Slashdot Mirror
Arkansas Earthquakes Could Be Man-Made
oxide7 writes "The small earthquakes that struck north central Arkansas could be from a combination of natural and man-made activity. Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events."
Yep, in Switzerland, for example. Links: article, analysis
The theory that fracturing the local geology by pumping in a lubricant under extremely high pressure might cause some sub-surface movement certainly sounds preposterous to me...
Dams do this do, e.g. the Hoover Dam and the recent quake in China. Read more at "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake": http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/
Right. I mean, it's only Arkansas...
Sorry, it's a very boring day debugging someone else's application.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The 4.7 and 4.3 were kind of freaky (4.7 especially, as evidenced by some ridiculous 911 calls from the neighboring city of Conway, ~13 miles south). Everything under 4 or so is just noise.
I just hope science proves it's these injection wells, so I have someone to sue when my house comes crashing down and I'm out the 10% deductible in my earthquake rider.
All that said, local opinion seems to be that tornadoes are scarier than earthquakes.
Magnitude 4 seismic events are of relatively little concern, in the scheme of things; but the water pollution that has resulted is more serious.
There is a more serious governance/philosophical issue at work, though. These sorts of energy extraction operations, whether they be hydrofracking gas, doing the assorted horrid things required to get tar sands and oil shales flowing, or mountaintop removal, all involve the extraction company imposing (often quite significant, sometimes fatal) externalities on the people in a broad swath around them. Generally, these externalities are not compensated. That's how pollution goes.
When a price needs to be paid, two things matter: "How big is it?" and "How will it be allocated?". At present, while the jury may still be out on the size of the bill, the method of allocation appears, at first approximation, to be "Suck it, peasants, costs will be imposed as is most profitable for your betters!".
Such a cost allocation scheme really ought to have no friends anywhere on the political spectrum. The reasons for liberal opposition should be so obvious as to no need mention. For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.
We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...
Have Christopher Walken or Grace Jones been seen in the area? They are trying to create a monopoly on ... on ... ? What does Arkansas produce again?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Everyone knows that the government has developed several variations on Tesla's earthquake machines (HAARP, etc) and has been using them all over the world (Haiti, anyone?) to cause "natural" disasters. Sheesh!
For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.
There are two problems. One is that people in the aggregate is easily led, this hardly bears further discussion in the context of this conversation. The other is that the real voters, the people with money, are the ones who are imposing the externalities. It's all gravy to them. So long as the ability to make decisions is concentrated in these individuals the decisions can only be selfish.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
According the the Department of State, the Following are the list of State Sponsored Terrorism Countries: (CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN, SYRIA). According to the US Energy Information Administration, the Following are the list of Top Countries the United States Imports Oil From In Order from Top Provider and the Rough % of US Import they account for: (CANADA ~22%, MEXICO ~12%, SAUDI ARABIA ~10%, NIGERIA ~10%, VENEZUELA ~8%, IRAQ ~3%, ANGOLA ~3%, BRAZIL ~3%, ALGERIA ~3%, COLOMBIA ~2%, ECUADOR ~2%, RUSSIA ~1.5%, KUWAIT ~1%, UNITED KINGDOM ~1%, ARGENTINA ~1%). This accounts for over 80% of our Oil Import and I don't see CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN or SYRIA on there. Ok, I'll Give you VENEZUELA, the government there hates the U.S. but they aren't on the State Sponsored Terrorism List "yet".
...and as the rebuttal, you post a link from a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations specifically set up for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by a representative from Colorado to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids? A group funded by the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association? A website registered by the PR firm Dittus Communications (now known as FD Americas Public Affairs) which boasts on its website that "energy clients have formed the backbone of FD Americas Public Affairs’ clientele for more than a decade."? With clients such as Alabama Power, American Energy Alliance, Center for Clean Air Policy, Consumer Energy Alliance, FutureGen, Georgia Power, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Institute for Energy Research?
And the phone number they have, (202) 346-8825, is the same phone number as the number for the previously mentioned Institute for Energy Research, an organization whose President (Robert L. Bradley) was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron and a former speechwriter for their old CEO Kenneth Lay... you mean THAT website?
I wonder why you posted anonymously...
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
Uh, that "philosophy" is not something anyone espouses. It is something people DO, while saying something different. Libertarians reject government regulations, such as environmental regulations. Yet they claim to want government to protect their person and property, as that is the only fitting role for government, providing police and an army. Well, how do you protect people's health and property from negative externalities like pollution without environmental regulations? Do you see, libertarians CLAIM they want government to protect people from assault, but they don't. Pollution is assault. It harms health and property, yet libertarians do not want government to protect you from THAT kind of assault. They want to be free to assault you in any possible way, without interference. When libertarians claim government has a monopoly on violence, what they really means is, "I wish I could use violence to get my way."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because it's easier to attack the messenger and not the message.
Now don't bother us with details, he's guilty, just look at the way he's dressed.