Slashdot Mirror


Oklahoma Earthquakes Are a National Security Threat (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Bloomberg article makes the case that the U.S. must consider the earthquake situation in Oklahoma a national security threat. The town of Cushing, OK is small — fewer than 10,000 people. But enough oil is stored there at times to eclipse the entire U.S. daily usage. "The oil in Cushing props up the $179 billion in West Texas Intermediate futures and options contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange." In the wake of the September 11th attacks, government officials posted guards near the giant storage facilities; they're that important to the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, the rising seismic activity in Oklahoma is putting those tanks at risk. The article argues that if a terrorist attack would threaten national security, so must an equally devastating natural disaster. This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade. "Last month the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees oil and gas, ordered wells within three miles to shut down entirely and those between three and six miles from the town to reduce their volume by 25 percent."

166 comments

  1. Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A large oil tank farm is an example of infrastructure that can be threatened by a number of disasters, from tornados to terrorism. But as soon as you say "fracking", the swarms of small earthquakes that lubrication of shallow rock strata can create suddenly become much more important than other threats that are historically worse in the region. You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

    1. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Each time the anti-frackers try to justify their opposition, the are smacked down with facts.

      They are like small children desperately trying any argument they can think of to stay up late or get that cookies they've been denied.

    2. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But as soon as you say "fracking", the swarms of small earthquakes that lubrication of shallow rock strata can create suddenly become much more important than other threats that are historically worse in the region. You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

      Like you did?

      Also, is it a relative thing ("other threats that are historically worse in the region"... what? the indians?)

      You know what, this is a terrible fallacy: I won't solve a secondary problem because there's a main one to solve first. Let's keep fracking until we need to get another main problem.

    3. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why did you include two links neither of which have to do with earthquakes?

      Anyway, this isn't entirely accurate:

      This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade.

      It's actually wastewater injection that's tied to increasing numbers of earthquakes. Now, fracking often uses wastewater injection. But other types of oil production sometimes do as well, and fracking doesn't always involve it. It's important to keep clear on just what the problem is.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    4. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      But as soon as you say "fracking", the swarms of small earthquakes that lubrication of shallow rock strata can create suddenly become much more important than other threats that are historically worse in the region. You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

      . . . and there I was, thinking that I could get rich with "Nuclear Fracking"

      . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by khallow · · Score: 1

      Like you did?

      It worked didn't it?

      Also, is it a relative thing ("other threats that are historically worse in the region"... what? the indians?)

      Like tornadoes?

      You know what, this is a terrible fallacy: I won't solve a secondary problem because there's a main one to solve first. Let's keep fracking until we need to get another main problem.

      We have yet to get to a "main problem" in the first place.

    6. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't worry, I'm sure Big Energy will just sue under some "free-trade" treaty agreement to get their way, regardless.

    7. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      I think you need some coffee.

      The article is just another attempt to impugn Fracking. The links show fracking is safe.

    8. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people living around fracking wells would disagree with you, but they're too busying with their 'mysterious' diseases, 'surprising' earthquakes, and 'curious' chemicals in their water.

    9. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've looked into this -- to the extent of searching for papers and incidents described in the academic literature using Google Scholar, so take this with a grain of salt -- and I've concluded that there are two clear environmental concerns with fracking. The first, of course, is carbon. The lower the price of carbon-based fuel the more of it we'll use. All things being equal that would be a good thing, but the point is that all things are not equal if we emit more carbon.

      The wastewater issue is complex, in that it depends on the locality and the stage of development of fracking in the area. Thus far the industry has been quite good about handling wastewater -- my concern is in some of the fracking boom areas there aren't good disposal options yet for "flowback". The industry is dealing with this by re-using flowback, but while this is great in the boom phase of fracking it's going to be hard to sustain in an area when the rate of new well drilling begins to peak. Eventually there'll be more flowback than can be re-used, and as far as I can see there is no plan for dealing with that in some places. This could potentially leave the taxpayers with the cleanup bill. You also have to factor in what practices an industry is willing to undertake in a boom situation as opposed to the eventual scenario of declining profitability.

      This is not a crisis; it's something we have time to deal with if there's the political will. The problem is that there usually isn't much political will for dealing with problems that will manifest in fifteen or twenty years' time.

      Groundwater contamination is also a serious concern, although it is clearly a matter of each site's local geology. It's an area that needs more research.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bogus. See the second link. It's Yale so you ought to accept it. They're liberal ya know.

    11. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      "Green Nuclear Fracking with Solar and Hydro Energy Fusion of Perpetual Motion"

    12. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Rei · · Score: 1

      What?

      I think you need some coffee.

      If you didn't notice that neither of your articles had to do with earthquakes, or that the topic under discussion here is earthquakes, then you're the one who needs coffee.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    13. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      So you would agree that it would be wiser to completely avoid oil farms of this size, then?

    14. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      A large oil tank farm is an example of infrastructure that can be threatened by a number of disasters, from tornados to terrorism. But as soon as you say "fracking", the swarms of small earthquakes that lubrication of shallow rock strata can create suddenly become much more important than other threats that are historically worse in the region. You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

      That's just silly. Nuclear fracking would be counter-productive.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    15. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by david_bonn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except if you live near oil producing areas using fracking and suddenly your well water becomes flammable:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07...

      So while there may be some hysteria, I damned well would be hysteric if my drinking water suddenly became flammable.

      In fairness, it isn't the fracking process that is directly causing the earthquake problem here -- it is disposing of the wastewater in certain deep wells that is causing the earthquake activity. I read somewhere that ninety percent of the earthquake activity is associated with less than ten percent of the wells, which tells me that if we are able to choose which wells we use for wastewater injection we can substantially solve this problem.

      Ohio has had a similar, if less serious, problem:

      http://www.livescience.com/493...

      For all that, this whole story sounds like we are watching a classic disaster movie unfold.

    16. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! As with banks everything is better when consolidated into the smallest possible location with the fewest people gaining financial benefit and ownership. Have you learned nothing from NAFTA and the TPPIP?

    17. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by segedunum · · Score: 1

      The links show fracking is safe.

      They show absolutely nothing of the kind and this is just desperate bullshit from an anonymous coward. The truth over fracking is beginning to bite and be undeniable. The oil price is just the final nail in the coffin that makes cracking totally unviable.

    18. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by segedunum · · Score: 1

      We have yet to get to a "main problem" in the first place.

      Large amounts of oil are stored there specifically because there are few earthquakes. Oooops.

    19. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Even if you're right, you can't win. *sighs* You must be bored. ;-)

      We don't need facts around here! We've got poop flinging and screeching to do. At least, I'm pretty sure that most threads devolve into howler monkey territory.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by KGIII · · Score: 1

      "Created with 3D Printed Nanobots!"

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      3D-printed carbon nanobots!

    22. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There'll be a quake exchange program to move the quakes back to the places better able to handle them. Enron will run the exchange.

    23. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It worked didn't it?

      WP:POINT

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    24. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Shame Cheney specifically shielded big oil form disclosing the toxic chemicals they use. Makes proving that 'contamination came from the fracking a bit tougher.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    25. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me the subject of fracking boils down to messing with things we should not mess with all in order for someone to make more money. Comes down to greed and keeping demand up for fossil fuels. Carbon is absorbed by the oceans which in turn will make them more acidic, that's going to kill the oceans end of story. When the oceans die we will follow as the planet works with a balance and industry is damned determined to screw that all up. I've had to learn quite a bit about PH, and chemical make up of ocean water to keep a reef aquarium. Reef aquariums are fragile, hence so is the balance of the oceans. The other point to this is that fracking is like messing with a bunch of books piled on top of one another, eventually if you mess with it long enough the stack falls, it's not the greatest analogy. The industry will tell you "Oh it's perfectly safe via their P.R. vehicles." It isn't it's changing the underlying structure of the earth....we aren't God and either the research has been done and buried that shows this could lead to bad things or it wasn't done at all. It's been my experience that the majority in the corporate world don't give a $#!@ about the ramifications, to my point security they don't spend any money on it until it's too late and they certainly don't put human safety at the top of the list in a practical sense.

    26. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could get rich with "Nuclear Fracking"

      Once upon a time, this powerful technique was considered to be used for the Suez canal expansion, or so the story goes.

    27. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Nuclear fracking was proposed in the 1950s.

      Seriously.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      . . . Hollywood even made a movie about it, titled: "Crack in the World": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      As films tend to go in Hollywood with nukes and the Earth's crust, things go terribly, and viewed now, hilariously wrong.

      I guess a re-make of this film today would be titled, "Frack in in the World" . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    29. Re:Classic anti-energy lobby technique by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Is there no depth they will not plumb?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Seriously though by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Funny
    I stopped reading after the September 11th introduction.

    Its a problem. A big one.

    But are we going to start arresting earthquakes and sending them to Gitmo now?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re: Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we'll just lock them up in Gitmo, waterboarding them, beat the shit out of them, deny them any human rights, and force them to confess to whatever bullshit charges we come up with. Because the constitution is effectively toilet paper now. And the vest part about it? This won't even be reported in the news because the NSA will issue a gag order on reporting it. But even if there was no gag order, it would barely be reported abyway because who Miley Cyrus is banging is a much more important topic for the american public. Hell, even Slashdot, a formerly reputable source, has gone done the path of clickbait. Have you seen the recent SJW friendly articles here? And 99% of the comments are just flamebait, on both sides, and no reasonable discussion. Or Hillary's email scandal, where no one talks about her server's security, but rather just about her being the Antichrist or being the savior of America. Or maybe they'd go off topic and talk about Trump or Bernie Sanders or politics in general. But I can get that shit on CNN. I come to Slashdot for the tech stuff, homie. And to post anonymously of course. A shame most sites have stopped allowing that, because now you can one click post by connecting with Facebook or Twitter and having your post linked to your real name, as well as having to watch what you say because for sure your employer is watching. Fuck no, I'm not doing that shit. And just the obscene anoint of ads on websites in general. The ads outnumber the content. At least Slashdot is still relatively good in this regard, at least on its mobile site, where there is only one ad at the bottom, unobtrusive. That's how it should be. In fact, it should be where ads are actually sold by the website itself, not some big company like Google that tracks you and does all sorts of other malicious stuff. Don't be evil my ass. Perhaps the obky thing to do is start my own tech site, but I don't have the time for that. Any takers?

    2. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Olsoc's Law. Any article discussing a serious long-term threat to the USA must include a mention of 9/11.

    3. Re:Seriously though by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading after the September 11th introduction.

      I stopped reading after the first word in TFS. Seriously: Fuck. That. Place. I finally manage to leave (one of the worst places in the English-speaking world, in my not-so-humble opinion)... and the fucking shithole continues to follow me around on the web.

    4. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a good example of how not to do things?

      Before or after.

    5. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? We'll just have their local PD shoot at the earthquakes of course!

    6. Re:Seriously though by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Army has been sent to "free" the Earthquakes from their evil leader, W. Frack.

    7. Re:Seriously though by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      And it should be followed by a link to ISO 8601 because American/European-style dates need to be eliminated.

      And to answer your question, 9 divided by 11 equals approximately 0.81818181818182

    8. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      standards don't stop being standards because you object, or because iso invents a new one. sorry.

    9. Re:Seriously though by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      You sound like you really like progress and innovation!

    10. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better bomb them first! A fleet of barely used cold war machines are just waiting for the opportunity to shine the light over the area.

    11. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And something doesn't stop being fucking silly just because some weird ass places "standardised" on it (and the other standards for showing the date too, so it's not like you don't USE "4th of July" and must always say "July 4th" because the latter is a standard...).

      Because while you're talking about "this year" or an annual event, the year isn't necessary, but if you wish to refer to another year, or just be specific (e.g. the 2010 olympics, as opposed to one of the others), you need to add the year in.

      So why do you think a "standard" that goes from larger interval to smaller interval should then go to middle interval, smaller interval and largest interval?

      So rather than shout "IT'S A STANDARD!!!!", explain WHY it's a standard.

      And remember, you do go the much more sensible and logical route of ddmmm. At the drop of a hat. And explain how you can tell.

    12. Re: Seriously though by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      undergoing withdrawal eh?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Seriously though by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This is why I don't believe most of the comments such as yours. If you'd actually traveled, you'd know that people are people pretty much anywhere you go. All those things you see as major problems are really trivial in the scope of things. If you go to most any (not totally impoverished or in a conflict area - I've visited both types) you'll find that the average person is just as content (or not) as they are anywhere else. The average government makes is just as retarded, no matter where you go. The average criminals are much the same, as are the average businessmen.

      So, you've either never really been anywhere, are insane, or are completely so self centered that you're unwilling to look around you to determine that your preconceived notions aren't actually correct. Maybe you should try actually traveling? Or at least being honest with yourself while making accurate observations.

      Meh... Why do I bother? I'm sure you have your reasons.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Seriously though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course people is people. He's talking about the culture of a place, which is nowhere near uniform and can be extremely toxic in places. Places like Oklahoma.

    15. Re:Seriously though by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      If you'd actually traveled, you'd know that people are people pretty much anywhere you go.

      Okay, okay; I lied: I wasn't actually in Oklahoma for ten years. Truth be told, I was in the Riviera... I just thought people would think I was cooler if I told them Muskogee. ;)

      So, you've either never really been anywhere

      Dammit, you're really forcing me to divulge everything, aren't you? Alright, alright, I admit: I've never been anywhere (mind you, I was under the impression that Oklahoma essentially counted as nowhere... but we'll defer to your holier-than-thou expert opinion on the subject). ;)

      or are completely so self centered that you're unwilling to look around you to determine that your preconceived notions aren't actually correct

      Rest assured, I'm plenty self-centered. ;) Nonetheless, your retarded suggestion that people tend to act the same everywhere is the real giveaway; if you'd actually traveled anywhere (with your eyes and ears actually open, mind you), you wouldn't be making such silly suggestions. Stereotypes exist because people tend to reinforce them. I realize that it perhaps shouldn't be that way... but should in one hand, shit in the other, right?

      So here you go, for the record:

      When I didn't spend the first ten years of my life growing up in Japan, I definitely did not noticed certain cultural tendencies; in fact, Japanese tended to live and act exactly the same as other people. (Really no reason to travel anywhere, then, is there, since everyone everywhere acts pretty much the same...).

      When I didn't spend the next ten years in the NY/CT area, I did not notice that New Englanders (at least those in Fairfield County) tend to be be more irritable and impatient than, say, Midwesterners. (After all, if I had, you'd be wrong, wouldn't you? Surely that can't be!)

      Seriously though, are you sure you're not an Okie? ;)

    16. Re:Seriously though by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oklahoma's not bad. I've been there - lots. I once got stuck in an ice storm there (2007ish) and was willing to drive but the tractor trailer trucks kept going off the road. I stopped at a hotel and they gave me the sale price 'cause I had one of those hotel fliers from the rest area. They were only supposed to honor it for one night and not on the weekends. I ended up staying a week. They not only gave me that rate, initially, but because I'd stayed the week they gave me the weekly rate.

      People make up the culture. And people is people. No matter where you go. They're inherently nice (and stupid). They're the same the world over. Oklahoma's not bad at all. Hell, and I'm an East Coast person who lived in cities most of his life. No, Oklahoma (where the wind comes roaring down the plain) isn't bad at all.

      Oh, it was Clinton, Oklahoma. Nice Chinese food just down the road on the right. Pizza is on the left. Nice place. They were refurbishing the hotel, new owners (from India I believe). I think that's I-40 through there? I'm too lazy to look.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:Seriously though by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      >People make up the culture. And people is people. No matter where you go. They're inherently nice (and stupid).

      I do great in places with stereotype white racist culture. Of course, my lily-white ass helps, and my ability to interface with people on their own level. And watch what I say.

      Of course, a lot of these folks don't take a right shinin to "Joos", them "Nigras", and that "mooslim in the white house". Or "leeburuls", or "atheists", or"Catholicks" or Yankees or sassy wimmin, like that hillary or people that don't hanker to them flying the confederate flag,

      Other than that, they are completely identical to everyone else.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Seriously though by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Pretty much, yeah. I've yet to find one culture that didn't have their biases. I look Asian (I'm actually part Micmac, White, and Black African) and get along just fine regardless of where I go. I've been in places where my own government advised me not to go. Hell, I went to Egypt and was told, expressly, that I'd not be getting any help from the Embassy if things should fall apart. Every single group has its racial prejudices - they're often not seen as well because they live in more homogeneous societies but they exist. I've yet to find one single group of people who doesn't like another group based solely on who they are, what they believe, or who they sleep with.

      I don't know what Utopia you live in Grammy Olsec and I've seen your otherwise brilliant posts over the years but I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. It's the same damned thing - everywhere. Err... It's turtles, all the way down. And, by enlarge, so long as you present yourself as being willing to be considerate of their culture - they tend to be pretty nice in return. I've been all around this world and, as near as I can tell, there's no Utopia and people are people no matter where you go. Every culture has its ups and downs. Some are pretty bad but, in other ways, they make up for it. I'm not overly fond of the Middle East - those who are extreme in their views. I guess we could compare and contrast with that but, really, they're usually just a bit more open about their biases and prejudices.

      Maybe I'm blind? I don't know. I have, however, been everywhere. Well, I've never been to Antarctica. I've been pretty much everywhere else or close enough to it where I can just scratch it off my bucket list.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:Seriously though by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I don't know what Utopia you live in Grammy Olsec and I've seen your otherwise brilliant posts over the years but I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. It's the same damned thing - everywhere. Err... It's turtles, all the way down. And, by enlarge, so long as you present yourself as being willing to be considerate of their culture - they tend to be pretty nice in return.

      Of which yeah, I do tend to respect the culture, or at least don't say anything about it when in person. I think when people have problems, it's because they don't. respect the culture. My snarky comments are of course taking the stereotypes and amping them up a bit. The part that can be an issue is when people get hung up on racial characteristics, it's difficult to step outside those.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:Seriously though by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I was kind of thinking it was amplified snark but that doesn't always come through in text. I was kind of baffled. I've read enough posts from you, over the many years now, to actually respect your opinions and insights. By enlarge, yeah, people suck but they're just people. People make the culture and it's different and we all suck in new and interesting ways. I really can't see a huge difference, when looked at it objectively, with *most* cultures. Hell, I suspect that the vast majority of people in N. Korea are straight up awesome and honest people. So aren't the ones in Saudi Arabia. There are extremists but most people just want to live from day to day. Smile, they smile back.

      Well, except New Yorkers. Fuck them. ;-) (I'm actually in Buffalo still, I met a lady and we're dating so I've been here for a while now. Even New Yorkers aren't bad. When we go down into the city, we still get out and chill with the people. They're just fine, too.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:Seriously though by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      I've never seen somebody so triggered by the word "A" before.

    22. Re:Seriously though by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I've never seen somebody so triggered by the word "A" before.

      Well, to be fair, it's in "Oklahoma" not once but twice!

  3. Oh the Irony.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earthquakes caused by fracking will destroy a large part of the oil that is produced by the process. Fracking is still a new and untested technology, at least to the depths they are pushing. Toxic, acidic water tables and unnamed chemicals being pumped thousands of feet below your feet. No one in America is kicking up a fuss apart from a few small communities affected by this so you fully deserve the hell it will bring.

    1. Re:Oh the Irony.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I give this troll 4/10. If it had tied in climate change, maybe I'd bump it up to 5/10. Who knew a bunch of small earthquakes was so bad?

    2. Re:Oh the Irony.. by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Informative
      The tanks are holding 3 days worth of US oil consumption at their peak storage value of 60 million barrels, so no, the amount there is not a a large part of the oil that is produced by the process.

      Fracking may or may not be of negative environmental consequence, but it is the reinjection of production water into formations through SWD (salt water disposal) wells that is being blamed for the uptick in small earthquakes.

      The floating top tanks are surrounded by earthen dams and the pipelines can be shut down almost instantly, so a disaster from earthquakes is pretty much FUD> don't panic.

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Oh the Irony.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The floating top tanks are surrounded by earthen dams and the pipelines can be shut down almost instantly, so a disaster from earthquakes is pretty much FUD> don't panic.

      That's about the most short sighted thing I've ever read. It's as if the oil disasters across the US just magically never happened.

    4. Re:Oh the Irony.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about cumulative damage on metal joints, seals and such?

    5. Re:Oh the Irony.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's as if the oil disasters across the US just magically never happened.

      Tell us about these "oil disasters" and we'll see if you're an idiot or not.

    6. Re:Oh the Irony.. by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Tell us about these "oil disasters" and we'll see if you're an idiot or not.

      Fucking hell. You're an idiot before we need to discuss anything.

    7. Re:Oh the Irony.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but it is the reinjection of production water into formations through SWD (salt water disposal) wells that is being blamed for the uptick in small earthquakes.

      You emphasize "reinjection" but that is not the case. This implies that the water was sourced from the formation that it is being injected into. Re-injection happens in tertiary production, normally waterflooding or CO2 injection. That hasn't been linked to earthquakes. Wastewater injection into fault lines has been linked to earthquakes. Wastewater is pretty much the same fluid, but different because we're trying to get rid of it permanently and it is not producing any useful purpose (in waterflooding the injected water pushes oil to the surface). It doesn't go into oil-producing formations, some dry formation with high permiability and no communication to the water table is selected. Then we never try to get it back again. So it's not being "reinjected," instead it was made in the process of producing some formation and gotten rid of somewhere else.

    8. Re:Oh the Irony.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot before we need to discuss anything.

      Since I'm not an idiot, I guess we'll just have to end the discussion then.

  4. Devastating earthquakes by Christian+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those 2-3 richter scale earthquakes could cause devastation. The security guards' "best Dad" coffee cups might fall onto the floor and break.

    The 4.5 scale quake might even set off the alarms!

    1. Re:Devastating earthquakes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to tell your child that you broke the birthday gift they gave you and that they put so much work into?

      Believe me, you'd prefer dealing with ruptured and exploding fuel tanks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Devastating earthquakes by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Those 2-3 richter scale earthquakes could cause devastation. The security guards' "best Dad" coffee cups might fall onto the floor and break.

      What about the little ceramic coffee cream dispensers that say "Lubbock TX" shaped like a cow that pours out of the mouth? Because they tried making one that poured from the udders like it should but the milk leaked onto the table. Then they tried raising the udders up right under the tail but it looked really weird and disgusting. Clearly we have some serious problems to solve in this country besides small earthquakes, like cow dispensers that barf milk. Who has the courage to stand up and decide that cream dispensers do not have to be shaped like cows after all, because the engineering hurdles are too great to overcome? And terrorism porn addicts who go around looking for things terrorists can do and shout in the media, "Look! See what terrorists can do! I thought it up all by my self!" and pant as they receive a pat on the head as their tongues loll to the side, their eyes glazed in thought as they think up some other evil thing terrorists could do.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    3. Re:Devastating earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.pinterest.com/pin/383861568209740409/

    4. Re:Devastating earthquakes by segedunum · · Score: 1

      This is fucking insightful? A series of small earthquakes can cause a lot of imperceptible damage over time. Frankly, I hope this lot goes up. Natural selection.

  5. Error in summary by jmac_the_man · · Score: 0, Troll

    This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade.

    This isn't true. Even the EPA has been forced to admit that freaking is safe.

    1. Re:Error in summary by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      How much did THAT cost? It's got to be more expensive to force the EPA to lie.

      I think you're telling more literal truth than you anticipated.

    2. Re:Error in summary by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

      This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma over the past decade.

      This isn't true. Even the EPA has been forced to admit that freaking is safe.

      Pumping the used fracking water into wells might not be. When they do the drilling and fracking, they put chemicals in the water - some to make it slippery to aid in the fracking. There's no reason to believe they don't retain the same properties. Lubricate a fault line, don't be too surprised if it moves.

      Fracking is almost certainly pretty safe. What I mentioned above might pose a problem. We've been doing fracking for a long time, and I think the big push now will be to research more environmentally safe or easily recyclable fracking fluid. Injection wells are just accidents waiting to happen.

      Side note: After WW2, there was a lot of napalm left over, and they used it as a lubrication agent in fracking solutions for some time. I suspect a blowout could be pretty exciting.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Error in summary by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This isn't true. Even the EPA has been forced to admit that freaking is safe.

      Well, as long as we get our freak on in a responsible manner.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Error in summary by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Fracking is absolutely safe. There is no way you could possibly get hurt by it.

      As long as it's done far enough away, of course.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Error in summary by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Even the EPA has been forced to admit that freaking is safe.

      The EPA also said that sulfoxaflor was safe.

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Error in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they say that fuoride is safe. And that CO2 is pollution. Yet somehow I suspect that the OP disagrees VEHEMENTLY with the EPA on at least ONE of those points.

      Indicating it isn't the authority of the EPA they're referring to, but an answer they like. Which could then come from ANYONE and be just as acceptable for them.

    7. Re:Error in summary by r-diddly · · Score: 1

      ATTENTION, it is of ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL importance that NO ONE make a joke on this MOST DEADLY SERIOUS of issues. If you can't discuss this HORRIFIC RISK to my PRECIOUS PRECIOUS LIFE with all the seriousness of a HUMORLESS ASSHOLE about whose OPINION nobody CARES, well then.

      Although to be fair, freaking has been known to cause an earthquake or two in MY house. OH BITCH NO I DIDN'T!!!

    8. Re:Error in summary by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point, Rat. I don't trust the EPA, because the EPA pretty consistently comes down on the side of green kooks who think fracking causes earthquakes. The science is 100% against that position, so the EPA parted ways with the green kooks on this and says that fracking does not cause earthquakes.

  6. Actually, a Global Threat by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1, Funny

    Duh. Because we know the fissures could rupture a portal and release the Kaiju. Read. Your. Bibles.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear humans,

      If you don't read your bibles, you're going to hell.

      Sincerely,
      Your all loving God

    2. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      Dear God, If you didn't want this Earth to be hell, kick out all the people that make it so. Signed, An Atheist

      --
      -SaNo
    3. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dear God,

      If you don't want earth to go to hell, you might have wanted to do a better job and invest more time than six friggin' days in its creation. Were you on a budget or something? Or did your superior tell you that you'd lose the bidding to the competition if you had to put in more than 6 man-days?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'
      Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'
      Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

    5. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear God,

      If you don't want earth to go to hell, you might have wanted to do a better job and invest more time than six friggin' days in its creation. Were you on a budget or something? Or did your superior tell you that you'd lose the bidding to the competition if you had to put in more than 6 man-days?

      Shouldn't that be "6 person-days"? Oh wait, we're talking about that Judeo-Christian-Islamic male deity, in whose image we penis-possessors were created. Forget I even asked, being yet another atheist, raised by atheists (but schooled by Catholics, go figure)...

    6. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Dear God,

      If you don't want earth to go to hell, you might have wanted to do a better job and invest more time than six friggin' days in its creation. Were you on a budget or something?

      (sshh, kids... Grampa is almost finished, this is the part of his rant about how, "Heaven must be in a bad neighborhood, 'cause it needs a gate!'.")

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    7. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a better atheist than you because I was religious. I actually had to escape that mind trap while you were just brought up never having one!

    8. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Priest: If you want to come to the Lord's house, why are you so upset about being introduced to Him?

    9. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheist: Why would I WANT to come into "his" house? I don't think I can be bothered with it.
      Priest: THEN YOU WILL BE TORTURED FOR ETERNITY FOR NOT WANTING TO GO IN HIS HOUSE!!!!
      Atheist: Then stop demanding I like the little shithead because I'd prefer not to be tortured for eternity.

    10. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Is that the atheist version of "holier than thou"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Priest: If you want to come to the Lord's house, why are you so upset about being introduced to Him?

      Missionaries don't tend to wait for permission to start preaching.

    12. Re: Actually, a Global Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody is going both hell and heaven at the same time until a nice priest tells them that they are going to hell. Religion is a quantum phenomena.

  7. Re:Predictable responses by messymerry · · Score: 0

    AC: You write a good post. I would mod you up for it, but you don't want to take credit for your work. That's chickenshit. Good for growing vegetables, but not much more... We are poisoning our environment in countless ways. This is but one of them. A big shout out to all you good corporations and government overlords for being so caring about your "CUSTOMERS"!!!

    --
    Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  8. Donald Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't listen to the pundits.

    Donald trump LOVES Hispanics. He has *thousands* and *thousands* of Hispanics working for him, and they all love him. All of his friends are MEXICAN. Donald Trump is DOMINATING all the polls because he his a winner in everything he does. Donald Trump went to the WARTON SCHOOL of business. The school was full of winners. Donald Trump gets mail from all over the world, from hispanics everywhere, filled with praise for his astute business acumen. Everyone in MEXICO loves Donald Trump. A woman in MEXICO found Donald Trump's face in a bowl of refried beans, and fainted. Ben Carson and Jeb Bush are very low energy. Donald Trump thinks they are NARCOLEPTIC. Vote TRUMP, because everyone, everwhere LOVES HIM!!! TRUMP is the candiate of LOVE!!!

    1. Re:Donald Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush looks like he's missing a few screws. Lethargic, slow, almost like he's sleepwalking. Carson may be a good surgeon but we don't need another band-aid for a broken arm. Clinton... ROFLMFAO. Trump all the way.

    2. Re: Donald Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about Bernie. What's wring with him? And calling him a socialist is a cop out.

      Sanders 2016

  9. We need tax to fight changes in the Earth crust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only taxation can be curbed building new structures. Since taxes will be used to protect Cushing oil reservoirs, funds need to be given away to the oil company which owns this structure.

    Also, additional gas consumption tax should be added to each and every gallon of fuel.

    Electric cars need to pay mileage tax, since they do not pay their fair share of taxes.

    For those who do not drive and, thus, do not consume oil directly, a special tax needs to be added because in order to receive necessary revenues, we need everyone paying taxes (just like Obamacare taxes).

    Amish, nuns, Congress can be exempted from the requirements of this socially fair and needed law.

  10. Obama will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get the TSA after them. That'll fix it.

  11. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "The oil in Cushing props up the $179 billion in West Texas Intermediate futures and options contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange."

    This single sentence is all you need to know about the motivations behind the article. We wouldn't want the speculators, I mean investors in the oil industry, risking their money would we?

  12. It's both US-made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The terrorist attacks (by general politics, delivering weapons into regions of conflicts, by anonymously murdering people).
    And the earth-quakes (by fracking).

    Solution is simple for both cases - learn to behave in a civilized manner.

  13. What? How DARES that planet! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What cheek! How dares that planet threaten our national security! It's time to declare a War on Earth!

    Wait... haven't we already?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What? How DARES that planet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earth's been trying to kill humanity for ages. Retaliation has long been in order.

  14. so what? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    These are private oil storage facilities. If they are being threatened by human activity, this can be sorted out in the courts. If they are being threatened by natural disasters, insurance and diversification can sort it out. Furthermore, we have insane amounts of oil in the "strategic petroleum reserves" all across the country, which could easily absorb even a total loss. There is absolutely no reason for the US government to get involved in this; it simply amounts to crony capitalism. It is even more idiotic for a president and administration intending to reduce carbon emissions to subsidize the oil industry in this way.

    1. Re:so what? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "insurance and diversification can sort it out"
      The US supply network is basically a for profit just in time network that moves in cheap raw material, has it passed into a limited number complex plants and the resulting products move around the nation at a nice profit.
      No good buying in expensive raw product, refining it and waiting for prices to go up again "soon". Better to pass on the production costs with a just in time production and final product transport method.
      With news of wars, peace, other international pressure on oil prices and pressure on new loans funding domestic production efforts, sitting on insane amounts of "oil" is just a small part of a very complex for profit US supply chain.
      Not much for profit or cash is wasted on "diversification" beyond raw "strategic petroleum reserves" going back decades for a short term fix.
      That "insane amounts of oil" would keep the US gov/mil going and cover basic food, heating or medical needs as planned and rationed.
      As for "insurance"? The court friendly private sector experts will just take one look at the US gov data and suggest not paying if the data showed risk that the site was aware of. Why should the private sector "insurance" just pay up for well understood human changes in site geology? Thats not fair on the "insurance" sector that has generational investors too that need a good return on their brands.
      The local natural disasters can be factored in given decades of risk and generations of expert US data. Risking or allowing new "human activity" near a site is a risk that insurance plans will have to fully pass on in new costs or ensure they do not cover under new plans :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:so what? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      None of your lengthy bloviations explain why tax payers or the government should get involved in this.

    3. Re:so what? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      So private insurance should be left to pay up and clean any site for any reason in the US based on some clause any US court can extend over any human induced event?
      Not many insurance companies would stay in profit or interested in the US oil sector for long if that human related site coverage was allowed to stand as the default legal finding.
      Sites that fail due to well understood human activity will have to resort in some way to the "tax payers or the government". Think of it as a geological induced superfund site :)
      Buy new insurance to cover human related changes to the local well understood geology or hope the US government covers the site costs long term?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:so what? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Sites that fail due to well understood human activity will have to resort in some way to the "tax payers or the government".

      Quite the opposite: sites that fail due to well understood human activity should hold the people engaging in that activity responsible for the failure.

      So private insurance should be left to pay up and clean any site for any reason in the US based on some clause any US court can extend over any human induced event?

      I have no idea what "extending clauses over human induced events" is even supposed to mean. You are rambling and you make no sense.

  15. Definitions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of retarded, twisted definition is the US govt. using to declare that random people and things are "national security threats"?

  16. I have a better idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets not store important resources like this on fault lines! K thx bye.

  17. Terrorists! by edibobb · · Score: 1

    Oklahoma earthquakes are abotu as much a security threat as Oklahoma drivers. How much sensationalization and overreaction can people tolerate?

    Oklahoma Earthquakes are caused by wastewater injection wells, which are in need of regulation. Since the U.S. Congress are a bunch of weenies and won't pass anything rational, and since the Oklahoma government is largely owned by Oil and Gas, there won't be much done to resolve this until there is an expensive earthquake. It's not rocket science.

  18. Perhaps we should take oil off the futures market? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we should take oil off the futures market?

    That way, if the worst happens, we won't have to worry about it collapsing, because it won't be there to collapse?

  19. Meh, national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so burned out on TSA and warrentless wiretapping & security theater... that now i actively root for anything that is a threat to national security.

    This country really would benefit from losing its national security blanket. Its time to man up & grow a pair America.

    Fuck you and your national security too. Bring on the earthquakes!

  20. Re:Predictable responses by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    And in 20 years, everyone will wonder why nobody saw the end coming.

    That is because they had their heads stuck up their ass.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. Re: Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But surely there are some 1%ers shorting the stock. Those guys (always guys, white guys to be exact, as the SJW remind us) might have to settle for a smaller yacht. Poor guys ;(

  22. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you think shit gets done/funded in the real world?

  23. Re:Predictable responses by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And in 20 years, everyone will wonder why nobody saw the end coming.

    Y'know, people were saying this when my daughter was a kid 20 years ago.

    And they were saying this when I was a kid 40 years ago.

    Hell, from what my Dad has told me, they were saying it when HE was a kid too....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  24. Wastewater Disposal is NOT Fracking... by RealGene · · Score: 1

    Could we please begin to distinguish the activity of underground wastewater injection from fracking, the actual extraction of oil & gas?
    As I understand it, the scientific consensus is that these earthquakes are the result of the former (which I consider the ultimate in 'sweeping under the rug'), not the latter.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    1. Re:Wastewater Disposal is NOT Fracking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wastewater from fracking is toxic and there is no process by which to remove all the chemicals that pose a health threat from it. That and the fact that pressurizing the fracking field by injecting this mess back down the hole increases the yield are the 2 reasons it's 'disposed of' in this manner.

      It's just one more example of industrial cost cutting at the expense of environmentally responsible operation. Only an executive who lives farm from the effected are would consider such action to be in the best interest of anything or anyone. This is the very reason the EPA was created, to regulate such health and environmental threats, and it's the same reason the energy industry lobbied our ignorant congress to exempt it from having to disclose the chemical makeup of the toxic soup they use.

      The fact that God is now angry and shaking the earth in his rage is just a sideshow. The fact that it threatens the industry's own storage and pipeline infrastructure is just poetic justice.

      captcha=disposes

    2. Re:Wastewater Disposal is NOT Fracking... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should read up how fracking works instead of writing nonsense like 'fracking is just the extraction of oil and gas'.
      If that is the case, why is it only called fracking recently and was not called fracking when we simply used to drill a deep long hole?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Wastewater Disposal is NOT Fracking... by RealGene · · Score: 1

      I'm quite familiar with how fracking is performed, and works. While fracking close to a fault is linked to earthquakes, the process of injecting waste into into a disposal well is much more likely to cause earthquakes than extraction from an oil recovery well.
      USGS Cite: https://profile.usgs.gov/mysci...

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    4. Re:Wastewater Disposal is NOT Fracking... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Does not show that you are aware how fracking works :D If you where aware how it works, the rest of your post where not such nonsense.

      And: learn to read. I did not argue that fracking necessarily causes earth quakes. In germany we had none due to fracking since 50 years (and that is roughly how long we do it).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  25. Fuck the homes and people! SAVE THE OIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush/Cheney has peed all over the US of A. An infectious pee. Those two and their gang should be in prison.

  26. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and 30 years from now, you'll have wondered why the end didn't come ...with much regret, no doubt.

  27. Save the Rocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all. I have spoken.

  28. More Bad On Oil by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Whether it is oil or coal we rarely hear any good news. We are building such a complex and interwoven national structure that we are ever more in danger from minor issues causing a cascade of very harmful events. Obviously we need to get both oil and coal out of our way of life as both lack any way to control their negative effects. Keep in mind that the city always spreads like a cancer ruining the more rural areas. It seems that we must consider making energy consumption a very local affair so that when system failures do occur in order to have an energy system that we can actually protect.

    1. Re:More Bad On Oil by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      use of oil and coal has propelled mankind into the modern age of increased health and lifespan, far outweighing all negative side effects. Don't diss it.

      Sure, non-polluting energy sources would be better, and we'll continue build those largely using oil and coal for now

  29. It's how our politics work by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The summary doesn't say it, but the issue here is fracking. This talk of "National Security" is a diversion from that. They're shutting down wells near a storage site because of fear of earthquakes. That should be national news and cause a complete re-evaluation of the dangers of fracking. It's similar to how Wall Street executives spend billions lobbying against climate change while publicly acknowledging it in their SEC filings. It's about carefully controlling a narrative.

    I hate to admit it but I can't complain too much. I live in a major city. Fracking doesn't effect me. My drinking water's clean and it doesn't hurt my property values. Meanwhile if I adjust for inflation gas is as cheap as it was when I was in high school. That's the only thing that's kept my head above water inflation wise. I know I'm being a NIMBY, and I should probably do something about it, but hell, what am I suppose to do? What I really wish is we could get the "Save the Whales and the Rain forests" idiots to shut up long enough to talk about environmental issues that impact us immediately. Like smog that causes asthma.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's how our politics work by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The summary doesn't say it, but the issue here is fracking.

      Did you read the summary? Its entire focus is that the recent earthquake swarm is caused by fracking (unlike the many similar earthquake swarms that area has had in the past, apparently).

      This raises major questions for the legality of fracking, which has been linked to the increased number of earthquakes striking Oklahoma

    2. Re:It's how our politics work by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you read the summary? Its entire focus is that the recent earthquake swarm is caused by fracking (unlike the many similar earthquake swarms that area has had in the past, apparently).

      I RTFA, and there might be some serious issues with it. It has some severe inconsistencies with the report it cites:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

      tl;dr version The report notes that increased fracking and the wastewater injection, if disposed in that manner, might be a problem. But the injection wells are the cause of the problem, not the nature of hydraulic fracking. Those injection wells have been there long before modern day fracking was around. Here's an abstract from Geology http://geology.gsapubs.org/con...

      The takeaway is that the culprit here is injection wells for wastewater, which by the way, is not only loaded with brine water, and toxic chemicals, but lubricating agents. It was proobably never a good idea, even when these injection wells were utilized well before modern day fracking - like the culprit wells in Oklahoma.

      As noted before, we need to make the fracking fluid more environmentally benign. It won't ever be completely so, as brine is picked up in drilling. But simply pumping it back underground will just expose local fault lines over the years, and endangers a whole lot of folks and real estate.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  30. Thanks Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earthquakes have won!

  31. Asteroids by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

    You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

    I wish people would take the threat of gigantic boulders from outer space more seriously. The very existence of the human race is at stake.

    1. Re:Asteroids by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You can get the same effect by dropping "nuclear" into any discussion.

      I wish people would take the threat of gigantic boulders from outer space more seriously. The very existence of the human race is at stake.

      Time to retrofit a WW2 battleship with a wave motion engine, methinks.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:Asteroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the bright (?) side, through sheer profit-driven stupidity, the odds of our society surviving long enough to see the next major meteor impact are slim.

  32. Re:Tornadoes by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    Go to Hell... all of you. I have lived through them

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  33. Re:Predictable responses by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Somebody will be right at some point!

  34. Re:Predictable responses by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Yes, the idea goes back to Socrates and beyond. There are probably prehistoric cave drawings depicting the same thing.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  35. Prepare for impact by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It seems like the much greater danger is the huge impact from the gigantic leap you took from fracking quakes (still unproven) to anything near a quake powerful enough to disrupt tanks strong enough to hold thousands of gallons of liquid - not to mention how much inertia those tanks have that is it's own resistance to quake damage.

    A leap of that magnitude much have incalculable waves of every released on landing - thus I think we can all agree the frothing anti-fracking mind is the real danger here.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Prepare for impact by RealGene · · Score: 1

      A tank can be strong enough to hold its contents, but not withstand an earthquake.
      Oil tanks have failed during several earthquakes.
      Here is a presentation that calculates the risk based on tank construction and dimensions: https://idrc.info/fileadmin/us...

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    2. Re:Prepare for impact by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Yes, a MAJOR quake can affect tanks. But we are talking about, at worst, micro-quakes.

      They would not be enough to overcome inherent large tank stability - not to mention the government probably ridiculously overbuilt the storage tanks for the strategic oil reserve...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  36. Nonsensical non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a problem of the energy companies, for the energy companies.

    NOT a national security issue.

    Terrorist attacks are considered exceptional events that indicate a total breakdown in civilization and its safeguards.

    Natural disasters are not exceptional at all. The tank farm operators can move the damn farm.

  37. Re:Predictable responses by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    And in 20 years, everyone will wonder why nobody saw the end coming.

    That is because they had their heads stuck up their ass.

    Ostriches with their heads stuck in fracking well holes ...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  38. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hell even Jeebus thought the end was comming in the apostles life time - so I guess God does love America!

  39. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What were they saying, hmm?

    And how does it change the fact that fracking has started and then within months, the number of earthquakes in the area shot up thirtyfold?

    What EXACTLY do you think you are saying, because, frankly, your post says FUCK ALL. It just has a sneering whine at everyone else for not being as "smart" as you.

  40. Re:Tornadoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Liberals... grow crops...?
    You can't eat marijuana, dude. Other crops require more than lamps, you know.

  41. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the idea goes back to Socrates and beyond. There are probably prehistoric cave drawings depicting the same thing.

    No, it does not. You have obviously never read any Plato or Socrates, so until you do shut up and stop repeating what people tell you.

  42. Re:Predictable responses by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Guess you would know more that the Smithsonian, right, professor?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  43. Imagine This by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    The recent hurricane in Mexico managed to miss any large cities. But if it had it had enough power to actually completely level a major city. If one of these super hurricanes smacks Miami, New Orleans or even New York it would bankrupt our nation.. I doubt that much of anything would survive wind gusts over 230 mph. with sustained winds of 200 mph.. But the sick part is that it is only a matter of time. Hurricanes will strike. They always do and with these super storms we all are in danger. So it is not just oil reservoirs but storms that could easily collapse our nation as well as other nations. And it gets worse. I seriously doubt that unless homes and businesses spent millions to harden themselves that new homes could even be built that could hold up to such storms with any confidence at all. And here we are with nothing at all being done to really protect our nation. We have denial over rising seas, global warming and the hazards of extracting too much water from the ground or fracking. People need to understand that such a strike by a major storm would take down the insurance industry which in turn would bust the banks as well as Wall Street leaving the masses with no pensions and no replacement for their dwellings or businesses. We have a very real chance of a financial holocaust triggered by such an event. And no having gold coins tucked away will do you no good at all. You simply can not eat gold or silver.

    1. Re:Imagine This by tomhath · · Score: 1

      So we shouldn't build huge cities out in the middle of tropical oceans? Okay.

    2. Re:Imagine This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one of these super hurricanes smacks Miami, New Orleans or even New York it would bankrupt our nation....And here we are with nothing at all being done to really protect our nation.

      You have no idea what you are talking about.

      Plenty of work has been done to protect things over the past few decades, starting long before global warming became a major issue. For example, many coastal communities moved from having houses right on the ocean to having them behind protective dune systems, and building codes have been massively upgraded to provide better survivability. Sensible residents, of course, still have places to stay inland in the event of a storm, since even if the building survives, essential services may be interrupted.

      In many places, the tradition of converting wetlands to "useful land" has been reversed, since we now understand that wetlands serve an important role in providing a natural form of storm protection. A lot of places, of course, don't need protection: the natural cliffs provide it, so long as structures are built far enough back from the edge.

      As a result of all the storms and wildfires and flooding in recent years, not to mention earthquakes, any large business with competent management will have implemented policies with respect to limiting the damage associated with losing a site in a single city. I had to go through that review process at my corporation recently.

      Similarly, large corporate sites are likely to now have emergency response teams, especially those sites with machine tools, potentially dangerous chemicals, or high voltages (all of which are found at any chip fab). This may even be required by law in some jurisdictions. The people on these teams (who hold normal technical jobs as well) get first responder training and gear (similar to what firefighters get), and even sometimes chemical response training and gear, at corporate expense and on corporate time.

      Losing a single city should not be catastrophic for the nation. For that matter, we lost quite of bit of New Orleans when it flooded, and that wasn't catastrophic on a national scale.

      Whether or not we are doing enough is debatable, but it is simply wrong to say that nothing is being done. Both private sector and government have taken increasing awareness of the fact that shit happens and they need to be prepared for it.

      Open your eyes.

  44. Re:Predictable responses by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Terrorists can be marginalized. BP, Shell, and Chevron's fracking? Well, that's a trade secret. Their advice is to f* off.

  45. Re:Predictable responses by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I do play in the markets but I don't speculate on commodities. I think it would be interesting if those who speculated had to accept and store the commodities, however. That might help. I imagine you'd be less likely to speculate on hogsheads if you had to accept delivery and store 1,000,000 pounds of the stuff - same for oil.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  46. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Several civilisations have come and gone since Socrates' time. The end *always* comes sooner or later. Statistically we are overdue.

  47. Re: jews- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those 'rich whites' are not nordic whites. You point to jews, it's far more than 1% there are millions in the tribe from the richest to the less rich they all do their part in the scheme to take the world and they have, all that's left is to cull this territory and that's getting underway now.

    The jews are a Race, the 'white' skin ashkenazi are part sephardic, bred with nordic whites to blend in and do their schemes. They are most all 'whites' in media, 'govt' the 'corporations', your fake smiley 'jew' neighbor fake sniveling their 'holo' bs to keep the fraud going while their plans finish off. other posts above has info. go to thread in the post, many links on others threads show how big the situation is. Jews are a race, they are not nordic whites, it was jews 'who brought the slaves to america' - by walter white archive.org. ignore dbs notes dumped onto the article he's a jew. The jews do the schemes, blame everyone else, bash general 'whites' and hide behind everyone else. See other posts and this thread
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/24/1946258/judge-tosses-wikimedias-anti-nsa-lawsuit-because-wikipedia-isnt-big-enough

    click to show all comments, also slide bar over so they all show

  48. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the 'jeezus' bs was made up by jews so idiots 'turn the other cheek' 'love your enemy' suicide by jew, also the mohammed' fables so jews control and use other races to kill each other while they made up their own religion for their Jew Race to take over the world. The 'jeezus' bs was forced on the unwilling by racial jew constantine' then tortured into people in the 'inquisitions' which tortures were done by racial jews.
    No excuse for anyone to continue swallowing the suicide, and now idiots have more slavery by jews, idiot 'phones' every 'tech' the 'wireless' bs, it was never for your benefit. Nano chip chemtrails, chemtrail virus. Get off your asses or die.
    see - jew weather weapons - post above.
    the jew are not just a religion, half in the scum tribe don't even bother with it, they are a Race. see other post and thread in post

  49. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Producers and consumers wouldn't use futures exchanges either if they had no way to close contracts early.

    Also, maybe by "hogsheads" you meant lean hogs? As it happens, those contracts are settled by cash on CME, not physical delivery. Wouldn't scare off speculators that much.

  50. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I meant pork bellies. Yes, I suck that bad. :/ We could at least try it with oil. It'd be awesome to see some dude scrambling to secure his million barrels instead of holding it off-shore for the price to rise.

    Hmm... Sorry, have to post AC. Something is eating my cookies and it logged me out trying to post this. It's probably obviously me, nobody else types the gibberish that I type.

    KGIII

  51. Re:Predictable responses by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

    "Something is eating my cookies"

    Well, obviously, you have a Cookie Monster infection....

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  52. Heh by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    It's an area that needs more research.

    While the greed pigs make money hand over fist before stealing away in the dead of night, leaving nothing but destruction (and dead-end, labyrinthine LLC shell companies) in their wake.

    Great plan!

  53. Re: jews- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews / Judaism is not a race. If you have a learning disability you may not understand the chart.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Table

  54. Re:Predictable responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually it's not. What the intro blurb utterly failed to mention is that the the US petroleum pipeline distribution system is set up on what is essentially a spoke and hub system with the Cushing facility as the central node, and there is no redundancy. Catastrophic damage to Cushing shuts down the entire pipeline system and forces the products to be moved by truck and rail which is literally about an order of magnitude more expensive and there is not even close to enough rail and road tanker capacity to handle the demand. Losing the facility for a few days will cause a short term spike in prices which we can handle due to the current low price of oil. Lose it for a time span measured in months or years, and the entire country is in fairly severe economic trouble.

  55. full of Sht Jew- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You jew troll scum distraction is a Zero. Your scum jewikipedia is full of shit as are you. You Jews are a RACE. The reason you're spewing your 'not a race' bs is so dupes don't realize you can be recognized by your FACES.

    Others, go to this thread -
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/24/1946258/judge-tosses-wikimedias-anti-nsa-lawsuit-because-wikipedia-isnt-big-enough
    click load all comments, slide bar over. Just like on this thread scum jews 'scored' up their own posts and computer generated crap to push my way down the thread when they originally were near the top, also note the scum jews distracting from my posts. I'm not going to rewrite it all here. You would Never find the information in my posts on your own now, beside most info being wiped off the web, the information took years of work. Time is short, copy the 'jew weather weapons' post further up, also the posts on the other thread to re read, give links to others -

    1. Re:full of Sht Jew- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the Jew, not me. Jesus Christ is the Lord.

  56. jew weapons - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The jew trolls loaded up more bs computer generated posts, 'scored' up posts to push my posts down thread. Scum jews desperate to distract.

    - others, see 'jew weather weapons' post further below