Slashdot Mirror


The Arrival of Man-Made Earthquakes

An anonymous reader writes: The New Yorker has a long investigative report on a recent geological phenomenon: man-made earthquakes. The article describes how scientists painstakingly gathered data on the quakes, and then tried to find ways to communicate the results — which are quite definitive — to politicians who often have financial reasons to disbelieve them. Quoting: "Until 2008, Oklahoma experienced an average of one to two earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater each year. (Magnitude-3.0 earthquakes tend to be felt, while smaller earthquakes may be noticed only by scientific equipment or by people close to the epicenter.) In 2009, there were twenty. The next year, there were forty-two. In 2014, there were five hundred and eighty-five, nearly triple the rate of California.

In state government, oil money is both invisible and pervasive. In 2013, Mary Fallin, the governor, combined the positions of Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Environment. Michael Teague, whom she appointed to the position, when asked by the local NPR reporter Joe Wertz whether he believed in climate change, responded that he believed that the climate changed every day. Of the earthquakes, Teague has said that we need to learn more. Fallin's first substantive response came in 2014, when she encouraged Oklahomans to buy earthquake insurance. (However, many earthquake-insurance policies in the state exclude coverage for induced earthquakes.)"

166 comments

  1. Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But stop messing with my atmosphere.

    1. Re:Keep digging you own hole by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I dont know about you, but would you prefer a bunch of 2.0 and 3.0s, or a giant 8.5?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I've been curious about this for a while. Is it possible that mini-earthquakes release pressure for larger ones? Are larger earthquakes caused by phenomena unrelated to smaller, perhaps more surface quakes? Do small quakes destabilize the area and make large quakes more likely? Without this information, it is difficult to understand whether this is just scaremongering by anti-fracking environmentalists.

    3. Re:Keep digging you own hole by serbanp · · Score: 4, Informative

      since the scale is logarithmic, you would need more than 3 million 2.0 earthquakes to dissipate the same energy as a single 8.5. So no, all these 2.0 or 3.0s don't make a dent in the probability of a giant 8.5

    4. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Without this information, it is difficult to understand whether this is just scaremongering by anti-fracking environmentalists.

      You asked the right questions, but you came to the wrong conclusion. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have this information, i.e. there are no peer reviewed studies predicting or discounting any of your three possibilities with a reasonable degree of certainty. Thus, it is entirely prudent to take precautions that would prevent a possible scenario where areas could be destabilized making a large quake more likely. If that sounds like anti-fracking scaremongering, it's because it is. It just so happens that it's a completely rational fear that has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism as it relates to groundwater contamination.

    5. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I look at it like being on a mountain and whacking at rocks with a big mallet. Little ones, you'll almost certainly send rolling down the slope. Ones that are several dozen kilograms, it'll be hit or miss whether you'll make enough of an impact to send them down the mountainside. But giant multi-tonne boulders? You're irrelevant to them, even if they're already precariously balanced.

      On the other hand, there's always the possibility that you might hit a smaller rock, sending it cascading into a bigger rock, etc, and ultimately trigger a chain reaction that was already sitting there on a knife's edge. But the odds of this, just hitting rocks at random (let alone deliberately trying to avoid precariously balanced rocks), is very low.

      The amount of energy people are putting into the ground compared to the scale of the forces involved in major faults is pretty much irrelevant. Even if the fault is "ready to go", you're still hardly affecting it. There's always the chance you might start a cascade of slips... but that's unlikely, even if you weren't deliberately trying to avoid working near major faults - and drillers do try to avoid working near major faults.

      Possible - but very unlikely.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    6. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Oh, definitely an 8.5 or better. After all, if I can't dump California west of the San Andreas into the sea, who's going to be interested in my new beachfont development properties of Luthorville, Luthortown, Port Luthor, Otisberg, or... wait, Otisberg?

      OTIS!

    7. Re:Keep digging you own hole by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I'm quaking in my boots... no wait, that's the ground.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    8. Re:Keep digging you own hole by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I live in California, less than a mile from a fault line. You can't even feel a 2.0. Even a 3.0 is no worse than a truck driving by your house. If you are sleeping, it is unlikely to wake you up. There are some good reasons to oppose hydraulic fracturing, but "earthquakes" isn't one of them. This is as silly as opposing windmills because an occasional bird gets wacked.

    9. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seismic activity in Oklahoma is not caused by fracking, but by disposal wells via which truly vast quantities of water are injected into basement rock. Fracking tends to cause only very small earthquakes, while poorly placed disposal wells can lead to quakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0 (based on examples in TFA).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    10. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      he simple fact of the matter is that we don't have this information, i.e. there are no peer reviewed studies predicting or discounting any of your three possibilities with a reasonable degree of certainty.

      This simply isn't true (can you say astroturf?). Fracking is a complete non sequitor here; disposal wells in Oklahoma have been shown to be the primary cause of increased seismic activity there by multiple tens of peer-reviewed studies, while zero papers have reached an alternative conclusion.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    11. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy people are putting into the ground compared to the scale of the forces involved in major faults is pretty much irrelevant.

      The energy is the internal energy of billions upon billions of gallons of water. In fact, it is significant with respect to fault forces - as demonstrated by the clear empirical link between disposal wells drilled into basement rock and seismic activity.

      and drillers do try to avoid working near major faults.

      From TFA, it sounds that in Oklahoma many drillers do try to avoid drilling disposal wells into basement rock. However, a large part (~20%) of the total impact is coming from just a few large disposal wells owned by a single firm, which is currently resisting state attempts to determine if the wells do in fact contact basement rock.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    12. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are some good reasons to oppose hydraulic fracturing, but "earthquakes" isn't one of them.

      Guess you skipped the article, which isn't about fracking. Instead, it's about disposal wells, which unlike fracking (which as you say is linked only to very small earthquakes) have been conclusively linked to larger quakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0. According to TFA, there were 585 such earthquakes in Oklahoma in 2013, while there were just a few annually prior to 2008.

      This is as silly as opposing windmills because an occasional bird gets wacked.

      None of the scientists or Oklahoma residents quoted by TFA are "opposed" to disposal wells. They want 1) the empirical link between disposal wells which contact basement rock and seismic activity to be recognized; 2) firms to be required to investigate if their wells contact basement rock; and 3) to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    13. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The energy is the internal energy of billions upon billions of gallons of water.

      1) Gallons are not a unit of energy.
      2) A billion gallons of water is about the mass of a cube of rock 77 meters per side. The sort of fault that can unleash a major earthquake is hundreds of kilometers long and extends a good way through the crust.

      It is the boulder. You're hitting at it with a mallet. It doesn't care.

      In fact, it is significant with respect to fault forces - as demonstrated by the clear empirical link between disposal wells drilled into basement rock and seismic activity.

      Link with minor quakes They are the little rocks and occasional moderate sized rock that you can actually budge with your mallet.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    14. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > The amount of energy people are putting into the ground compared to the scale of the forces

      The "amount of energy" is already present, it's not the addition of energy. The problem is that the water being pumped in is acting as a lubricant, in ways that oil embedded shale is not so good a lubricant. The earthquakes are due to _release_ of energy, not addition of energy.

    15. Re:Keep digging you own hole by bradrum · · Score: 1

      So the 5.6 earthquake in Prague was minor to who? you? What about the people who had their houses demolished, lets ask them if it is minor.

      This whole story and response reminds me of the movie Outland. Its a Sci-fi movie where people start going crazy and killing themselves and the response by the mining company is "sometimes it just happens around here". But when the sheriff (Sean Connery) starts looking into it he finds increasing frequency of these incidents and they are caused by company supplied drugs to keep workers productive. When confronted people say "hey lets not make a big deal about the deaths, because business is good". Same here, with the wastewater disposal. "Its no big deal", "these earthquakes just happen" and now it is "there are unlikely to be big quakes".

    16. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 1

      So the 5.6 earthquake in Prague was minor to who?

      The USGS and Oklahoma Geological Survey say that the quake was natural, but one study argues that 18 years of cumulative injection triggered a lesser fault, which started a cascade that led up to the major fault. Aka, the "you hit a rock, it hits a bigger one, etc" scenario I outlined in my initial post.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    17. Re: Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like Zardoz.

    18. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      The USGS and Oklahoma Geological Survey say [huffingtonpost.com] that the quake was natural

      In fact, the USGS has concluded that disposal well pumping is responsible for increased seismic activity in Oklahoma (the article you link merely quotes a single geologist who works at the USGS). And, while the OGS does officially state the quake was natural, this position is not supported by even one study result - it's instead an arbitrary, politically mandated claim. The director of the OGS himself has even published research which does support induced seismicity in Oklahoma, and in TFA strongly implied that the OGS' official position is the result of direct political interference.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    19. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      1) Gallons are not a unit of energy.

      I didn't say it was - the energy involved comes from 1) Earth's gravitational field and 2) the internal energy of the water. Both are proportional to the water volume. The amount of water in question, around 50 billion gallons, is not small. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a percentage in arguing with someone who doesn't believe in conservation of mass or Le Chatelier's principle.

      Link with minor quakes

      About magnitude 3.0 to 6.0. M3 quakes are pretty small, but underestimating 4.0 - 6.0 quakes is a dangerous mistake. Prior to 2008, magnitude 3.0 and greater quakes were very rare in Oklahoma, and structures are not earthquake resistant. That's why "minor" ~5.0 quakes are causing tens of millions of dollars in damage.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    20. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I don't think there's a percentage in arguing with someone who

      Percentage?

      There you go again, misapplying references to quantitative values in rhetorical arguments. It sounds good to cloak your argument in technical jargon.

      To some folks it does, anyway.

    21. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's politics all the way down with all parties in the issue. If you don't think the scientists on the 'environmental' side are just as motivated to 'harvest' the 'scientific results' they seek to uncover, you're kidding yourself.

      The integrity of 'Mother Earth' (Gaia!) is at stake, you know. Of course the sky is gonna fall!

    22. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The acts of a benevolent god should never be looked on without a grateful attitude.

      Maybe we should give California back to Mexico ahead of time, though. Cleanup costs could be high.

    23. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly right, but it is a simplification. There's also the lubricating effect of the water, which, over the sorts of areas that volume of water can spread might well reach into the realm of making it easier for hundreds of kilometre long rocks to shift, especially if there is already pressure, or existing lubrication from other sources in play.

    24. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an accepted euphemism for "advantage", stemming from gambling and loansharking.

    25. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fault in Prague isn't even near an injection well. There's no way it was directly caused by wastewater injection. Now, the smaller quake that led up to it was near a wastewater injection well, and there are some who think that was the trigger, while others disagree. But that's just an example of what I mentioned in my first post, the possibility of starting a cascade. But that's not as likely even if one wasn't trying to avoid triggering sizeable faults, something that the fact that there have been so even few moderate quakes in areas with injection wells despite the vast, vast amounts of wells that have been doing this for many years.

      And lets not pretend like these are the only human activities that cause earthquakes. Draining aquifers causes earthquakes. Building and filling large dams causes earthquakes. Even fluctuating reservoir levels cause earthquakes. Building very large skyscrapers causes earthquakes. Large mining projects cause earthquakes. Everything we do that adds or substracts weight from an area can trigger earthquakes. So why the focus on this particular cause? Do you mistakenly believe that this is somehow unusually severe? You talk about the merely cascaded 5,6 Prague quake that caused some damage. The 6,3 1967 Koynanagar Earthquake caused by Konya Dam killed 180 people and took out power to Bombay. Vajont Dam in Italy caused earthquakes, eventually destabilizing the slopes and sending a landslide into the filling reservoir and killing 2000 people. The 8,0 2008 Sichuan earthquake which killed 68.000 people, injured 376k people, left 5-11 million homeless was probably caused by Zipingpu Dam. Where's your outrage over this? Why all this outrage over these tiny quakes and the occasional moderate quake possibly triggered by a tiny quake, when there's far bigger induced seismicity causes out there?

      Simple: it's your political view coloring your analysis of the situation.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    26. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing says you won't get a giant 8.5 anyway.

      And five hundred 3.0's will do more damage without any visible catastrophe to enable emergency aid to solve the problem, so is overall worse.

    27. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just base 10 logarithmic. Every magnitude integer is about 32 times the energy of the one below it.

    28. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything they release built up energy earlier so avoiding a 8.5

    29. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the boulder. You're hitting at it with a mallet. It doesn't care.

      Actually it's more like hitting a wedge into a crack in the boulder with the mallet. In a couple dozen strikes you'll crack the entire boulder in two.

    30. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You skipped the actual discussion, and replied to a straw man.

      The discussion was on the effects of increased seismic activity - is it negative or positive? To quote the great grandparent:

      Is it possible that mini-earthquakes release pressure for larger ones? Are larger earthquakes caused by phenomena unrelated to smaller, perhaps more surface quakes? Do small quakes destabilize the area and make large quakes more likely?

      Yes, the grand-parent did mention fracking as a possible source of the mini-earthquakes and you might have data that contradict that; but that was a complete side issue. The discussion was about whether the effects are positive or negative.

    31. Re:Keep digging you own hole by dywolf · · Score: 1

      still causes property damage.
      frequently to just repaired homes and buildings since the swarms are clustered in small areas.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    32. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the AC, and I completely agree with you. I don't think you understood his 3 questions, though. His questions were not related to whether deep injection contributes to small quakes. It absolutely does contribute to small quakes, and as you mentioned, the studies about the Oklahoma wells were the first to draw this conclusion.

      His questions, though, were about whether these small quakes can trigger larger ones. This type of thing is mentioned in a few studies, but no one is able to make a definitive assiessment, yet.... I was saying that, because of this unknkown, it's worthwhile to take precautions against the possibility. This is literally the polar opposite of the position you seem to have me pegged on.

    33. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      And five hundred 3.0's will do more damage

      500? You'd need about 100,000 or so to equal an 8.

    34. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fracking is a complete non sequitor here; disposal wells in Oklahoma have been shown to be the primary cause

      Yeah, disposal wells from fracking. wtf.

    35. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      multiple tens of peer-reviewed studies

      I think you meant to say a few metric dozen of peer-reviewed studies.

    36. Re:Keep digging you own hole by jonadab · · Score: 1

      I live in Ohio. We have 3.x and even 4.x quakes, I'm told, "all the time" (albeit, not nearly as often as California).

      I've never felt an earthquake, nor do I know anyone who has ever felt one of these 3.x or 4.x quakes. Back in the eighties (I want to say '86 maybe) we had a 5.x, which of course was all over the news for weeks. I knew several people who claimed to have felt that one, including my father. Invariably, they were sitting at the time, and not on a padded surface like a couch or recliner, either. People who were outdoors walking around at the time -- including me -- felt nothing. We could only hear about it later and envy our friends who had actually experienced this amazing once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon.

      I don't doubt that it's /theoretically/ possible to feel a 3.0, under perfect laboratory conditions. But under normal real-world conditions, there's no way you're ever going to notice it. It's way too subtle.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    37. Re: Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The injection wells put the fluid into the oil bearing formations repressering them & floating oil to the top of the formation, or so they hope,

    38. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to remember the largest quake ever recorded in the US was in the 1800s in this area. The Mississippi River actually ran backwards and the quake formed a large lake that is still there today (Reelfoot Lake). The ground in that are fell 30 feet to form the lake.

      As far as scaremongering by anti-fracking environmentalists you can't argue with the fact that people in areas that they have done fracking in the people can set fire to their water faucets and can no longer drink the water from it. Personally I like my well water and I don't want city water or have to BUY fucking water in order to survive.

      Water is far more important than oil/gas for survival.

    39. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the boulder. You're hitting at it with a mallet. It doesn't care.

      Depends on how the boulder is balanced and where you hit it with the mallet.

      I have seen with my own eyes a 10 pound rock go down a mountain and end up bringing down a few hundred tons of rock. Yes the chance maybe be low but not improbable. Ask someone that works in a rock quarry.

    40. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      English words do tend to have alternate definitions which can be confusing to non-native speakers. As the AC said below:

      [Percentage is] an accepted euphemism for "advantage", stemming from gambling and loansharking.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    41. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      So why the focus on this particular cause?

      We're discussing an article about it. The article is not about other forms of induced seismicity - although the events you mention are useful in demonstrating that the amount of water injected in Oklahoma is quite significant.

      it's your political view coloring your analysis of the situation.

      I read peer-reviewed research in order to understand phenomena like the one in question. You on other hand are devoted to a particular position on an empirical question regardless of published research. You've already lied about the USGS' position, and are now resorting to non sequitor as a cheap rhetorical trick, in a discussion thread already replete with astroturf.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    42. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      the scientists on the 'environmental' side

      This is a generic false equivalence which contradicts the positions of the actual Oklahoman scientists who provided the majority of the material in TFA.

      In fact, these scientists all support the Oklahoma oil industry and continued injection via disposal wells. They want 1) the government to recognize the scientific evidence on the matter, 2) firms and government to investigate which wells contact basement rock and 3) firms to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.

      'harvest' the 'scientific results'

      No harvesting or picking of results is possible in this particular case, because while there are ~25 studies supporting induced seismicity in Oklahoma, there are zero studies with alternate conclusions.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    43. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) A billion gallons of water is about the mass of a cube of rock 77 meters per side.

      This is off by many orders of magnitude. A cube 77 meters on a side at a density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter is 1,369,599 metric tons. Rock density varies significantly, but even the densest rock on the face of the planet won't get you close.

  2. I've had enough! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dadburnit liberals and their commie "Global Shaking" scam.

    Get off my perfectly-stable lawn!
         

    1. Re:I've had enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why blame them when this is the Republicans that are doing this because they hate the poor. They want them to die. That is why they are doing this. They hate them.

    2. Re:I've had enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK. I buy carbon credits, so I'm not responsible for either climate change or these fracking earthquakes!

    3. Re:I've had enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. These so called scientists are clearly making invalid assumptions about the geological history of Oklahoma. These are most likely part of a naturally occurring cycle of shaking that occurs over a long period. We all know the Earth is vast and Man's activity cannot possibly have a significant impact on Earth's geology.

    4. Re:I've had enough! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Plate tectonics disproves man-made earthquakes! Everyone knows the earth is always moving!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:I've had enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we don't hate the poor we hate you.
      The fact your poor is just because your a total loser.

    6. Re:I've had enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why would we want poor people to die? Who is going to clean my house?

  3. nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oklahoma is just trying to shake texas loose.

  4. Fracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lets see, no earthquakes until fracking started, then more and more earthquakes as fracking continues. Yup, sounds logical to me.

    1. Re:Fracking by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

      Lets see, no earthquakes until fracking started, then more and more earthquakes as fracking continues. Yup, sounds logical to me.

      I retired to Florida just when fracking started. Obviously it caused that as well. Who do I get to sue ?

    2. Re:Fracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it's your fault for moving to Florida. Did you relocate so much weight that the fault plates slipped?

    3. Re:Fracking by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You got it wrong.
      You retired to Florida. So you are the first suspect. Where can I cash in my reward?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Fracking by grnbrg · · Score: 1

      Obviously you caused the earthquakes.

      Where in Florida? Because we're going to sue *you*.

    5. Re:Fracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do I get to sue?

      Whoever taught you the spurious correlation argument technique you're using here, because it makes you sound like an idiot.

    6. Re:Fracking by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I'll give you my lawyers number. He'll probably handle your tort against whoever removed your sense of humor.

    7. Re:Fracking by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Not only that but sea level appears to be rising in Florida causing more flooding. Maybe it's just because Crashmarik moved there and is causing Florida to sink.

    8. Re:Fracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be okay.

    9. Re: Fracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he's let you practice humor as badly as you do, he should be disbarred.

    10. Re: Fracking by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      If he's let you practice humor as badly as you do, he should be disbarred.

      If lawyers got to decide whats funny nobody would ever laugh.

    11. Re:Fracking by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Oklahoma, it was no earthquakes until fracking stopped.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  5. It is difficult... by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article describes how scientists painstakingly gathered data on the quakes, and then tried to find ways to communicate the results--which are quite definitive--to politicians who often have financial reasons to disbelieve them.

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:It is difficult... by sphealey · · Score: 1

      Re the Upton Sinclair quote: I'm pretty sure (don't have time to dig through the library at the moment) that earthquakes from well injection were known in California in the 1920s (when Sinclair had a small interest in the oil boom there, hence Oil! [later "There Will Be Blood"]).

      sPh

    2. Re:It is difficult... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why are these people not being charged for corruption in this obvious conflict of interest with Secretary of Energy and Environment being the same person? And that person is so ignorant that he claims the climate changes every day? The US political system is absolutely finished, there is no way to clean it up short of throwing it all out the window and beginning fresh.

    3. Re:It is difficult... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair

      The irony is that we've accidentally stumbled onto probably our best chance at mitigating disastrous earthquakes. But one side is desperate to prove we aren't causing earthquakes, and the other side is desperate to prove this is an evil thing which must be stopped.

      In avalanche-prone regions, we don't wait for the snow to build up until it comes down in a humungous avalanche. We deliberately cause smaller avalanches before the snow builds up to levels which could cause a devastating avalanche. Either by firing cannon shells or dropping dynamite from helicopters into the snowpack. With fracking, we've stumbled upon the exact same technique. We could intentionally trigger smaller earthquakes before seismic stresses build up enough to cause a devastating earthquake. But one side insists there's no connection, while the other side is desperate to portray it as an activity from which no good can come.

    4. Re:It is difficult... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? Oklahoma had no "devastating earthquake"s before this. Having virtually no earthquakes above 3.0 seemed a good solution to stopping worse ones. Meanwhile, having numerous smaller ones seems correlated pretty strongly with having even worse ones. So.... your avalanche analogy kinda sucks a lot.

    5. Re:It is difficult... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plate tectonics doesn't have a maximum speed.

      It can be that making more smaller ones, rather than reducing the build up for one big one will merely accelerate the speed of plate movement and cause MORE big ones to happen.

    6. Re:It is difficult... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In avalanche-prone regions, we don't wait for the snow to build up until it comes down in a humungous avalanche. We deliberately cause smaller avalanches before the snow builds up to levels which could cause a devastating avalanche. Either by firing cannon shells or dropping dynamite from helicopters into the snowpack. With fracking, we've stumbled upon the exact same technique. We could intentionally trigger smaller earthquakes before seismic stresses build up enough to cause a devastating earthquake. But one side insists there's no connection, while the other side is desperate to portray it as an activity from which no good can come.

      Yes this works with snow. once the snow melts you can still drink it. Fracking destroys the local water table and makes the water unfit to drink and can in no way be cleaned to make it drinkable.

      You could also spray the mountains with a thick oil sludge which would harden in the cold to reduce avalanches but what would this do for your water supply. Isn't the water you locally drink part of that snow form the mountain?

      Little more involved than earthquakes. Water IS! life. You fucking die without it.

      They're trying to pass fracking in the area I live in. I get my water from a well on my property. Good clean healthy water. Water that is actually sold in stores for a dollar a bottle. You know "Mountain Spring Water". Yep 3 companies on the other side of the mountain send out spring water in big tanker trucks all day long to be bottled and sold in stores. I get the same from my well. OK you start fracking in this area what happens to my water. What happens to the water that you city dwellers are also drinking? The next place we both will have to go to get water it maybe 2 dollars a bottle. Water is something you MUST have to live. Fuck oil and gas. Fuck fracking in any form.

  6. The ultimate "man made earthquake" by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Russian analyst urges nuclear attack on Yellowstone National Park and San Andreas fault line

    A Russian geopolitical analyst says the best way to attack the United States is to detonate nuclear weapons to trigger a supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park or along the San Andreas fault line on California's coast.

    The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems based in Moscow, Konstantin Sivkov said in an article for a Russian trade newspaper on Wednesday, VPK News, that Russia needed to increase its military weapons and strategies against the "West" which was "moving to the borders or Russia".

    He has a conspiracy theory that NATO - a political and military alliance which counts the US, UK, Canada and many countries in western Europe as members - was amassing strength against Russia and the only way to combat that problem was to attack America's vulnerabilities to ensure a "complete destruction of the enemy".

    "Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. There are signs of growing activity there. Therefore it suffices to push the relatively small, for example the impact of the munition megaton class to initiate an eruption. The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States - a country just disappears," he said.

    "Another vulnerable area of the United States from the geophysical point of view, is the San Andreas fault - 1300 kilometers between the Pacific and North American plates ... a detonation of a nuclear weapon there can trigger catastrophic events like a coast-scale tsunami which can completely destroy the infrastructure of the United States."

    Full story

    1. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by ChrisKnight · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't this the plot of the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeves?

      --
      -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    2. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. ...

      For a geologist "any moment" is sometime in the next million years.

    3. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this case I believe it's closer to the next 30 million years. I also believe that a surface level explosion of a nuke on it would be quite unlikely to have any significant effect (on the volcano).

      OTOH, our ability to predict just when a volcano will explode is extremely poor. IIRC Mt. St. Helens took everyone totally by surprise.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, there were obvious precursors for weeks before the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. The size and nature of the eruption was a surprise (few expected a sector collapse -- when the whole side of the mountain failed), but the eruption itself was predicted.

    5. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      geopolitical analyst

      Not geophysical - thus no actual science was harmed or even approached in the making of the report.
      He probably finally got around to watching a Superman movie.

      Also note that "any moment" for Yellowstone is in geological time and not years or decades.

    6. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      How big a nuke? This is Russia, they probably still have a second Tsar Bomba sitting in a silo somewhere.

    7. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If I understand the dynamics properly, any bomb that would melt its way down to the zone of magma would prevent the volcano from erupting, because it would then not need to force its way through solit rock. If they just melt down the mountain, you get magma flow without the eruption.

      OTOH, I am not a vulcanologist. So don't count on this analysis if you really need an expert opinion.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK. A few weeks. And we still couldn't predict the nature of the explosion. (Or, with any certainty, when it would happen. Or even, as *I* recall, that it would happen. Perdiction, yes, certainty, no.) That's really not enough to do much preparation for an eruption.

      Remember, there were hikers on the mountain who had not been warned that this was dangerous. That doesn't sound like certainty to me. Perhaps a few people were certain, but nobody who had any public voice chose to use it (and was believed...it's likely *somebody* was claiming that an eruption was imminent, there usually is).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also from the article:
      Mr Sivkov accused American politicians of committing several crimes including causing the deaths of 1,200,000 people in Iraq. He believed the only way for the "American elite" to be held accountable was for its military forces to be destroyed.

      "American politicians have committed a variety of crimes. Will anyone be held accountable for those crimes? What about the international law, the UN and other organisations? Are they doing anything?" he asked.

      The man has a point.

      Prove Yourself word "Mettle" how fitting.

    10. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The first warning signs of the Mt. Saint Helens eruption started about 10 weeks before the eruption. 3 weeks before the eruption a red zone was established around the mountain. There were no hikers on the mountain proper, just a few people who had property there and refused to leave. Interactive map showing the locations of the people killed by the May 18th 1980 eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. Nearly all of them were well outside the red zone. The huge lateral blast of the initial eruptions pretty much surprised everyone. Now we know better.

    11. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by NewYork · · Score: 1

      And drop a "Heat bomb" in Antarctic Ice Sheets. You'll drown the world.

    12. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The huge lateral blast of the initial eruptions pretty much surprised everyone.

      The scale of the lateral blast was a surprise. The presence of a multiple-hundreds of metres bulge on one flank of the volcano and it's increase over a period of days before the event was a bit hard to miss, which was why it was being monitored.

      Most people expected a landslide from that flank, but not an explosion, because no-one had observed such an event from sufficiently close, and then lived to tell the tale in sufficient detail for it to get into the geological record.

      I'd pretty much made up my mind to study geology before Mt St Helens, but it did temporarily raise the profile of the subject.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. But do we know? by spauldo · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are fault lines in Oklahoma. There's a fairly large one that runs down from Nebraska into the eastern part of the state. It's usually pretty quiet, but every now and again you get a shift.

    And the article said that they're updating fault maps - they don't have enough data.

    So... are we sure these are caused by fracking? 'Cause even if you are, you'll never get Oklahomans (especially the government) to believe it.

    After all, we're the state that gave you Sen. Inhofe, who still denies that climate change is happening at all (sorry about that, I didn't vote for him). We've got a lot of people employed in the Oil industry. Going against Oil here is political suicide.

    Hopefully we can provide scientists enough data to prove what's going on (if it is indeed manmade) so they can use the data elsewhere. They'll make no traction here.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    1. Re:But do we know? by towermac · · Score: 1

      Don't stand in the way of science man.

      We're discovering how to prevent deadly earthquakes. Within your lifetime, the state of California will begin fracking all up and down the San Andreas fault. (They will leave the oil in the ground though.)

      They will look back on the days when we just ignorantly allowed big earthquakes to happen, killing thousands in our apathy, just like we do now at the Romans for using lead pipes.

    2. Re:But do we know? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Everyone automatically talks about "fracking" in relation to the quakes. Fracking is just a brief pulse. Wastewater injection in disposal wells is a far more likely culprit if these are human-induced.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    3. Re:But do we know? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hopefully we can provide scientists enough data to prove what's going on (if it is indeed manmade) so they can use the data elsewhere.

      Well, as TFA says:

      The official position of the O.G.S. [Oklahoma Geological Survey] is that the Prague earthquakes were likely a natural event and that there is insufficient evidence to say that most earthquakes in Oklahoma are the result of disposal wells. That position, however, has no published research to support it, and there are at least twenty-three peer-reviewed, published papers that conclude otherwise.

      There's a lot of research and science on this already. The only people who seem to be confused are Oklahoma politicians, corporate executives, and some Oklahoma geologists who are employed or influenced by politicians.

      This is a state that went from 1-2 earthquakes over 3.0 per year to OVER 1500 such quakes in 2009-2014. So, something significant has changed (an increase of over two orders in magnitude is generally not just average variation), and it seems to have changed right around the time that people have started pumping a lot of stuff deep into the ground.

      If these are NOT manmade, it's one heck of a coincidence....

    4. Re:But do we know? by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      Clearly it's just God prompting them to pass a religious freedom act, or else.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    5. Re:But do we know? by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      are we sure these are caused by fracking?

      Actually, we are sure that they are not caused by fracking (which tends to cause only very small quakes of magnitude < 3.0). Rather, larger 3.0 - 6.0 magnitude quakes in Oklahoma are being caused by disposal wells via which extremely large quantities of water are being injected into the ground. TFA states that > 25 peer-reviewed studies have concluded the disposal wells are responsible, while 0 studies have produced an alternative result.

      Cause even if you are, you'll never get Oklahomans (especially the government) to believe it.

      The USGS has already concluded that the quakes are caused by disposal wells. The director of the OGS (interviewed in the article) essentially states that OGS is being politically prevented from agreeing with that conclusion openly. So it's only the regulatory side of Oklahoma government which has issues with empiricism.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    6. Re:But do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not fracking that is causing them. Not directly, anyway. As the article explains it is waste water disposal wells, and while the water could be derived from hydraulic fracturing, most of it isn't. It's mostly from regular oil and gas wells. It's normal for oil and gas wells to yield less oil and gas and more water as time goes on. All that water has to be disposed of somehow, and the cheapest way is to inject it at depths far below the level of any freshwater aquifer. Unfortunately those are also the depths where earthquakes could be triggered by the high fluid pressures that weaken the rock near pre-existing fault planes. These won't cause catastrophic earthquakes (M7 or 8) like areas along plate tectonic boundaries can, but they could still be damaging and legitimate cause for concern.

    7. Re:But do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might actually help prevent a large earthquake in California if they start fracking. A lot of little earthquakes relieves the stress built up, which is why they're overdue for a large one.

    8. Re:But do we know? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      The director of the OGS (interviewed in the article) essentially states that OGS is being politically prevented from agreeing with that conclusion openly. So it's only the regulatory side of Oklahoma government which has issues with empiricism.

      That was my point, actually.

      Oklahoma is a very oil-friendly state. We're not about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs until our houses all fall down.

      Hopefully those studies can keep others from falling in the same hole we are here. As for us, forget about us, we'll be pumping until there's nothing there but rock.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    9. Re:But do we know? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The lead pipes were mostly fine (and they may be some still in use near you) it's using a lead compound as a sweetener that got a lot of it into the Roman's bodies.

    10. Re:But do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fracking in California? Never happen! They don't have enough water to do any fracking!

    11. Re:But do we know? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Just like Oklahoma has a high density of climate chaos denial too...okies are amazing at their ability to deny anything that isn't happening right in front of them ESPECIALLY when the cause isn't also blindingly obvious. It snows in OK, so there is no "global warming". Earthquakes can be natural, therefor ALL earthquakes are natural. This all stems from a deeply held religion belief that mankind is unable to modify the planet in any significant way. Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” This is the ENTIRE reason Christian fundies say human influenced climate change is impossible, also why human induced earthquakes are impossible. There is no way to prove this to them; no amount of proof can overcome the cult-like environment they have been indoctrinated in since birth. Even if a huge dust bowl formed while the ground itself crumbled from our activities they would STILL claim humans could never do this and it was all God.

    12. Re:But do we know? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      So considering their history with the dust bowl, they should be the first ones to believe in climate change, since they saw firsthand the effects of inadvertent geoengineering. But instead they produce the most hard-core denialists. Truly ironic.

    13. Re:But do we know? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Depends on the water. Hard water tends to coat the pipes and so dissolves less lead than soft water.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:But do we know? by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      It gets better:

      Recently the legislature introduced a bill that would block the oil/gas industry from liability for spills and earthquakes.
      There's another that calls for an investigation into the scientists investigating the earthquakes (sound familiar to another topic??).

      And they recently gave the oil/gas industry yet another tax break....while the state has a massive 600million dollar shortfall in its budget (Kansas gets most of the press for doubling down failed red state budgetary policies, but OK is right there with them). Further, they want to continue to cut the income tax again, and eventually eliminate it entirely. These two items of course not being negotiable, even in the face of the massive budgetary shortfall.

      And the legislature passed a bill last week (which will be signed soon by the idiot Fallin if it hasn't already) that would ban local municipalities from interfering with, restricting, or banning oil/gas operations within their jurisdictions. That's right: the state government has told local government they cannot govern themselves in this area. Oil and gas by state law must (essentially) be given free reign to drill and operate where they want in the state.

      Just like last year the state legislature banned local municipalities from setting their own minimum wages. By state law now, no city in Oklahoma may set a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage, which of course is only as high as the federal. This was done in response to the mere idea being floated in OKC of setting a city minimum wage higher than the fed/state minimums.

      Blech.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re:But do we know? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      They tabled that until the next legislative session, after seeing Indiana and Arkansas.

      But it's pretty much identical to them, being both:
      -misleadingly titled a "restoration act" (when they aren't restoring anything; it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against homosexuals in the state in pretty much any manner)
      -extending the existing legal shield for private persons created by the existing religious freedom act to also extend to businesses (cause businesses are people apparently...)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:But do we know? by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes do no eliminate stresses on fault lines, they simply shift them to other parts of the fault or onto different fault lines. You do not eliminate major earthquakes, you accelerate the likelihood of them occurring but keep up the silly hypothesis, the outcome will be quite interesting and good luck, you'll really need it. The rest of the world will look on conservative from the gut bullshit thinking and simply shake their heads.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:But do we know? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      after 4-5 years with almost no significant snow/ice, getting an actual snow storm with substantial snow (a whopping 5 inches!!) this year was considered a freak event (and of course, a reason to disprove global warming)...

      and of course prior to 4/5 years ago, this sort snow storm was much common, being an almost yearly event.

      Oklahoma: living proof of https://xkcd.com/1321/

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:But do we know? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I have not heard that conclusion previously. Do you have any information indicating the dust bowl was due to inadvertent geoengineering? I was taught in school it was a natural event. Or was it due to draining aquifers and lack of rain?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    19. Re:But do we know? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      The lead pipes were mostly fine

      Perhaps you could elaborate "mostly".

      (and they may be some still in use near you)

      How is that at all related?

    20. Re:But do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but next year will be better.

    21. Re:But do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The natural grassland in the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandle areas which could tolerate drought and stabilized the soil was plowed up to plant wheat in the 1920's. When the drought and winds came the topsoil blew away. The drought was natural, but the response of the plowed up land was geoengineered. Great documentary on it by Ken Burns/PBS a couple of years ago. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/du...

    22. Re:But do we know? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      "mostly"

      Uncertainty of dying of poisoning, with little or none of it getting into people's bodies versus close to certainty. So merely a bad idea (like lead in fuel) instead of lethal.

      How is that at all related?

      Lead pipes were used until only a few decades ago so the water you are drinking may have passed through some lead pipework if the building is old enough.

      My point - comparing drinking a lot of stuff sweetened with lead acetate versus tiny amounts even on the parts per million scale.
      The lead pipes the Romans used are certain to have resulted in a better health outcome at the time than more difficult access to fresh water - plus the pipes don't get blamed for anything else in the next couple of thousand years despite being used all over the place. They just got blamed by someone who knew about the pipes, knew about the lead poisoning but didn't know about the incredibly insane (in hindsight) practice of consuming lead acetate.

  8. Obviously A Devine Warning by hax4bux · · Score: 5, Funny

    Repent sinners! God is angry at Oklahoma.

  9. poor reporting... by slew · · Score: 0

    This isn't the "arrival" of man-made earthquakes. Ever since man has been doing large scale environmental modification, we have been inducing seismic activity.

    The most common induced seismic events occur when we build dams to create reservoirs. One of the first examples was the filling of the Oued Fodda Dam in 1933. Others occur due to depletion of underground reservoirs (like the Lorca earthquake in 2011) or enhanced geothermal energy extraction (Cerro Prieto in 1979).

    Of course all phenomena is new to the non-research reporting that passes for news today. The only difference is that today the perpetrators are seeking evil oil rather than life giving water or "renewable" energy...

    1. Re:poor reporting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The subtitle of this article does not specify that this is the arrival of the "first" manmade earthquakes as you've mistakenly interpreted. The article itself clarifies this "arrival" in the following statement (emphasis mine):

      "Few noticed that Keranen and her team had gathered likely the best data we have on a new phenomenon in Oklahoma: man-made earthquakes."

      In other words, STFU and RTFA, slew. I can't believe you actually wasted time googling up citations of other man-made earthquakes in support of your asinine complaint.

  10. Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could be on the verge of the next tectonic shift in warfare: Earthquake Warfare.

  11. Off topic, but not particularly funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In an article about geopolitics or nuclear war this would be an interesting post. If delivery were possible a nuke right on top of Yellowstone could have an effect far, far in excess of its own tonnage.

    1. Re:Off topic, but not particularly funny. by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's a ridiculous claim, which is why it got so much incredulous coverage. The Yellowstone Caldera is not undergoing any unusual activity, just its normal random fluctuations, and nor is it something that even a hundred Tsar Bombas could readily destabilize.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  12. we all know who's behind this by jasonridesabike · · Score: 1

    Thanks Obama

  13. Crossed lines by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (However, many earthquake-insurance policies in the state exclude coverage for induced earthquakes.)

    So, if the insurance company can prove the quakes were man-made, they don't have to pay out. But if they can prove it, that goes against claims by many in the state and oil industry. The oil industry would likely try to hound/silence/sue the insurance company.

    If they deny a claim with loose evidence that it's man-made, the claimant could (theoretically) prove it was a natural occurrence. Because proving such is to the benefit of the oil industry, they would jump at the chance to "help", and perhaps have the state "investigate" the insurance company for fraud or questionable practices or something.

    It seems to me that, despite whatever exclusions the insurance company has, they will likely pay out for any and all earthquake claims with the oil industry helping them cover that pay out behind the scenes in order to keep any proof or claims of "induced" earthquakes out of the public eye.

    1. Re:Crossed lines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I gotta admit, that caught my eye, too.

      But if they can prove it, that goes against claims by many in the state and oil industry. The oil industry would likely try to hound/silence/sue the insurance company.

      Not necessarily. Industries and governments are famous for two-faced policies.

      If the insurance company says that they were manmade, the government can say, "No, they weren't, but this is a civil matter and we can't interfere." And nothing will happen. Worst case, it will be tied up in courts for the next 20 years. By then, those people currently in charge will have made a ton of money and be retired somewhere outside the US.

      It's kind of like the music industry claiming that a 30-second ringtone is enough the song that consumers must pay royalties while, at the same time, claiming that they weren't so they didn't have to pay the artists royalties.

    2. Re:Crossed lines by fermion · · Score: 1
      The science on this is good. The lawyers will eventually get payments and may make the cost of current water disposal prohibitively expensive. That is not going to stop the earthquakes in Oklahoma because Oklahoma does not have a diverse vibrant economy, so voters, in general, are not going to ask officials to stop water disposal or fracking.

      Compare this to Texas where local bans are in place and it is only oil industry bribes at the state level that keeps fracking.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Crossed lines by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why she would encourage you to get insurance for 3.0 level quakes anyway. A good solid roll of thunder shakes the house more than a 3.0 earth quake. We have quakes every day, and I usually miss them unless they happen at night when the rest of the world is relatively quiet.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Crossed lines by RyoShin · · Score: 0

      If 3.0 quakes are increasing, I would assume that higher rated ones are also increasing, or the amount of quakes might cause enough build up in certain areas for devastating quakes.

      Regardless, her particular warning is just a CYA. "What, you didn't get earthquake insurance? Well, don't come crying to the government for help, we told you to!"

    5. Re:Crossed lines by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      So, if the insurance company can prove the quakes were man-made, they don't have to pay out. But if they can prove it, that goes against claims by many in the state and oil industry. The oil industry would likely try to hound/silence/sue the insurance company.

      I'd love to see a fight between Big Oil and Big Insurance, because Big Insurance's profit margins are driven by data and not ideology.
      No amount of Oil Industry pressure would let them accept a bad legal precedent which could screw with their long term 12%~15% profit margins.

      Not to mention that the insurance industry is a very.... entangled business community.
      Almost everyone who issues insurance policies is also hedging their risk by buying a reinsurance policy from one or more (re)insurance companies.
      It's never just one insurance company that you're suing.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Crossed lines by theCoder · · Score: 2

      IANAGeologist, but I don't think earthquakes work like that. If anything, a large quake is more likely due to the lack of a buildup of small quakes since a large quake is caused by a large slippage on the fault. Lots of small slippage causing lots of small quakes would prevent a larger slippage and a larger quake.

      Of course, this is based on the normal earthquake cause of plate slippage. Quakes caused by fracking might be caused by something else. Maybe underground caverns that used to have oil in them collapsing? But without knowing the cause, we cannot really know if more 3.0 level quakes would mean more devastating quakes or if there is some limit to the power of a fracking caused quake.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    7. Re:Crossed lines by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Also if earthquakes become a thing, then earthquake insurance might be mandated (or at least be more attractive), and the insurance companies will take in far more than they put out. Insurance companies rarely lose money in a game like this. Really, it's a win-win for both sides to say the earthquakes are "natural".

    8. Re:Crossed lines by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      I gotta admit, that caught my eye, too.

      But if they can prove it, that goes against claims by many in the state and oil industry. The oil industry would likely try to hound/silence/sue the insurance company.

      Not necessarily. Industries and governments are famous for two-faced policies.

      If the insurance company says that they were manmade, the government can say, "No, they weren't, but this is a civil matter and we can't interfere." And nothing will happen. Worst case, it will be tied up in courts for the next 20 years. By then, those people currently in charge will have made a ton of money and be retired somewhere outside the US.

      It's kind of like the music industry claiming that a 30-second ringtone is enough the song that consumers must pay royalties while, at the same time, claiming that they weren't so they didn't have to pay the artists royalties.

      And then there's a giant class-action lawsuit where the insurance and oil companies are held jointly & severally liable. Or there's a lawsuit which crosses state lines & works its way through the federal system up to the supreme court.

    9. Re:Crossed lines by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      It would also leave the homeowner in a somewhat laughable situation... They could either toe the line and say that the earthquake is "natural" therefore getting the insurance (hush) money, or try and convince the state that it was man-made, losing their house if victorious, and hopefully changing policy enough that more earthquakes won't happen.

      Shame is, this only seems like a conundrum to the type of people who place the well being of society over their own momentary gains.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
  14. Counterpoint by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It is easy to get someone to make a particular claim if they are paid enough to do so.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. Well it's monday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So we get a nice helping of "Mankind is destroying the planet" and the chicken littles get to practice their duck and cover.

    Seriously how do you genetic failures manage to get up in the morning and go out of the house ? Or do you ?

  16. Causation Correlation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, if only we could show a direct link to the alarming increase in morbid obesity levels in Americans with their preferred locations for vacations and these earthquake epicenters, we might just locate a great new All-You-Can-Eat buffet!

  17. Think of the benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these quakes are truly man made then we have made a great technological leap forward.

    Imagine being able to drill thousands of wells along a fault line to trigger small incremental slips frequently as opposed to allowing the energy to build and produce massive seismic events when a slip occurs naturally. We b e able to reduce insurance costs in earthquake prone areas and make it easier and safer to live in those places.

  18. Teabagger Mindset by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    As long as it means more profits for almighty Job Creators and lower Gas Prices for me, then I'm all for it. Go tell Gore and his lying "scientists" to go get some real education at Church.

  19. Just One Job by JimSadler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Well gosh! If big business can make more money and create just one more minimum wage job what does it matter if thousands are killed and entire cities shaken into dust. I man, where the hack are our values. Maybe some of those tall buildings can TRICKLE DOWN and smack a right winger on top of his head. And with rising seas the dust and corpses will be washed away anyway so businesses do not have to clean up the dead and dying. Oh the joys of capitalism!

  20. Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by Terry95 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So if I understand this, the price of Natural gas is down, what, 80%? And now places where mostly no one lives have hundreds of itty bitty tinny tiny tremors so small that the people, that don't live there anyway, can barely detect them without specially calibrated scientific instruments. Also figure into the equation that the nearly free natural gas has allowed us to decommission coal burning plants left and right and is even threatening the economic viability of nuclear fission.

    Notwithstanding the absolute fact that relying solely on a single source of power is dangerous and stupid, this seems like a pretty freaking wonderful tradeoff! Granted the media panders exclusively to the eco-terrorist agenda and anything other than a rare earth exhausting solar panel, or a bird extincting windmill is unmitigatedly evil in their narrative. But for those of us that rather like living in the first world, with reliable power at record low prices, this seems like a glass half full sort of story.

    1. Re:Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny. In the 'where no one lives' here in OKC (north of half a million nobodies), where my office (multi-story bank building on the shore of the city's NW aquifer) has building maintenance guys in repairing sheetrock & earthquake damage and repainting load wall stress cracks all this week.

      They come through numerous times a year.

      This same crew has been doing this for years and....gosh, who'd'a thunk, none of them remember doing this very often 20 years ago.

    2. Re:Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Where do you live in Oklahoma? I live near Oklahoma City. Most of the quakes are happening about 10 to 30 miles away from here. I've yet to see any damage from any of them. Do you work out in McLoud or somewhere closer to the epicenter?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5.6 quake from a couple years back caused nails to protrude from my walls, tiles to dislodge and fall from the walls of a shower, and the frames of two doors to get warped so that the doors were stuck. Over $1000 for repairs.

      How about kissing my ass.

    4. Re:Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..even threatening the economic viability of nuclear fission" ?
      Is that the same as the economic viability of zero point energy or power from black holes ?
      I don't recall ANY viable fission reactors, ANYWHERE.

    5. Re:Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by Sique · · Score: 1

      Don't mess up nuclear fusion (Hydrogenium into Helium) with nuclear fission (Uranium or Plutonium into smaller cores).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  21. New Yorker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do people in Oklahoma even read the New Yorker? How is this even going to reach Oklahoma? Besides, as a Californian who has lived through Loma Prieta and Northridge, I can tell you right now that anything under 6.0 is a non-starter for the public. It's not a real earthquake if stuff doesn't shake and move a little, eh.

    1. Re:New Yorker? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      BLAH BLAH "CALIFORNIA" WHATEVER. You do realize that there are these "building codes" in CA, thus why these quakes don't bother you. I work in one of the few "earthquake" proof buildings in the state, the old SABRE building at the Tulsa airport. At my apartment, on the second floor, we've watched glasses of water shake like on Jurassic Park...and we're about 100 miles from where these injection wells are. There is building damage in Pryor and other towns...a Google image search for "oklahoma earthquake damage" will show MANY houses that are damaged.

  22. Sounds like a Bond Villian by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    At first, I caused the quakes to see if I could. Next I caused the quakes to extort the government for money. But anymore, I just cause the quakes to make time with The Baroness more interesting.

  23. Re:Anti-fracking agenda by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

    TFA has nothing to do with fracking. It is about disposal wells. Indeed, TFA states that fracking is linked only to very small earthquakes, unlike disposal wells which have now been conclusively linked to earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0. Further, all of the article's scientific statements are quotes from geologists who live and work in Oklahoma, or simply relate to the amount of research which has so far linked seismic activity to disposal wells.

    They should take time to learn about the geology of flyover country.

    You should take the time to learn something about petroleum extraction in Oklahoma.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  24. Re:LOAD"FUD" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now press play on DVD....

  25. Krypton Core Collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My God, you're going Krypton over there!

  26. Who cares about earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're turning subterranean water reservoirs into essentially shit.

    Not my country, so I shouldn't even have a say in all this. But you know, things change. Americans in the future might be good folks (some already are); but they won't have water.

    This could be a problem.

  27. Manmade quakes aren't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the uptrend in fracking induced quakes, quakes have previously been associated with other types of drilling. The Geysers geothermal field in California has induced quakes, and they've been there for decades. Induced quakes have also been documented near dams. The mass of impounded water stresses faults locally, and produces quakes. AFAIK, no "big one" has been linked to induced quakes. Anyway, they aren't a recent arrival, and they aren't always due to modern fracking techniques.

    Also, quake insurance being sketchy is not really news either. Insurance companies will do anything to duck out of paying claims. Always have. Always will...

  28. ...communicate the results to politicians... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    "The article describes how scientists painstakingly gathered data on the quakes, and then tried to find ways to communicate the results — which are quite definitive — to politicians who often have financial reasons to disbelieve them."

    Might I suggest ... a man made earthquake where they live?

    Come, Mr. Bigglesworth .... our work is done here...

  29. not the first region with man made earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check Groningen, The Netherlands, where natural gas production causes earthquakes regularly.

    Lots of discussion, people saying production should be lowered, government not wanting to, things like that

    1. Re:not the first region with man made earthquakes by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Lots of discussion, people saying production should be lowered, government not wanting to, things like that

      Lots of discussion about how to deal with the problem, and who will pay for damages... but no discussion about whether this was caused by mankind. Groningen is a very stable area in terms of tectonic plate movement, and yet earthquakes are really frequent, and epicenters overlap almost perfectly with the location of the gas fields.

  30. You can not make a Tinfoil Hat out of Aluminum! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Elevator World runs a story on the new elevators to the WTC towers (a renevation which the 9/11 commission says didn't happen), Sandy Hook demonstrates how school shootouts can be faked, then the Snowden leaks show the government really is spying on everyone. Video analysis shows ISIS beheading videos are just propaganda. And now we find out manmade earthquakes are possible.

    It's gotten to the point that it's actually a safer bet to trust conspiracy theorists over the news. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to read up some more about mind control rays.

  31. Butterflies and boulders by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Fracking and disposal wells are very similar, they both involve pumping liquid deep underground. I've heard it said that water pumped into faults can lubricate the interface between the "boulder" and the mountain, I believe there have been experiments on minor faults in CA to examine that theory that tension can be relived in the fault by pumping water into it.

    The theory is that faults are similar to large glaciers where melt water has been shown to lubricate the interface between a glacier and the bedrock, accelerating the flow of the glacier and speeding up the calving of icebergs. This phenomena has long been a concern by climate scientists looking at east Antarctica. There is a difference between horizontal/vertical, ice/rock, but it seems to me that the mathematically chaotic behaviour of the crust means pumping water into deep wells is something we should should avoid if possible.

    I've been a "science based greenie" since the 70's. It doesn't matter to me if you call it a fracking operation or a disposal well, the unpredictability and risks associated with pumping (often polluted) water deep underground is the core issue for both types of well.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  32. No insurance coverage for induced quakes? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Are the insurers expecting the inducer to pay for damages? Are they insuring the inducers against damage caused?

  33. They already have small quakes in the area by confused+one · · Score: 1

    DC itself is on a sedimentary deposit and sits in a former tidal swamp. The geology of the area is such that they might not notice small quakes all that much. Just west of DC (beginning around Alexandria) is the Piedmont, the edge of the mountains; so, it is possible to transmit energy to the area if the quake is sufficiently large. There's a region around Louisa County and Charlottesville, about 100 miles south west of DC, that regularly spawns small earthquakes . They occur a couple of times a year and are typically in the 2 to 3 range like the Oklahoma quakes. This is the region that spawned the 5.8 quake that damaged the Washington Monument.

  34. Parturiunt Montes, Nascetur Ridiculus Mus by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 3, Funny

    GEOLOGIST: Injection of wastewater in Oklahoma is triggering earthquakes.
    POPULAR PRESS: Injection of wastewater is causing earthquakes.
    ACTIVIST: Fracking causes earthquakes.
    GEOLOGIST: Many small quakes relieve pressure, bigger ones inevitable but smaller, less often.
    ACTIVIST GEOLOGIST: Many quakes means movement! Big one inevitable! It's our fault! Soon!
    POPULAR PRESS: Mankind fucking with Earth again
    GAIA: I just want to be left alone. Naasty peepl.
    ARCHIMEDES: Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.
    WASTEWATER INJECTION CREW: All we're doing is lubricating the lever. We did not create it.
    VIRTUALLY EVERY OKLAHOMAN: No big deal.

    Meanwhile,

    GEOLOGIST: Depletion of groundwater creating uplift along San Adreas Fault
    DESERT PERSON WITH LUSH LAWN: San Adreas is not my fault.
    AGITATED FRACKING ACTIVIST: Who let that guy in anyway? We're talking about Big Oil.
    MULLHOLLAND: We shall deflate the West to bring water to California.

    Meanwhile,

    SCIENTIST: By use of amazing technology, traces with unique Cesium-134 fingerprint of Fukushima have been detected in ocean off Vancouver.
    SCIENTIST: if a person swam for six hours each day in water with Cesium levels twice as high as those found in Ucluelet, they'd receive a radiation dose that is more than 1,000 times less than that of a single dental X-ray.
    INTERNET DOOMPORN STAR WITH PERFECT TEETH: This is an extinction level event! Look, a fish died in the Pacific! Salmon are misshapen! The cans are dented!
    POPULAR PRESS: Mankind fucking with Earth again
    GAIA: Stop the world, I want to get off!

    Parturiunt Montes, Nascetur Ridiculus Mus
    The mountains are in labor; an absurd mouse is the result.
    ~~Horace

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  35. Oblig by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "Otisburg?"

  36. Wow, are you horribly slow or what by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Look, I don't expect slashdot to be a "news site", but seriously, it would be best to be at least vaguely familiar with the subject material before making a story submission.

    The Geysers#Seismicity

    It is not even close to news that humans are causing quakes.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  37. Man-made Earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once caused an earthquake by bumping my chair into the sensitive recording device. It was an 8.0! The recording device was sitting on a column of concrete that was buried down 120 feet below. The guy said you can slam your car door out in the parking lot and cause the sensitive equipment to record "an earthquake". I say to you that the recording devices are not recording any kind of a man-made earthquake, what they are recording is just the frack in fracking. No earthquakes, just anomalies recorded by very sensitive equipment.

  38. Perspective by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    To put this in a bit of perspective, earthquakes were pretty much unheard of in the state when I was a kid. Yeah, seismologists would probably tell you there were some, but not ones anybody ever noticed. We used to console ourselves that, yes we have tornadoes, but those you can prepare for. At least we didn't have Earthquakes like California. Hahaha, suckers!

    In 2014 we had three times more earthquakes than California.

  39. induced quakes have been around for decades by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The most famous induced earthquakes was Rocky Flats outside of Denver in 1965. It was a waste injection well like these fracking-waste wells. Colorado also has had M5 quakes from agricultural salt water injection in the west near Rangley and coal methane waste injection south near Trinidad.

    Quakes may be associated witht loading or drainign of large water dams. The 2008 Sichuan China quake could have been one of these.

    Geothermal energy projects sometimes have induced quakes. Most geothermal project inject water for heating.

  40. Counter-counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is often impossible to bribe every scientist in a field, and very expensive to bribe most of them.

  41. Really Limited Thinking by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The demand for oil and other fossil fuels is only a symptom of over population. We can go on endlessly about all of the effects of a population explosion without ever confronting what drives all of the issues. Fraking, coal ash dumping, air pollution, urban sprawl, ruined oceans, water shortages, military threats, illegal immigration, food prices all go back to the same core issue which is too large a population both in the US and around the world. Without strict birth control it will continue to get worse and worse and just maybe end human life on Earth.

  42. Unfeelable Earthquakes by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    Just like the great pacific garbage patch (which you can't see even if you are in the middle of it) this is just another environmentalist talking point. So there are all these earthquakes that only people with the right equipment can detect, and we must trust them because they are scientists with white lab coats and clipboards.

  43. Throw Away Culture by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    So at what looks to be the beginning of another Dry Epoch on the High Plains (REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE), we're still allowing millions of gallons of WATER to be thrown away instead of strictly mandating it be recovered and cleaned by any means necessary (and paid for by those that polluted it). Even setting aside their lies about the earthquake cause, this is the most damning proof of a corrupt Oklahoma government (though hardly the only one in the region).

  44. Worrying but lets put things in pespective by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

    NZ (New Zealand...its a country, on the bottom of the world) is 1.5 times the size of Oklahoma; 500 quakes is a week for us.

    GeoNet - Stats

    --
    @Random_Adam

    Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
  45. Hasn't this happened before? by rrognlie · · Score: 1

    I could swear this is what destroyed Krypton...

  46. Counterpoint: AGW by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It is often impossible to bribe every scientist in a field

    You don't need to. You just need to bribe a few, then shut everyone else out of journals and claim you have unanimity amongst all scientists.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley