

· ·2010, I did not.··But -- so yes.··I tried to educate the20·

· ·reporters because they'd ask these questions and say,21·

· ·"We're looking at, you know, the potential for22·

· ·earthquakes being triggered by wastewater disposal."23·

· ·And, of course, they'd always ask about hydraulic24·

· ·fracturing.25·

Page 199

· · · · ·· So the two terms people generally know are·1·

· ·drilling and hydraulic fracturing.··And so I'd say,·2·

· ·"Well, yes, we can have earthquakes from hydraulic·3·

· ·fracturing" after 2011.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So in 2011, you would have been telling·5·

· ·them about the injection wells being a potential cause?·6·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·7·

· · ·· Q.··And when did you first discover -- when first did·8·

· ·someone bring up specifically the two Spess wells?·9·

· · ·· A.··So I had run those through some analysis from my10·

· ·grant proposal for the USGS in 2011, my NEHRP grant11·

· ·proposal, which is not included in this.··You have the12·

· ·2012 one, but I did provide you the 2011 one.··I13·

· ·processed the SDA -- SDA wells.··And because that was an14·

· ·area I kind of zoomed in on, I looked at and recognized15·

· ·those names from that.··But it really was not until16·

· ·Keranen's work that the Spess wells became anything in17·

· ·my mind.18·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, I'm talking about general public --19·

· ·well, scientists knew that injection wells could cause20·

· ·earthquakes long before the uptick in earthquakes in21·

· ·Oklahoma, correct?22·


· · ·· Q.··When we started seeing our uptick in 2008-2009,24·

· ·the general populus was being informed that it might be25·

Page 200

· ·injection wells or oil and gas activities that was·1·

· ·causing it, correct?·2·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And so by 2011, when these earthquakes·4·

· ·occurred, that idea that injection wells may have an·5·

· ·impact or may be causing or contributing to our increase·6·

· ·in earthquakes was something that was in the public·7·

· ·knowledge, correct?·8·

· · ·· A.··I think so.·9·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Okay.··I don't have anything10·

· ·further.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Let's take a short break.12·

· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:··Thank you.13·

· · · · · · · · (A recess was taken from 3:44 p.m. to14·

· ·3:53 p.m., and testimony continued as follows:)15·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Back on the record.16·

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·· EXAMINATION17·

· ·BY MR. GUM:18·

· · ·· Q.··Dr. Pennington (sic), my name is Bob Gum.··I'm19·

· ·the counsel for New Dominion in this case.··I don't20·

· ·believe you and I have ever met before today, have we?21·

· · ·· A.··My name is Dr. Holland, not Dr. Pennington.22·

· · ·· Q.··I'm sorry.··Dr. Holland.23·

· · ·· A.··No.··We have not met, that I'm aware of.24·

· · ·· Q.··Speaking of Dr. Pennington, you know who William25·


(Pages 201-204)


Page 201

· ·Pennington is, do you not?·1·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Is he someone that you've -- as I understand it·3·

· ·here today, you are offering yourself as an expert·4·

· ·witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case and are·5·

· ·prepared to opine as to whether or not the Prague·6·

· ·sequence was natural or triggered.··Is that fair?·7·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Have you -- and as I understand it,·9·

· ·Dr. Pennington -- sorry to use the name like that -- is10·

· ·another expert witness that's gonna testify for the11·

· ·plaintiffs in this case.··That's my understanding.··Is12·

· ·that yours?13·

· · ·· A.··Yes.14·

· · ·· Q.··Have you been in communication with him?15·

· · ·· A.··Not since we worked on our best practices at the16·

· ·Oklahoma Geological Survey regarding injection-induced17·

· ·seismicity.··So we created a draft and sent it out for18·

· ·review to respective experts, and Dr. Pennington was one19·

· ·of those experts.··We had someone from the20·

· ·geothermal-induced seismicity arena, as well, and then21·

· ·someone from the U.S. Geological Survey review those22·

· ·best practices.23·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··When did you agree to undertake the job as24·

· ·one of the experts for the plaintiffs in this case?25·

Page 202

· · ·· A.··It's not a job to me.··I'm not receiving any·1·

· ·compensation.··I'm using my vacation time.··It's mostly·2·

· ·because they asked me to, and I feel that it's important·3·

· ·to be able to share my expertise, whether it helps or·4·

· ·not.··I certainly was a public servant in Oklahoma, and·5·

· ·as such, I want my knowledge that I gained in Oklahoma·6·

· ·to serve the public.·7·

· · ·· Q.··I think I failed to make myself clear.··I was·8·

· ·wondering when you agreed to participate in this·9·

· ·process.10·

· · ·· A.··Well, I'm not sure I totally agreed or had a11·

· ·choice.··I began discussions with them and started12·

· ·considering the idea.··I asked my current employer if I13·

· ·could testify, and they said "No, you cannot testify."14·

· ·And so then I shared that information, and part of that15·

· ·disclosure is me sending them the two-year requirements16·

· ·that were sent to me.··And then I received a subpoena,17·

· ·and then it was my understanding that I was expected to18·

· ·be a witness.19·

· · ·· Q.··All of that has occurred since you undertook20·

· ·employment with the USGS, right?21·

· · ·· A.··That is accurate, yes.22·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··And if I'm not totally confused,23·

· ·which I could well be, as I'm understanding it, your24·

· ·opinion that you're offering today is that it is your25·

Page 203

· ·opinion today that the seismicity in the Prague sequence·1·

· ·was not natural but was triggered.·2·


· · ·· Q.··And it was triggered by injection of fluids·4·

· ·through saltwater disposal wells in the area.·5·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··And you're not attempting, as I understand·7·

· ·it, to freeze your opinion based on things you knew,·8·

· ·let's say, in 2013 or in 2014, you're offering your·9·

· ·opinions today.10·

· · ·· A.··I'm offering my opinion as of when I left11·

· ·Oklahoma Geological Survey.12·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Well, that's what I'm confused about.··Is13·

· ·it your opinion today, or are you simply reciting what14·

· ·your opinion was in 2015?15·

· · ·· A.··My opinion as an expert in 2015.··And, of course,16·

· ·I don't live in a bubble, so I can't ignore the fact17·

· ·that I have additional information available to me.··And18·

· ·so while my opinion as to the root cause of the19·

· ·earthquakes hasn't changed, how I view them and the fact20·

· ·that I view them as likely induced has probably21·

· ·increased as I've stepped away from my job in Oklahoma22·

· ·and seen the magnitude 5 earthquakes continue within the23·

· ·region.24·

· · ·· Q.··So you have considered some additional25·

Page 204

· ·information that you acquired since leaving Oklahoma.·1·


· · ·· Q.··I thought I heard you earlier --·3·

· · ·· A.··I did not acquire that information expressly in·4·

· ·the act of my new position at the U.S. Geological·5·

· ·Survey.··I'd like to make that distinction.·6·

· · ·· Q.··I thought I had heard you say earlier that you·7·

· ·had considered some data that was generated with respect·8·

· ·to some earthquake sequences that occurred in Oklahoma·9·

· ·since you left Oklahoma.··That would be some of the more10·

· ·recent data you looked at.··Would that be correct?11·

· · ·· A.··I've seen new publications and reviewed12·

· ·publications.13·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Published since you left Oklahoma?14·


· · ·· Q.··You haven't done any independent study yourself.16·

· · ·· A.··No, I have not.17·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Is it possible for the Court on the basis18·

· ·of your testimony here today to really try to19·

· ·distinguish what part of your opinion and your testimony20·

· ·is actually your opinion versus the opinions of somebody21·

· ·else that you're involved with?22·

· · ·· A.··As in --23·

· · ·· Q.··Well, as in anything in your opinions.··You've24·

· ·covered a lot of things today.··But I'm trying to figure25·


(Pages 205-208)


Page 205

· ·out what part of it, if the Court is interested in·1·

· ·knowing, what part of it is actually Dr. Holland's·2·

· ·opinion, independent opinion, and what part of it is·3·

· ·your having adopted the work of some other seismologist·4·

· ·or scientists who have studied various aspects of this·5·

· ·issue.·6·

· · ·· A.··So part of scientific process is reading other·7·

· ·ideas and thoughts and seeing the data and the argument·8·

· ·they present and either accepting or rejecting those·9·

· ·ideas.··Generally, in the sense of peer-reviewed10·

· ·journals and that sort of thing -- not to say there have11·

· ·not been peer-reviewed journals that should be rejected12·

· ·or that sort of thing, but primarily those have been13·

· ·vetted and they have some redeeming aspects, even if14·

· ·there are subtleties or differences in some things that15·

· ·you may find with an article.16·

· · · · ·· So as part of the scientific process, as you go17·

· ·through school and get a Ph.D. and then continue your18·

· ·scientific work, part of that process is not necessarily19·

· ·adopting other people's opinions, but adopting other20·

· ·people's conclusions.··So these are beyond opinions in21·

· ·the sense that they can demonstrate with facts and data22·

· ·that this is the most likely case or scenario or23·

· ·conclusion you can draw from these data.24·

· · · · ·· And so that's how the scientific process works25·

Page 206

· ·and how you become an expert in a field, is you read·1·

· ·what other people have produced in that field.··So no·2·

· ·one starts off as a natural-born seismologist, they have·3·

· ·to read the papers, fundamental papers that make people·4·

· ·understand that this is, you know, how earthquakes·5·

· ·nucleate, and these are the questions we have regarding·6·

· ·what we don't know about how earthquakes nucleate.·7·

· · · · ·· So it's part of a process of learning new things·8·

· ·all the time and adopting new ideas and refining your·9·

· ·ideas.··You're never gonna be right the first time.··I10·

· ·had a professor at the University of Arizona that wrote11·

· ·three different papers on the formation of the Great12·

· ·Basin in Nevada.··And none of them are the same sort of13·

· ·hypothesis on what's going on, but maybe one of them is14·

· ·the right answer after, you know, a whole career of15·

· ·writing on the subject.16·

· · · · ·· So it's one of those things that you continue to17·

· ·learn and take in new ideas and new data and form new18·

· ·conclusions and opinions.19·

· · ·· Q.··Is it possible, though, for the judge and the20·

· ·jury in this case to really draw a bright line between21·

· ·those things that are original with your thought and22·

· ·those things where you are just synthesizing someone23·

· ·else's thought?24·

· · ·· A.··I guess you'll have to ask them that.25·

Page 207

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Can you do it?·1·

· · ·· A.··It's kind of an existential question.·2·

· · ·· Q.··I'm kind of an existential guy.·3·

· · ·· A.··Right.··Well, you know, I'm not sure -- I clearly·4·

· ·can express some opinions that would be solely my own·5·

· ·regarding these matters that would not be popular in·6·

· ·some of the scientific community.··The fact that I was·7·

· ·saying early on these could be earthquake swarms was·8·

· ·entirely not popular.··But I worked in the areas where·9·

· ·we had earthquake swarms, and so I had to be able to10·

· ·rule out that possibility.··And so I had to take in11·

· ·additional data and information before I could rule that12·

· ·possibility out.13·

· · ·· Q.··You're gonna look at all sources when you try to14·

· ·formulate your opinion on this thing.15·

· · ·· A.··That's the goal.··And it's a hard thing to do16·

· ·because the body of research grows exponentially every17·

· ·year.··So to try and even stay current in a field is a18·

· ·real challenge.19·

· · ·· Q.··With respect to the Prague sequence that we're20·

· ·here about today and the additional papers that were21·

· ·published that you've referenced that you considered in22·

· ·formulating your opinion or confirming your opinion, how23·

· ·many of those papers that you've looked at since you24·

· ·left Oklahoma were specifically aimed at specific facts25·

Page 208

· ·and details in Prague, as opposed to some other·1·

· ·earthquake?·2·

· · ·· A.··So I can't identify any.··I did miss one in·3·

· ·previous testimony, but that's time past.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Well, we can go back to it if you want to.·5·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··Well, this is the Sue Huff paper where she·6·

· ·did look specifically at the Prague earthquake.·7·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.·8·

· · ·· A.··But I haven't read any of that directly·9·

· ·concerning the Prague earthquake.10·

· · ·· Q.··Have you looked at the well data that has been11·

· ·produced to the plaintiffs in this case concerning the12·

· ·Wilzetta saltwater disposal well?13·

· · ·· A.··No, I have not seen that data.14·

· · ·· Q.··Do you think that data might be relevant to your15·

· ·inquiry here?16·

· · ·· A.··So all data is relevant.··And we can always as17·

· ·scientists say we need more data.··But at the same time,18·

· ·we're asked to make conclusions with incomplete19·

· ·datasets.··That's how you know you're a geologist and20·

· ·not a physicist.··The physicist always had the data he21·

· ·wants because he designs his experiments and controls22·

· ·those.··When you're a geologist, you can't control your23·

· ·experiments because you can't see inside the earth.··We24·

· ·can't control properties inside the earth.··So25·


(Pages 209-212)


Page 209

· ·geophysicists and geologists often have to make·1·

· ·conclusions based on the information they have at the·2·

· ·time, yes.·3·

· · ·· Q.··That information, if available to you, is·4·

· ·something you should look at if you think it's gonna·5·

· ·bear on the issue?·6·

· · ·· A.··Yes, that is a fair statement.·7·

· · ·· Q.··I'm assuming from what little I know about this·8·

· ·subject that you would be interested in what that data·9·

· ·might or might not reflect with respect to bottomhole10·

· ·pressure testing in the Arbuckle Group at the bottom of11·

· ·the Wilzetta well.··That would be important, would it12·

· ·not?13·

· · ·· A.··That would be important.··I got a preliminary14·

· ·test following the Prague earthquake provided to me by15·

· ·New Dominion, and what that showed was that the -- there16·

· ·was a high amount of permeability within the Arbuckle17·

· ·formation and that the pressures decreased dramatically18·

· ·when injection ceased, indicating that the fluid19·

· ·pressure could be communicated for significant20·

· ·distances.21·

· · ·· Q.··Was there any indication, though, of pressure22·

· ·buildup?23·

· · ·· A.··No.24·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know what skin effect is?25·

Page 210

· · ·· A.··Yes.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Any evidence of that in this well?·2·

· · ·· A.··It did not appear so.·3·

· · ·· Q.··I understand you're a geologist, but I understand·4·

· ·that was your undergraduate major.··And you've been --·5·

· ·fair to say you're not the lead expert of geology, but I·6·

· ·need to ask you a few questions about the Arbuckle·7·

· ·Group.·8·

· · ·· A.··Sure.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Are you familiar with the formations of the10·

· ·Arbuckle Group?11·

· · ·· A.··There's sort of -- the upper, middle and lower12·

· ·Arbuckle is generally how it's referred to.··It's a13·

· ·supergroup of different limestone and dolomitic14·

· ·formations with sometimes dune or bedded sand.··Its15·

· ·property is very dramatically both vertically and16·

· ·horizontally across the state, but it is ubiquitous17·

· ·throughout most of Oklahoma.18·

· · ·· Q.··Is it -- as far as a reservoir is concerned, are19·

· ·the rocks in the Arbuckle Group, are they homogenous20·

· ·rocks?21·

· · ·· A.··No, very heterogenous.22·

· · ·· Q.··Is the manner in which fluids diffuse through23·

· ·that rock, is it isotropic?24·

· · ·· A.··No.··And it's -- there are a number of25·

Page 211

· ·researchers that have looked at some of the properties·1·

· ·there at the Oklahoma Geological Survey, Kyle Murray and·2·

· ·some of his students.··But it's certainly not going to·3·

· ·be an isotropic dispersion of fluids and subsurface.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Would you agree with me that, speaking generally·5·

· ·about the Arbuckle Group, that the fluid flow, fluid·6·

· ·dispersal in the group is more or less dominated by·7·

· ·fractures and faults?·8·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So it had an inherent permeability, and·9·

· ·depending on what zone you're in and what the10·

· ·depositional phases were, you can have different in situ11·

· ·permeabilities.··But it is -- I think we have enough12·

· ·evidence to say it's a fracture-dominated permeability13·

· ·system.14·

· · ·· Q.··As a consequence of that conclusion, can you15·

· ·conclude whether fluid flow in the Arbuckle Group is16·

· ·gonna be radial or linear?17·

· · ·· A.··No.··It's gonna be tortuous and more linear.18·

· · ·· Q.··Is it fair to say that it might be random, in a19·

· ·sense?20·

· · ·· A.··Well, that's -- so the tortuous would be, yeah,21·

· ·that sort of description, that it is gonna be a22·

· ·complicated fluid pathway, generally.23·

· · ·· Q.··If an expert in this field is attempting to24·

· ·predict or opine as to whether or not fluid from a25·

Page 212

· ·particular disposal well caused or contributed to cause·1·

· ·the rupture in this sequence, if that expert or that·2·

· ·expert's model assumes a homogenous environment, it·3·

· ·assumes isotropic dispersal of fluids, would you·4·

· ·criticize the use of that model or the use of that·5·

· ·assumption?·6·

· · ·· A.··So one of my colleagues has a saying that "All·7·

· ·models are wrong, but some are useful."··And I think·8·

· ·that's a very fair and accurate statement.··So while you·9·

· ·can't accurately predict pressures or the volume of10·

· ·water or fluids that pass through some point, a model11·

· ·can be informant in showing some understanding of what12·

· ·might be occurring.13·

· · · · ·· Now, it's not gonna be the kind of picture that14·

· ·you have when you take your camcorder out and watch cars15·

· ·go down the street, but it does provide some information16·

· ·that you maybe didn't have prior to the model.··But17·

· ·again, that gets to the point where all models are18·

· ·wrong, but some are useful.··Some models are not useful.19·

· ·And if you try to oversimplify things too much, you can20·

· ·get to a point where the model doesn't help you21·

· ·understand the physical earth any.22·

· · · · ·· So there is this challenge because we have -- we23·

· ·probably don't have the computing capability right now24·

· ·to represent the -- and/or the ability to figure out25·


(Pages 213-216)


Page 213

· ·those properties within the subsurface, but we probably·1·

· ·don't even have the capability to model how fluid would·2·

· ·flow in such a system.··But we can't let that·3·

· ·uncertainty negate the things we do understand about·4·

· ·hydrology and hydrologic processes.·5·

· · ·· Q.··I understand that.··But I guess what I'm driving·6·

· ·at ultimately is this:··And I understand your statement·7·

· ·about the lack of capability to accurately model these·8·

· ·things because we really don't know how to unsort this·9·

· ·random fracture pattern, do we?··And that's the problem.10·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··There's actually some interesting papers11·

· ·on that that I presented to the National Research12·

· ·Council back in 2014, but that's a whole 'nother story.13·

· · ·· Q.··So given that, given that, how is the Court to be14·

· ·comfortable that another expert's opinions, which is15·

· ·forced to assume a homogenous environment, it is forced16·

· ·to assume isotropic dispersal of fluids, when we know17·

· ·that's not real?··How can we rely on that as reliable?18·

· · ·· A.··So what we can say is that that isotropic model19·

· ·shows that there's a likelihood that pressure has20·

· ·increased significantly in some region.··That can be21·

· ·something that is telling.··Now, we can't say absolutely22·

· ·that the pressure that model calculated and assigned to23·

· ·some point in the earth, that that pressure absolutely24·

· ·means anything.··It probably means nothing in relation25·

Page 214

· ·to the physical world.··But if the model helps inform·1·

· ·that there is the potential for pressure increase in one·2·

· ·place over another, or that the general pressure within·3·

· ·the region, not the specific point, is significant, then·4·

· ·a model may be significant.··Models are only useful if·5·

· ·you evaluate them in what they're able to resolve.·6·

· · · · ·· So in this case -- let me bring up the case of·7·

· ·the Jones paper where they showed the isotropic pressure·8·

· ·expansion and they assume that the Nemaha fault was a·9·

· ·closed boundary.··And one could question whether that10·

· ·assumption was appropriate or not within the hydrologic11·

· ·framework in the Arbuckle.12·

· · · · ·· But whether you question that or not, what they13·

· ·show was that you could increase -- through the14·

· ·combination of all these little wells together, you15·

· ·could increase the pressures at significant distances16·

· ·from and in areas you wouldn't necessarily expect17·

· ·because the wells were contributing to the others.18·

· · · · ·· And so it did help provide a broad concept of19·

· ·what was occurring in the Jones area in the Oklahoma20·

· ·City metro area, but it still didn't elucidate this --21·

· ·"We can say this pressure at this point is gonna be this22·

· ·due to these injection parameters we started with."··You23·

· ·can't extrapolate it to have that physical meaning, but24·

· ·you can say, "This makes some predictions that are25·

Page 215

· ·interesting and match some other observations we had."·1·

· · · · ·· And then there might be areas where a model just·2·

· ·doesn't match any observations and probably should be,·3·

· ·you know, thought about differently.··So one example of·4·

· ·this would be where there's -- one of Kyle Murray's·5·

· ·students did this modeling.··He was using isotropic·6·

· ·media in blocks based on the faults that were mapped in·7·

· ·the area, and he showed -- there was this really large·8·

· ·injection, one of the largest injection wells in·9·

· ·Oklahoma, and that the pressures went up really high and10·

· ·there were all these faults around, and yet there were11·

· ·no earthquakes.12·

· · · · ·· So it's clear that that model was informative in13·

· ·that it's not exactly what we expected, but it also14·

· ·matched the observation that maybe the faults weren't15·

· ·acting as fluid barriers, maybe the pressure wasn't16·

· ·increasing as much as he would have predicted or we17·

· ·might have seen earthquakes.··So the models can be18·

· ·informative.··They don't necessarily have to be right to19·

· ·be informative.20·

· · ·· Q.··Informative -- I don't want to just get hung up21·

· ·on models.··I want to talk about assumptions that22·

· ·scientists make, as well.··And I realize there are23·

· ·assumptions that are built into models.··But the point24·

· ·I'm trying to make is if a scientist is using a model or25·

Page 216

· ·is using an assumption that involves a homogenous·1·

· ·reservoir and isotropic fluid dispersal, are you telling·2·

· ·me that, "Well, that's useful" because it shows there's·3·

· ·a possibility that that particular well may have·4·

· ·contributed, as opposed to the fact that -- it can't·5·

· ·show that it did, it can just show the possibility.·6·

· · ·· A.··That's right.·7·

· · ·· Q.··You testified at some length pretty quickly, and·8·

· ·I'm a slow writer, early in your deposition about some·9·

· ·folks that were at the Oklahoma Geological Survey when10·

· ·you got there in '09.11·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.12·

· · ·· Q.··Some helpers that you had.··I think you said you13·

· ·had two techs and a geological engineer.14·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··The geological engineer, Dr. Ken Luza, was15·

· ·helpful in getting me up to speed and filling me in on16·

· ·what my predecessor had done at the Survey.17·

· · ·· Q.··Is that gentleman still alive?18·

· · ·· A.··No.··He passed away.19·

· · ·· Q.··And the techs were?20·

· · ·· A.··Amy Gibson and Chick Nance.··They were stationed21·

· ·at the Leonard Geophysical Observatory.22·

· · ·· Q.··Are they still around?23·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··They're still living in Tulsa.24·

· · ·· Q.··And I think you indicated there was a man who had25·


(Pages 217-220)


Page 217

· ·predeceased your arrival but had been the supervisor of·1·

· ·something.··You indicated he wasn't a very good·2·

· ·publisher or something.·3·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··Dr. Jim Lawson.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Lawson.·5·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··And he was the seismologist at the Oklahoma·6·

· ·Geological Survey before I was there.·7·

· · ·· Q.··The materials that the geological engineer,·8·

· ·Mr. Luza, or that Mr. Lawson may have assembled relating·9·

· ·to the general issues of micro-seismicity, induced10·

· ·seismicity, are those still, as far as you know,11·

· ·physically located at the Oklahoma Geological Society?12·

· · ·· A.··At the Survey.13·

· · ·· Q.··Survey, I mean.14·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So some of it is.··The Leonard Observatory15·

· ·has been closed, and I don't know what happened to some16·

· ·of those documents, so I can't speak to how the17·

· ·information has been or is being preserved.··At the time18·

· ·I was there in Oklahoma, most of the paper records for19·

· ·the seismic stations when they were analog and they were20·

· ·produced on paper were still preserved.··So we had a21·

· ·pretty good, you know, ability to go back and check22·

· ·records for earthquakes.··And I did some of that when23·

· ·I'd go to visit the Leonard Observatory.··I'd spot-check24·

· ·different days to make sure earthquakes hadn't been25·

Page 218

· ·missed, and I didn't find anything.··Of course, he was a·1·

· ·seismologist in a place where there weren't earthquakes,·2·

· ·so he probably didn't miss any.·3·

· · ·· Q.··I tried to do my FOIA request through the OGS,·4·

· ·and I don't think I've seen that material.··Is there·5·

· ·some buzzword or -- I guess these names might help that·6·

· ·search?·7·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·8·

· · ·· Q.··And trying to generate these documents?·9·

· · ·· A.··Yes.··So Jim Lawson had a number of notes on10·

· ·different earthquake sequences and other such things11·

· ·that would potentially fit into your interest.··But12·

· ·yeah.··And Ken Luza primarily just interfaced with Jim13·

· ·Lawson in Leonard because Ken Luza was based at OU with14·

· ·the rest of the OGS, and so he was sort of that bridge15·

· ·between the Leonard Observatory and OU.16·

· · · · ·· So he helped Jim Lawson write some of his reports17·

· ·and get some information out, made sure the annual18·

· ·report for the earthquake history was published.··So19·

· ·that was a big part of what Ken did.··Other than that,20·

· ·Ken Luza's work primarily focused on northeastern21·

· ·Oklahoma, the Superfund site.··Why am I drawing a blank22·

· ·all of a sudden?23·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Tar Creek.24·

· · ·· A.··Tar Creek.··So that was primarily what his work25·

Page 219

· ·focused on.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Did he prepare for you any kind of a break-in·2·

· ·memo, "Here's where we've been, these are the things you·3·

· ·need to know, Dr. Holland, to be brought up to speed"?·4·

· · ·· A.··He did a little bit of that.··There was a binder·5·

· ·that was provided to OGS from New Dominion that he·6·

· ·handed me that was a discussion that occurred before I·7·

· ·got there regarding some of the seismicity in Oklahoma·8·

· ·City.··But mostly it was when I had a question about·9·

· ·something.··He handed me a lot of documents and said,10·

· ·"Here you go."··And so I started off by reading those.11·

· ·But he also -- I'd go up and ask him questions and pick12·

· ·his brain that way.13·

· · ·· Q.··Were the documents compiled in any particular14·

· ·manner?15·

· · ·· A.··No, not particularly.16·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.17·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Can I intercede here for just a18·

· ·minute, Mr. Gum?19·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Yes.20·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··I'm going to have to leave.21·

· ·I've got a plane to catch tonight and things to do22·

· ·before I can get on it.··I'm not gonna miss it.··I have23·

· ·enjoyed this all very much, you've all been scholars and24·

· ·gentlemen.25·

Page 220

· · · · · · · · I would remind you-all that Dr. Holland is·1·

· ·only testifying in his own capacity and he is not an·2·

· ·expert witness on behalf of the United States Department·3·

· ·of the Interior or United States Geological Survey.··If·4·

· ·there are any questions about that as time goes by,·5·

· ·please don't hesitate to give me a call.··Mr. Holland·6·

· ·knows how to get ahold of me.··My number is (918)·7·

· ·669-7902.·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Let me ask you one question before·9·

· ·you leave --10·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Yes, sir.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··-- so that nobody gets his12·

· ·feelings hurt.··Exhibit 9 was previously offered with13·

· ·respect to his working collaboration with the USGS14·

· ·folks.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Correct.16·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··And as I understand -- and this is17·

· ·aside from -- apparently it's a memory jog as to what18·

· ·was said to me -- this is something that your client is19·

· ·objecting to my using as a means of cross-examining him20·

· ·about these opinions that are referenced?21·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··That's correct.··I have no22·

· ·objection to you cross-examining him with respect to his23·

· ·recollection of conversations that he may have had with24·

· ·respect to his supervisors or anyone affiliated with the25·


(Pages 221-224)


Page 221

· ·state of Oklahoma after the fact.·1·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Gotcha.·2·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Is that clear to everyone?·3·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··I think so.··I think we'll be·4·

· ·good.·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. BABST:··Okay.··Thank you-all very much.·6·

· · · · · · · · (A discussion was held off the record.)·7·

· · · · · · · · (Mr. Babst and Mr. Arthur left the·8·

· ·deposition.)·9·

· · ·· Q.··(By Mr. Gum)··Going back to when you first came10·

· ·to work at the OGS, do you have some rough idea about11·

· ·how many seismic stations were established and operating12·

· ·here in Oklahoma at that time?13·

· · ·· A.··So there are eight, roughly, in the OGS that had14·

· ·continuously operated or had been operating for15·

· ·significant amounts of time when I got there, but there16·

· ·were also then the additional Earthscope stations that17·

· ·had been started getting installed in 2009.18·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··I was gonna ask you about those.··When you19·

· ·got there, the seismic stations that were in place, were20·

· ·they all transmitting data in real time, or did you use21·

· ·someone to -- did you have to download data?22·

· · ·· A.··There was a mixed state of equipment when I23·

· ·arrived.··So my predecessor passed away in late 2008,24·

· ·and then I started in early 2010.··So in that year25·

Page 222

· ·timeframe, there were a number of stations that stopped·1·

· ·transmitting data or stopped transmitting any real data,·2·

· ·there was just blank signal.··And also the OGS's·3·

· ·capability to locate earthquakes had been diminished.·4·

· ·So they called in phase arrivals for their stations to·5·

· ·the National Earthquake Information Center.·6·

· · · · ·· So a big part of my focus when I first arrived·7·

· ·was making sure that we could confidently say something·8·

· ·about the earthquakes that were occurring.·9·

· · ·· Q.··Of those that were there when you got there, how10·

· ·many of those units had three-component sensors?11·

· · ·· A.··Just -- that were operating, I think just three.12·

· ·There were two more sitting on the shelf.13·

· · ·· Q.··So prior to your arrival, what was the minimum14·

· ·magnitude seismic detection level for earthquakes in15·

· ·Oklahoma?16·

· · ·· A.··That's actually a tough nut to crack, the minimum17·

· ·magnitude of detection.··I addressed this some in my18·

· ·hazard paper for Arcadia in 2012, I believe it was -- it19·

· ·could be 2013.··2013 was a busy year -- where I looked20·

· ·at -- that should be in my CV.··But I did look at that.21·

· ·And it -- I'm trying to remember.··Certainly, at a22·

· ·magnitude 2.9, the OGS was complete going back to 1977.23·

· ·And it may be a little bit lower than that.··But24·

· ·certainly, a magnitude of 2.9, I believe, was the cutoff25·

Page 223

· ·for that.·1·

· · ·· Q.··Now I'm asking you about equipment that was·2·

· ·installed since 2009, since you came there.··How many·3·

· ·units were installed during your tenure?·4·

· · ·· A.··So roughly another 10 to 12 of the broadband·5·

· ·three-component stations.··I upgraded some of·6·

· ·the one-component stations to three-component stations·7·

· ·and then ran a number of portable instrument deployments·8·

· ·along with an Earthscope array.··So the seismic·9·

· ·monitoring capabilities were dramatically enhanced.··So10·

· ·the magnitude of detection, sort of, from the average11·

· ·mean over the timeframe I was there, the minimum12·

· ·detection was about a 1.8.13·

· · ·· Q.··So it was substantially improved?14·

· · ·· A.··Substantially improved.··The challenge with sort15·

· ·of -- even comparing the minimum detection during the16·

· ·time we had enhanced monitoring is we had the capability17·

· ·to detect down to a 1.8, but we didn't have the18·

· ·resources.··So we were not able to report all the19·

· ·magnitude 1.8 earthquakes and smaller.··Minimum20·

· ·detection means you can see at least a 1.8, but you21·

· ·might see some areas where you have a lot of instruments22·

· ·at 1.5.··And so by 2014, the seismicity rates were such23·

· ·that we were outpacing California or potentially Alaska24·

· ·in rates of earthquakes, and we certainly didn't have25·

Page 224

· ·the staffing levels to analyze those earthquakes that·1·

· ·those more seismically-active places are.·2·

· · ·· Q.··How many accelerometers were in place here in·3·

· ·Virginia (sic)?·4·

· · ·· A.··There were none when I started.··We put in five·5·

· ·or six.··And then there were other agencies such as the·6·

· ·U.S. Geological Survey that contributed stations with·7·

· ·accelerometers, as well.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Is it fair to say that comparing pre-2009 to·9·

· ·post-2009, that the capability to detect and to record10·

· ·lower-level magnitude quakes in Oklahoma was improved?11·

· · ·· A.··It was.··And that's why I always used as a12·

· ·comparison the number of magnitude 3 or greater13·

· ·earthquakes in this time period, or number of magnitude14·

· ·4 or greater earthquakes in that time period, just15·

· ·because we had dramatically enhanced our capability to16·

· ·observe seismicity within the state.··And so I was17·

· ·trying to pick benchmarks that were fair comparisons.18·

· · ·· Q.··Do you know who Jean Claude Rosier is?19·

· · ·· A.··I'm not sure I'm aware of that name.20·

· · ·· Q.··In your efforts to delineate faults here in21·

· ·Oklahoma, I'm interested in what was made available to22·

· ·you-all by way of either 2-D or 3-D seismic reflection23·

· ·surveys as relates to the Prague area.24·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··So I got the chance to look at some 2-D25·


(Pages 225-228)


Page 225

· ·seismic provided by New Dominion that was helpful in·1·

· ·understanding, you know, some of the basics, and it·2·

· ·really helped.·3·

· · · · ·· But then while the Prague earthquake -- right·4·

· ·after it happened, there was a company that was trying·5·

· ·to get a permit to do 3-D seismic.··As part of the·6·

· ·permitting processes they were required -- or they·7·

· ·offered, to create some goodwill, the opportunity for·8·

· ·the Oklahoma Geological Survey and other researchers to·9·

· ·have a chance to look at this 3-D seismic data.10·

· · · · ·· And the 3-D seismic data was much higher quality11·

· ·than the old 2-D seismic data and was a much better12·

· ·picture of what the fault zone actually looked like.··So13·

· ·that was really helpful and informative, especially as14·

· ·we were trying to address what was occurring in the15·

· ·Prague area.16·

· · ·· Q.··Did it allow you to draw opinions with respect to17·

· ·whether or not we had a bounded reservoir here?18·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··So the 3-D seismic was pretty clear that19·

· ·it was -- if there was a bounded reservoir, it had to be20·

· ·invoked not from faults but from geologic changes.21·

· · ·· Q.··Now, I want to be careful to not get you in22·

· ·trouble since your lawyer is gone.23·

· · ·· A.··I'll be careful, too.24·

· · ·· Q.··All right.··Exhibit 9 to your deposition, which25·

Page 226

· ·is over here --·1·

· · ·· A.··Yes.·2·

· · ·· Q.··-- this is the document he does not want you·3·

· ·talking about.··Okay?··So I'm not gonna ask you anything·4·

· ·about what's stated in here because I don't want you to·5·

· ·be confused.··This was peer-reviewed, I gather,·6·

· ·Exhibit 9.·7·


· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Have any of your other opinions relating·9·

· ·to your ultimate conclusion here about the cause of the10·

· ·Prague sequence been reduced to a written paper and11·

· ·peer-reviewed?12·

· · ·· A.··My opinions?13·

· · ·· Q.··Yes.14·

· · ·· A.··No.··Other people's opinions, yes.15·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··One second.16·

· · ·· A.··Uh-huh.17·


· · ·· Q.··Have you published anything other than the paper19·

· ·we're not gonna talk about since the 2013 position paper20·

· ·that was published by the OGS suggesting a natural21·

· ·earthquake to publicly evidence your change of view with22·

· ·respect to that?23·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Object to form.24·

· · ·· A.··No.··Well, with respect to the 2013 statement?25·

Page 227

· · ·· Q.··Yes.·1·

· · ·· A.··Okay.··So the 2015 statement.·2·

· · ·· Q.··Now, watch it.··We're getting into --·3·

· · ·· A.··Which is not included, no.··The 2015 statement·4·

· ·was a statement issued by the Oklahoma Geological Survey·5·

· ·that said that the vast majority of --·6·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··But it's not for both of them.·7·

· · ·· A.··No.·8·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··So that's the one place where you·9·

· ·publicly --10·

· · ·· A.··Yes.11·

· · ·· Q.··-- shared your view.12·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Okay.··I'll tender.13·

· · · · · · · · MR. POARCH:··Let's take a break for a14·

· ·second.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Yeah.··Let's take a pit stop.16·

· · · · · · · · (A recess was taken from 4:36 p.m. to17·

· ·4:46 p.m., and testimony continued as follows:)18·

· · · · · · · · · · ·· FURTHER EXAMINATION19·

· ·BY MR. ISAACS:20·

· · ·· Q.··Austin, you were asked a number of questions.21·

· ·Are you okay with everything?22·

· · ·· A.··Yeah.··I don't have any issues or things that I23·

· ·think need to be restated.24·

· · ·· Q.··On the ultrahazardous activities, do you have an25·

Page 228

· ·opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty as to·1·

· ·whether or not the disposal wells were creating an·2·

· ·existence of a high degree of risk of harm to a person,·3·

· ·land, or chattels of others?·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, legal conclusion,·5·

· ·asked and answered.··Go ahead.·6·

· · ·· A.··The way I guess I'd phrase that this time around·7·

· ·is that it's likely that the -- I consider it likely·8·

· ·that the Prague earthquake was triggered by wastewater·9·

· ·disposal and that wastewater disposal in the deep10·

· ·Arbuckle formation poses a risk of induced seismicity.11·

· · ·· Q.··In your opinion, does the existence of the high12·

· ·degree of risk of harm to persons or land in an event13·

· ·where you have disposal wells that are overloaded create14·

· ·the likelihood of harm that results from an earthquake15·

· ·would be great?16·


· · ·· A.··I don't -- it requires a disposal well that's18·

· ·overloaded to trigger seismicity.19·

· · ·· Q.··In that situation, if we had that, would in your20·

· ·opinion the likelihood of harm be great?21·


· · ·· A.··So I saw a lot of the damage from the Prague23·

· ·earthquake, and I saw probably dozens, if not hundreds,24·

· ·of homes that had suffered some form of damage, some25·


(Pages 229-232)


Page 229

· ·significant damage, so that I did see significant·1·

· ·property damage.·2·

· · ·· Q.··In this particular case, with disposal wells·3·

· ·causing earthquakes because they're overloaded with·4·

· ·disposals -- and the defendants knew that you would·5·

· ·eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care in·6·

· ·the disposing of the water, correct?·7·

· · ·· A.··So there's been a large number of papers on how·8·

· ·to reduce the risk of injection that predate -- both·9·

· ·predate the Prague earthquake as well as postdate it.10·

· ·There are steps that can be taken, but given the11·

· ·character of the subsurface, you can't necessarily12·

· ·predict when and where you might have induced13·

· ·seismicity.14·

· · · · ·· The case example I provided with the largest15·

· ·volume disposal well in the state next to16·

· ·optimally-oriented faults would have been a likely17·

· ·candidate, and yet no seismicity occurred in the area.18·

· ·So in that sense, you may be able to mitigate some19·

· ·factors, but you cannot eliminate the risk of -- there's20·

· ·some inherent risk in wastewater disposal activities21·

· ·regarding triggered seismicity.22·

· · ·· Q.··Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of23·

· ·certainty to the extent to which the activity was not a24·

· ·matter of common usage?25·

Page 230

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, calls for a legal·1·

· ·conclusion.··Go ahead.··I'm sorry.·2·

· · ·· A.··In Oklahoma, the wastewater disposal wells, as·3·

· ·was brought up earlier, have been operating since 1955,·4·

· ·and so their usage was quite common.··What changed·5·

· ·significantly between 1955 and the mid 2000s was the·6·

· ·amount of volume that was being disposed of in these·7·

· ·wells.··And so that was not common at the time, and had·8·

· ·not been, to my knowledge, evaluated on reservoir·9·

· ·effects.··But there are potentially other people that10·

· ·could speak more broadly on that subject.11·

· · ·· Q.··And is there anything that you were asked that12·

· ·caused you to change your opinion that this was an13·

· ·ultrahazardous activity which endangered humans and14·

· ·property?15·

· · ·· A.··Anything I was asked?16·

· · ·· Q.··Anything you were asked after I finished direct17·

· ·examination.18·

· · ·· A.··No.19·


· · ·· A.··So there was nothing which I was asked in this21·

· ·deposition that would have me change my analysis that22·

· ·the Prague earthquake was likely caused by wastewater23·

· ·injection.24·

· · ·· Q.··And in your evaluation of the facts and25·

Page 231

· ·circumstances surrounding the Prague earthquake and your·1·

· ·knowledge of what had been experimented with and tested·2·

· ·in the industry, do you have an opinion as to whether or·3·

· ·not this was a reckless disregard for the safety of·4·

· ·people?·5·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Objection, calls for a legal·6·

· ·conclusion.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Same objection.·8·

· · ·· A.··You know, I'm not sure I'd call it a "reckless·9·

· ·disregard."··That certainly is a practice which has10·

· ·inherent risk associated with it, and I'm not sure that11·

· ·risk was evaluated fully by operators in the area.12·

· · ·· Q.··The question I had was, was this an area in which13·

· ·we should have taken action long before the Prague14·

· ·earthquake to stop disposal wells as a method for15·

· ·getting rid of water used in oil fields?16·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Asked and answered.17·


· · ·· A.··It's still being used today in the same area.··So19·

· ·there is no change.··What's happened is the volumes have20·

· ·been reduced.21·

· · ·· Q.··And we're still having the same problems, are we22·

· ·not?23·

· · ·· A.··Yes, there are still earthquakes occurring in24·

· ·Oklahoma.25·

Page 232

· · ·· Q.··In the literature you've read and the studies·1·

· ·you've done, they have all talked about the increased·2·

· ·risk if we continue.··Correct?·3·

· · ·· A.··A number of papers have focused on the increased·4·

· ·risk.·5·

· · ·· Q.··And in your opinion, is that a danger to people·6·

· ·and to property?·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection --·8·

· · ·· A.··So --·9·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Let me make my objection.10·

· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:··Sure.11·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··The question as posed is not -- as12·

· ·I understand it does not relate to continued activity to13·

· ·the actual harm of this case.··And so we would object to14·

· ·that on the grounds of relevance.15·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Same objection, as well as16·

· ·calls for speculation.17·

· · ·· Q.··What we're talking about is recklessness of the18·

· ·conduct of these defendants.19·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Us two, not others.20·

· · ·· Q.··And these defendants, the recklessness is what I21·

· ·want you to address.··Is this with the knowledge we have22·

· ·today a reckless disregard for the safety of the public?23·

· · · · · · · · MR. GUM:··Objection, asked and answered.24·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Legal conclusion.25·


(Pages 233-236)


Page 233

· · ·· A.··I'll say it this way:··If I was operating a·1·

· ·disposal well in the Arbuckle next to the Wilzetta·2·

· ·fault, I would have turned it off long ago to reduce my·3·

· ·risk.·4·

· · ·· Q.··Good.·5·

· · ·· A.··And the risk to others.·6·

· · ·· Q.··During cross-examination, the questioners laid·7·

· ·some criticism out by pointing to sentences in certain·8·

· ·documents or saying other things or work was necessarily·9·

· ·to draw conclusions.··Remember all those lines of10·

· ·questions?11·

· · ·· A.··Yes.12·

· · ·· Q.··Did those items or criticisms change your13·

· ·opinions in any way?14·

· · ·· A.··No.15·

· · ·· Q.··And did it change the basis for your opinions in16·

· ·any way?17·

· · ·· A.··No.··Some of the arguments that they pointed to18·

· ·were things that, you know, we were still learning.19·

· ·We'd never seen sequences like the Prague sequence or20·

· ·the sequences that followed.··So we were in the process21·

· ·of learning how we handle these.··And so some of that22·

· ·was simply an exercise to see, "Okay.··What can we say23·

· ·about this that's like others and unlike other cases of24·

· ·induced seismicity?"25·

Page 234

· · · · ·· But some of those things with further discussion·1·

· ·with fellow colleagues or reading other papers -- like·2·

· ·the Omori aftershocks.··Just because you fall in an·3·

· ·Omori aftershock pattern does not mean an earthquake·4·

· ·can't be triggered because the vast amount of energy·5·

· ·that's released in a large earthquake then dominates the·6·

· ·energy in the system, and so it swamps out those much·7·

· ·more subtle effects.··And so the presence of an Omori·8·

· ·aftershock sequence in and of itself does not·9·

· ·necessarily negate the possibility of triggered10·

· ·seismicity.11·

· · · · ·· So, you know, that was a work product that they12·

· ·obtained, and I still -- you know, that was the thought13·

· ·process at the time, and I stand behind that.··It said14·

· ·that we can't rule out a natural earthquake.··So we15·

· ·cannot at 100 percent confidence rule out a natural16·

· ·earthquake.··But our confidence level that this17·

· ·earthquake is triggered has -- or my confidence level18·

· ·that this earthquake is triggered has gone up beyond19·

· ·that 50/50 margin I talked about in that series of20·

· ·papers to something more like 80 to 90 percent21·

· ·confidence.··That means it's likely that the earthquakes22·

· ·were triggered to use -- there's a paper that defines23·

· ·probabilities and uses -- defines terms to associate the24·

· ·certain probability of ranges that was designed by the25·

Page 235

· ·climate science community.··And so a "likely" has a·1·

· ·specific statistical meaning according to that.··And I·2·

· ·believe it's in that 85 to 90 percent confidence·3·

· ·interval.·4·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··I can't thank you enough on·5·

· ·behalf of the clients for coming and testifying.··We·6·

· ·appreciate it.··I'll pass the witness.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··Yeah.··I also want to thank·8·

· ·you for coming, but I have a couple of quick questions·9·

· ·for you.10·

· · · · · · · · · · ·· FURTHER EXAMINATION11·

· ·BY MR. PRITCHETT:12·

· · ·· Q.··Have you made -- do you have an opinion whether13·

· ·the -- with regards to how the Spess wells were operated14·

· ·following these November 2011 earthquakes?15·

· · ·· A.··So it was my understanding -- the Corporation16·

· ·Commission expressed this to me verbally -- that the17·

· ·Spess wells continued operating sort of as they had18·

· ·been, and that there was no change -- I mean, they19·

· ·provided EPA access to the wells to conduct some tests.20·

· ·But it was my understanding that the performance of the21·

· ·wells had changed.··But that's all I can speak to.22·

· · ·· Q.··Okay.··Do you know whether they changed after you23·

· ·had this conversation with the OCC?24·

· · ·· A.··I do not know.25·

Page 236

· · ·· Q.··And also, your opinion as to ultrahazardous on a·1·

· ·question, and I objected to whether it's a legal·2·

· ·conclusion or not, but I do have to ask this question·3·

· ·since you're allowed to answer that in a deposition.·4·

· · · · ·· With regards to whether it's ultrahazardous, do·5·

· ·you have an opinion that it's ultrahazardous to inject·6·

· ·into the Hunton formation?·7·

· · ·· A.··I would say that the ultrahazardous conditions, I·8·

· ·would limit those to injection in the Arbuckle.··I would·9·

· ·like to qualify that in the sense that there is a risk10·

· ·inherent with all injection because we don't know the11·

· ·conditions in the subsurface, but the risk is much12·

· ·greater when you're in hydrologic communication with the13·

· ·crystalline basement.14·

· · ·· Q.··Well, with regards to the Spess well and the15·

· ·injection to the Hunton, you don't believe that that is16·

· ·necessarily an ultrahazardous activity, as you17·

· ·understand that term to mean?18·

· · ·· A.··That's correct.··That is correct.19·

· · ·· Q.··And I think you were asked this by co-counsel --20·

· ·or by counsel for New Dominion, but I've got to ask this21·

· ·because -- the question that I had was that that April22·

· ·2015 policy statement by the OGS, it didn't name the23·

· ·Prague earthquake directly, did it?24·

· · ·· A.··It did not.25·


(Pages 237-240)


Page 237

· · ·· Q.··So my question to you is, have you published·1·

· ·anything that shows this change of opinion you have with·2·

· ·regards to the Prague earthquake specifically and·3·

· ·whether it was caused or contributed to by injection·4·

· ·wells?·5·

· · ·· A.··No, I have not.·6·

· · · · · · · · MR. POYNTER:··Object to form.·7·

· · · · · · · · MR. PRITCHETT:··I have nothing further.·8·

· · · · · · · · MR. ISAACS:··Dr. Holland, thank you for·9·

· ·coming.··Pass the witness.10·

· · · · · · · · (The deposition ended at 5:02 p.m.)11·

· ·12·

· ·13·

· ·14·

· ·15·

· ·16·

· ·17·

· ·18·

· ·19·

· ·20·

· ·21·

· ·22·

· ·23·

· ·24·

· ·25·

Page 238

· ·COOPER v. NEW DOMINION, et al.; No. CJ-2015-24·1·· · · · · · · · · · SIGNATURE/CORRECTION PAGE·2·· · · · ·· If there are any typographical errors to your·3·· ·Deposition, please indicate them below:· ·· ··4·· ·PAGE· · · ··LINE· ·· ··5·· ·______________________ Change to _______________________· ·· ··6·· ·______________________ Change to _______________________· ·· ··7·· ·______________________ Change to _______________________· ·· ··8·· ·______________________ Change to _______________________· ·· ··9·· · · · ·· Any other changes to your Deposition are to be10·· ·listed below with a statement as to the reason for such· ·· ·change.11·· ·PAGE· ·LINE· · ·CORRECTION· · · ··REASON FOR CHANGE12·· ·________________________________________________________13·· ·________________________________________________________14·· ·________________________________________________________15·· ·________________________________________________________16·· ·________________________________________________________17·· ·________________________________________________________18·· ·19·· · · · ·· I, AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D., do hereby certify that20·· ·I have read the foregoing pages of my testimony as· ·· ·transcribed, and that the same is a true and correct21·· ·record of the testimony given by me in this Deposition· ·· ·on October 11, 2017, except for the changes made.22·· ·_______________________··______________________________23·· ·DATE SIGNED· · · · · · ··AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D.· ·· ·24·· ·25·

Page 239

· · · · · · · THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY·1·

· · · · · · · · · · · · STATE OF OKLAHOMA· ·

· ··2·

· ·JENNIFER LIN COOPER,·3·

· ··4·

· · · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,· ·

· ··5·

· ·v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · ··Case No. CJ-2015-24·6·

· ··7·

· ·NEW DOMINION, LLC,· ·

· ·SPESS OIL COMPANY, and·8·

· ·JOHN DOES 1-25,· ·

· ··9·

· · · · · · · · · · Defendants.10·

· ·11·

· ·12·

· · · · · · · · · ·· REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE13·

· ·14·

· · · · ·· I, DEBRA L. WILLIAMS, CCR #92, DO HEREBY CERTIFY15·

· ·that on October 11, 2017, the Videotaped Deposition of16·

· ·AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D., was taken before me at the17·

· ·request of, and the sealed original thereof retained by:18·

· · · · · · · · · · FOR THE PLAINTIFFS19·

· · · · · · · · · · GARVIN A. ISAACS· ·

· ·20·

· · · · ·· I FURTHER CERTIFY that copies of this Certificate21·

· ·have been mailed or delivered to all Counsel, and22·

· ·parties to the proceedings not represented by counsel23·

· ·appearing at the taking of the deposition.24·

· ·25·

Page 240

· · · · ·· I FURTHER CERTIFY that the examination of this·1·

· ·transcript and signature of the witness was REQUESTED by·2·

· ·the witness and all parties present.··On ___________, a·3·

· ·letter was mailed or delivered to AUSTIN HOLLAND, Ph.D.,·4·

· ·regarding obtaining signature of the witness, and·5·

· ·corrections, if any, were appended to the original and·6·

· ·each copy of the Deposition.·7·

· · · · ·· I FURTHER CERTIFY that the recoverable cost of·8·

· ·the original and one copy of the Deposition, including·9·

· ·exhibits, to GARVIN A. ISAACS is $_______________.10·

· · · · ·· I FURTHER CERTIFY that I did administer the oath11·

· ·to the witness herein prior to the taking of this12·

· ·Deposition; that I did thereafter report in stenographic13·

· ·shorthand the questions and answers set forth herein,14·

· ·and the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of15·

· ·the proceeding had upon the taking of this Deposition to16·

· ·the best of my ability.17·

· · · · ·· I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither employed by18·

· ·nor related to nor contracted with (unless excepted by19·

· ·the rules) any of the parties or attorneys in this case,20·

· ·and that I have no interest whatsoever in the final21·

· ·disposition of this case in any court.22·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· ____________________________23·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· DEBRA L. WILLIAMS· ·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· Certified Court Reporter #9224·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· License Expires:··12/31/17· ·

· ·25·

page 1 (pages 1-4) · pdf file10· · · · ···...

Documents