Can Science do anything about known/expected Earth Quakes ?

[Acme]

Should be noted not all all oil and gas processes, including fracking dump waste into the ground. Some actually treat the water. I've worked on a few oil field water treatment systems, the companies that have them take water treatment extremely serious.

 

Not stating it does or doesn't happen. However it should be noted not all companies follow the best practices.

(For that matter, I've seen people fired for not reporting and cleaning up a spill, while filling their engine oil on their work vehicle)

The wastewater [commonly saltwater] comes up with the oil and according to that report on induced earthquakes that I cited in post #49, there is less quake risk if the drillers put the wastewater back down the hole because it maintains the initial equilibrium. This is different than drilling separate wastewater injection wells that are beneath the extraction levels which is what has caused the Oklahoma quake swarm.

 

Note that extraction itself can induce quakes regardless of the dispensation of the wastewater.

 

It's a dangerous world; be careful.

[iNow]

Putting the wastewater back is less relevant than the pressure under which it's returned.

[Acme]

Putting the wastewater back is less relevant than the pressure under which it's returned.

No, that is incorrect. The wastewater disposal wells in Oklahoma are not pressurized as are the fracking wells. That was elucidated in several of the articles we have already covered. It is the volume of water injected that has caused the problem as it accumulated over decades of disposal in Oklahoma and the start up of quakes was related to the proverbial straw in the camels hump. Edited May 11, 2015 by Acme

[iNow]

I concede that I may be mistaken, and stipulate that wastewater volume and pressure are not mutually exclusive issues (i.e. we may actually agree here, though it may not be obvious given my sloppy language), but I was commenting based on what was shared by USGS:

 

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

Wastewater injection increases the underground pore pressure, which may, in effect, lubricate nearby faults thereby weakening them. If the pore pressure increases enough, the weakened fault will slip, releasing stored tectonic stress in the form of an earthquake. Even faults that have not moved in millions of years can be made to slip and cause an earthquake if conditions underground are appropriate.

[Acme]

I concede that I may be mistaken, and stipulate that wastewater volume and pressure are not mutually exclusive issues (i.e. we may actually agree here, though it may not be obvious given my sloppy language), but I was commenting based on what was shared by USGS:

 

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

Yes, but the pore pressure is a result of the weight of the large volume of water & not injection pressure. These injection wells go deep into layers that are porous & don't normally hold water. Pour water in & the pressure in those pores go up.

[iNow]

Okay. Like I said, I suspect we broadly agree.

[Harold Squared]

Given the problems with climate modeling and getting any kind of meaningful accuracy out of them I am pessimistic about the future of earthquake forecasting.

 

Personally I am puzzled by why earthquake prone areas seem to be so very attractive. Alaska, British Columbia, the Pacific Coast of the United States, and New Zealand, in particular. Just gorgeous, but I could never bring myself to move there nevertheless.

[Strange]

Given the problems with climate modeling and getting any kind of meaningful accuracy out of them I am pessimistic about the future of earthquake forecasting.

 

This monomania is a bit tiresome. However, ...

 

Earthquake forecasting is more akin to weather forecasting, which is generally pretty accurate nowadays (and getting better all the time). But earthquake forecasting will never approach that sort of accuracy.

 

The equivalent of climate forecasting would be long term trends in seismic activity as tectonic plates shift around, etc. I don't know if that is practical (or useful) or even being researched.

 

 

Personally I am puzzled by why earthquake prone areas seem to be so very attractive. Alaska, British Columbia, the Pacific Coast of the United States, and New Zealand, in particular. Just gorgeous, but I could never bring myself to move there nevertheless.

 

I have spent much of my life living in earthquake zones, in the shadow of volcanoes, in various parts of the world: they have been the best places I have lived.

[Harold Squared]

Agreed. Volcanic soil is notoriously fertile, maybe there is some sort of race memory phenomena involved. But yeah, geophysicists have a pretty good idea of where the plates have been and where they are going, since the geological record is literally written in stone.

 

Atmospheric matters, not so much. It is hard just to find anyone who will acknowledge that the past 15 plus years have shown no significant warming trend.

[iNow]

This isn't a climate change thread.

Stop trolling.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Harold, if you can't keep your nonsense confined to the threads that they belong (for example, not this one), we will suspend you. Stop hijacking discussion and stick to the topic, or simply don't post.

[Harold Squared]

It is true, and related to the topic, the record of continental drift is more durable and less open to variance of interpretation than that of atmospheric phenomena. I was making a simple, and true, comparison which I stand by. Threats will not change it and it has been obvious my views are unpopular here. You will notice perhaps the complete absence of cartoons in my posts, what the hell relevance do they have on a science forum devoted to any topic if I may ask? Yet there they are, and NOT my doing, look for yourself.

[pavelcherepan]

Agreed. Volcanic soil is notoriously fertile, maybe there is some sort of race memory phenomena involved.

 

It's not that. Rather that people always preferred settling along sea coasts and rivers and by the cruel joke of nature subduction zones and volcanoes associated with those are on the coast too (take Pacific or Mediterranean coasts for example)

[Strange]

I was making a simple, and true, comparison which I stand by.

 

Simplistic, not shown to be true, and irrelevant.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Strange