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."

Comments

No worries...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be OK.

Little quakes

[Grand Facade]

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?

Re:Little quakes

[gcmd]

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...

Re:Little quakes

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Little quakes

[drinkypoo]

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.

Well, frack you Oklahoma

[rmdingler]

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.

Spill concerns

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:4s? Quick someone tell them about...

[dywolf]

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

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

Re:These happen every day

[dywolf]

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.