Slashdot Mirror
Earthquake Warning Issued For Central Oklahoma
New submitter bobbied (2522392) writes "A rare warning has been issued by the US Geological survey today, warning of an increased risk of a damaging earthquake (magnitude 5.0 or greater) in central Oklahoma. There have been more earthquakes in Oklahoma (per mile) than California this year, prompting the USGS to issue their warning today (May 5, 2014).
This warning is the first such warning to be issued for a state east of the Rockies."
This warning is the first such warning to be issued for a state east of the Rockies."
Finding out when (ie soon) and where an earthquake will occur is still almost pure luck. Of course, when the frequency of EQ is high, the probability that a bigger one happens is higher. But that almost the best we can predict. After the Tohoku EQ in Japan in 2011, amazing predictions were made by "specialists": a "big one" to occur in Tokyo within a couple of days, the Fuji mt to erupt soon, etc... nothing happened. (the cumulative probabilities of a big one in Tokyo was more than 90% at the time!).
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
'Nuff said.
Is it too late to take out an insurance policy on some Oklahoma property?
Sure, no problem. Your first month's premium will be the expected damages to your property in the event of a magnitude 5.0 or greater earthquake, plus our cut; but you are welcome to buy!
This area was tested for nuclear waste disposal, Yucca Mountain won out.
This area is a basalt range, and no problem for future earthquakes (claimed), yes we have Mt.s St. Helen but that's the edge of two plates.
Politics and other things I'm not privy to moved the burial site away, but if Oklahoma is having earthquake warnings, not sure what to say actually.
Most insurance policies that you might be able to get include an 'act of god' clause that excludes major natural disasters.
these wells pump poisons into a geological formation that is moving around? Isn't it at least possible that these poisons can move along these "rock cracks", and, eventually get into our aquifers?
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
This would be a test of abiogenic oil hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Urgent Earthquake Watch â" Yellowstone , Southern California, New Madrid, East Coast, PNW
http://dutchsinse.tatoott1009....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
When I read the originally released "list of fracking chemicals" I concluded that "fracking fluid" was a code word for "refinery waste". I see, sadly, that I was correct.
Out here in California you can get cited as if you'd spilled transmission fluid for a vegetable oil spill in your home biodiesel facility. And meanwhile, states are pumping refinery byproducts into the ground deliberately and getting paid for it.
It's all gone mad.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The US capitol is very prone to earthquake damage. And it turns out that is is surrounded by shale formations where fracking is or could occur. The Marcellus Shale formation to the North and now "The Taylorsville basin runs through some of Virginia and across the Potomac River to cover much of Charles County, some of Prince George’s and up to Annapolis. That basin was assessed and found to contain an estimated 1,064 billion cubic feet of natural gas" to the South surround it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... The last earthquake did serious damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2....
Not if you specifically purchase "earthquake" insurance, Ive had that on my house(s) for the last 15 years, looking like I got a good deal now...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
This graph from the article shows an exponential growth in small earthquakes in the past few years. How else do you go from under 10/year to 150/year, in the span of a decade?
And now earthquakes. OK just can't catch a break.
That is all.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I know a guy in Tennessee who tried to add flood insurance to his house not too long before he lost everything in the floods of 2010...his insurance company didn't offer it because the area wasn't considered a flood risk. Wouldn't take his money in exchange for pretty much doing nothing, because the risk was too low...suuuuure...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well that sucks....
Yawn, indeed. Earthquakes can devastate an area much larger that a typical tornado. Especially in places where they've never implemented building codes intended to mitigate earthquakes. Here in CA, all new buildings are required to meet certain codes, many of the bridges have been refitted to be more seismic proof, and certain existing buildings, primarily schools and hospitals have either undergone extensive retrofitting or have been closed.
Perhaps building codes intended to protect against tornadoes will work, in some measure, against earthquakes, assuming OK has them, but I'd still expect rather significant destruction in even a moderate size earthquake.
When I bought my house, my agent sold me on a 'seepage' rider... He said it was a good idea on a new house because you never know what leaks are going to happen. Sure enough, 10 years later we discovered the siding was installed incorrectly on one side of the house and water had been slowly seeping in to one section of wall... Called the insurance company, they sent an adjuster and immediately brought in a team to demolish that entire room in the basement and set up dehumidifiers... Awesome service I thought. After a couple weeks of dehmidification, I asked when they were expecting to start rebuilding... My insurance company said I wasn't covered for seepage. I pointed out that I had purchased seepage coverage. They said they'd get back to me. A week later, they got back to me. Still not covered. There's a proviso on the seepage coverage that says they don't cover "repeated seepage" and since the seepage had been ocurring every time it rained for the last 10 years, it counted as 'repeated'. So we were on the hook for the whole $15,000.
In summary, you may buy coverage, but they will find some way to avoid coverage.
Insurance: If they can afford to sell it to you, it's not a good deal.
And I give even less to OK but you've completely missed the point.
GOD. IS. PISSED.
we its can't be perfect without an earthquake now can it?
There's a proviso on the seepage coverage that says they don't cover "repeated seepage" and since the seepage had been ocurring every time it rained for the last 10 years, it counted as 'repeated'. So we were on the hook for the whole $15,000.
Sorry this happened to you. But this whole thing sounds so ridiculous -- the very definition of "seepage" is that it happens slowly, over time, generally from repeated exposures to water events (rather than, say, "flooding," which happens all at once).
A "seepage" policy that doesn't cover "repeated seepage" sounds like a warranty against "drips" from a faucet that doesn't cover "repeated dripping."
...and no it's not fracking. The faults already existed, the only thing that fracking may have done is lubricate those faults, they still would've happened eventually.
Unaided those earthquakes would have happened anyway, on the normal geologic timescale of some time in the next thousand years.
But I agree with you, it's not fracking, it's wastewater disposal. We've known since the 50's that you don't pump water into areas that are not stable. What's going to happen is the state is going to do very little until there's an earthquake that does major damage. Then the Feds are going to get involved and things will finally get done.
Also, at some point, some random idiot with a following will blame the gays, Jews, Muslims, communists, blacks, or generic sinners for this. The only group that will not be blamed will be the people who pumped water at high speeds into an unstable area.
First off, NPR edited and reported on what the USGS published. That's called news, NPR is not the source, the USGS is. If your world renowned PhD is laughing at the USGS, I think he needs to publish a paper explaining why.
Second, this is Slashdot, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Posting links is fine as long as they are backed by real research. Again, I think the USGS is, by far, the best source for this. That's what they do, their agenda is to answer questions, not to make money for the local energy concern.
Given the gas and oil industry's scientific reputation, anything they publish should be suspect. (Remember how safe leaded gas was?)
According to the late (I presume) Dean of Astrology at Oxford Univrsity (UK), Margaret Hone, no gravitational or magnetic waves are involved. An undiscovered astrological wave is the cause, according to her textbook.
Yes, I am serious. Her textbook was published in 1955 IIRC. (I have it somewhere, but am too lazy to look for it.)
What's the deductible? In California, it's about 1/6th the value of the house.
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
Especially when I can walk two doors down and get it from a world renowned geological hydrology PhD. Pretty sure he'd laugh at those references.
After he's finished laughing at the source, is that when he explains to you that the conclusions are all correct?
You realize that oil drilling only goes about 2.2 km deep, while most earth quakes are ten km deep?
1 in the past 30 days has been 10 km or more deep. The vast majority are between 2 and 5.
...I wouldn't have said anything to begin with if the original premise was correct. But if you want to believe everything your government tells you, be my guest.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
http://www.geonet.org.nz/quake...
Welcome to New Zealand, magnitude 4-5 quakes last month: 43, + 3 mag 5 - 6 just for fun.
At only 1.43 times the size of Oklahoma, NZ is a much more rockin' place to be. (181,195 km^2 vs 268,021 km^2) Also earrthquake cover is much higher then $23USD/year.
Why treat the waste when you can just bury it?
Nothing could go wrong when pumping large amounts of solvents into the ground at high pressure!
We should dump our nuclear waste in the same way! It'll be great!
Wait a second...
Only a complete idiot ignores independent scientists.