Oklahoma and Texas now as earthquake prone as California


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Do you want Quakers?
Because this is how you get Quakers.


#3


#4

In case anyone looks at the map, sees Missouri, and thinks we’re part of that:

It’s not even the only fault here. Here in Illinois we have companies who want to start fracking, and lots of locals hate the state government for getting in the way.


#5

Technically, isn’t it better to keep the troublesome faults lubricated and sliding, and causing hundreds of small quakes, than to let them stick up and then make a single big one?


#6

Are you;
a) shilling,
b) just “putting it out there”,
c) “just asking the question”, or
d) do you actually think that to be true?

Because a mere moment on google would solve your confusion.


#7

Sure, but this only looks bad if you focus on the “Negative” rather than the “Externalities”. Think of all the Shareholder Value all that not-caring-about-earthquakes provides!


#8

Well, an earthquake is a sudden release of stored energy. If you release it piecemeal instead of all at once, you get much fewer problems.

As of the USGS link, the distribution of quake intensity they mentioned is for the naturally occurring ones. That paragraph says nothing about changing the distribution of event energies if they get artificially triggered.

The second paragraph says it can be done but it is risky in populated areas. The question is, isn’t it more risky to NOT do it? For a man-made intentional event that you can time (major injection? underground nuke?) you can potentially even do event preparation in advance and evacuate the affected area for a while.

This all hinges on sufficiently accurate measurements of the energy stored in the rock deformation, though.

edit: I can imagine this financed and done by insurance companies.


#9

Don’t forget labor saving…
All I have to do is bake now. (with my cheap natural gas that comes out of the water faucet)

edit to add the source of the gas


#10

Based on those maps it seems that parts of Texas and Oklahoma are as prone to earthquake DAMAGE as California, which is a subtle point. As I read it, fracking quakes in those regions are much smaller than those seen in California, but the building codes are much different in California, leaving the risk of damage similar.


#11

Let us know when they have a mag 7+ earthquake !


#12

Just to be clear, fracking and wastewater injection are two different things. Related, but different. Oil and gas wells produce waste water (whether fracked or not). Nasty stuff. Full of hydrocarbons, salts, metals. In the distant past, this was just dumped. It can also be treated, but this is expensive and just concentrates the waste.

One common method of disposal is to just inject it very deep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injection_well

It’s the injection wells that are causing most earthquakes. http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/7711


#13

There’s also the issue of the different geologies involved. Part of the reason the New Madrid earthquakes were so bad was extensive liquefaction along the sediments of the Mississippi Basin (see ‘sand blow’), and where the land was more solid, the quake waves were able to travel farther. The 1812 quakes were felt as far away as New England, and caused damage up into Pennsylvania and Ohio.


#14

Anthropogenic earthquakes are another fraud being pushed on us by Big Science, in search of getting rich from research dollars and bringing on a one world socialist conspiracy.

Now reach me my tin hat.


#15

I see by his reply that he doesn’t seem to be, but I have to object strongly to the fact that you left out:
"e) making a tasteless joke."
Which is something of a commenter tradition, and wrong not to list as a possibility.


#16

Here is an honest question. Just because water injection and fracking are producing many magnitude 3 earthquakes, will this make larger earthquakes more common?

My guess is that we won’t know until it happens. And if it doesn’t happen, then we can never be sure that it won’t happen at some point in the future.


#17

No, no, Donald Trump explained this:

It follows that other fears were created by other countries. Fracking included. Probably by Canadians, who want to sell THEIR oil.


#18

Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, it’s a straw, you see? Watch it. Now my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I… drink… your… milkshake. I drink it up!

Then your house falls into a sinkhole.


#19

Anything to avoid the horrors of renewable energy!

Can you imagine the damage when a solar producer cuts corners and springs a leak??!?

What if a windmill fell over?!!?

Oh the humanity!!! :frowning:


#20

It can be a bit more dramatic than that.