Could the 6.4 quake (9/9/11) in Vancouver be a foreshock to a mega quake?

Will be keeping a look out on GEE. WC, enjoy your ballgame, relax you know you are prepared.

reply to post by Piper96


Piper,

If you are genuinely worried about the gas, then dont be afraid to turn it off at meter. There is always a little valve that you can easily twist to turn it off and on. If you arent planning on heat ( not today! ) or needing hot water, there would be no harm in turning it off overnight. Although your hotwater heater would cool down and not be warm for a shower in the AM But no reason you cant turn it off and on as needed for the next couple of days to be safe. I know I will be.

Danno

Finally managed to get on to the Canadian site.

They are reporting it as a 6.6 Mw (I should say are sticking to 6.6)

Date Time Lat. Long. Depth Mag. F Region
---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- - ------
2011/09/09 19:41:30 49.34N 127.26W 38.4 6.6Mw 92 km WSW of Gold R.,BC

earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca...




NC89.NV..LHZ.2011.252

Still no aftershocks?
I am getting concerned now.

reply to post by PuterMan


PuterMan, whats your take on the situation?

Okay....back for a minute inbetween errands.

My gut is hurting a bit more...still NOTHING??!!!

I feel like the tension is growing (hope that is just my imagination)

CLPrime...spot on. You bring up a good point about fore-shocks. Looking through the Canadian website, I came up with these at that location in the past week

2011/09/09 19:41:30 49.34N 127.26W 38.4 6.6Mw 92 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011/09/09 15:59:36 49.39N 127.20W 33.6 2.1ML 86 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011/09/06 13:53:55 49.35N 127.86W 10.0* 2.7Mw 132 km W of Gold R.,BC
2011/09/06 11:29:08 49.81N 125.98W 23.2 1.5ML 17 km NE of Gold R.,BC
2011/09/01 17:53:24 49.25N 128.28W 10.0* 2.7Mw 165 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011/09/01 01:50:45 49.01N 128.60W 10.0* 2.5Mw 196 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011/08/31 23:13:51 49.27N 127.84W 10.0* 2.3Mw 133 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011/08/31 00:07:12 49.55N 127.61W 32.1 1.8ML 109 km W of Gold R.,BC
2011/08/30 23:44:48 49.52N 127.56W 31.3 1.7ML 107 km W of Gold R.,BC

source



I can see a bit of a trend there....though mild. The shallower and then deeper quakes reminds me also of Japan.

NO...there should be some after-shocks here. Really.

**nervously twisting thumbs, hoping to see said after-shocks start appearing**

reply to post by PuterMan


I have been waiting for you to show up here and tell us that all is fine...is it? Do you agree with WC? Is this looking bad?

My prayers and best wishes are with you folks in that region. Westcoast I have always found your threads to be educational, informative and not scaremongering in tone. This one is no exception. People need to be aware, prepared, and self sufficient. It's not unrealistic to expect these days that a major crisis could happen anywhere, be it man made, false flag or Mother Nature. Even our own government keeps telling us to be observant and prepared for just about anything and everything.

I hope you get to enjoy your sporting event and that all turns out to be well and peaceful as far as weather and earth movement is concerned. Have a good and safe weekend.

This lack of foreshocks is really starting to worry me. And this is not fear-mongering, i feel we have every reason to be fearful with the track record of disasters we've had this year. And an earthquake in Holland, wtf

reply to post by PuterMan


Their page on the quake, itself, says 6.3.
They also say:

The last large earthquake in this area was a M 6.6 event on November 2, 2004.

I am a little bit confused by the below article vs what you guys are saying about the lack of aftershocks. Are you referring to a different kind of aftershock than they are reporting? (I fully trust your knowledge Westcoast, I'm just curious if this article is accurate or not)

www.oregonlive.com...

The quake occurred at a depth of 14.3 miles and was centered 73 miles west-northwest of Ucluelet (yoo-KLOO'-let), a fishing and resort village a little less than halfway up the island's west coast. It was initially reported as a magnitude-6.7 earthquake but later revised.

"It looks like a quake on a secondary fault -- not on the megathrust, which was our big concern," said John Vidale, director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network at the University of Washington in Seattle. "It's generating a fair number of aftershocks , but there's a very small chance this will stimulate activity on the big fault on the coast."

reply to post by CLPrime


Yes I was just away looking up earthquakes in the area

Year,Month,Day,Time(hhmmss.mm)UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth,Catalog
1973,07,13,025939.10, 49.027,-128.007,5.3, 33,PDE
1975,03,31,054837.80, 49.397,-125.599,5.3, 33,PDE
1976,06,06,021717.40, 49.034,-127.870,5.3, 33,PDE
1978,06,02,204143.70, 50.259,-127.688,5.2, 21,PDE
1980,05,16,223405.40, 49.601,-127.891,5.0, 10,PDE
1986,06,16,155438 , 49.390,-127.070,5.3, 31,PDE
1990,02,16,132842.83, 49.121,-127.714,5.2, 10,PDE
1994,01,03,012611.40, 49.721,-126.768,5.7, 19,PDE
1996,10,06,201309.18, 49.047,-127.880,6.2, 10,PDE
2004,01,25,151223 , 49.100,-128.060,5.4, 10,PDE
2004,07,15,120652.40, 49.695,-126.855,5.9, 18,PDE
2004,07,19,080149.46, 49.623,-126.967,6.4, 23,PDE

Source

I based the search on 100 km of the current event. As you say 2004, and in that list 1996, neither of which with any sizeable aftershocks I would add so the absence of same may not be such a concern.

reply to post by newsoul


All is fine! There you are. See nothing to worry about. It was just the effect of the CME and the KP7 levels which happened to hit at almost the same time. (Well I don't actually believe that yet but I am working on it)

reply to post by thedoctorswife


An earthquake in Holland. Mm yes right in the shale beds and well would you believe it they started three fracking wells not 30 miles form there in May this year. There may be more wells now even closer.

Well right or wrong I am sticking to my guns that there will not be a mag 9 anywhere in the world this year. I see this just a bit more readjustment after the Japan quake. That did do much movementz! The whole Pacific plate has been settling down again since.

Originally posted by sInSeattle
I am a little bit confused by the below article vs what you guys are saying about the lack of aftershocks. Are you referring to a different kind of aftershock than they are reporting? (I fully trust your knowledge Westcoast, I'm just curious if this article is accurate or not)

www.oregonlive.com...

The quake occurred at a depth of 14.3 miles and was centered 73 miles west-northwest of Ucluelet (yoo-KLOO'-let), a fishing and resort village a little less than halfway up the island's west coast. It was initially reported as a magnitude-6.7 earthquake but later revised.

"It looks like a quake on a secondary fault -- not on the megathrust, which was our big concern," said John Vidale, director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network at the University of Washington in Seattle. "It's generating a fair number of aftershocks , but there's a very small chance this will stimulate activity on the big fault on the coast."

The seismographs don't appear to be showing lots of aftershocks



pele.ess.washington.edu:16017...


All: www.pnsn.org...

There was 6.6 happening in Indonesia on Sept 5/11. No aftershocks after 6.6

I guarantee there will be NO aftershocks in Vancouver Island.

Relax people.........

reply to post by sInSeattle


I see no aftershocks. Nothing on the seismos and nothing in the lists. There is a big factory making pork pies. That is about all I can see.

......just found one or two on this: B012.PB..EHZ.2011.252


ETA: I am going to grab the waveform off that one and have a listen.

reply to post by sInSeattle

"It's generating a fair number of aftershocks

I haven't seen any listed aftershocks

reply to post by MoorfNZ


I wish I could say I knew what I was looking at after viewing your links, but I would be lying.
I'm very, very new to all of this which is why I wanted to triple check it with you guys.

So, I take it this article isn't accurate and/or maybe he was just misquoted? Hmm.

We won't know if this is a foreshock until/if the mainshock comes along - hard to second guess these things but, as Puterman has shown, best way is to look at past activity. Looks to me as if this is part of the regular release of stress in the area. Not all large quakes have lots of aftershocks, and not all massive quakes have foreshocks (about 50% I believe).

What is the director speaking of when he says it's a secondary fault?
The graph Puterman posted looked like it had a few rumbles after the main shock, but I also can't find any aftershocks mentioned on any of the usual sites.

Cats went nuts about ten minutes for the quake hit, running around like crazy and jumping all over everything in the house before cowering under the bed.

I just figured they smelled another cougar in the 'hood, didn't think too much of it.

Really, really hoping it's not a foreshock. They've been forecasting a 10.0+ for us, for many years now. They even published "New Vancouver" flood maps a while back showing the majority of the Lower Mainland under the ocean again. Scary stuff.