To celebrate this thread's 200th page, I have a guest speaker. Well, it's not like I could actually get Jim Berkland to write on this thread, but I
can provide his words and feelings on the Arkansas swarm. In all honesty, I don't think he's paid special attention to the specific events. For
example, he calls attention to fracking but doesn't mention the injection wells or provide any references to back up his assessment. I think it's so
obvious to him that it needed little investigation to determine a correlation.
"Of special mention were the hundreds of felt eathquakes in central Arkansas over the past two months, *(see, he hasn't really been on top of the case
like myself, the swarm started early last fall.) including the maximum of 4.7M on February 27th. I am convinced that these quakes were the direct
result of deep drilling for gas and hydro-fracturing of the rock in the area of central Arkansas. Denials by scientists and commercial interests
regarding this obvious relationship are ridiculous."
Ridiculous. I did just that. I ridiculed the USGS and Scott Ausbrook in particular. I've hammered hard on the gas industry and legislators.
I'm calling out Scott Ausbrook ------ to be finished. Sorry, it's Scott Ausbrooks, I had to go check.
I'm calling out Scott Ausbrooks!!! I'm challenging him to a debate. I would debate him even though I am an "ineducated ingoranmous". I can stand toe
to toe with him on the facts, and would not be caught in the trap of being unable to follow most of the jargon. Although not fluent, and not having a
degree, I can understand the language. It's like a person who learns english as a second language. I may not understand all the nuances, and I may
have a thick accent and use a lot of slang, but I'm not stupid, and can follow simple reasoning.
If Scott Ausbrooks had any moral fibre, he'd quit. I'm saying he has very little testosterone coarsing through his viens. I'd call him out for a
fist-fight if that's what it took. No where, not in heaven or on earth, can he make an argument that fracturing and injection aren't have negative
consequences. To deny this is to dishonest and means he is willing to risk people's lives in order to keep his job. That's what keeps people in these
positions. They will deny the truth due to personal ambition. Scott Ausbrooks professional career means more to him than the health and safety of the
citizens of Arkansas. He doesn't care if the water is poisoned. He doesn't care if the air you breath is full of hydro-carbons. Volitile organic
compounds. He doesn't care if your tap water catches fire or your water wells explode. His piece of paper with his degree, and the authority and the
cash, over-ride his sense of dignity and capacity for compassion.
But Robin, isn't he just being responsible and trying to determine the cause before jumping to any conclusions?
He's in the business of risk assessment. He should be erring on the side of caution. Because if the injection wells are to blame, his delay could
result in something unexpected. And this already has happened. The fault is twice as long as the thought and he's had to raise his maximum for a
significant quake. He's raised the risk factor and now he thinks a 6 magnitude earthquake is possible. A 6M earthquake in the soils of Arkansas is a
bigger risk than other siesmic zones. He knows this. It would be like Christchurch in New Zealand. Lots of damage. It is obvious that Scott Ausbrooks
doesn't mind gambling. He would rather put the families of Arkansas in danger rather than point out the obvious. He was ready to wait another 6 months
of continued injection by the Guy and Greenbrier sites. And he's still willing to roll the dice because he hasn't raised concerns that the other
injection wells throughtout the state that may cause another fault to develop. Nope. He's just going to sit back and watch the siesmographs dance. And
wonder about the cause.
I stopped my wonderment long ago. The cause was obvious and to deny it means you are a danger. A danger to the people of Arkansas.
Ridiculous. No, it's more than that. It's immoral and criminal.
If the injection had continued, and the fault had ruptured causing a 6M earthquake. It would be manslaughter.
Criminal negligence causing death.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)