Reply With Quote
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/0...l-earthquakes/
I don't necessarily believe this anyway, but flippantly blow it off...
yes winehole, there is more...
there's plenty more where that came from, I hear
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/0...l-earthquakes/
I don't necessarily believe this anyway, but flippantly blow it off...
yes winehole, there is more...
Last edited by pgardn; 03-25-2014 at 03:34 PM.
WTF difference does it matter what his BA is in?
There are plenty if people who have bachelor degrees that don't match their graduate work.
He's getting a masters in public administration. Not exactly the background I go to for my geologic literature. I'm just saying you picked a bad source to link.
I"m not sure what you're trying to prove? I pointed out above that injection wells are the issue and are definitely a factor in the earthquakes. Injection wells are not the same as fracking though.
"It might be that an injection can only trigger an earthquake if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a nearby fault that is already ready to slip," says Frohlich. "That just isn't the situation in many places."
Hydraulic fracturing is an industrial process in which water and various chemicals are pumped deep underground in order to fracture rock, allowing oil or gas to more easily flow to a well. As petroleum is produced at the surface, most hydraulic fracturing fluids return to the surface too. Frohlich is careful to point out that he did not evaluate the possible correlation of earthquakes with the actual hydraulic fracturing process, but rather the effects of disposing of fracturing fluids and other wastes in these injection wells.
Thats from the UT article above. Now read what I posted earlier.
I thought it was obvious we were talking about injection.
Papers:
That there is a statistical correlation between fracking, which often involves injection, and minor earthquakes. This is all.
Winehole and yourself acted like there was no literature because I did not link something before that?
And the opinion piece that you blew of is essentially The Same Subject. But you did not figure out why I was posting what I was posting then... Really...
Read post # 45 Again...
And your post #47 assumes injection is all the same. I asked about the amounts of water used. You then stated the EQ was going to happen anyway. I asked when?
By the time humans are extinct?
There is some misunderstanding. But there is/are also some posts that are disingenuous.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-25-2014 at 09:16 PM.
btw your climate stuff was good...
I am assuming it was all fair play as well.
I never once said that there was no literature about injection wells. I took issue with your statement that some geologists think small earthquakes can avoid big earthquakes. You walked that back so whatever.
You don't seem to understand that injection wells and fracking are two completely separate activities. The last article that you linked states this as well. Nearly every statement by a geologist on this subject has that scientist stating there is a clear difference between the two activities and fracking does not need to be followed by injection wells. I don't know how much more clearly to state this for you. Yes, fracking waste has been disposed of via injection wells but many companies are now just reusing the returned water and there are other disposal methods. If nothing else, you can ship the water to an area where injection wells are not causing earthquakes as most injection wells do not. Injection Well problems are not fracking problems.
I don't care why you posted that paper by the philosopher. I don't use non peer reviewed papers to make my point because they're not good sources. Especially when written by laymen.
As far as the earthquake, I specifically said it MAY have sped up an earthquake that was going to happen. In other words, the amount of stress that is needed to cause a earthquake of magnitude 5 is not generated through injection wells. Injection wells cause a redistribution of effective stress which in turn allows the movement along fault lines. When was the earthquake going to occur? Its impossible to tell, but its also important to note that there have been similar earthquakes within the seismological record in these places which stretches back less than a 100 years in most locations. So your characterization of events that occur on decedal time scales as not occuring until we are extinct is simply foolish.
I'm not being disingenuous so I'm not sure if you were referring to your own posts?
The first bolded can be taken as disingenuous. You asked me to find a paper, I did. You took the time to look up the author background but claim you did not read the article. You don't have to read the article, read the le, intro, read the conclusion, done. Then you know exactly what I am posting about. Then I put up the other paper, basically stating the same. And said there were many more. So you fall back on a prior discussion to whitewash a different discussion. And you don't see why I think this disingenuous? Really? So the papers were news to you or not?
The second bolded stands without explanation. You can't say it was going to happen anyway. It implies that the injection of water did not CAUSE an earthquake. The potential energy is already built up. The cause of an earthquake is the stress that has built up over time or some kicker that finally releases the potential energy? It is also possible the built up energy dissipates? No? You can't say it was going to happen anyway. That's why I asked about the amount of water and when and then the sarcasm.
So these articles show an increase in activity that is correlated with a man made activity and you don't like this? You asked me to find the papers... Why if you already knew? Because you did not think a man made activity could supply enough energy?
Yes, I would say disingenuous.
Like someone showed earlier, modern and dependable earthquake detection is new to Texas. To say these earthquakes would never occur is laughable to anyone who has studied geology in Texas.
Here's what it comes down to: what will be the overall impact these earthquakes will have on society. The answer is no significant impact. The earthquakes are shallow and aren't capable of setting up higher magnitude earthquakes.
I'm not sure where I asked you to find a paper to back up what I had said considering I had just said it. The post are there if you want to go back and read them.
Looking up the authors background involved scrolling to the end as I was looking for the journal it was published in. Took all of 20 seconds at most.
As for the rest, I'm not a geologist but maybe you can take the word of the geologist who just posted above me. I'm not making this up.
I have no problem with the geologist wrote.
But I do find it totally ridiculous to do the math which says it requires _____ much energy to release potential energy that is already present in a fault. If that's what is meant by the earthquakes have to occur. If it means they were already unstable because the earthquakes became more frequent with what might be injection of water I understand.
How long does it take to read a le? Considering you had to go to the article anyway to find the author...
Last edited by pgardn; 03-27-2014 at 08:50 AM.
Injection wells don't cause additional stress so they're not making anything "unstable".
What does the le have to do with it? The article you linked is written by a laymen and was not interesting to me to read. That has nothing to do with the le or whether or not I agree with its conclusions. I didn't tell you to go find papers I just told you it was a bad source. It is.
I really have no idea what your point is anymore. I'm done here unless you come up with something more interesting.
So then what is it about the correlation between injection wells and the increase in EQ activity. A possible mechanism?
AGAIN you don't have to read the article. The le says it. You read the other it states basically THE SAME thing. I guess the layman copied.
I am saying that my model is that potential energy must have been built up underground if an EQ causes such shaking (ie release of potential energy). What caused the releases in potential energy to occur more often IF THERE is a correlation between EQ frequency and injecting water underground?
I am NOT saying the injection wells CREATED the potential energy that has been built up underground.
What am I missing? Before you cut me off and send me into time out? This is basically along the same theme of all my posts, even the one you called ridiculous and applied the math incorrectly to what is stated in the model above.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-27-2014 at 06:47 PM.
THIS is not the same as what you're now posting. THIS - you know - the post I ORIGINALLY QUOTED is wrong by simple math. It shouldn't be that hard to keep up.
From way back.
FICTION: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, OR 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high- pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake.
The bolded is almost exactly what I have been writing about after the above. The trigger to release stored energy is a little shove. Paper burns if given a little energy and releases a whole lot more potential energy ALREADY PRESENT in the paper. You don't have to keep lighting the paper to keep it burning. That's the math you are referring to in what In italicized above. It is, quite simply, applied incorrectly to what I was stating after the above. And you have to see this...
k
This isn't a finite piece of paper. These are faults in the middle of the north american plate. There is a load from the plates right next to it pushing from multiple directions and they are torquing the plate too. You are changing the load internally and that is just as like to leave a hole as it is to buttress against the prevailing pressures. They are constant and inexorable relative to the human lifespan.
No actually it is finite in total as long as we assume the sun's energy does not add anything. And decreasing as earthquakes occur and heat through volcanoes etc... release the energy in other forms. There is only so much potential energy stored in the earth via radioactive decay, fault lines, plate boundaries, other stuff a geologist might add to the list. The paper analogy was just used to pont out the fallacy that you have to put in as much energy as an earthquake gives off. The energy is already present in the earth. It might not take much energy input to release it. Plenty of earthquakes would obviously occur without humans present. They already have.
The paper analogy falls way short in actually describing a very complex sequence of events that release potential energy.
Now the shifting in potential energy, changing as stress builds in one place and decreases in another, has to occur by my reasoning and seems very complicated as you noted with the torquing and all. And the shifting of potential energy to shaking and giving off heat occurred long before we were here and of course should continue to do so.
The moon is geologically inactive as far as I know. I guess it has little hot material left. But it is small so it might be expected to be dead after such a long period of time. But I am speculating as I am not a planetary geologist and really don't know that much other than what I have read.
Meh, not really worried about this, considering how many underground nuclear tests have been conducted.
Here's a time lapse animation of all nuclear explosions
But, oooh, fracking scary
I'm not worried either.
But it is interesting imo.
Yes eventually the sun and earth will cool and as the sun expands we will fall into the Earth as the orbit decays. That is why I said relative to the human lifespan. The earth still torques and the plates still rest on magma.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
