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!

Earthquake Warning Issued For Central Oklahoma

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the cthulhu-rises dept.

Earth 127

New submitter bobbied (2522392) writes "A rare warning has been issued by the US Geological survey today, warning of an increased risk of a damaging earthquake (magnitude 5.0 or greater) in central Oklahoma. There have been more earthquakes in Oklahoma (per mile) than California this year, prompting the USGS to issue their warning today (May 5, 2014).

This warning is the first such warning to be issued for a state east of the Rockies."

cancel ×

127 comments

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

fraud opportunity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926257)

Is it too late to take out an insurance policy on some Oklahoma property?

Re:fraud opportunity! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#46926359)

Is it too late to take out an insurance policy on some Oklahoma property?

Sure, no problem. Your first month's premium will be the expected damages to your property in the event of a magnitude 5.0 or greater earthquake, plus our cut; but you are welcome to buy!

Re:fraud opportunity! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46926789)

Most insurance policies that you might be able to get include an 'act of god' clause that excludes major natural disasters.

Re:fraud opportunity! (3, Informative)

night_flyer (453866) | about 5 months ago | (#46927173)

Not if you specifically purchase "earthquake" insurance, Ive had that on my house(s) for the last 15 years, looking like I got a good deal now...

Re:fraud opportunity! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46928581)

I know a guy in Tennessee who tried to add flood insurance to his house not too long before he lost everything in the floods of 2010...his insurance company didn't offer it because the area wasn't considered a flood risk. Wouldn't take his money in exchange for pretty much doing nothing, because the risk was too low...suuuuure...

Re:fraud opportunity! (2)

nblender (741424) | about 5 months ago | (#46929065)

When I bought my house, my agent sold me on a 'seepage' rider... He said it was a good idea on a new house because you never know what leaks are going to happen. Sure enough, 10 years later we discovered the siding was installed incorrectly on one side of the house and water had been slowly seeping in to one section of wall... Called the insurance company, they sent an adjuster and immediately brought in a team to demolish that entire room in the basement and set up dehumidifiers... Awesome service I thought. After a couple weeks of dehmidification, I asked when they were expecting to start rebuilding... My insurance company said I wasn't covered for seepage. I pointed out that I had purchased seepage coverage. They said they'd get back to me. A week later, they got back to me. Still not covered. There's a proviso on the seepage coverage that says they don't cover "repeated seepage" and since the seepage had been ocurring every time it rained for the last 10 years, it counted as 'repeated'. So we were on the hook for the whole $15,000.

In summary, you may buy coverage, but they will find some way to avoid coverage.

Insurance: If they can afford to sell it to you, it's not a good deal.

Re:fraud opportunity! (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 5 months ago | (#46931599)

There's a proviso on the seepage coverage that says they don't cover "repeated seepage" and since the seepage had been ocurring every time it rained for the last 10 years, it counted as 'repeated'. So we were on the hook for the whole $15,000.

Sorry this happened to you. But this whole thing sounds so ridiculous -- the very definition of "seepage" is that it happens slowly, over time, generally from repeated exposures to water events (rather than, say, "flooding," which happens all at once).

A "seepage" policy that doesn't cover "repeated seepage" sounds like a warranty against "drips" from a faucet that doesn't cover "repeated dripping."

Re:fraud opportunity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928815)

I live in Oklahoma. I just got earthquake insurance added to my home policy. The rider only cost $23 for the year. The fact is, most of the quakes are around 3.0 magnitude, which sometimes makes life more interesting, but is mostly harmless. Even a 5.0 quake is not that dangerous, and the damage is localized, not widespread. I would be much more concerned if I lived along the New Madrid fault, in Memphis, say.

Earthquakes competency (3, Interesting)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 5 months ago | (#46926289)

Finding out when (ie soon) and where an earthquake will occur is still almost pure luck. Of course, when the frequency of EQ is high, the probability that a bigger one happens is higher. But that almost the best we can predict. After the Tohoku EQ in Japan in 2011, amazing predictions were made by "specialists": a "big one" to occur in Tokyo within a couple of days, the Fuji mt to erupt soon, etc... nothing happened. (the cumulative probabilities of a big one in Tokyo was more than 90% at the time!).

Re:Earthquakes competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926541)

Were these expert "experts" or media experts? 'Cuz televised news has a remarkable ability to find people willing to make bold, wild speculations without having looked at any actual numbers.

Re:Earthquakes competency (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46926611)

Pure luck - maybe, but the quakes may show that something is going on. Don't forget that not far away (geologically speaking) is New Madrid where there was some considerable quakes (7.1 to 8.1) 200 years ago.

Re:Earthquakes competency (1)

KliX (164895) | about 5 months ago | (#46926661)

Do you understand what a probability is?

Re:Earthquakes competency (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 5 months ago | (#46926953)

What don't you understand in my post?

Re:Earthquakes competency (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 5 months ago | (#46927403)

He probably just doesn't understand why you even bothered posting it. Nobody said there would definitely be a big one, they are just saying that the probability is high.

Re:Earthquakes competency (1)

SimonInOz (579741) | about 5 months ago | (#46927167)

>> There have been more earthquakes in Oklahoma (per mile)
What the heck does that even mean? Do they mean per square mile? Cubic mile? (And OMG, when will USA finally give up on miles ... geez)

Re:Earthquakes competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46927711)

And kilometers are better because they are much easier divisible? I say people moved to Kilometers because they are dumber. Also, fracking has nothing to do with earthquakes in OK. The fact is OK was once an ocean floor and there is lots of pockets of oil and gas that were once filled that are now empty. That and a crap load of intercontinental faults. Oh and the fault and Californians like to bring their earthquakes with them.

uhh, bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46927909)

I'm a card carrying NRA member, republican, and in general a dittohead, but cut the shit. Fracking most certainly allows latent stress in rock formations to relax, which is what we call an "earthquake". If it were a big deal, insurance wouldn't let us frack in SoCal. However, it's really clear that putting microfractures into the rock will let it move.
Similarly, wastewater injection is also going to do something similar by lubricating the rock along existing microfractures. This isn't a bad thing, long-term, as the stress is released and the bedrock ends up more seismically stable in the long run.

Re:Earthquakes competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928019)

And kilometers are better because they are much easier divisible?

There is that... plus also this:
1000mm = 1m; 1000m = 1km
1000ml = 1l
1000g=1kg
1000ml of H20 @ 4C = 1kg

You know, it's kinda nice to have units be related to one another...
But hey, if you want to be stuck using the imperial system along with these economic powerhouses and highly developed countries like Burma and the likes; be my guees...

Re:Earthquakes competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928369)

1000ml of H20 @ 4C = 0.999972kg

FTFY

Re:Earthquakes competency (1)

laie_techie (883464) | about 5 months ago | (#46928653)

1000ml of H20 @ 4C = 1kg

You know, it's kinda nice to have units be related to one another...

4C seems a random temperature (especially when pontificating the benefits of a base-10 system), plus you fail to mention a pressure. If you increase pressure, you can fit more mass within the same volume.

Re:Earthquakes competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929353)

They probably took one of the most common occuring fluids to make the calculation at standard athmosphere. Doesnt seem random at all really.

Re:Earthquakes competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46930597)

IIRC 4C is where water has its highest density

More Fracking' Earthquakes (4, Informative)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 5 months ago | (#46926301)

The joint statement indicates that a likely contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes is wastewater disposal by injection into deep geologic formations. The water injection can increase underground pressures, lubricate faults and cause earthquakes – a process known as injection-induced seismicity. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed and approved for this purpose. The recent earthquake rate changes are not due to typical, random fluctuations in natural seismicity rates.

'Nuff said.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926381)

OK fine, let's mine the moon instead. No one cares about moonquakes.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926425)

That's no moon

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 5 months ago | (#46926435)

The Clangers do.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926849)

OK fine, let's mine the moon instead. No one cares about moonquakes.

It wouldn't surprise me if a quake on the moon was still capable of creating tsunamis, considering that the moon is the cause of waves in the first place...

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 5 months ago | (#46926933)

Really, I always thought it was wind that caused ocean waves. You learn new bollocks every day here.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 5 months ago | (#46927523)

No, definitely the moon. Some of the calmest seas you'll see are during hurricane conditions when the ocean is protected from the moon's gravitational forces by thick cloud cover.

Re: More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46927989)

Lol! You mean to tell me water vapor was the key to antigravity this entire time?

Re: More Fracking' Earthquakes (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 5 months ago | (#46928143)

Yes, this is why you never see meteorites on cloudy nights - there is no gravity to pull them into the earth's atmosphere.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

surd1618 (1878068) | about 5 months ago | (#46928605)

I'm kind of perplexed by this, because I know for a fact that astrology works on cloudy days, and I always heard that astrology involved the gravitational effects of the planets.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 5 months ago | (#46927019)

Not a bad idea! In light of the so called global warming caused by cow farting, we could all drop our pants, extend our moons and be fitted for a gas harvesting tank along with every cow on Earth! We understand there is GREAT energy potential in this RENEWABLE resource. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          If we only fit some high profile models and teen stars with a unit, the rest of the population will follow willingly, cow-like to buy a new iFart unit from those thoughtful, globally conscious heroes over at Apple. Futures in beans and other indigestibles will skyrocket!

Re: More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929449)

But i love mooncakes

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926637)

Anthropogenic Global Geological Disruption - let the trolling begin :)

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926677)

Actually it is Anthropogenic Locally Limited Extreme Geological Earth Disruption

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926837)

It'd be quite amusing, from a non-resident and anti-fracker, if these sorts of warnings became common place now for areas that have never had them issued.

You wanting oil from fracking? Should have read the fine print: possibility of increased geologic disruption causing earthquakes. Hope the house is up to earthquake code!

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46927597)

They don't want oil from fracking, they want natural gas--a fuel that puts a lot less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than other fossil fuels.

So what's it going to be? Here are your choices:

a) coal
b) oil
c) nuclear
d) natural gas

Solar and wind are not options because those can't handle the load, sorry.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (2)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 5 months ago | (#46927973)

Solar is a choice but as an add on, to reduce the others, not to replace any of them. Solar gives power when it is most needed during the day. It shaves off the peak demand predictably. When it is cloudy during peak AC time, solar produces less but the need for power is also less. Solar could easily be 10% of our power.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

entrigant (233266) | about 5 months ago | (#46930399)

Nuclear, obviously. The energy crisis was solved 50 years ago. Our will to implement the solution just vanished under a haze of ignorance and propaganda.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46931601)

They don't want oil from fracking, they want natural gas . . .

Bullshit. They definitely want oil from fracking. It's a lot more valuable than the methane they get - especially since methane has dropped in price because of all the fracking. Even the natural gas liquids have dropped in price to the point where they are relatively unprofitable. A lot of fracking wells would lose money if it weren't for the oil they can pump out. Unfortunately, the production of oil from fracking typically drops off precipitously in a year or two, and then most of what you have left is methane production. Natural gas production can be profitable enough to pay ongoing costs, but often not enough to pay for the capital expenses of the well.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926847)

No mention of fracking in the summary or the headline. How useful...

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926931)

You realize that oil drilling only goes about 2.2 km deep, while most earth quakes are ten km deep?

Then explain this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46927493)

This graph from the article [livescience.com] shows an exponential growth in small earthquakes in the past few years. How else do you go from under 10/year to 150/year, in the span of a decade?

Re:Then explain this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928043)

Oh, cute... a picture

Re:Then explain this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928463)

Earthquake swarms? Sudden increases in the number of earthquakes in a small region happen quite a lot, going from a few, to sometimes as high as a thousand in a year or more for a couple years. Some regions have had swarms multiple times in recorded history, others don't. They are kind of life aftershock/foreshock earth quakes, but missing the main large quake. Even if these are caused by drilling effects, there are such phenomenon in other areas without drilling.

So..just how safe is fracking if (1)

Grey Geezer (2699315) | about 5 months ago | (#46926937)

these wells pump poisons into a geological formation that is moving around? Isn't it at least possible that these poisons can move along these "rock cracks", and, eventually get into our aquifers?

Re:So..just how safe is fracking if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929295)

No, the fractured rock itself doesn't get crap into aquifers. What can cause water table pollution is a bad casing job (they pour pressurized cement on the outside of the borehole to seal the entire string - it's complicated and can fail - if it fails, crap can leak - anywhere).

How Amusing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46927073)

When I read the originally released "list of fracking chemicals" I concluded that "fracking fluid" was a code word for "refinery waste". I see, sadly, that I was correct.

Out here in California you can get cited as if you'd spilled transmission fluid for a vegetable oil spill in your home biodiesel facility. And meanwhile, states are pumping refinery byproducts into the ground deliberately and getting paid for it.

It's all gone mad.

Washington DC monuments entirely surrounded (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 5 months ago | (#46927121)

The US capitol is very prone to earthquake damage. And it turns out that is is surrounded by shale formations where fracking is or could occur. The Marcellus Shale formation to the North and now "The Taylorsville basin runs through some of Virginia and across the Potomac River to cover much of Charles County, some of Prince George’s and up to Annapolis. That basin was assessed and found to contain an estimated 1,064 billion cubic feet of natural gas" to the South surround it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] The last earthquake did serious damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2... [wikipedia.org] .

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

amanaplanacanalpanam (685672) | about 5 months ago | (#46927377)

Well this is what happens when we delve too greedily, too deep. We awaken things.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (-1, Troll)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46927551)

I knew the hippies would find *some* way to blame this on fossil fuels (and us evil, evil humans in general). Since they couldn't figure out how to blame it on global warming, they turned to fracking instead.

Re:More Fracking' Earthquakes (1)

jlowery (47102) | about 5 months ago | (#46929945)

Nice to know the fracking 1% will be getting theirs. And nice to know Oklahomans will feel the trickle-down effects, also.

Well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46926415)

is anyone suprised that making the bedrock akin to swiss cheese causes earthquakes? i hearby call DUH on this.

So where do we bury it.... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 5 months ago | (#46926433)

This area was tested for nuclear waste disposal, Yucca Mountain won out.
This area is a basalt range, and no problem for future earthquakes (claimed), yes we have Mt.s St. Helen but that's the edge of two plates.

Politics and other things I'm not privy to moved the burial site away, but if Oklahoma is having earthquake warnings, not sure what to say actually.

Re:So where do we bury it.... (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46926719)

A basalt range means that the area has seen volcanoes. Basalt usually cracks into hexagonal prisms when it cools which in turn makes the ground "leaking".

And volcanoes means potential earthquakes.

Re:So where do we bury it.... (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#46927053)

This area was tested for nuclear waste disposal, Yucca Mountain won out.

Are you referring to the Oak Ridge [google.com] complex? ISTR that that was only being considered as a nuclear waste storage/ disposal site because it already had a lot of material on site. And it's in Tennessee, several hundred miles away from the area under discussion.

This area is a basalt range, and no problem for future earthquakes (claimed), yes we have Mt.s St. Helen but that's the edge of two plates.

I don't know much about the geology of America, not being an American and having no intention of going to America to work as a geologist (I have worked as a geologist on 3 other continents though, as well as in Canada). But my first glance at the landscape around ORNL, Tennessee linked to above makes me think "not a flood basalt region". This link [ou.edu] to the Oklahoma geological survey is a bit slow ... try this one [ou.edu] ... but tells me that Oklahoma isn't a flood basalt province either (that's not ruled out by Oklahoma being popular for hydraulic fracturing enhanced oil and gas production (popularly "fracking", but being in the trade I'll give it it's proper name). So, I'm guessing that you're getting confused with the Hanford site in (IIRC) Washington State. Which is half a fucking continent away, but is on a flood basalt province. And close to a number of volcanoes. Which doesn't really sound good for long term storage.

but if Oklahoma is having earthquake warnings, not sure what to say actually

I'm not sure what you're trying to say either. Was Oklahoma ever on a long (or short) list for nuclear waste disposal? Not being an American, I don't know. However, since it's a fairly large place, then an increased probability of moderate earthquakes in the near future doesn't necessarily preclude there being parts of Oklahoma which may remain suitable for (nuclear) waste storage/ disposal. Then again, as a geologist and scientist, living in one of the two most radioactive cities in my country, I have a rather more robust (and frankly, realistic) attitude to radiation than the hysteria which the popular press treat the topic with.

You know, I really ought to get my Geiger counter working again. But it's not something that I consider particularly important.

Re:So where do we bury it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929363)

Geiger counters are fun. You scare the crap out of people by walking around with one set to a very sensitive scale with the speaker on full. Extra points for a Tyvek painting suit that you picked up at the hardware store.

Re:So where do we bury it.... (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 5 months ago | (#46930485)

So now they have Tornados and Earthquakes?

Definitely not moving there.

Gods punishment (0)

cleveralias (1823186) | about 5 months ago | (#46926843)

for botching that execution ;->

related to the 3/30 earthquake watch for... (1)

night_flyer (453866) | about 5 months ago | (#46927067)

Urgent Earthquake Watch â" Yellowstone , Southern California, New Madrid, East Coast, PNW

http://dutchsinse.tatoott1009.... [tatoott1009.com]

Re:impending Yellowstone Supervolcano Eruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928171)

This is just the beginning of the Yellowstone Supervolcano eruption. The Obama administration knows about it and refuses to tell the people the truth. The death toll from this will be over half the population of the US and will be devistating the world over. This is truely the apocalypse!

Re:impending Yellowstone Supervolcano Eruption (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 5 months ago | (#46928709)

Well that sucks....

Perfection Location (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46927549)

Was the Perfection Valley in Oklahoma, by any change?

Re:Perfection Location (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#46930359)

we its can't be perfect without an earthquake now can it?

Tornadoes, fundy xtians, and Tom Coburn. (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | about 5 months ago | (#46927683)

And now earthquakes. OK just can't catch a break.

Re:Tornadoes, fundy xtians, and Tom Coburn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46928103)

And now earthquakes. OK just can't catch a break.

Good news! Tom Coburn is quitting!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/16/tom-coburn-announces-plans-to-retire/

Re:Tornadoes, fundy xtians, and Tom Coburn. (1)

AioKits (1235070) | about 5 months ago | (#46929123)

Don't worry, we're prepared. Since we took a huge dump on our roads/highways funding, the potholes are now large enough that if you see a tornado that you should swerve your car into one and it should just pass you right by.

Re:Tornadoes, fundy xtians, and Tom Coburn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929419)

I modded you as troll since you add nothing to the conversation and insult my state and leaders. I will never see your reply. Try to be less of a random internet slinger next time.

Fracking!!! (1)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#46928317)

That is all.

Re:Fracking!!! (1)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46928423)

...and no it's not fracking. The faults already existed, the only thing that fracking may have done is lubricate those faults, they still would've happened eventually.

Re:Fracking!!! (2)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#46929411)

So pretty much fracking.

Re:Fracking!!! (1)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46929521)

as I said, a contributor, but no...not the cause.

Re:Fracking!!! (2)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#46931167)

Re:Fracking!!! (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46931373)

lol nice use of liberal nature-nazi slanted literature, there Champ.

I actually live here, I think I know just a little more about it than you.

Re:Fracking!!! (2)

Joe U (443617) | about 5 months ago | (#46931845)

Only a complete idiot ignores independent scientists.

I actually live here, I think I know that oil companies pretty much owns the state government.

Re: Fracking!!! (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46932025)

NPR and Mother Jones are hardly independent scientists.

Especially when I can walk two doors down and get it from a world renowned geological hydrology PhD. Pretty sure he'd laugh at those references.

Only a complete idiot posts links as their entire argument, rather than leverage those links to support their argument. Posting links like a Compton drive-by only illustrates a complete non-understanding of the material.

Frackin A. (1)

Joe U (443617) | about 5 months ago | (#46932565)

First off, NPR edited and reported on what the USGS published. That's called news, NPR is not the source, the USGS is. If your world renowned PhD is laughing at the USGS, I think he needs to publish a paper explaining why.

Second, this is Slashdot, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Posting links is fine as long as they are backed by real research. Again, I think the USGS is, by far, the best source for this. That's what they do, their agenda is to answer questions, not to make money for the local energy concern.

Given the gas and oil industry's scientific reputation, anything they publish should be suspect. (Remember how safe leaded gas was?)

Re:Frackin A. (1)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46932623)

Actually, he is published, and rather extensively. (USGS often calls him. Just to put that in perspective).

Re:Fracking!!! (1)

Ultracrepidarian (576183) | about 5 months ago | (#46931197)

Although I'm not a fan of fracking, it's entirely possible this is preventing more devastating quakes by relieving stress in these faults in smaller increments.

Re:Fracking!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46930263)

"No officer, I didn't shoot that man. Well, I did pull the trigger, but that bullet had a lot of potential energy that would have been released somehow eventually."

Not Fracking. Disposal. (1)

Joe U (443617) | about 5 months ago | (#46931775)

...and no it's not fracking. The faults already existed, the only thing that fracking may have done is lubricate those faults, they still would've happened eventually.

Unaided those earthquakes would have happened anyway, on the normal geologic timescale of some time in the next thousand years.

But I agree with you, it's not fracking, it's wastewater disposal. We've known since the 50's that you don't pump water into areas that are not stable. What's going to happen is the state is going to do very little until there's an earthquake that does major damage. Then the Feds are going to get involved and things will finally get done.

Also, at some point, some random idiot with a following will blame the gays, Jews, Muslims, communists, blacks, or generic sinners for this. The only group that will not be blamed will be the people who pumped water at high speeds into an unstable area.

Re:Not Fracking. Disposal. (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46931827)

...ah but we don't KNOW that it would've been in one thousand years, two thousand, or next week. ...something else that folks don't realize is that this area is also very diverse in its geology, from solid sandstone sheets to surface granite, it's quite interesting really. ...but to answer you final statement, they'll still find a way to pin it on Bush.

Re:Not Fracking. Disposal. (1)

Joe U (443617) | about 5 months ago | (#46931959)

How about we blame Fallin? She's the one person who could actually suspend pumping until actual geologists that are not being paid by Chesapeake & friends figure out a solution.

I find it humorous that it's doing more damage in the expensive housing near Edmond that most of the execs live in.

Re: Not Fracking. Disposal. (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46932065)

Or place blame where blame is due...like overly restrictive regulations that forced hydraulic fracturing on existing wells instead of being able to drill new ones...thanks EPA.

Fallin is hardly to blame...its one big shell-game by the corporations and by the time it reaches the gov's desk its already an institution.

I say let em keep going, I like earthquakes.

*yawn*.... (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46928415)

...people forget we deal with tornadoes every year, and earthquake is a walk in the park.

Re:*yawn*.... (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | about 5 months ago | (#46928767)

Yawn, indeed. Earthquakes can devastate an area much larger that a typical tornado. Especially in places where they've never implemented building codes intended to mitigate earthquakes. Here in CA, all new buildings are required to meet certain codes, many of the bridges have been refitted to be more seismic proof, and certain existing buildings, primarily schools and hospitals have either undergone extensive retrofitting or have been closed.

Perhaps building codes intended to protect against tornadoes will work, in some measure, against earthquakes, assuming OK has them, but I'd still expect rather significant destruction in even a moderate size earthquake.

Re:*yawn*.... (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46928903)

again....*yawn*...

I give two shits about California. I was in San Francisco for the last big one, it's nothing compared to the Moore tornadoes...(notice that was plural.).

Re:*yawn*.... (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | about 5 months ago | (#46929109)

And I give even less to OK but you've completely missed the point.

Re:*yawn*.... (0)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 5 months ago | (#46929153)

I didn't miss the point, your point has no bearing because we don't live in a densely populated cesspool. Your projecting your surroundings on this area, and they simply have no context.

The only point I got is that you're an overbearing ass that thinks he knows it all and you exercise every opportunity to make yourself feel superior to others. Did I miss anything?

Re:*yawn*.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46930945)

Since you said you don't care about CA when the comment was talking about lack of such codes in OK, you obviously missed the point. It doesn't matter if you live in a less densely populated area. That might lower the chances of everyone getting hit by a tornado at the same time, even the 2 mile wide ones, but everyone in broad area would be within the hazard area of a strong earthquake. Other places have shown, that even in modern times, places without buildings designed for earthquakes can a pretty low threshold for a quake that will cause damage and deaths. It isn't reasonable to build every place to such codes, but some places will be unfortunate to deal with the unexpected or infrequent mess.

Re:*yawn*.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46931285)

I didn't miss the point, your point has no bearing because we don't live in a densely populated cesspool.

\
The people in OKC do. I've been there, seen it.

Re:*yawn*.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929095)

Perhaps building codes intended to protect against tornadoes will work, in some measure, against earthquakes, assuming OK has them, but I'd still expect rather significant destruction in even a moderate size earthquake.

lol. There are no home building codes for tornado protection. We have tornado/storm shelters (underground) we go to. If a tornado hits you directly the house is sacrificial. Funny enough the last earthquake strong enough to feel here (OK) scared my wife because she thought it was a tornado coming. I don't worry much about tornadoes and earthquakes even less. The odds just don't warrant it ( I don't live in Moore.)

One possible exception to the "building codes" thing: There are some new "safe rooms" that they say will survive an EF5, basically steel plates for walls/ceiling bolted to the floor but I'd rather be underground.

Stop Plate Tectonics! (0)

wcrowe (94389) | about 5 months ago | (#46928953)

More earthquakes in Oklahoma. Thanks Obama!

CA Outsources everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929027)

Even earthquakes.

Sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929303)

Fracking and marijuana have a lot in common; fracking advocates claim it's safe when all geological surveys say it isn't, marijuana advocates say it's safe when all peer reviewed science says it isn't.

But there's so much money involved in both that we're being inundated with fracking and drugs regardless of how bad it is for us. Gotta make that profit, at any cost to the people.

GOD. IS. PISSED. (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about 5 months ago | (#46929705)

GOD. IS. PISSED.

It's God's punishment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46929991)

... for the oklahomans' wicked christian lifestyle.

Oh my (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932009)

Jesus! I bet it's going to be like a F10 Fu-Richta scale.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?