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.

 

Earthquake Swarm in Arkansas Intensifies. Memphis, Tennessee could be epicenter for the next big one

page: 60
287
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Marks
 


What are they in a hurry for? there brand new lube aint working as expected? i mean why whizzing?? define , number per day estimated volume per truck,, and number of "whizzes" we'll take it from there




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 9Cib27
 


no its not ,,,,,,,(*see quote below)that is what we see,, as a reaction to the release of energy,, the striking part that is,, affect.

Now
Energy thats a whole new ballgame it seems

edit on 20-2-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)


quoted *"Remember that energy is simply atoms striking against other atoms." unquoted.
edit on 20-2-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by BobAthome because: grammar

edit on 20-2-2011 by BobAthome because: spelling



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 9Cib27
 


There are between 3 and 7 mag 5+ quakes every day

Average is about 4.65



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
For all you people wandering the government's ability of forecasting earthquakes:

Publication Date
1980 Jul 16



Most estimates of the time required for safe isolation of radioactive wastes from the biosphere range from 100,000 to 1,000,000 years. For such long time spans, it is necessary to assess the potential effects of geologic processes such as volcanism and tectonic activity on the integrity of geologic repositories. Predictions of geologic phenomena can be based on probabilistic models, which assume a random distribution of events. The necessary historic and geologic records are rarely available to provide an adequate data base for such predictions. The observed distribution of volcanic and tectonic activity is not random, and appears to be controlled by extremely complex deterministic processes. The advent of global plate tectonic theory in the past two decades has been a giant step toward understanding these processes. At each potential repository site, volcanic and tectonic processes should be evaluated to provide the most thorough possible understanding of those deterministic processes. Based on this knowledge, judgements will have to be made as to whether or not the volcanic and tectonic processes pose unacceptable risk to the integrity of the repository. This report describes the potential hazards associated with volcanism and tectonism, and the means for evaluating these processes.


they need to know where to store old nuke warheads, and they don't want them to explode underground... so obviously they need to understand tectonics.

www.osti.gov...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robin Marks

Originally posted by Spectral Norm
No offense, but I doubt it. The media news outlets all seem to be parroting the AP story. The AP story appears to be based upon a single sentence by Scott Ausbrooks.

Incidentally, in that sentence is a remark this this could be a naturally occurring phenomenon. I agree that this is a possibility. But that hypothesis seems to have been summarily dismissed in this forum. I am not sure why. Perhaps because it leaves no one to blame it on?

His other idea was that the cause is saltwater disposal wells. I tend to lean in this direction myself, based upon indirect, and admittedly, largely circumstantial evidence.

But there are those here who say that any injection of water underground, no matter whether it is recovered or not, is the cause. Well, that could be, too.

I haven't seen any hint of the moon hypothesis in the media. I suppose that this could be right, but I have trouble with the fact that the difference in the gravitational acceleration of the moon at the earth between perigee and apogee is about 7.4e-6 m/s^2, or about seven and a half microns per second squared, which is pretty darned small.

Then there's the volcano hypothesis, which I have not seen on AP either. I can't really say anything about this one, having precious little knowledge of volcanology.

What we do have, that I can't find anywhere in the media outlets, is a steady stream of eyewitness reports. Thank God for them.



You know what's funny. Scott Ausbrook's has been saying the same things since December 13, 2010. Probably even earlier. Here's two reports from late last year that quote him. I wouldn't be surprised if the AP is using filed quotes. The only real new reporting is by local outlets and the NY Times piece I've posted a couple of times.

articles.cnn.com...:US

www.postchronicle.com...

I study the media. The only new thing Scott Ausbrook's is saying is when he admitted that the injection could speed up the hands of the clock. He's aknowledging that indeed the industry "could" be triggering the quakes. That's what a good reporter does, the press the issue and squeeze out the truth.



Well here he is in 2009, so it seems as if his earlier interview is being regurgitated. I winder if anyone ha actually spoken with him recently.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Are you allowing for the fact that the scale of earthquakes is logarithmic?

The energy released by an earthquake is Es = (10^(4.8+(magnitude*1.5)))/(10^9) in Gigajoules, or ^6 for Megajoules.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by herenow
Great thread by the way. Have followed it from page one, as I have the yellowstone thread.

Anyway, here is an article from Vian, Oklahoma, discussing the import of saltwater drilling waste from Arkansas.
Also, some reference to the amount that is pumped into a well. I don't recall having seen it posted and apologize if it has. I can't open all links or videos due to my limited allowed amount of broadband.

I will continue to lurk and enjoy the amazing work you folks continue to do.

findarticles.com...


In that article


Oklahoma has accepted more than a million barrels of saltwater drilling waste from Arkansas in the past three months, and as long as Arkansas continues to clamp down on its disposal within its own borders there will be more to come.


Excuse me? Is this saying that they are NOT injecting in Arkansas despite what the geologist wallah said?

In that case this must be from production wells. Google Earth is too out of date. This needs someone on the ground seeking information.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Remember there's a moratorium on new disposal wells in AR, nothing is said about using existing wells though. Since they're unable to make new sells, the waste has to go somewhere.

I still happen to think that the notion that the initial injection when the shale is broken up does not cause seismic activity is laughable. You're using millions of gallons of water at much higher pressures than when you're finished with it. Even if the initial fracturing of the shale does not register, when the water is pumped out andthe shale shattered strata begins to settle, you'd goig to have kinetic energy on a large scale.

Maybe I'm wrong. I've got no problem with that. I just want them to stop.
edit on 20-2-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


yes of course it is because that is how we record Force, its like ok we used too say "ground throw ugg over tree hahahaha" Ugg was not really hurt in this re-enactment.
and after fiddling with some numbers ie 6.0 would now be called a 5.0 opps did everyone forget that? so ya numbers help us visualize our surroundings,, of course they downgraded our visualization but our sences still work right? our sences tell us that something abnormal is happening in Ark. too which we all agree, now it takes a ;lot of energy to take X number of Tons of rock and sediment and blow it upward, the math for this has been done already.
The amount of energy now being expended at Ark. must come from something relatively new,, ok cary on going for a cig. ya i know but im old so ,,, lol



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Thank you, you said exactly what I was going to say. Maybe they've even ramped up disposal rates before their permits run expire.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 9Cib27
Could someone else check this link and see if they also see one of these quakes removed:
earthquake.usgs.gov...


MAP 3.9 2011/02/20 19:35:20 33.605 -117.276 0.1 1 km ( 1 mi) WSW of Wildomar, CA
MAP 4.5 2011/02/20 19:34:39 32.217 -115.215 2.4 13 km ( 8 mi) SW of Guadalupe Victoria, Mexico


Try not to take offence. Can you restict your observations to the Arkansas area? I even think there is influence for the moon, and from other faults. But as you may noticed, there's a consensus on where the focus stay. Hell, I'd post photo's of UFO's is it was proven it was over Arkansas at the exact moment of a quake. We need to make our connections short and true, to make a good and strong chain. I followed you curiousity about the moon. But it doesn't seem to correlate. You should read puterman's numbers don't matter. I agree with the majority of it. I break company when we talk about the tiny ones. Those are the ones I watch.

Thanks everyone. And thanks for the history lesson. Scott Ausbrooks is consistent.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 9Cib27
 


They drop quakes all the time. And change them. Locations. Depths. If they were dropping quakes in Arkansas that were showing up on the webicorders I'd be having hissy fits. Like I tried to say, don't take offence. The quake folks our here are a great resource. Puterman for example has lists of deleted quakes and tell what's a normal rate and what's abnormal. Your bringing up the volcano is relevant because there is a rift under the area.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
A very interesting thread you have going Robin.

Reading through what has been posted brings to mind a number of thoughts which I will share.

The debate is not resolved for the origin or cause for this swarm – natural or anthropomorphic. Either way it does deserve some attention as the current swarm is an anomaly to the more prevalent state of geologic calm for the region. Arkansas is not known for its significant seismic activity, but activity in the area is not uncommon or unheard of.

The local authority suggesting a link between the EQ’s and waste water disposal is likely onto something but the something may be much larger than the physical distracter of low to moderate intensity ground movement currently going on.

I will attempt to make an analogy. Military personnel often return from the theatre of battle missing legs or arms, showing visible scars of other injuries, scars and evidence of their experience. These people are readily noted and accepted by their employer, and the population at large, as having a disability. In the analogy their physical appearance is similar to feeling an EQ. There is a more sinister quiet experience causing strain on the returning, or still serving, military personnel. Those are stresses to their psyche which cause breakdown and collapse for “no apparent reason.” Because their physical presentation may be that of ‘normal,’ they couldn’t have a service injury. This is absolutely bogus!!! It is this invisible and sinister effect which MUST be given more attention. Back to the EQ’s. Are there sinister and quiet effects affected by waste disposal which we are ignoring in light of the very noticeable increase in EQ’s? I say a resounding, “Yes.”

On a professional level I have some (limited) familiarity with oil and gas exploration from Western Colorado and the eastern Texas and western Louisiana gulf coasts’. Hydraulic fracturing is commonly used to encourage organics to release from pores in the substrate, the substrate often being fissile shales which were formed by burial and compression or organic materials. How these organic materials managed to get into beds thousands – even tens of thousands – of feet below the surface is a mystery, but their presence and discovery is one of the primary basis for modern life as it is currently assumed.

At depth shale is not the mess it is attributed as by some posters on this topic. It is still fissile and porous.

Hydraulic fracturing or simply fracking has played a major role in expanding the productive life of many oil and gas deposits. From an economic and sociologic appearance it has been a very beneficial practice. Each of us has profited from the technology.

But are there consequences to fracking? People here already have an idea about what fracking is. There is another source of this contaminated water which must be disposed of through pressure disposal in old wellheads. This is the ‘waste’ water resulting from drilling wells – both production and exploratory holes going deep into the earth. This water is referred to simply as ‘heavy water.’ I will assume these products to be synonyms – which is not absolutely correct, but they were both hauled in frac trucks for disposal. Frac trucks because of their high level of contamination were kept at dirty storage areas so as to not cause cross contamination with ‘clean’ water trucks. The trucks are also limited in size because of the extreme weight of the water they are carrying for disposal. What does this say about the product they were carrying – injecting into the ground?

The solution of the liquid used in fracturing as well as the content of the heavy water is a guarded industry secret. It is purported that the water used in fracking is recycled and reused for ‘a period of time, almost indefinitely.” This may be true, however the recovered liquid in the recycling process is purged of contaminants – concentrations of unknown chemicals of the solution itself, binding substrates intentionally injected for the intended purpose for the specific stage of production they were in, as well as lubricants – particularly during production, to allow easier permeation of substrate, and radioactive isotopes impregnated in the original solution. The radioactive materials are added to the solution to allow imaging of the substrate at depth as well as quality control of things such as well casings – of which after Deep Water Horizons – we know are of limited value once industry profits are compromised by unexpected delays …

So once the contaminants in the (fracturing fluid) water are removed they must be disposed of. As they are removed they are stored in solution until the solution will hold no more contaminants. The solution is loaded on to frac trucks for transport to disposal sites.

Until the mid-1990’s it was common practice to empty the trucks in multi-level evaporation ponds. Initially these ponds were unlined, then later lined to theoretically contain contaminants and preclude their introduction into the environment – soil and groundwater. Many times these pits were open to the environment allowing birds and animals easy access. The result on these animals was deadly! Later nets were supposed to be put over the frac ponds to prevent most access to the ponds.

Well, these ponds were not safe, the environment – both soil and animals – were not protected. After enough complaints some sites – most needed it – were identified as significant environmental hazards contaminating ground water, crop production, etc and were identified as Superfund Sites in the United States. Unfortunately other countries have been less proactive in the dealings with fracking contaminants.

A note – because the composition of the fracking fluid was and mostly still is, a trade secret the entities tasked with clean up did not know what they were looking for or was causing the contamination so had to use time-consuming and costly forensic techniques to potentially identify what the industry was subjecting the ecosystems to …

The cost of superfund sites was prohibitive so a new and “better” disposal method was needed.

This is what is being used in Arkansas – as well as many other places! High pressure, reinjection into the substrate very deep underground utilizing access points which were otherwise useless – abandoned boreholes.

So what, you ask? The porosity of production shales also is conducive to aquifer formation at many depths, sometimes stacked aquifers.

Where do the reinjected contaminants go? Into the aquifers ...?

What happens to these contaminants? They end up in drinking water supplies which are then of no value or domestic use. The industry will not admit to contaminating aquifers with reinjection but there are several remote communities, ranches, etc – most well known being in Wyoming – where the oil and gas industry is providing potable water to homes, communities and even livestock producers because the water contamination bears traces which can be easily tracked back to the potential fracking solutions.

This is the sinister and silent affect of far greater and long-lasting impact on society than the current and experiential symptom of EQ’s.

It needs attention, however through extensive lobbying (perhaps $70,000,000) between 2005 and 2010 by the oil and gas industry they obtained a protection clause in the Clean Water Act exempting them of liability or the affect of their deep, high pressure injection practices of disposal of highly contaminated, very concentrated frac fluids.

One more question. Why more EQ’s at high-pressure disposal sites then at production sites? The answer may lie in the different pressures necessary to extract the product as compared to the pressure necessary to manage effective reintroduction of the contaminated fluid back in to substrate …

Now, if casings were engineered for potentially lower pressures during resource extraction and greater pressure is needed for reintroduction of waste fluid are the borehole casings capable of withstanding the greater pressure over a sustained period used during reinjection? If a casing has rupture would it account for different EQ depths?

Different EQ depths may also be correlateable to borehole depths. Just some thoughts to fuel the conspiratress spirit here.

Not to downplay the effect of hydraulic fracturing fluids in deep wells has great potential for a much more serious effect then the current swarm of low to moderate intensity EQ’s. Yes there could be a ‘big’ one, but that is still just a damage identifiable to point in time. Even if there is serious damage recovery can be made and the next major EQ event will most likely be many years in the future and probably not linked to hydraulic reinjection

On the other hand ground water contamination is a long-term problem which is virtually untreatable. The time for which the contaminants leave the system is very long and it must be waited out for contaminants at depth – look how much effort it takes to simply clean out around the faulty, surface fuel tanks at the petrol station.

Disposal of frac water – heavy waters – must be done in a more responsible way to prevent significant problems for a future generation.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arluk
 


Other than the fact u should be in front of Congress saying this,,, just how big are these bore holes and why are they popping? pressure yes but is it like a layer effect layer 1 2 and 3 have popped but there is still 45678 and 9 to go so dont worry? just how does this injection foam? ie honeycombed ?? work??



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Okay, I am back from church.


Looks like a 3.0 to 3.5 right now...anyone feel that one?


WOW...look at the siesmo on this...multiple snaps all together. worrisome...IRIS seismo
edit on 20-2-2011 by westcoast because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Somebody forget too factor in,,, sunspot activity ie Energy. into there foam hardner solution???? to account for increase in Energy from the microwave radiation boiling that 200 p.s.i contaned pressure vesle ie kettle???




top topics



 
287
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join