Did corporate oil companies cause the Tsunami/Earthquake?

Originally posted by Valhall
I personally don't believe that sonic monitoring could have caused this particular earthquake...there's a mismatch of energy in and energy out. This was too huge for nothing but sound pulses to trigger.

Business school grad here, so all you scientist/engineer types be gentle with me: it's my understanding that a relatively small amount of energy can trigger the release of stored potential energy. I believe that's what syntaxer is examining -- whether the sonic bombardment could have served as a trigger to release the stored energy in the tectonic plates themselves.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

I'm wondering if this continuous sound bombardment may have actually been progressively amplified along the tectonic plates.

What comes to mind is the way a reverberation chamber bounces sound waves.
Some use a spring, some use a plate to enhance sound.

IF...
there is any truth to this theory, we may never know the outcome.
We would be talking about the largest mass class action suite of all time.
The hold these oil companies have on politicians will very likely strangle
any attempt to prosecute them .

Australia Pledges $764M in Tsunami Aid

Could the Australian government be carrying a guilty conscience? If you enjoy entertaining yourself with this conspiracy, check out the article which may add further substance to this theory.

Originally posted by sandge
whether the sonic bombardment could have served as a trigger to release the stored energy in the tectonic plates themselves.

Its just not reasonable. It'd be like a gun going off because dust is settling on the barrel. One might as well lump the sonic charges in the same class as the noise from the engine or whale belches. There's way too much of a gap between the energies involved in earthquakes and the energies involved in these sesimic techniques.

Originally posted by Nygdan
It'd be like a gun going off because dust is settling on the barrel.

Well, it sounds good, but I'm not sure that it's a comparable example. A bullet just sitting in a gun is at rest; it takes a lot of energy (relatively speaking) to get it moving. The tectonic plates are *not* at rest; they're constantly pushing against each other, building up lots of tension that will at some point be released.

If the plates in question were already strained to the breaking point, is it not at least possible (note that I did not say "probable") that some outside action served as the trigger to release that tension?

I am a geologist and can comment on this, I work with the same data which you people are talking about, i.e seismic. Many of you have got the wrong idea.

Yes there is a lot of debate at the moment concerning the use of airguns and the effect on ocean life. In the early days however they used to use explosives, and trust me that is a lot more harmful.

But the use of airguns cannot trigger an earthquake, they are simply not powerful enough, I know they seem to have a lot of energy but 200db is not a massive amount as the energy dissipates a great deal before it hits the sea bed.

I believe sandge is refering to the seismic vibrations releasing kinetic energy, as opposed to your example nydan which involves a mechanical energy theory.

Remember these ocean "sound bombings" have been conducting since the 60's which penetrate 40 kilometres into solid rock/earth. It is thesible these vibrations have progressed, or released kinetic tectonic plate energy causing the ensuing earthquake/tsunami.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by syntaxer]

Syntaxer: Did you not read my post????

There is NO way that an airgun or another seismic source used in exploration could trigger an earthquake.

Also the figure of 40km penetration is incorrect. The typical value is 5km, the oceanic crust is only around 7-10km thick anyway so 40km would put you in the upper mantle. Oil typically isn't found deeper then 5km.

Originally posted by Rock Hunter
There is NO way that an airgun or another seismic source used in exploration could trigger an earthquake.

Rock Hunter -- pretend for a moment that we're not all geologists. Of course I'm not saying that sonic bombardment could cause an earthquake in an area of no significant seismic activity. But that's not the case, here.

Picture this example: a gentle push is not enough to move a car sitting at rest on a flat road. However, that same gentle push just might be enough to move a car if it's balanced precariously on the edge of a cliff, i.e. greater potential of movement.

At least, that's how it always works in the movies.

In all seriousness, if this is basically a silly question, and I'll never understand the answer without pages of theory and equations, just give me a thumbs-up and I'll be quiet.

the explanation i saw on discovery channel last night showed the two plates breaking apart, with one plate thrusting UPWARDS due to tremendous pressure from BELOW, which created the waves.

could the sound blasting have had an effect on the plates ? sure, anything is possible. I just think this was due to our ever-changing planet doing what it does. the only constant is change.

Sandge: The movement of faults doesn't work like this, the fault that ruptured too produce the 9.0 magnitude earthquake was around 1000km long, an airgun souce let off even on the fault, let alone 10km above, would still not trigger the fault to move.

Also thousands of seismic surveys have been done over much more active regions around the world with no problems whatsoever.

I respect everybody discussing this, but everbody seems to have the wrong idea.



[edit on 6-1-2005 by Rock Hunter]

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Rock Hunter]

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Rock Hunter]

Another possibility is that some nations could have been testing nukes. France has done it under the ocean.
India and Pakistan have nukes; they need somewhere to test them.

But if oil companies are using air guns then maybe that�s not enough to cause any direct effect on the plates. But they have been giving tax breaks to explore for oil and gas, so are they using more powerful methods to detect these resources?

You can only do so much to the planet before a chain reaction will occur.

Question is, why has the mainstream media not mentioned the Tasmanian quake. Surely some comment from them would be in order as the two quakes are so close together in time and space?


[edit on 6-1-2005 by wolfphantom]

Originally posted by Rock Hunter
Sandge: The movement of faults doesn't work like this...

Also thousands of seismic surveys have been done over much more active regions around the world with no problems whatsoever.

I respect everybody discussing this, but everbody seems to have the wrong idea.

That's why we need folks like you with expertise on the subject matter to clarify the fallacies in our suppositions. Thanks for your input, Rock Hunter.

Originally posted by sandge

Originally posted by Rock Hunter
Sandge: The movement of faults doesn't work like this...

Also thousands of seismic surveys have been done over much more active regions around the world with no problems whatsoever.

I respect everybody discussing this, but everbody seems to have the wrong idea.

That's why we need folks like you with expertise on the subject matter to clarify the fallacies in our suppositions. Thanks for your input, Rock Hunter.

Yes, until a proven geologist can clarify the fallacies in our theories, we can only speculate based on common physics/science knowledge.

Good input Rock Hunter!

I only question the following processes in sequence that oil companies perform once they discover a fruitful location to extract oil?

- Is it common to dynamite your way through oceanic floor before drilling?
- If so, how many pounds/tons of TNT are used per detonation? (avg)
- Would oil companies dynamite between tectonic plates to extract oil?

Or, please provide us with a few theories to which oil companies might hold responsibility in the earthquake/tsunami.

I said please

Dynamite is not used to extract oil, it is drilled for.

Explosives are not used in any form, until the well has been fully drilled. At this point a small charge is used to fracture the concrete casing at the bottom of the well. When set off this charge fires large metal balls, or projectiles out laterally which fracture the concrete and allow oil to flow upwards and into the well. This charge is very small (I do not know the exact figure in kg).


In my honest opinion as a geologist I do not think that any oil company has caused this, I'm sorry if this dissapoints a lot of people, the region in which this earthquake occured is one of the most tectonically active regions in the world and unfortunatly I think it was just a disastorous work of nature and I don't think that there is any other explanations such as a meteorite impact etc. Sorry!!

In response to the earlier comment on the possibility of it being a nucleur test, this is very unlikely, as a nuclear explosion gives off a distinctive set of vibrations that are picked up by same seismometer networkl that pick up the earthquake vibrations. If it was a nuclear explosion it would have been quickly known to scientists around the world because of this distinctive signature. This process is exactly the same as the one the US used back in the 60's to keep an eye on nuclear tests carried out in the old u.s.s.r and other countries.

Err, if this was the very first earthquake ever then it might well be worth looking what might have caused it. However there are around 20,000 earthquakes every year of various sizes, this being particularly strong one occuring in a very unfortunate place.

Are all the rest of the earthquakes that have ever occured for the last few million years caused by oil companies? It would seem unlikely, unless they also possess some sort time travel equipment provided by the Illuminati or aliens or whatever. So why should there be any suspicion over this one?

There are literally thousands of scientists all over the planet analysing the data from this quake and none of them has yet come out and said any of it indicates anything other than a normal, naturally occuring event. If some anaylsis comes out and says something different in the future, then fair enough, though until then it is just pure speculation. You might as well say it was triggered by a swarm of killer bees, as there is as much evidance for this as to the oil companies being guilty.

I wonder if all of the oil is being removed from the ground would have an effect on an earthquake? It appears to me that the void the removed oil leaves has to be filled up with something. Be it more oil, gas or magma. Interesting topic and I would like to see some more posts on this subject.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
According to Billy Meier's Pleaidians. The actions of drilling into the earth is causing an increase in tectonic activity. I am not a geologist, so I have no idea how scientific the theory is. However, I certainly do not believe in "random" events. There is nothing random about the universe.

Astrologers can appreciate that ya'll
overlooked the = 'blood moon' = on 27 October...which was a significant 60 days before that quake & tsunami in Oceania

there are omens associated with the eclipsed moon aka. 'blood moon'

just dissing the sun-earth-moon alignment as a negligible, gravitational stress factor...only underscores the conflict which physics/science models insist on-> in contrast to meta-physics,
including the Gaia principle reaction , which those Pleaidians' noted

One might entertain the notion that a 'preventive explosion' might be
a scientific method of assisting the earth to have less devestating, controlled earthquakes in the future.
As the monitors that are to be installed for a regional tsunami warning system, can double up as the stress-buildup/seismic activity monitors, and
the US AtomicDemolitionTeams (with UN oversight) can place a device at a proper position ,,,to hopefully cause maybe a series of minor quakes....
escaping another really destructive ,christmas '04 tsunami event

&

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
It appears to me that the void the removed oil leaves has to be filled up with something.

The oil is not stored in something like caverns underground. Similar to water, its stored in something like pore spaces in the rocks. However, you are correct in that slumping and subsiding can sometimes occur because of this. As for it affecting an earthquake or tectonic plates, as Rock Hunter noted, the plates and their boundaries are huge, enourmous. They are powered by convection in the mantle itself, or even the pull of massive cold downthrusting slabs. The crust is very very thin, relative to the planet, and its being 'run' by matters in the rest of the planet that would overpower and dominate anything happing in the small portion of the crust that man affects. The effects of man are meaningless compared to these forces.

Nyden: I couldn't have put it better myself!!

Whether or not one agrees with either of the methods proposed at the following links, one thing they agree on is the size, readiness and prepareness, and heavily armoured nature of the US flotilla delivering humanitarian aid to the region, looking more like an army of occupation
Suggesting more than a result of the oil companies tinkerings, and weighing the scale on the acquisition of benefits

www.conspiracynewsnet.com...

www.vialls.com...