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.

 

Human activity caused 5.7 quake in Oklahoma

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:58 AM
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.”


Finally they are coming out and saying that not only does water injection under pressure cause quakes, but that it can cuase significant quakes.


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. All three earthquakes exhibited a slip-strike motion, and did so at three different locations, indicating that three separate areas of the fault zone were activated.


There has been a thread about this before by member Maria Lida, and on that thread member AQuestion stated


The scientists did not say that drilling "caused" the quake. They said it was possible; but, even that is a big stretch. They have been drilling oil in Oklahoma for quite a while. The truth is that we are having earthquakes in places where we have not traditionally had them and we don't know why.


It would appear that not only was it not a big stretch but that it was a fact. The statement on the 6th specifically states that the pressure injection triggered the quake. Now some may say ah but that is not 'causing' the quake as it would have happened anyway and I would agree that the quake would have happened as the fault obviously had sufficient stress to rupture.

The question is when it finally ruptured, would the energy release have been as great without the 'lubrication' of the pressure injected fluids? In my opinion no, and additionally would the 'unlubricated' fault have given rise to the swarm that has ensued? In my opinion no on both counts.

This latest release of information by the USGS is actually an update to earlier statement that the quake 'may have been caused by' or 'was likely caused by' pressure injection.

ATS search for Oklahoma quake




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I am not surprised by this at all. The French tested their Nuclear bombs in the Pacific Ocean and everything is "ok" [/sarcasm]






posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I am always wary of any report that a government agency puts out. Especially USGS, or the EPA. I live in Oklahoma and yes we do have minor tremors. But it has been proven several times that fracking does not cause earthquakes. Look at this way. How could we as humans inject enough water into this HUGE planet of Earth to cause such tremors. We are so small and planet is so BIG. The footprint of 1 well would be miniscule and not noticeable. IMHO



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by billbrown62
 



I am always wary of any report that a government agency puts out. Especially USGS, or the EPA.


Agreed BUT when they put out a report confirming something that frankly they don't actually want to admit one should take notice. It is not in their interests to confirm this.


I live in Oklahoma and yes we do have minor tremors. But it has been proven several times that fracking does not cause earthquakes.


I beg to differ sort of. They are using mind tricks on you. Yes it has been shown that fracking probably does not cause earthquake BUT and this is a very big BUT, the disposal of waste water in high pressure injection wells DOES cause earthquakes and has been proven to do so many times now.


Look at this way. How could we as humans inject enough water into this HUGE planet of Earth to cause such tremors. We are so small and planet is so BIG. The footprint of 1 well would be miniscule and not noticeable. IMHO


That if you will please excuse me from saying so is the attitude of mind that leads to these disasters. (This could not possibly do any harm so we will just go on doing it. 1 well then 5, then 50 then 500 then 20,000 and so on) How do you know the footprint of one well, or whether it would have any effect? The well bore may be three feet across or whatever it is but the effect of pressurised water can be far reaching. Gas escapes into the water table are only from one well. This affects more than one person. Bayou Corne is only one collapse in a salt dome and very small by comparison to the whole complex. How many people are still excluded from their homes? Macondo was only one well. Look at the damage that caused. Fukushima was only on nuclear power station yet it may still kill all of us.

If there is any proof that things we do are detrimental then we should not do them, or should strive to find less harmful alternatives. Is the pursuit of profit ANY justification for destruction of the environment?
edit on 8/3/2014 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


F&S&
...loam just brought this 2005 thread back up - you might be interested.

Quakes trigger Quakes














edit on 8/3/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


He he, love your stars value: ave. stars per post: 788.17 Wow!! (member stars: 10,691,547) Seems you fell a bit short of your average on the post above so far!
)

Yes quake triggering is quite interesting, but I had not heard of the 'shock absorber' theory before. I will investigate that. Tx.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

billbrown62
reply to post by PuterMan
 


How could we as humans inject enough water into this HUGE planet of Earth to cause such tremors. We are so small and planet is so BIG. The footprint of 1 well would be miniscule and not noticeable. IMHO

If you have a huge potential energy somewhere it may only need a small event to release it.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Good thread, Puterman.

The injection induced quakes just keep on coming. From GEE:


I don't see it listed anywhere yet...give it another hour. From watching this station over the past few months, I guess it is mag 3.5 ish.
Maybe a bit larger.

USGS reports Mag 3.4
edit on 3/10/2014 by Olivine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


...I had not heard of the 'shock absorber' theory before. I will investigate that. Tx.


Please, let me know if you find it. I developed the theory over 50 years ago when I was in Grade 4 or 5 but never published - seems to be a serious no-brainer though.




RE: 10,691,550 stars. I was so excited when I hit 10 million. lol. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and his glitchy ways are most mysterious.



new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join