Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Arkansas Earthquakes Could Be Man-Made

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the boom-shocka-locka dept.

Earth 264

oxide7 writes "The small earthquakes that struck north central Arkansas could be from a combination of natural and man-made activity. Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A plot (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346948)

I don't know how yet, but clearly this is a plot by the global warming freaks.

Re:A plot (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346964)

Similar claims have been made about drilling for geothermal.

Re:A plot (3, Informative)

piripiri (1476949) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347020)

Yep, in Switzerland, for example. Links: article [swissinfo.ch] , analysis [docstoc.com]

Re:A plot (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347024)

Calpine is actually paying people who live near The Geysers because it was decided in court that they are responsible for increased seismic activity in the area; it increased markedly and proportionally when they started pumping semi-treated sewage into the ground. They left off a special drilling project here after they caused a massive earthquake doing the same thing elsewhere.

The Gas Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347000)

Could this be simply a symptom of the Gas Effect? I'm quite alarmed by the similarities, all the evidence points to it, in fact.

FND (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346970)

First no-duh.

Oh Gasland (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346980)

What do you think? [gaslandthemovie.com]

Re:Oh Gasland (1)

PouletFou (1221320) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347792)

Mod parent up, informative.

Re:Oh Gasland (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347900)

Seems questionable [energyindepth.org]

That's OK. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347006)

Really, this is a small price to pay to help make us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels. Every bit of hydrocarbon we can extract from American soil is one less dollar going to fund terrorism in hostile countries, one less dollar that ultimately will be used to purchase guns and explosives that will be used against us. At some point, we need to stop sending these third world shitholes both our cash and food aid. Pay for the oil with food, save the cash for ourselves.

Re:That's OK. (4, Insightful)

JonnyDomestik (1190331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347072)

Right. I mean, it's only Arkansas...

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347566)

ONLY ARKANSAS!?!?!?! Do you realise we could lose American icons like Bill Clinton [about.com] if these earthquakes continue?! What are you thinking....

</sarcasm>

Re:That's OK. (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347106)

If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?

Re:That's OK. (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347182)

If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?

supporting the mozzies

Re:That's OK. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347228)

Something like what happened in Christchurch.

Re:That's OK. (2, Insightful)

Hangmn (1592935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347446)

If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?

Dependency on countries and regimes openly declaring the US as an enemy..everytime you fuel your car ..you are funding terrorism. Thats the BIG PRICE

Re:That's OK. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347874)

According the the Department of State, the Following are the list of State Sponsored Terrorism Countries: (CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN, SYRIA). According to the US Energy Information Administration, the Following are the list of Top Countries the United States Imports Oil From In Order from Top Provider and the Rough % of US Import they account for: (CANADA ~22%, MEXICO ~12%, SAUDI ARABIA ~10%, NIGERIA ~10%, VENEZUELA ~8%, IRAQ ~3%, ANGOLA ~3%, BRAZIL ~3%, ALGERIA ~3%, COLOMBIA ~2%, ECUADOR ~2%, RUSSIA ~1.5%, KUWAIT ~1%, UNITED KINGDOM ~1%, ARGENTINA ~1%). This accounts for over 80% of our Oil Import and I don't see CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN or SYRIA on there. Ok, I'll Give you VENEZUELA, the government there hates the U.S. but they aren't on the State Sponsored Terrorism List "yet".

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347852)

then what would be a big price?

Earthquakes and environmental damage someplace important. Like, say, California, or Florida, or North Carolina for that matter.

Canada and Europe are hostile? (0)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347134)

Haven't you recovered from the War of 1812 yet?

Which are these "hostile countries"? Most of them are full of people who would like to live somewhere like the US - but the US has supported dictatorships instead. Attitudes like yours go a long way to explain why there's a problem.

Re:Canada and Europe are hostile? (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347318)

Did you forget to take your meds today?

No (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347802)

Every bit of hydrocarbon we can extract from American soil is one less dollar going to fund terrorism in hostile countries, one less dollar that ultimately will be used to purchase guns and explosives that will be used against us

but I think this guy did, which is why I responded to his post. I don't suffer from paranoia.

Re:Canada and Europe are hostile? (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347602)

I think he meant the middle east. You know, the world's largest fossil fuel producers. It's a logical assumption.

Re:That's OK. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347158)

Magnitude 4 seismic events are of relatively little concern, in the scheme of things; but the water pollution that has resulted is more serious.

There is a more serious governance/philosophical issue at work, though. These sorts of energy extraction operations, whether they be hydrofracking gas, doing the assorted horrid things required to get tar sands and oil shales flowing, or mountaintop removal, all involve the extraction company imposing (often quite significant, sometimes fatal) externalities on the people in a broad swath around them. Generally, these externalities are not compensated. That's how pollution goes.

When a price needs to be paid, two things matter: "How big is it?" and "How will it be allocated?". At present, while the jury may still be out on the size of the bill, the method of allocation appears, at first approximation, to be "Suck it, peasants, costs will be imposed as is most profitable for your betters!".

Such a cost allocation scheme really ought to have no friends anywhere on the political spectrum. The reasons for liberal opposition should be so obvious as to no need mention. For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.

We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...

Re:That's OK. (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347252)

For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.

There are two problems. One is that people in the aggregate is easily led, this hardly bears further discussion in the context of this conversation. The other is that the real voters, the people with money, are the ones who are imposing the externalities. It's all gravy to them. So long as the ability to make decisions is concentrated in these individuals the decisions can only be selfish.

Re:That's OK. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347468)

Your analysis of why things turn out as they do is spot on.

I'm mostly just reacting to my frustration that "unlimited freedom to impose externalities on others" has been adopted as a so called "libertarian" position(conveniently, mostly by people who make money doing high-pollution things), when it is, in fact, about as "libertarian" as eliminating the regulations against burglary or assault.

Re:That's OK. (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347352)

the water pollution that has resulted is more serious.

We're not polluting the water; the water comes out of the ground as brine and is already "polluted". We're pumping it back in.

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347438)

Hah, I'm sure *nothing* happens inbetween the part where they pull the water out and push the water back in. Nothing is stirred up, no chemicals added, no filtration done, no stirring up of materials.

Now that's preposterous.

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347550)

the water pollution that has resulted is more serious.

We're not polluting the water; the water comes out of the ground as brine and is already "polluted". We're pumping it back in.

The water is taking on methane that was not already present. I'd say that qualifies as polluting the water.

Re:That's OK. (1)

metallurge (693631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347632)

We're not polluting the water; the water comes out of the ground as brine and is already "polluted". We're pumping it back in.

In the sort of hydraulic fracturing which is being done in the Fayetteville Shale play in Arkansas, my understanding is that the water which is injected is fresh water, not salt water. If the injected water is made saline by chloride additives, it would be potassium chloride (KCl), rather than sodium chloride (NaCl).

But the grandparent's point involved migration of the frac fluids beyond the intended formation, into the fresh water table. Typically, there are several thousand feet of separation between the two, and typically there is an extra layer of cement/casing protecting the ground water, but unintended things can happen.

Re:That's OK. (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347442)

We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...

Think that over: it was the United States and her European tagalongs who created and supported many of those oil despots to begin with.

It's unreasonable to expect the current government to do anything very different than what it has been doing for decades.

Re:That's OK. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347612)

My knowledge of our skill in crafting ghastly little banana republics is, in part, why I really don't want to see that first hand...

Re:That's OK. (0)

wholestrawpenny (1809456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347538)

People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements. Unlike some foreign nations where the natural resources belong to the government, ours still belong to the people (for now, at least). Nobody is forced to sign a gas/mineral lease.

Re:That's OK. (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347594)

People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements.

Well, it certainly is polite of the pollution and other damages to limit themselves to the property of people who have signed lease agreements. The physics of an earthquake affecting only land owned by folks receiving royalty payments much be very interesting.

Re:That's OK. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347702)

"Dear resident, your neighbors have kindly signed an extraction agreement with us. Your property values will be in the toilet in 6 months, and your well will no longer be drinkable. Plus, the gas under your property will flow under theirs once the pressure differential gets high enough... How about accepting our reasonable offer of compensation?"

Re:That's OK. (0)

wholestrawpenny (1809456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347856)

Ok, clearly none of you have done any research on this, you're just posting sensationalist comments hoping to get modded. So I won't waste my time arguing with idiots, lest I lower myself to your level.

Re:That's OK. (2)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347716)

Yeah, it is totally fair. If you refuse to sign the agreement, they pull some eminent domain garbage on you and then take your land legally.

Re:That's OK. (2)

metallurge (693631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347816)

People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements. Unlike some foreign nations where the natural resources belong to the government, ours still belong to the people (for now, at least). Nobody is forced to sign a gas/mineral lease.

That could be, and frequently is, inaccurate. For one thing, the people who own the mineral rights to a piece of property (and derive the benefits of extraction) can be entirely different people from the people who own the surface land. it could well be the case that owners of the surface are going to be reimbursed for actual damages caused by mineral development, but otherwise not be compensated for the development. Somewhat unintuitively, the owners of the mineral rights have the superior right under law. In other words, they get to do what they want/need to on the surface to develop the subsurface minerals, subject to ordinary government regulation.

I am not a lawyer.

Re:That's OK. (1)

wholestrawpenny (1809456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347578)

And let's not forget the bigger picture. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available. Our local university and bus company perpetually brag about how out public transportation is driven by clean burning natural gas, yet, they fail to mention where it comes from. Pulling it from the ground is undoubtedly the most energy efficient way to obtain NG, rather than some processes for hydrocarbon conversion. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available. Until Mr. Fusion hits the big time, we'll have to make do with what we have.

Re:That's OK. (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347986)

. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.

Then why are conservatives so against renewable sources and anything that helps to promote them (including cap and trade)? You don't get Mr. Fusion without trying and FUNDING something *new*.

Most of the argument against conservatives is that they see oil/coal/natural gas/nuclear as the *only* options available. You won't ever get the new technology if you don't spend money *now* to invest. Couple that with the fact that, at least for oil, we simply don't have anywhere near enough to even make a dent in our current needs.

Now take into account that even if we have lots of natural gas, Cheney and company completely exempted those companies from having to disclose what it is they are actually pumping into the ground to push out the gas. We literally have no idea what they are pumping into the ground to break up the rock formations that are near peoples wells. Funny how cracked rock tends to allow stuff to seep through. The videos of flaming faucets are hard to assume as just a freak coincidence.

Conservatives have a long long history of supporting the big established companies and taking those companies word for it when they say its 'safe'. Are Democrats somewhat accountable on these issues? Sure, but one party has clearly been the leader in terms of saying the energy companies know best so just let them do what they want.

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347686)

Who cares if there are earthquakes, drill baby drill and frack the consequences!

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347186)

Not sure if your joking but agreed, but this will get the anti-progress not ready to live in the dark with no power Slashdot idiots in a tizzy. Complain about everything but can't come up with another idea.

Re:That's OK. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347230)

Besides, the idea of manmade earthquakes is ludicrous. There were earthquakes long before man started fracking for natural gas. The tectonic plates always move, and there will always be earthquakes no matter what humans do. Therefore, the idea that humans should stop fracking because it causes earthquakes is ludicrous. Mankind can't stop earthquakes, so we shouldn't do anything to minimize them either.

Re:That's OK. (1)

SubtleGuest (967971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347544)

Bill O'Reilly, is that you?

Re:That's OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347776)

Want to stop or at least slow down the terrorism?

Maybe stop bullying them, and get out of their area militarily too.

Kind of like how we got pissed when the British were here, taxing us, ordering us around, bullying us with taxes/tarifs/quotas/etc

If we have nothing but a normal business trade, then they have nothing to be pissed at. Otherwise, they do.

Wow... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347028)

The theory that fracturing the local geology by pumping in a lubricant under extremely high pressure might cause some sub-surface movement certainly sounds preposterous to me...

Well... (4, Funny)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347084)

People have been saying that the Earth moved for them after a lubricant pumping episode for a long time now.

Sorry, it's a very boring day debugging someone else's application.

Re:Well... (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347172)

Hey, just be sure you don't end up with somebody else's bugs on your application after a lubricant pumping session....

Re:Wow... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347128)

The theory that fracturing the local geology by pumping in a lubricant under extremely high pressure might cause some sub-surface movement certainly sounds preposterous to me...

But... but... but... the Earth is so BIIIIG and we are so SMAAAALL. How can we possibly have an effect on it!

It's a liberal conspiracy! They're just trying to get research grants! Alex Jones told me so!

Re:Wow... (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347622)

So Alex Jones is now a conservative and on the side of corporations who want to drill using fracking?

Ohhhkay..

Re:Wow... (2, Insightful)

jbengt (874751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347270)

Typical low information content article.

TFS quotes "Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events." but leaves out the next sentence from TFA "But the area hasn't been studied enough, they say, to know for sure."

Then, TFA gets it wrong by claiming "The scale is logarithmic, meaning a magnitude 5 earthquake is 10 times as powerful as a magnitude 4" when in reality the amplitude [wikipedia.org] of a magnitude 5 earthquake is 10 times larger than a magnitude 4, and the energy released is roughly proportional to the amplitude raised to the 3/2 power, so a magnitude 5 earthquake will cause more than 31 times the destruction than a magnitude 4 earthquake, 9depending a little on how long each lasts), The earthquakes observed were not out of line with past experience in the area and were too small to be of concern by themselves.

Pumping high pressure water into active fault lines might not be such a good idea, but you are unlikely to find gas or oil in a fault, since the cracks in the rocks give a path for the fluids to escape and rise.

It's an important enough concern to pay attention to and study, but maginitude 3 and 4 earthquakes should not cause panic, they happen tens of thousands of times per year all over the world and don't cause significant damage.

Re:Wow... (3, Informative)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347568)

In Colorado in the 1960s, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal used a ~12,000 ft. deep dry well to inject toxic waste related to chemical weapons the army was manufacturing. There was a bizarre spike in activity and magnitude starting not long after the well was put in service, which continued for about a decade after they stopped injecting the waste, and actually started pumping some back out. There were a few magnitude 5+ quakes, which caused structural damage in the Denver-Boulder metro area.

It could be mere coincidence that seismic activity spiked right about the time the well was put in service, but how likely is that, really? I know, correlation and causation and all, but it was serious enough that folks who lived around here back then still talk about the tremors, and there haven't been any events like that in recent decades. Some of those who remember tend to freak-out at any mention of starting injection recovery in the gas fields north of Denver.

Maybe any gas companies who want to do the hydraulic extraction should pay for any and all damage that appears to correlate to their activity? Arkansas would be a good choice for a study, they'd just have to hire a fleet of trucks to tow the mobile homes back to their pads when they done get shook off and roll down into the holler.

"fracking" (1)

sydneywilbur (2000068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347030)

"fracking" is a sign of desperation by gas companies... nat. gas follows a cliff, not a bell curve like peak-oil... of course it's safe.

Re:"fracking" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347314)

Funny as it might be, americans really need to get informed about what fracking actually is and how harmful it is to the themselves and the environment. There's a few documentaries out there to raise awareness already, but they seem to gather very little attention.
If oil & gas companies went around destroying private water wells (lol, you can actually light the well water on fire) and poisoning the soil (the liquids used in the fracking process are EXTREMELY poisonous to nature and man) here in west/central euroland, I'd expect there to be huge uproar.

The whole point of the fracking process is to release more gas from the soil. This is achieved by pumping water and chemicals into the ground under high pressure to mess with the soil layers (which disturbs the gas distributed across several layers of soil & releases it). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this does to ground water, soil stability and so on...

Re:"fracking" (2)

jbengt (874751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347316)

On the contrary, there is a large over-abundance of natural gas in the USA and depressed prices. What I've heard from an executive of a natural gas exploration company is that they are going after deposits where gas and oil can both be extracted by fracking, since the gas alone is not valuable enough to make it worthwhile,

Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake (4, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347048)

Dams do this do, e.g. the Hoover Dam and the recent quake in China. Read more at "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake": http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/ [wired.com]

Re:Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake (5, Interesting)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347548)

For an even more impressive example, read about the Vajont Dam in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam [wikipedia.org]

An engineering marvel for its time, the dam was built based on shoddy geology - there was a faultline running up one side of the adjacent mountain. In a nutshell, filling up the dam forced water into the fault, which eventually caused half the mountain to fall into the dam. The dam was well built enough to not break - but the water spilled out over the top and killed about 2000 people.

However, the hand-wringing of the article is a bit unwarranted. It's well known that pumping stuff in and out of rock is bound to cause seismic instabilities. Magnitude 4-5 stuff (assuming they mean moment magnitude? They don't say) is generally considered small fry.

Re:Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake (2)

ColoradoAuthor (682295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347552)

As mentioned in the parent post, a very similar swarm of earthquakes was triggered at Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, when "they" tried disposing [usgs.gov] of chemical weapon waste by pumping it underground.

It's happened before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347906)

This has been happening in a field south of the Dallas/Ft Worth area for years now due to the fracking going on there. Parts of the Houston area were subject to subsidence caused by pumping oil and gas in that area.

Countdown to Kookery (0)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347054)

Mention of HAARP in 3..2..1

Re:Countdown to Kookery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347284)

Why is this kookery? In the Netherlands we have regular (extremely minor, biggest was a 3.5) earthquakes that are caused by the extraction of natural gas. Just from my brief browsing of the subject, it seems in 'our' case because of the compression of ground layers that used to contain the gas.

Reference (in Dutch though): http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/22993/aardbevingen_door_gaswinning_in_noord-nederland

Re:Countdown to Kookery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347356)

He's talking about the tinfoil-hatters who are going to blame HAARP for this as well as every other natural disaster that ever happened.

Re:Countdown to Kookery (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347434)

Not tinfoil-hatters, it will be the radical environmentalists--the guys who are convinced that every form of energy except solar and wind are going to cause the end of the world (and who are oblivious to the fact that solar and wind power are a fucking joke and a pipe-dream that will never replace even a significant fraction of our energy needs).

Re:Countdown to Kookery (1)

radl33t (900691) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347678)

"(and who are oblivious to the fact that solar and wind power are a fucking joke and a pipe-dream that will never replace even a significant fraction of our energy needs)"

I'll take that wager. What would you define as significant, 5%? 10%? 30%? Is nuclear power a joke or pipe dream? What size of industry will no longer be classified as a joke or a pipe dream 10 billion/yr? 100 billion/yr? If 40% of new US generation is wind, how long until it is no longer a fucking joke or pipe dream?

Let's do this. I want to take your money.

Re:Countdown to Kookery (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347858)

I would say 25% is significant, but wind and solar will never be able to achieve even that. And nuclear power is most definitely NOT a joke (it could easily replace a huge portion of our electricity generation needs, as it already does in many countries). But environmentalists hate nuclear (just as they hate anything that isn't wind and solar).

Re:Countdown to Kookery (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347738)

I was referring to people taht think HAARP is an earthquake weapon. Search Google for earthquake weapon Haiti and you'll see the true tragedy. People need a bogeyman I guess.

Not questioning fracking's relationship to earthquakes, I have no clue honestly. It seem logical that it would disturb the ground, but I'm not a geologist.

Oh dear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347056)

Run for your lives! We're all gonna die! Oh, and the sky is falling, too!

test (0, Offtopic)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347086)

This is test, vote down.

Re:test (0)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347154)

Oh ! This guy has the (/.) seal of approval ! Mod UP, WAY UP ! The /. employees ALWAYS post INSIGHTFUL comments, right ?

Re:test (1)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347190)

Doubt it'll be way up but you can try :) testing some new functionality. Thanks for participating.

test (-1, Offtopic)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347110)

test

I live 4 miles from the general epicenter... (3, Interesting)

Stradenko (160417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347118)

The 4.7 and 4.3 were kind of freaky (4.7 especially, as evidenced by some ridiculous 911 calls [arkansasmatters.com] from the neighboring city of Conway, ~13 miles south). Everything under 4 or so is just noise.

I just hope science proves it's these injection wells, so I have someone to sue when my house comes crashing down and I'm out the 10% deductible in my earthquake rider.

All that said, local opinion seems to be that tornadoes are scarier than earthquakes.

Re:I live 4 miles from the general epicenter... (1, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347746)

The people who are making huge profits from these activities will be long gone by that time. All the private funds, private equity, Koch brothers would have pocketed all the profits and sold the "investments that have the proven track record of profitability" to pension funds, mutual funds and general stock market. But what people actually buy are "past performance is not a predictor of future performance" along with all the past liabilities. So the tax payers will ultimately bail out the unfortunate pension funds and stock investors

This is the best blend of Capitalism and Socialism America has created. Privatize all profits and nationalize all loss and all liabilities.

I knew we would tie this to "fracking" ..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347124)

As soon as I heard about a quake in Arkansas, I knew that we would tie this to "fracking" before long.

It's funny, because Republicans use the exact same strategy when it comes to government financing. Starve the beast. Prevent taxes from going to Washington in the first place, and you'll have increased economic activity along with an inability for the government to pay for all the nonsense that they'd love to spend it on.

Democrats turn this strategy around when it comes to hydrocarbons. Prevent one drop of hydrocarbons from entering the market from US soil, and maybe it'll be so expensive that Americans won't be able to afford it anymore.

Re:I knew we would tie this to "fracking" ..... (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347170)

It's natural gas. There aren't any "drops" of it, at least not straight out of the ground.

Re:I knew we would tie this to "fracking" ..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347326)

Your conservative robo-bias is clear. Government spending is "nonsense" and every dollar saved somehow helps the economy (especially when it gets sent to china to pay for a big screen TV)... Whereas any attempt to make energy safe to extract and consume is seen as "unaffordable". Crank up the radio, Rush is on!

Re:I knew we would tie this to "fracking" ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347572)

So then you disagree that a key strategy of Environmentalists and Democrats is to make hydrocrabon usage more expensive, so that people will use less of it?

And you purport that every one of the $3.8 trillion the government spends is completely legitimate? What about all of those oil and gas company subsidies?

problem/solution supplied for US, charge ahead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347132)

here's the 'problem' (maybe), drilling. here's the possible solution; stop drilling. this is where we get the flummox; 'can't stop drilling, we'll all starve'. that solves it? the 'trouble' with that is, drilling is NOT causing the quakes? quite a shock to the 'problem' solving 'process'? do the math. check YOUR dna. see you there?

alas, despite unprecedented eviles' last gasp attempts to extinct us (with our unwitting assist), there are still million baby 'play-dates being scheduled world wide.

won't we be killed by terrorists if we don't drill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347218)

there is that. we may continue ending up as fodder/food for our captors, but there's just as good of a chance (& some historical evidence (way back)) that we can do much better than that. it's much more of a domestic issue than any threat from other struggling peoples. we're going to call it corepirate nazi megasloth generated mindphuking hypenosys, for lack of a more accurate (lengthy) definition at this time.

The following sentence (0)

ProfM (91314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347156)

From the fine article: "Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events. But the area hasn't been studied enough, they say, to know for sure."

Another story to gin up a way to stop energy production. I really hate this "do as I say - not as I do" attitude of the people who want to stop *United States* energy production.

Where's the outrage of Cuba's oil production? China's oil production? Venezuelan oil production?

Re:The following sentence (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347224)

Another story to gin up a way to stop energy production. I really hate this "do as I say - not as I do" attitude of the people who want to stop *United States* energy production.

Yes, you mean, big energy. The incumbent powers fear new energy producers and they get the citizenry whipped into a froth whenever they are threatened. However, the idea that the pumping should continue (or even begin) before studies can be commenced is ridiculous. Also, the end result of any kind of ground pumping seems to be increased seismic activity, and it would be strange if that were not the case. Hey, and how about that underground CO2 storage, eh? That's working out GREAT, too.

Re:The following sentence (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347280)

In Cuba/China/Venezuala, I'd assume. They're not doing any hydraulic fracturing, though, as far as I know.

Quakes aren't new in AR... (1, Insightful)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347166)

I didn't bother reading the article, so please tell me these people are well aware that Arkansas has been home to some of the largest seismic events in North America. It isn't a very active fault, but it has produced some whoppers over the centuries.

Re:Quakes aren't new in AR... (1)

GlennC (96879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347722)

...please tell me these people are well aware that Arkansas has been home to some of the largest seismic events in North America.

Ummm....okay....

Of course, it's common knowledge about the fault line running through Arkansas. I mean, hasn't EVERYONE heard the joke about the state falling off the continent?

There...feel better now?

They tried this before ... (4, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347178)

Have Christopher Walken or Grace Jones been seen in the area? They are trying to create a monopoly on ... on ... ? What does Arkansas produce again?

Re:They tried this before ... (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347204)

Politicians.

Re:They tried this before ... (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347452)

family trees with loops instead of forks

Re:They tried this before ... (2)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347504)

What does Arkansas produce again?

Tyson
Walmart
JB Hunt.

Re:They tried this before ... (2)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347660)

There you have it. They're trying to get a monopoly on chicken!

Re:They tried this before ... (1)

fireslack (1039158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347888)

Off the top of my head, I would add:

Riceland
Alltel (which Verizon paid $28B to acquire)

Re:They tried this before ... (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347948)

Eh, all I could remember was what was in NWA, might as well throw in Dillards as well then.

Of course the quakes are man-made. (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347244)

Everyone knows that the government has developed several variations on Tesla's earthquake machines [excludedmiddle.com] (HAARP, etc) and has been using them all over the world (Haiti, anyone?) to cause "natural" disasters. Sheesh!

Re:Of course the quakes are man-made. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347286)

So if I'm going to poop on HAARP I need numbers. In a documentary (in quotes?) on the subject it is asserted that palpable physical vibrations are produced by typical remote sensing techniques at relatively low power levels, much lower than HAARP's actual avowed output. Part of the concept of HAARP is the ability to get more energy out of the ionosphere than is put in (by HAARP). Is there any particular physics-based reason HAARP can not produce seismic activity?

Re:Of course the quakes are man-made. (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347614)

Yes, its power output is way too low, less than half a megawatt. There is a new system with 3.6 MW output being built, but even that is much less than shortwave transmitters for global voice/music broadcasts of other countries. To be blunt about it, a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorist utterly ignorant of basic physics make up all kinds of nonsense about HAARP, but the truth is that it is for ionosphere research, and works by exciting a small portion of it (other hf and HAM radio operator do this every day, no big deal)

Gah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347658)

You remind me of a friend of my dad's.

According to him, Kitrina was an inside job.

Re:Gah! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347768)

because it could never have been caused by something as stupid and absurd as using pumps and levees to allow building below sea level, next to the sea, for a century!

Law of unitended consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347482)

Whether 'Murphy' decided to show up on this specific event is debatable, but it seems pretty obvious to me that 'frac-drilling' is causing more issues than were perceived possible.

They should do an experiment: keep fracking till you create an earthquake. If it's never triggered, then we know!

/like fire with your water?

hillary on aljizzearful touting civilian armies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347532)

that's right in line with even more world peace breaking out everywhere?

Its happened in OK... (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347878)

Mother earth is getting mighty pissed at us, me thinks...

Ark Earth Quake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347914)

Thank god for the lack of regulation in the area (Fracturing), think of the jobs that are being created, to fix the home damaged by the earth quakes.
This is a business stimulus plan to aid employment. The local government can't fix the problems in the their buildings or the roads, but we want smaller government anyway. All the repair jobs will increase tax revenues and really when you think about it, we really only want to fix the houses of those that can afford it. The others are eye sores anyway and should be torn down, more jobs created. As to water pollution, more jobs to install home filters. This is a major win win.
The best part is that we as Americans can pay world market prices for the gas generated, since if we don't pay enough, they export it. Funny thing is that when the middle east raises the price, so does the local company. And to think we lease that land they are using for a fraction of what it cost to use.

America is a great place to live......

"some experts think" is not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347928)

period. Let them make them present their argument and we can parse on its merit. This is a geek website -- not an all-too-ready-to-jump-to-conclusion website.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?