It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Geological Survey confirms: Human activity caused 5.7 quake in Oklahoma

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   


The United States Geological Survey (USGS) issued a press release yesterday indicating that the magnitude 5.7 earthquake that struck Prague, Oklahoma in 2011 was unintentionally human-induced.

The USGS claims that the magnitude 5.0 earthquake triggered by waste-water injection the previous day “trigger[ed] a cascade of earthquakes, including a larger one, [which] has important implications for reducing the seismic risk from waste-water injection.”

U.S. Geological Survey confirms: Human activity caused 5.7 quake in Oklahoma

This is great news! Perhaps the Fraking industry will now be held accountable for earthquake induced damage. I have known that fraking is not only bad for the water but bad for the planets crust. Simple logic dictates that if one cracks the rocks a mile deep that stability will be affected.

Does this count as Human Induced Climate Change? Seems it should be as when when starts having quakes where none were previously present.



BTW I tossed in the climate change thing just to wind up the deniers.




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 



Despite this risk, authorities in Oklahoma continue to allow waste-water injection near the Wilzetta fault.

Oh well, guess the risk doesn't outweigh the rewards. It's just a few tremors, no big deal. My concern with these fracking operations is groundwater/table contamination in general but especially with these quakes occurring, potentially connecting the chemical treated water to a good water source. It is logically inevitable, no?
More links with other states cleaning tremors from drilling and injection.


Smaller earthquakes tied to oil and gas activities in the past few years have triggered bigger reactions in other states.

In Texas, Chesapeake Energy Corp. shut down two wells near the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in 2009 after they were linked to much smaller, magnitude-3.3 quakes (Greenwire, March 11, 2010).

Ohio this year called in a team of seismologists from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to study a series of earthquakes in Youngstown that culminated in a magnitude-4 event on New Year's Day. Three months later, state officials announced that the quake had likely been caused by a new injection well, which had already been shut down (Greenwire, March 9). They also proposed rules banning new injection wells near faults. Earlier this month, Gov. John Kasich (R) deemed the situation an emergency and told regulators to implement them immediately (EnergyWire, July 12).

In north-central Arkansas, several residents are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the operators of four wells linked to a "swarm" of earthquakes as large as magnitude 4.7 (EnergyWire, July 5). State officials say the shaking diminished after regulators shut down all injection last year.

www.eenews.net...
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
edit on 7-3-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 




Does this count as Human Induced Climate Change? Seems it should be as when when starts having quakes where none were previously present.

BTW I tossed in the climate change thing just to wind up the deniers.


Human Induced Geological Change might be a more accurate term. Other than that though I agree, this is very good news.

These frakking companies better have large insurance policies in place for when they finally set off the big one. It's only a matter of time but then they'll probably try to claim it was an "act of god."



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I have to admit I am somewhat amazed the the USGS was able to print these findings without interference from the energy people.

Fraking make me think of being targeted for destruction by an alien race that uses space based weapons to crack up the planet. Only it's worse because we are doing it to ourselves.

Someday in the future someone/thing in the Universe is going to look at what we did to our Home World in absolute disbelief.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
"Confirms?" Not exactly. But it is interesting that low level earthquakes may indeed trigger stronger ones under the right circumstances. Whether or not those larger quakes would have happened on their own is hard to determine. Sort of like if cloud seeding really works.

Here's an earlier paper by the same authors on the topic:
www.csun.edu...


edit on 3/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Mamatus

This is great news!


Pathetic.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


You people who are against fracking throw these terms like "proof" and "destruction" out about fracking like you know what you are talking about.

This article is hardly proof of anything! Show the people a better way for you to heat your house, drive your car, power your phone, etc....and I will listen!

This is the best way currently and there are almost no risks compared to the benefits of why they extract gas/oil this way. Risks, I am saying proven risks, which there are very few if any....Compare that to other energy sources, compare that to any other profession in the world and you will start to see that this process is very good for what we get in return!



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The USGS investigating the cause of earthquakes, what a novel idea....here in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has the Railroad Commission investigating the cause of a recent swarm of earthquakes near the DFW area.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



This is the best way currently and there are almost no risks compared to the benefits of why they extract gas/oil this way. Risks, I am saying proven risks, which there are very few if any....Compare that to other energy sources, compare that to any other profession in the world and you will start to see that this process is very good for what we get in return!


It's all relative. It's not really "good for what we get in return." It's good under the conditions we have created for ourselves. If the population could sustain itself at about 1/6th of what it is, flat line it's growth and consumption, and find better efficiency in everything it does, we would see "good for our returns".

It's kind of like watching a junkie keep switching drugs and each time claiming the next one is better because well, jeez, all those scabs fell off, oh but my veins are collapsing now… But there's still time… not fully collapsed yet!
edit on 7-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

boncho
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



This is the best way currently and there are almost no risks compared to the benefits of why they extract gas/oil this way. Risks, I am saying proven risks, which there are very few if any....Compare that to other energy sources, compare that to any other profession in the world and you will start to see that this process is very good for what we get in return!


It's all relative. It's not really "good for what we get in return." It's good under the conditions we have created for ourselves. If the population could sustain itself at about 1/6th of what it is, flat line it's growth and consumption, and find better efficiency in everything it does, we would see "good for our returns".

It's kind of like watching a junkie keep switching drugs and each time claiming the next one is better because well, jeez, all those scabs fell off, oh but my veins are collapsing now… But there's still time… not fully collapsed yet!
edit on 7-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Yeah Boncho, but there are a lot of IF'S in that statement! If we did this and if we did that....That is not our situation and like I said, risk to reward in our current situation is amazing for fracking, honestly!

If we did do the things you spoke about using less, etc....Then I would agree with you on saying we can find other ways for energy....Currently that isn't an option and fracking is really the safest way to extract it out of the ground...There are very few instances where something happened because of it...Sorry, proven instances....



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


"You people?" Manners? How would you like to hear "you people who support fracking and throw around words like safe and trustworthy, like you know what you're talking about." That is a generalization and kind of rude no?
How about coming into a thread saying you disagree and here is why. "You people" is so 20th century!

There are cases of danger and destruction with fracking, which is why it is becoming banned in some states/areas. Imo, it is not just the procedure but the potential lack of safety measures which cost money and diligence and sometimes falls through the cracks.
Sources:
keeptapwatersafe.org...
www.latimes.com...
I guess I just see it as not so black and white. We could both be right, as in yes fracking can be relatively safe and yes there are concerns and negative effects, so we should take care to follow safety guidelines and make the best of it for everyone's sake, the energy co and citizens.
I also acknowledge the attitude that arises in these situations,but I personally do not see it as 'either/or' situation,but more of how can it be done with minimum impact on fault pressure or water quality.
edit on 7-3-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Chrisfishenstein

boncho
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



This is the best way currently and there are almost no risks compared to the benefits of why they extract gas/oil this way. Risks, I am saying proven risks, which there are very few if any....Compare that to other energy sources, compare that to any other profession in the world and you will start to see that this process is very good for what we get in return!


It's all relative. It's not really "good for what we get in return." It's good under the conditions we have created for ourselves. If the population could sustain itself at about 1/6th of what it is, flat line it's growth and consumption, and find better efficiency in everything it does, we would see "good for our returns".

It's kind of like watching a junkie keep switching drugs and each time claiming the next one is better because well, jeez, all those scabs fell off, oh but my veins are collapsing now… But there's still time… not fully collapsed yet!
edit on 7-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Yeah Boncho, but there are a lot of IF'S in that statement! If we did this and if we did that....That is not our situation and like I said, risk to reward in our current situation is amazing for fracking, honestly!

If we did do the things you spoke about using less, etc....Then I would agree with you on saying we can find other ways for energy....Currently that isn't an option and fracking is really the safest way to extract it out of the ground...There are very few instances where something happened because of it...Sorry, proven instances....


I admit that by our nature the "ifs" are not likely, probably not going to happen, or should they, it will take a very long time to implement. In any case, I think at the very least we say, yes, we're ruining xyz but at least were getting _____ out of it! I don't have a problem with it, I find it humorous to a certain degree. I just get annoyed by the blanket acceptance of what we do and the denial of its consequences. I think everyone should ride the guilt of their human nature. Instead of pretend that everything we do is a'ok.

We are a terribly destructive group of beings.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Speaking of people that don't know what they are talking about..........

check it out....

thinkprogress.org...#


crooksandliars.com...
www.nytimes.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...




edit on 7-3-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Do you guys really have any sense of scale and force? While there may be many pros/cons to the environmental debate, basic structural engineering of the earth's crust would seem to count out anything but minor, shallow quakes.
Fire away.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

PsychoEmperor

Mamatus

This is great news!


Pathetic.


Why is it?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

PsychoEmperor

Mamatus

This is great news!


Pathetic.


The sprawling depth of your response is the stuff dreams are made of. I love seeing people with 13 posts and shiny avatars adding to the diverse content of ATS. Maybe next time you could try two words. One step at a time though as I would hate to see someone capable of such valuable content overwhelmed.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This from USGS own website science pages if anyone doubts...

www.usgs.gov...

I'm not commenting on the safety of the procedure just bringing another source for the story.
edit on PMu31u0331026312014-03-07T15:26:27-06:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 

Yes, and compare what title and article in the OP says to what the USGS actually says.
U.S. Geological Survey confirms: Human activity caused 5.7 quake in Oklahoma

The USGS claims that the magnitude 5.0 earthquake triggered by waste-water injection the previous day “trigger[ed] a cascade of earthquakes, including a larger one, [which] has important implications for reducing the seismic risk from waste-water injection.”

Confirmed?
USGS claims what?




The research published this week suggests that the foreshock, by increasing stresses where M5.7 mainshock ruptured, may have triggered the mainshock, which in turn, triggered thousands of aftershocks along the Wilzetta fault system, including a M5.0 aftershock on November 8, 2011. If this hypothesis is correct, the M5.7 earthquake would be the largest and most powerful earthquake ever associated with wastewater injection.

www.usgs.gov...


Can't really tell where this came from either:

The 5.7 magnitude quake in Prague followed an injection of waste-water approximately 650 feet away from the Wilzetta fault zone, a complex fault system about 124 miles in length.
www.rawstory.com...

Seems rawstory doesn't exactly use raw information.

edit on 3/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Headlines are often deceptive. Don't shoot the messenger though as it is a requirement to use the headline of the article.

I will stand by my thoughts that simple logic dictates that fraking will decrease the stability of the rocks.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Mamatus
Headlines are often deceptive. Don't shoot the messenger though as it is a requirement to use the headline of the article.

I will stand by my thoughts that simple logic dictates that fraking will decrease the stability of the rocks.

I understand the requirements for Breaking Alternative News. That doesn't excuse distortions in headlines or the text of the article. Such distortions are not conducive to denying ignorance.

You understand that it's not actually the fraking process being discussed, right? It's the injection of fraking wastewater which may induce earthquakes. Fraking is not the only process which uses injection wells.

There is also a chance that by allowing pressure to be released by smaller quakes, larger quakes may be prevented.

edit on 3/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join