Slashdot Mirror


New Concerns Over Earthquakes In Oklahoma Near Vast Oil-Storage Facility (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reported on October 14, 2015 that a magnitude 4.5 quake struck Saturday afternoon about three miles northwest of the Cushing Hub, a sprawling tank farm that is among the largest oil storage facilities in the world, now holding 53 million barrels of crude with a capacity for 85 million barrels. The Cushing oil hub stores oil piped from across North America until it is dispatched to refineries. The Department of Homeland Security has gauged potential earthquake dangers to the hub and concluded that a quake equivalent to the record magnitude 5.7 could significantly damage the tanks and a study by Dr. Daniel McNamara study concludes that recent earthquakes have increased stresses along two stretches of fault that could lead to quakes of that size. "It's the eye of the storm," says Dana Murphy, vice chairman of the state's oil and gas regulatory body, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

"When we see these fault systems producing multiple magnitude 4s, we start to get concerned that it could knock into higher magnitudes," says Daniel McNamara, author of a paper published online that a large earthquake near the storage hub "could seriously damage storage tanks and pipelines." "Given the number of magnitude 4s here, it's a high concern."

103 comments

  1. No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They'll be OK.

    1. Re: No worries... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you should start with all the Democrats in congress, as they are all 1% ers.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no worries? if something happens they will all move to new mexico we have enough of those schmucks here as it is

    3. Re:No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was because oil companies had high losses this year and are liquidating assets to pay off their debts. They need a timely crisis to force the prices back up.

    4. Re: No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now tell me how they can manufacture earth quakes. i am seriously interested.

    5. Re: No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fracking?

    6. Re: No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you can pour millions of gallons of oil into a stressed fault line? Oh, wait...

    7. Re: No worries... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If you have electricity, regular internet access, a computer to access the internet, and a place to set that computer up - you're in the 1%.

      Me? I'm well within the bounds of being in this 1% and I still don't know why I'd be hated by default. I'm pretty damned ethical and do quite a bit to help those who can not help themselves. But, go ahead and hate me if it makes you feel better. I'm not even a Republican. :/

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re: No worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 70 million people in the world are privileged to have electricity, internet and a computer? Really?

    9. Re: No worries... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Probably, all thing considered. Add to that the regular access and regular power and a place to set such up - maybe. It's probably not far off. I should have said PC. I suppose they could be using a mobile though. Either way, they're damned privileged compared to a buttload of other people which is really the point.

      Also, I've tried using the mobile site. They were probably on a PC.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Little quakes by Grand+Facade · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have always been told that little quakes unload the pressure that creates big quakes.

    Which is it?

    THe fear mongering is running rampant.

    That said, what measures have been taken to contain a spill caused by some entity storing that much material in one locale?

    --
    Rick B.
    1. Re:Little quakes by gcmd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That might be true for naturally occurring quakes, but the quakes that we are seeing in OK and surrounding States are being caused by increased stress along these faults by the pressure of waste water being injected into the ground and moving the faults. The ground is settling and creating new stress points, which is leading to these larger quakes. What remains to be seen is what will happen as we continue to create stress in the system. Personally, I wouldn't buy any land downstream...

    2. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's both. It always depends on what the composition of materials around the fault are made of, and what forces and materials are being introduced along the fault. In this case, we are introducing tons of lubrication and material into the ground and causing the fault(s) to shift.

      If you haven't listened to this beautiful song illustrating what fracking in Oklahoma has done to earthquake frequency, you should. Each sound is an earthquake and the frequency increase from 2008 to 2013 increasing with fracking, has led them to ditch their stance that fracking doesn't cause earthquakes.

      https://soundcloud.com/thisisreveal/the-oklahoma-shakes

    3. Re:Little quakes by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have always been told that little quakes unload the pressure that creates big quakes.

      You have always been lied to, at best being misled by people who thought they knew more than they did.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will only be used to raise prices at the pump. No preventive measures will be taken. When the bad event does occur the oil company's will run to Washington for a bail out and screaming us on both ends.

    5. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that was one of the most informative links I've ever seen on Slashdot. Thanks.

    6. Re:Little quakes by dywolf · · Score: 1

      those little quakes can also be signs that the plates are slipping, and that a bigger quake is on the way.
      it not very cut and dry

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    7. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You apparently didn't actually read the article (typical /.er). Lots of small quakes *do* take away the built up energy which leads to a large quake. Unfortunately, there are never enough small quakes to eliminate *all* of the pent up energy and you will still occasionally get a large quake. However, it will not be quite as large as if no small quakes had occurred.

      Please actually read your references. See the last paragraph of the very first fact/fiction then the one specifically dealing with this topic.

      Captcha: tremor

    8. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they have for containment is that they are built into small retention ponds. IIRC, the ponds are not big enough to hold the whole volume of a tank, and probably there for temporary leaks.

      Source: I grew up in Cushing...

    9. Re:Little quakes by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Which is it?

      Gotta love it when someone demands a simple explanation to a complex question. Incidentally, you're not from the area in question, are you? Simple explanations reign supreme there; accuracy, not so much...

    10. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understood that the quakes are now empty caverns collapsing. Not actual quakes like we know and fear.

    11. Re:Little quakes by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You apparently didn't actually read the article (typical /.er).

      This is at least the second and I believe the third discussion in which I have cited this link. I read the whole thing the first time.

      Lots of small quakes *do* take away the built up energy which leads to a large quake. Unfortunately, there are never enough small quakes to eliminate *all* of the pent up energy and you will still occasionally get a large quake.

      You just failed at logic. Either small quakes significantly diminish the magnitude of large quakes, or they don't. And they don't. You made it through the reading comprehension part, but the logic escaped you.

      See the last paragraph of the very first fact/fiction

      Okay, I will help you understand it, against my better judgement as it is probably a fat waste of time. "Parts of the San Andreas Fault system adapt to this movement by constant "creep" resulting in many tiny shocks and a few moderate earth tremors. In other parts, strain can build up for hundreds of years, producing great earthquakes when it finally releases." What this means is that the small quakes which occur along the [San Andreas] fault do not diminish the intensity of the large quakes along the same fault line. You failed at logic there, too.

      then the one specifically dealing with this topic.

      Oh, you mean where it says "This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event." ... that one? The one that agrees with me? Yeah, I read that one too. Now we know why you're too cowardly to log in. You're an idiot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I will help you understand it, against my better judgement as it is probably a fat waste of time. "Parts of the San Andreas Fault system adapt to this movement by constant "creep" resulting in many tiny shocks and a few moderate earth tremors. In other parts, strain can build up for hundreds of years, producing great earthquakes when it finally releases." What this means is that the small quakes which occur along the [San Andreas] fault do not diminish the intensity of the large quakes along the same fault line. You failed at logic there, too.

      Actually you're both correct. You're arguing over semantics. The two sides of a fault line are plastic, not solid, and thus do not move as a single rigid unit. So as you say, small quakes do not reduce the intensity of quakes in other parts of the fault line. However, they do reduce the intensity of quakes in the same part of that fault line.

    13. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously stopped reading when you found what you wanted to hear. Just after you stopped reading:

      As for “lubricating” faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high-pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake.

      In the context of which we are discussing, more small earthquakes have been linked to fracking and that has been linked to more and higher magnitude earthquakes.

    14. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All earthquakes relieve pressure, that much is always true. And the stress relieving effect is strongest at and immediately adjacent to the epicenter (by definition because that is where the fault slipped in the quake).

      However faults routinely have multiple locks in effect, A quake almost never relieves all the locks in a fault zone. With measuring devices you can find the nearest lock zone to the quake. It is a near certainty that the quake transferred additional load (and therefore stress) to that lock. If you cannot find any lock zones then you've hit the jackpot (or you're fault monitoring is crap)!

    15. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, only one of them is correct because the other AC up there fails to understand orders of magnitude.

      Some energy is released in small quakes. Say 100 units. The big quake, though, involves orders of magnitude more energy. Say 1000000 units.

      What good is even a lot of small quakes going to do about the big quake. This is in addition to what you just pointed out.

    16. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, only one of them is correct because the other AC up there fails to understand orders of magnitude.

      Some energy is released in small quakes. Say 100 units. The big quake, though, involves orders of magnitude more energy. Say 1000000 units.

      What good is even a lot of small quakes going to do about the big quake. This is in addition to what you just pointed out.

      Here's a clear analogy.

      You have a bunch of dominoes stacked on top of a table with a lip around the edge.
      Small quakes are like someone poking the dominoes, knocking some over.
      Big quakes are like knocking the table over.
      Sure, if a little quake knocks over a domino first, the big quake won't ALSO knock it over, but it will still end up on the floor.

    17. Re:Little quakes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And look at the earthquake map. Oklahoma is a specific region of regular moderate quakes. Nothing terribly unexpected going on here.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:Little quakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. No. NO. OK has earthquakes, but the number, frequency, and magnitude of the quakes have all increased wildly since fracking became widespread. OK pressured their government officials to downplay it for years (until one finally blurted out to journalists, "They won't let me talk about earthquakes" and the emperor's lack of clothes became public knowledge) but now nobody can ignore the reality.

      But, God know, they will try.

    19. Re:Little quakes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Fracking has been going on for 50+ years. But what records we have of earthquakes in North America are barely a blip in geological time. I think it's far too soon to be sure the one is to blame for the other.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    20. Re:Little quakes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I have always been told that little quakes unload the pressure that creates big quakes.

      Which is it?

      Any earthquake moves strain from one location in the Earth to another location. Those movements change local stresses. This can go both ways - moving stress away from one location to another on lowering the stresses at the first and raising it at the other.

      That said, what measures have been taken to contain a spill caused by some entity storing that much material in one locale?

      Bunding. Absolutely standard technique. You already need (and are required by planning regulations as well as common sense) to have significant space between storage tanks, particularly for flammable fluids. Some of that space you use for access roads and fire (water) mains so you can get your firefighting assets to the scene of a leak / fire/ etc. Other parts of that space you use for robust bunding capable of containing more then the full volume of the tank you are bunding. You separate tanks with bunds, so that a fire in one tank or bund doesn't spread to other tanks. Frequently your initial deployment of firefighting assets will be to put cooling water onto surrounding structures to prevent their mechanical failure and release of more fuel.

      Go work on an oil rig. when you're out in the middle of the ocean, you may be days away from external firefighting assets, so you have to think how you're going to manage issues for yourself. Rocket science it ain't (but Range Safety Officers at rocket launch sites have to think about similar issues involving tonnes of flammables).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Well, frack you Oklahoma by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
    To be fair, the storage vessels are largely above ground tanks with floating tops and earthen dams around them, unlike the salt dome reservoirs used for the national petroleum reserve.

    It seems unlikely there would be a major ecological disaster from tank rupture, and pipeline ruptures could be contained rather quickly.

    Unfortunately, some spillage is an accepted part of the energy trade-off provided by crude oil.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Well, frack you Oklahoma by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Earthen dams. Earthquakes. Doesn't seem like the one could be counted on to respect the other.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Well, frack you Oklahoma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how these small earthquakes work? They are not tearing down the shallow containment dams.

    3. Re:Well, frack you Oklahoma by dywolf · · Score: 1

      it doesn't have to tear it down. just fracture it, create a hole, that allows the previously contained oil to run out. probably into a nearby stream.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:Well, frack you Oklahoma by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      it doesn't have to tear it down. just fracture it, create a hole, that allows the previously contained oil to run out. probably into a nearby stream.

      If the fault doesn't run through it, it's spectacularly unlikely to do that. It's still stupid to be fracking. Here in Lake county Calpine Geothermal had to pay out a shitload of money for the structural damage to homes caused by increased seismicity resulting from pumping primary treated sewage into the ground to restore output from the geothermal vents which provide the force behind The Geysers, a geothermal facility perpetually under production estimates and over budget. I know that was a massive run-on sentence, but I started to have fun with it... I kind of imagined it in Emo Philips' voice. Anyway, I wonder how many of those homes burned down in the Valley Fire. I believe that Anderson Springs was one of the neighborhoods basically eliminated by the fire, and also one of the areas which experienced the greatest increase in quake activity due to the shit-pumping.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Ask the experts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and hire a couple of Japanese and Chilean consultant engineers. With a 4.5 earthquake, a typical chilean does not even bother to get up from his desk. Their buildings are designed to stand much worse.

    1. Re:Ask the experts... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      They could also consult the people living on this planet.

  5. Spill concerns by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You do realize if there's a major spill, the problem can extend beyond loss of oil and money, don't you?

    We can hope the berms and so forth work, but in the case of an earthquake, the ground's integrity can be disrupted, so it's not a sure bet by any means.

    There is certainly reason for concern.

    As for Slashdot's choice of stories, meh. Don't like the headline, don't read.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re: Spill concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The oil could even leak back down into the ground where it came from.

    2. Re: Spill concerns by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      Sure. In the process, going through the aquifer (where it is pretty much guaranteed not to benefit the water's potability), making the ground difficult (or impossible) for plants to grow, out-gassing fumes into the air (oil stinks... ever really take a sniff?), making locomotion over the affected area more difficult, as well as risky (whoops), and of course, unless you like oil-coated, well, everything, it is simply ugly (I'm gonna need some feathers over here for these people.)

      But, yes, there is a vague, probably-never-happen outside chance that oil from this central repo might wind up in an underground oil deposit similar to that from whence it was extracted. So there's that.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re: Spill concerns by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      It might have been a joke in reference to an ex-science teacher running for the Conservatives in the Canadian election that says the ground will absorb oil spills.

      From the article at CBC:
      "Oil is a natural substance. So spilling into the environment, the land will absorb it, 'cause that's what oil is," she said during an interview with CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel).

    4. Re: Spill concerns by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Well, certainly funny, if so -- and sad at the same time -- but obscure to me, I'm afraid.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  6. Economic dangers of renewables... by bdeclerc · · Score: 1, Funny

    We're all lucky they didn't build a solar power or wind farm there - can you imagine the toxic spillover that would be caused if an earthquake would hit one of those?

    Drill baby, Drill!

    1. Re:Economic dangers of renewables... by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

      Well, of course they didn't build them, given the total lack of wind in OK, except in certain areas in and around Oklahoma City.

    2. Re:Economic dangers of renewables... by frenchgates · · Score: 2

      I've heard it comes sweeping down the plain. https://youtu.be/ZbrnXl2gO_k?t...

      --
      Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
    3. Re:Economic dangers of renewables... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Well, of course they didn't build them, given the total lack of wind in OK, except in certain areas in and around Oklahoma City.

      Oh, really? https://search.yahoo.com/searc...

    4. Re:Economic dangers of renewables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if this is sarcasm... There is certainly ample wind available in Oklahoma. From I-35, west the wind blows pretty much non-stop. It may not be 20 mph all the time, but it's there.

    5. Re:Economic dangers of renewables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the toxic spillover: it's the economic paralysis that comes from losing *the* major hub for getting oil from point A to point anywhere. The economy functions on oil, polymers, gasoline... and those would be disrupted, which means the economy would be disrupted.

      Toxic spillover can be cleaned up without too much worry. Life goes on. Bringing down the economy might have consequences.

  7. 4s? Quick someone tell them about... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    They're getting excited about 4s and 5s? Quick someone tell them about the petrochemical depots near LA.

    1. Re:4s? Quick someone tell them about... by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      CA has mandatory minimum seismic design requirements.
      OK doesn't.

      And the energy companies are fighting efforts to add those requirements.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:4s? Quick someone tell them about... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      It's like a bunch of Pacific islanders moving to the Pacific Northwest in the summer and building open air huts. And when people point out those might not be such a wise idea come winter, the islanders argue that people live in Alaska, so it's been proven that winter weather isn't a problem. (The difference in this case of course being that the area itself is changing, rather than the people moving to a different area.)

      In a less hyperbolic example, the Jr high school i went to in Washington was designed by a California architect. It had exterior walkways instead of hallways. They made enough of a concession to put roofs over most of the walkways, the ones running around the edges of the building, but that still left the sides exposed to wind, rain being carried by the wind, and runoff from the rain dripping off the roofs. And to get from one side of rectangular building to the other the easiest way was to use the entirely exposed walkways going through the courtyard in the middle. I'm sure it was a great design for the California climate. It was even great in Washington... for about the last month or two before summer vacation and the first month or two when school started up again. For the rest of the fall, winter, and early spring it was pretty damn miserable.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:4s? Quick someone tell them about... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Californians also seem to think a bus shelter needs a roof and no walls. That's not entirely true in Minneapolis.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. I wouldn't worry about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep fracking! I own Conoco-Phillips stock!

  9. Re:Time to cut funding for research by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Liberals don't hate poor people the love then. They love how dependent they are, and the love how good hand outs sound to someone struggling to get by, they love the way that buys votes.

    The trick is keeping poor people poor while keeping up the appearance of trying to help them. Strategies include.

    1) High property taxes ( because it looks like the wealthy pay more but really when you break it out along in come its pretty regressive)

    These support expensive but deliberately ineffective education programs where failure is rewarded and indoctrination over independent thought is the order of the day.

    2) Secret poor taxes. Taxes on things that the poor spend disproportionate income on, gasoline, heating oil, etc. This also includes Sin taxes, alcohol, cigarets, lotteries.

    3) The passage of ever more regulation and barriers to entry. Can't have entrepreneurs, no we need 'workers' who will remain wage slaves to existing business their entire lives.

    4) Pushing for inflation to discourage savings, real independence comes from having savings. Ensuring your savings are always loosing value unless you hand them over to someone wealthier to gamble with is a huge part of their game. Don't argue but but they're the ones passing legislation to stop the gambling not they are not. Dodd Frank does exactly nothing, Wall Street played their part and made fuss for the cameras but its totally business as usual. Its lefties that always want to raise the debt ceiling and do more 'stimulus'. Government debt is a big source of money supply expansion the usual driver of inflation. This isn't lost on the PTBs.

    The troubling thing is most conservatives and fascists alike have also taken up these strategies as a way to hold onto their own power.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  10. These happen every day by Notorious+G · · Score: 1

    A quake in the 4.x range happens 10,000 - 15,000 times per year. In the 5.x range, 1,000 - 1,500 times per year. So we're seeing quakes like these happen several times a day, every single day, all over the world and there's not a single instance of ecological disaster the FUD being spread in the article tells us to believe.

    A magnitude 5.x earthquake "Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly constructed buildings. At most, none to slight damage to all other buildings. Felt by everyone." So a 5.7 around a bnch of pretty well constructed oil tanks is hardly something to get worked up about.

    1. Re:These happen every day by dywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But not in OK.
      And that's the point.

      We went from an average of 10 quakes a year BF (before fracking) to over 900 in this year alone.
      And the year aint over yet.

      we can't even determine the new average yet, cause each year has been higher than the previous one in an ever increasing trend.

      And youre estimate of what causes dmg is off too.
      House foundations (almost always slabs here) are cracking, requiring (very expensive) shoring/piering. Brick siding is falling off houses. Particularly older houses, which is the majority in the state (not a big new home market, most current dwellings date from the 70s/80s on average).

      And we're talking about quakes in the 3's doing that.

      and the article is talking about a facility located near the swarms.
      a facility that was never designed with seismic activity in mind, because we don't have those rules in OK like they do in CA.

      So no its not FUD, but your post is rather ignorant.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:These happen every day by tomhath · · Score: 2

      You are the one spreading FUD. Earthquake swarms like the one OK is having now have occurred many times in the past, long before gas well drilling started. There's no reason other than FUD to associate the tremors with human activity.

    3. Re:These happen every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's no reason other than ideology not to...

    4. Re:These happen every day by dywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      NewsOK, aka The Oklahoman, our local paper, is well known across the state as a shill for the energy companies.

      After all, it's owned by one.

      So thanks for linking to a news story they published that has already been dismissed by scientists across the state and country several times.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:These happen every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown, who is vice president of geology at Continental Resources Inc., said he discovered evidence that Oklahoma’s rising number of earthquakes isn’t as unprecedented as most people believe

      Ya...the energy company geologist.
      I'm sure he's an unbiased source.

      Wait, that's VP of Geology.
      So chances are he's not even a geologist.

      Hey, what's this check here with your name on it from Chesapeake Energy?

    6. Re:These happen every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the one spreading FUD. Earthquake swarms like the one OK is having now have occurred many times in the past, long before gas well drilling started. There's no reason other than FUD to associate the tremors with human activity.

      Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics.

    7. Re:These happen every day by Notorious+G · · Score: 1

      According to USGS, those 3's you say doing all that damage create, " Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck." The same intensity of a passing truck is cracking foundations and bringing down walls? I call bullshit.

    8. Re:These happen every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We went from an average of 10 quakes a year BF (before fracking) to over 900 in this year alone.

      It's not the *number*, it's the magnitude. Anything smaller than a 5.0 causes no damage to even *poorly* constructed buildings. You can have a billion 3.0 quakes a year and it doesn't matter, because they *don't* damage buildings.

      What's more, there is *always* a 2.0 quake happening *somewhere* in the globe. 2.0 quakes can *only* be felt by seismographs, but are *technically* earthquakes, so they're very likely in your earthquake tally.

      > And we're talking about quakes in the 3's doing [cracking slabs and dislodging brick siding].

      Wow. A 4 is *just* enough to rattle dishes in cabinets. A 3 is a passing semi truck.

      If your foundation cracks or your siding dislodges every time something a bit larger than a semi truck passes your house, your house is a shoddy piece of shit that *shouldn't* meet local building codes.

    9. Re:These happen every day by dywolf · · Score: 1

      not flamebait.
      verifiable fact.
      those who abuse the mod system can fuck right off.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  11. nothing to see here... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Max Zorin is fully concerned with the safety of Zorin Industries fracking operation in Oklahoma.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:nothing to see here... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Zorin Industries has fully insured its equipment against earthquake damage and its oil against loss. In the event of a catastrophe, Max Zorin will pull the cord on his golden parachute, paying himself the money from the insurance policies as a severance package, then leaving a bankrupt Zorin Industries responsible for the cleanup.

      (yes, I know there is no Zorin Industries, but feel free to insert whatever compan(ies) actually own the oil tankers here.)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  12. Carbon Sequestration by NReitzel · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    We have seen that the relatively minor amount of water injected into the ground during fracking operations tends to induce earthquakes.

    Carbon dioxide under pressure (supercritical CO2) is a solvent that is at least as good as water, and sequestration proposals call for pumping gigatons of liquid carbon dioxide underground, into the same kind of strata that once held oil. Does anyone think that this will not tend to induce earthquakes?

    Releasing oil from a storage area would cause an environmental mess - some would use the word catastrophe, I would not. Oil on the loose mucks up agricultural areas, sometimes makes for fires that kill a few dozen people and wildlife. These are minor effects.

    A release of multiple millions of tons of carbon dioxide would be an actual catastrophe. Look up "Lake Nyos" and observe that a natural release of CO2 managed to kill 100 people and thousands of livestock, not to mention hundreds of hectares of crops and wildlife, all in a very sparsely settled area. And that was from a very minor release.

    What I fail to understand is that the very same people who eschew nuclear power because the waste products "Will be dangerous for centuries" don't have a concern about storing vast quantities of carbon dioxide underground. If the radiation release at Chernobyl had been carbon dioxide instead, it could have left all those people who were evacuated dead in their homes before anyone could worry about sending them elsewhere. RadWaste is dangerous for hundreds of years, stored carbon dioxide is dangerous forever,

    Let's think twice about how to "fix" carbon emissions.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:Carbon Sequestration by unixcorn · · Score: 1

      Very interesting comparison. I too am pro-nuke but it's hard, beyond the obvious, to find arguments that make as much sense as this. I will be stealing this line of thinking for my next argument.

    2. Re:Carbon Sequestration by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What I fail to understand is that the very same people who eschew nuclear power because the waste products "Will be dangerous for centuries" don't have a concern about storing vast quantities of carbon dioxide underground.

      What you failed to understand is that you're wrong all around. I eschew nuclear power because humans have been proven to mismanage nuclear waste, and I also am opposed to pumping CO2 into the ground, and I'm opposed to fracking as well. I am pro- solar and wind.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: Carbon Sequestration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bumper sticker is even simpler. It just says "Happy!" on it in big friendly letters.

    4. Re:Carbon Sequestration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I fail to understand is that the very same people who eschew nuclear power because the waste products "Will be dangerous for centuries" don't have a concern about storing vast quantities of carbon dioxide underground.

      Most of the main stream Global Climate Change people will only accept Wind or Solar as a solution to CO2 emissions. Carbon Sequestration is something the fossil fuel industry throws out there, especially coal industry, as a red herring to appease politicians in coal mining areas.

    5. Re:Carbon Sequestration by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Most of the main stream Global Climate Change people will only accept Wind or Solar as a solution to CO2 emissions. Carbon Sequestration is something the fossil fuel industry throws out there, especially coal industry, as a red herring to appease politicians in coal mining areas.

      Carbon sequestration is a wonderful thing. You just have to do it meaningfully. Reforestation with followup maintenance to make sure the trees don't just die is meaningful. And as an aside, carbon credit trading is bullshit. Cap and no trade, thanks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Carbon Sequestration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what energy source(s) are you planning to use to
      a) separate the CO2 from the rest of atmospheric gasses
        b) cool it to liquid
      c) keep it cold
      d) move it to sequestration point (and by what means, pipelines? trucks? camel caravans?)
      e) pump it down

      and how will you keep this process carbon neutral?

      unless you've got some sort of fusion power source up your sleeve (and, if so shame on you!), you can't sequester CO2 without causing more CO2 outgassing.

      CO2 sequestration == FAIL

  13. 99% OK structures not designed for quakes by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I dont know if they've strengthened laws recently. But before the recent seismicity increase, seismic safety was a minor factor.

  14. The Department of Homeland Security? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Why is The Department of Homeland Security poking its nose in everywhere? Why are they "gauging potential earthquake dangers" when this would normally be monitored and studied by the USGS?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:The Department of Homeland Security? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Look! A Danger! Quick, before it gets away!

      "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”

        Oscar Wilde

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:The Department of Homeland Security? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Making sure things are secure from natural disasters actually sounds like what the should be doing instead of being the department of "OMG TERRISTS!"

      That being said, I would expect the USGS to actually have the best interests of the people in mind, and certainly not the DHS.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:The Department of Homeland Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Homeland Security considers earthquakes to be a credible risk to security, then they should just require the tank farm to not receive any more oil.

    4. Re:The Department of Homeland Security? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That being said, I would expect the USGS to actually have the best interests of the people in mind, and certainly not the DHS.

      If I were running the DHS, when I got done petting my persian cat and polishing my monocle I would probably have some of my underlings look into doing some things which are actually good for the country so I could point at them when people asked if I ever actually did anything useful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. backwards- lubricating fluids are relieving stress by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Allowing quakes to happen easier with existing stress.

  16. concern: quakes occurrence is power law by peter303 · · Score: 1

    About six times more quakes happen for each smaller magnitude. So with the increasing number of 4s and 5s, it suggests a possible 6.
    The maximum size quake is bounded by the largest possible fault area, a number not well understood yet.

  17. Re:Time to cut funding for research by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Poe's Law

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  18. Re:Time to cut funding for research by dywolf · · Score: 1

    another Poes Law

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  19. Plate Tectonics Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As others have pointed out, you can't postpone the inevitable.
    As other others have pointed out, pumping lubricants deep underground for Profit is a pretty bad idea.

    A somewhat minor Apocalypse is due here Real Soon Now. Maybe a Trillion Dollars or so in damages and deaths. The End of Silicon Valley, and every single massively negligent local Refinery. The Shorelines will burn, Silicon Valley will drown.

    I am actually prepared. I have a few weeks of supplies on board. Sails don't need much in the way of ongoing Infrastructure. The crackpot Survivalists, being largely concerned with their Guns, and deeply concerned with other Survivalists with _their_ Guns, actually have just a few good ideas. Be Prepared, the Boy Scouts Marching Song. Stock up.

    This Apocalypse won't involve Meteorites, Petulant Gods, Muslim haberdashers, or SJW Zombies.
    Locally, at least, the Apocalypse will involve a relatively inconsequential shift along the Hayward Fault.

    I'll ride it out. Because of the Geography of the Bay, local Tsunamis aren't much of an issue. Glub, glub, burp, glub. The shorelines for a few thousand miles elsewhere, on the other hand...
    (Developers have filled in the Bay shorelines already; what would normally take Millennia has taken less than a Century. Fill dampens.)

    Frankly, concerning Oklahoma, I don't give a damn. That State and those People richly deserve what's coming their way. That's because they don't care about the fact that...

    Plate Tectonics happen.

  20. That would be a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If OK thinks climate change is a hoax..then the state burns..

  21. Another red state bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, since these earthquakes in a (previously) geologically stable region have been shown to be the direct result of irresponsible fracking, all I can say is, you made your own bed (by electing leaders who put the corporate interests of oil and gas corporations above the people's), no you can sleep in it. Enjoy the flammable water table, escalating earthquakes, and soon-to-be-covering-what-arable-land-remains-in-your-state oil slicks.

    You voted for this. Now enjoy.

  22. Good. by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Let's face it. it's going to take a major catastrophe to get America's collective head out of its ass. Of course Fox News will blame the whole thing on Obama, but eventually, people will figure out that we're being screwed by big corporations.

    Unfortunately, history (Deephorizon) has shown us that, even after being screwed by big companies, the deep south still votes republican -- the base thinks that the free market should regulate itself. Hey, you voted for these clowns, live with the consequences.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  23. Simples - Relocate them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution is simple. Build a replacement tank farm in a area which does not suffer earthquakes and start storing the crude there instead of Cushing Hub. Then when the Cushing Hub tanks are empty, decommission the site.

  24. Trust DHS for info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, sure, I'll trust DHS for warnings; DC is in the pockets of the MId-east governments; of course they want to scare us out of using our own carbon resources...

  25. Why DHS? by Alypius · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one wondering why DHS is the lead agency here? If only there were some kind of agency in charge of geological surveys of the United States... (DHS is probably there because energy security is in vogue in the Beltway, but it definitely shouldn't be the lead agency)

    1. Re:Why DHS? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      USGS can monitor the situation with respect to the earthquakes but what could they do about making sure the tanks are safe or what would happen if the tanks failed? Maybe FEMA.

  26. compare with New Madrid by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    When Memphis falls down, people are going to lose their minds. It's just a guessing game as to when. Nobody is prepared for it and the USG will drag down the rest of the country to deal with a relatively local disaster. "United we stand, together we fall".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  27. I just want to know if it can withstand a tsunami? by mmell · · Score: 1

    Experience has shown that that's the real killer problem after earthquakes, right?

  28. slight engineering rework by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    The Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the huge oil tanks at Valdez Alaska are designed for 8.5 magnitude earthquakes. Anything the Okies can imagine is a lesser engineering problem.

    Set the required earthquake and containment parameters, give the tank farm operators 3-5 yrs to start phasing in upgrades, and 5-10 years to finish. Done.

    Zzzzzzzz.

  29. Oh my yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That makes me feel so much better! Just when I was getting used to the idea that most of our reactors are in earthquake zones.

  30. a strategy by billdale · · Score: 1

    They say they have a much larger potential for storage than they are now using... that implies tanks most tanks are empty. I suggest fitting those empty tanks with multiple flexible bladders... say, 8 or ten bladders per tank... the outside walls should be lined with steel fabric such as conventional chain link fencing, so that if the rigid, outer walls are compromised, the steel fencing fabric will hopefully still be able to contain the bladders with their content. Fill that tank with its bladders with oil from one of the other tanks, and retrofit each other tank one at a time until all are upgraded. It would be expensive, but would be about the same thing as spending the money New Orleans really needed to prevent the worst of the Katrina disaster that we still have not recovered from. An ounce of prevention... blah, blah, blah. We need to stop spending so much money recovering from disasters, and use forethought.

  31. Re: Time to cut funding for research by billdale · · Score: 1

    My god, what a biased bit of idiocy you spew. All the stuff the far right espoused have been shown not to work, the opposite approach has been shown to work, and they still use their big bucks to shout at the tops of their lungs, attempting to drown out the voices of reason to get their own way. As an example, Reagan's "trickle down" BS... let the rich have what they want, and eventually the poorest will benefit, too, except that was tried, the lower class never benefitted from it, and it has been shown that when companies, states, countries or whatever raise minimum wage, more people have more spendable income, the percentage of people living in poverty shrinks out of proportion to the increase in minimum wage increase, and everyone benefits. People with more money eat less cheap, unhealthy food, there is less money needed to be spent on health care, etc., etc. Stop trying to blame the Democrats for everything... Reagan ran on a platform-- on each of his terms-- of paying off debts and balancing the budget, yet increased the national debt more than all previous administrations COMBINED. Bill Clinton fought and snarled and bullied to get the budget balanced, and yet as soon as Republicans had the chance, we had sky-high deficit spending again. Can it... nothing you have to say makes sense, as history has shown.