ADVERTISEMENT

Earthquakes in OK and KS

I’m old enough to remember when earthquakes in that region were attributed to the New Madrid fault. Now we just reflexively blame the oil industry, as if the fault zone isn’t even a thing anymore.
 
I’m old enough to remember when earthquakes in that region were attributed to the New Madrid fault. Now we just reflexively blame the oil industry, as if the fault zone isn’t even a thing anymore.

LOLWUT?

The USGS issued a study a while back, indicating the wastewater disposal was fully the cause of the seismic activity. OK's governor issued an emergency declaration about it.

Google those if you need help on this.
 
I’m old enough to remember when earthquakes in that region were attributed to the New Madrid fault. Now we just reflexively blame the oil industry, as if the fault zone isn’t even a thing anymore.

The New Madrid fault is HUNDRED's of miles away and it hasn't had a major earthquake (i.e. one that can be felt) since the 1960's..........not sure who was saying that it had ANYTHING to do with earthquakes in the Ok/Ks area.
 
How else are they going to pin it on Trump?

Well, if the present administration is planning to eliminate regulations on wastewater disposal, after all the knowledge and experience obtained, he'd basically earn that blame...

2016:
Oklahoma officials have ordered 37 wastewater disposal wells shut down after a 5.6-magnitude earthquake struck the state on Saturday, equal to the strongest in the state’s history.

Governor Mary Fallin declared a state of emergency after the earthquake, which caused damage to buildings around north-central Oklahoma and could be felt as far away as Dallas and Chicago.

“We’re just trying to determine just how widespread” the damage is, emergency management director Mark Randell said. He described it as minor to moderate, with some collapsed chimneys and fallen sandstone facing off buildings; no buildings collapsed.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission ordered the shutdown of wastewater wells in a radius of about 500 square miles around the epicenter of the earthquake. “We estimate that at any one time, there are about 3,200 active disposal wells,” commission spokesman Matt Skinner said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/oklahoma-wastewater-wells-earthquake
 
True, but you cannot conduct frakking w/o disposal of the wastewater, somehow. No wastewater disposal = no frakking.

You can dispose of the wastewater in many ways that do no equal injecting into areas that are in close proximity to critically stressed faults.
 
You can dispose of the wastewater in many ways that do no equal injecting into areas that are in close proximity to critically stressed faults.

True, but it's essential to fracking and is a direct contributor to the earthquakes in said area.........or are you saying this is pure coincidence?

5c26ca244709f.image.jpg
 
You can dispose of the wastewater in many ways that do no equal injecting into areas that are in close proximity to critically stressed faults.

A) That isn't what's happened, historically, and it is why there is so much seismic activity in OK/KS now

B) My point that no wastewater disposal = no frakking, stands.

C) If your deposits are only in areas that have active faults, you either ship or pump the water elsewhere, or you don't extract.

D) Many of these areas were not considered "critically stressed faults" at the time disposal began. It's a cumulative effect, and the consequences may sometimes not be identified for years, or decades. Who foots the bill for that? The "government"? It's an externalized cost, and extractors should not be able to declare bankruptcy to absolve themselves of the responsibility.
 
Rape coincides with ice cream sales.

Are the rapists buying ice cream during the act? No, then those two examples are now where close to being comparable.......but hey, keep posting out of your ass.

If you have data that refutes the data I just posted (from the Oklahoma Geological survey no less), then post it. If not, then it's best to stay out of threads you obviously have no clue about.
 
Hey man, still better to lose your house than struggle with the ravages of Windmill Cancer!
I thought surely at this point, after all the various fracking stakeholders agree that there's a direct correlation between post-fracking water disposal and earthquakes, that cons would've given up the cause of disputing the link between the two. Don't give up, dolts!
 
A) That isn't what's happened, historically, and it is why there is so much seismic activity in OK/KS now

B) My point that no wastewater disposal = no frakking, stands.

C) If your deposits are only in areas that have active faults, you either ship or pump the water elsewhere, or you don't extract.

D) Many of these areas were not considered "critically stressed faults" at the time disposal began. It's a cumulative effect, and the consequences may sometimes not be identified for years, or decades. Who foots the bill for that? The "government"? It's an externalized cost, and extractors should not be able to declare bankruptcy to absolve themselves of the responsibility.

A) It happened early in the life of development of the Arkansas Fairway. Research the "Guy Swarm". An injection moratorium was put into place in high risk areas, operators came up with alternatives to water injection in those areas (re-use, water treatment, shipping for disposal) and the entire field (10,000 plus wells) was developed with no significant subsequent earthquake activity

B) Sure, but water can be disposed of without causing earthquakes

C) Fair enough

D) You and I both know you have absolutely no idea what goes into identifying a critically stressed fault
 
True, but it's essential to fracking and is a direct contributor to the earthquakes in said area.........or are you saying this is pure coincidence?

5c26ca244709f.image.jpg

No, I'm saying the earthquake risk can be mitigated by avoiding injection in areas of critically stressed faults.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
I thought surely at this point, after all the various fracking stakeholders agree that there's a direct correlation between post-fracking water disposal and earthquakes, that cons would've given up the cause of disputing the link between the two. Don't give up, dolts!
I'm a conservative and I think there is more consensus all around among those in the know that fracking is a significant cause of the increased seismic activity.
 
Are the rapists buying ice cream during the act? No, then those two examples are now where close to being comparable.......but hey, keep posting out of your ass.

If you have data that refutes the data I just posted (from the Oklahoma Geological survey no less), then post it. If not, then it's best to stay out of threads you obviously have no clue about.

I was just making a dumb joke about correlation vs causation. (rape and ice cream sales being a classic example from freakonomics)

Yes, I've read about the fracking.
 
No, I'm saying the earthquake risk can be mitigated by avoiding injection in areas of critically stressed faults.

That I agree.

I was just making a dumb joke about correlation vs causation. (rape and ice cream sales being a classic example from freakonomics)

Yes, I've read about the fracking.

My bad..........went right over my head.
 
promo386745524-e1562613243910.jpg

I wonder if all those small earthquakes do have a negative or positive (reducing stress) effect on the fault.
It is fairly close to Oklahoma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menace Sockeyes
D) You and I both know you have absolutely no idea what goes into identifying a critically stressed fault

I most certainly know they weren't aware of these "critically stressed faults" when disposal began, or the quakes wouldn't have occurred.....many of these faults were learned of only after years of disposal.
 
True, but you cannot conduct frakking w/o disposal of the wastewater, somehow. No wastewater disposal = no frakking.
Trump and Barnhardt are working on this. In order to free up business from crippling regulations, waste water will now be pumped directly into the closest ditch. Problem solved.
 
I’m old enough to remember when earthquakes in that region were attributed to the New Madrid fault. Now we just reflexively blame the oil industry, as if the fault zone isn’t even a thing anymore.
LOL. Also old enough to bail on a thread when you are proven to be wrong, and your only like is from a raving lunatic. Solid work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnBasedow
I’m old enough to remember when earthquakes in that region were attributed to the New Madrid fault. Now we just reflexively blame the oil industry, as if the fault zone isn’t even a thing anymore.

Please post a link of anyone pointing a finger at the New Madrid Fault for quakes in Kansas and Oklahoma.
 
I most certainly know they weren't aware of these "critically stressed faults" when disposal began, or the quakes wouldn't have occurred.....many of these faults were learned of only after years of disposal.

Many of the first injection wells were converted producing wells targeting, fault traps. The risk of injection was poorly understood at time, but nowadays there are better techniques for identifying and mitigating risks, of which you certainly know NOTHING about.
 
Many of the first injection wells were converted producing wells targeting, fault traps. The risk of injection was poorly understood at time

Protip: per the linked articles, it's still "poorly understood".
 
Protip: per the linked articles, it's still "poorly understood".

Protip: Their computer modeled, hypothesis of potential far field seismic events distant to the event caused by the injection well, cannot happen without injection in proximity to a critically stressed fault to begin their proposed "domino effect".
 
Protip: Their computer modeled, hypothesis of potential far field seismic events distant to the event caused by the injection well, cannot happen without injection in proximity to a critically stressed fault to begin their proposed "domino effect".

What part of "poorly understood" was lost on you, there?
 
What part of "poorly understood" was lost on you, there?

The fundamental element, the effects of increasing pore pressure in areas of critically stressed faults, is well understood and can be mitigated. Their hypothesis, the poorly understood part, even if it's correct, is also mitigated by avoiding injection near critically stressed faults.
 
ADVERTISEMENT