# More "fracking-induced" quakes in Oklahoma



## Dot Com (Jul 14, 2014)

When are you carbon junkies gonna learn that extraction has a price and a steep one at that?

USGS: 7 small earthquakes shake central Oklahoma


> The Oklahoma Geological Survey has said *the state is experiencing unprecedented earthquake activity* and that his agency is closely monitoring it to determine whether the quakes are a natural phenomenon or are man-made.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. Fracking doesn't make new faults, it sets off existing faults earlier than would have otherwise happened. And a bunch of small earthquakes is better than one big one.

Of course, one could counter by saying that big one might not have happened for 10,000 years, at which point we'll have floating cities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

Prior to fracking, OK never had earthquakes

Never

Not even once

Uh huh


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

"The series of great earthquakes in the New Madrid, Missouri, region in 1811 - 1812, and a strong earthquake centered in Arkansas (October 22, 1881) were probably felt in the area that is now Oklahoma.

The first earthquake known to have centered in the State occurred in September 1918. A series of shocks at El Reno produced only minor effects; the strongest was intensity V on September 10. Objects were thrown from shelves. Other shocks occurred on the next day. On December 27, 1929, another tremor centered in the same area was felt in portions of central and western Oklahoma. Some plaster cracked and at least one chimney fell (intensity VI) at El Reno. In addition, clocks stopped, objects moved, and some reports indicated the walls and floors seemed to sway. In several cities, people rushed from their homes in alarm. The total felt area included about 20,000 square kilometers.

The magnitude 5.5 April 9, 1952, earthquake centered near El Reno affected most of Oklahoma and parts of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas. Damage from the 10:30 a.m. CST earthquake was not extensive, but many people in the epicentral area were alarmed, some to near panic. Portions of chimneys fell in El Reno and Ponca City (intensity VII). Bricks loosened from a building wall and tile facing of commercial buildings bulged at Oklahoma City. Also, plate glass windows were shattered in the business district of El Reno. The total damage amounted to several thousand dollars. Aftershocks were felt on April 11, 15, and 16, July 16, and August 14; an earthquake that was felt (IV) at Holdenville and Wewoka on October 7 apparently was unrelated to the April 9th event. Homes and buildings shook and some persons were awakened (V) at El Reno from the April 16th shock, which occurred 5 minutes after midnight. Felt reports were also received from Kingfisher, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Union City."

Oklahoma


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Prior to fracking, OK never had earthquakes



It's statistics, Frank. Something you've always been dogshit ignorant of, hence your global warming positions.

If suddenly, all over the nation, there are lots of little earthquakes in exactly the same spots as the fracking, areas that had very few earthquakes before, it means something.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to fracking, OK never had earthquakes
> ...



Oh, you should have read the post above you before you fucked yourself


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

Frank, your second post was just more of the same stupid fallacy on your part.

But hey, go on denying reality. It's served you well so far.


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> When are you carbon junkies gonna learn that extraction has a price and a steep one at that?
> 
> USGS: 7 small earthquakes shake central Oklahoma
> 
> ...



well if you were an honest carbon junky and you are one,you have noted the piece din't identify a cause.

So try again.


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, your second post was just more of the same stupid fallacy on your part.
> 
> But hey, go on denying reality. It's served you well so far.



What reality is that?.your type has a real hard time with the truth?

We have been having many small tremors in NY and there is no fracking going on there at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

Global Warming is causing the tremors


----------



## hardrock (Jul 14, 2014)

Oklahoma had it's oil boom  in the 1920's. There were a lot more wells drilled then than now.

"Fracking" is short for fracturing the tube through which the well was drilled with explosives
to allow the oil to enter the well.

All of those early wells were "fracked" but the earthquakes started when?


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 14, 2014)

hardrock said:


> Oklahoma had it's oil boom  in the 1920's. There were a lot more wells drilled then than now.
> 
> "Fracking" is short for fracturing the tube through which the well was drilled with explosives
> to allow the oil to enter the well.
> ...



Fracking is an old method its been around for years and years,so has dishonesty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, your second post was just more of the same stupid fallacy on your part.
> 
> But hey, go on denying reality. It's served you well so far.



I'm mocking your Cult


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 14, 2014)

I grew up in Oklahoma in the 1960-80's and remember earthquakes happening there several times.

They were always small and would just rattle the dishes setting inside the china cabinet and make the ash tray scoot across the coffee table.   ..


----------



## hjmick (Jul 14, 2014)

Get back to us when they know what's causing them. Well, if it's something other than natural...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

sunni man said:


> i grew up in oklahoma in the 1960-80's and remember earthquakes happening there several times.
> 
> They were always small and would just rattle the dishes setting inside the china cabinet and make the ash tray scoot across the coffee table.   ..



denier!!

He's a fracking denier, amiright?


----------



## peach174 (Jul 14, 2014)

It isn't fracking that is causing the quakes.

We have no fracking in Arizona and we just had an earthquake not too long ago.
It is rare to have one here in the Southeastern part of AZ. but it seems something else big is going on.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 14, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> hardrock said:
> 
> 
> > Oklahoma had it's oil boom in the 1920's. There were a lot more wells drilled then than now.
> ...


 
Hydraulic fracturing, first tried in 1947, has become popular since the '80s with the development of horizontal well drilling and high-pressure injection of sand-water solutions.

It probably does cause earthquakes but that may be a blessing as previously mentioned. It may cause groundwater contaimination if not done correctly and here is a role for government oversight. There is likely much more energy trapped underground than we've extracted to date.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

peach174 said:


> It isn't fracking that is causing the quakes.
> 
> We have no fracking in Arizona and we just had an earthquake not too long ago.
> It is rare to have one here in the Southeastern part of AZ. but it seems something else big is going on.



^ Fracking Denier!!!

Come on, Cultists! You're slacking off!!


----------



## bodecea (Jul 14, 2014)

Let them frack all they want over there.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 14, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> hardrock said:
> 
> 
> > Oklahoma had it's oil boom  in the 1920's. There were a lot more wells drilled then than now.
> ...



Fracking experiments was in 1947 and started being used commercially in 1949. 
Small quakes have always been felt in Oklahoma and the first recording of one was in 1918.
The ones that Oklahoma is experiencing now is because of the New Madrid fault line, not fracking.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 14, 2014)




----------



## Dot Com (Jul 14, 2014)

I see a lot of minimization & deflection here by the carbon extraction industry cheerleaders


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

peach174 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2adAYgFjI



Denier!!


----------



## peach174 (Jul 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> I see a lot of minimization & deflection here by the carbon extraction industry cheerleaders



You're the one not seeing the whole big picture Dot

Live Earthquakes Map


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> I see a lot of minimization & deflection here by the carbon extraction industry cheerleaders



Paling in comparison to the out right lies,such as the OP has done.

Your a hydrocarbon user just like everyone else,try not to be such a fucking hypocrite.

Keep trying


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to fracking, OK never had earthquakes
> ...



Yeah, it means fracking is dangerous.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 14, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I see a lot of minimization & deflection here by the carbon extraction industry cheerleaders
> ...



says YOU chickenwing IF thats your real name


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



So your pedaling a generator as you type,made that pc out of old washer parts??

Real name?? WTF?

Sticking with brain dead.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to fracking, OK never had earthquakes
> ...



We are having small quakes all over the nation where there is no fracking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> When are you carbon junkies gonna learn that extraction has a price and a steep one at that?
> 
> USGS: 7 small earthquakes shake central Oklahoma
> 
> ...



Funny, I don't see anything about fracking in the link, and no legitimate scientist is linking the quakes to fracking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to fracking, OK never had earthquakes
> ...



Actually, it is science that says fracking doesn't cause quakes.

Is the Recent Increase in Felt Earthquakes in the Central US Natural or Manmade?

But, please, feel free to pretend you understand this better than the USGS.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2014)

Seriously, Fracking should be banned over a fault that can produce a 6+ or above quake. You'd have to be a total fucking idiot to frack that.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Seriously, Fracking should be banned over a fault that can produce a 6+ or above quake. You'd have to be a total fucking idiot to frack that.



eXactly!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

Driving with a bad tailpipe causes earthquakes


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Seriously, Fracking should be banned over a fault that can produce a 6+ or above quake. You'd have to be a total fucking idiot to frack that.



So no fracking anywhere in the Midwest?


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 14, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Driving with a bad tailpipe causes earthquakes



is there a forum you post on that you don't exclusively use rw hyperbole [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Driving with a bad tailpipe causes earthquakes
> ...



I signed up at Democrat Underground but I think they banned me before my first post

I was going to say, "I used ta be a Republican, but then they did mean things so now I'm devoting my life to Obama, Redistribution and Free Condoms for Sandy Fluke"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

Do cow farts cause earthquakes?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Seriously, Fracking should be banned over a fault that can produce a 6+ or above quake. You'd have to be a total fucking idiot to frack that.



Seriously, you should learn science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

We shouldn't allow any type of construction over a fault either... hammering a nail too aggressively could shake the fault loose


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Actually, it is science that says fracking doesn't cause quakes.



Congratulations on using some fine hair-splitting to divert. "It's not the fracking, it's the wastewater disposal that goes along with the fracking! You said it was fracking, so you're stupid!".



> But, please, feel free to pretend you understand this better than the USGS.





> What We Know
> 
> While it appears likely that the observed seismicity rate changes in the middle part of the United States in recent years are manmade, it remains to be determined if they are related to either changes in production methodologies or to the rate of oil and gas production.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 14, 2014)

some or many of them also do this: 

Ohio Businessman Pleads Guilty After Dumping Fracking Wastewater Into Mahoning River


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it is science that says fracking doesn't cause quakes.
> ...



Funny how you didn't have a problem with the OP saying fracking caused earthquakes, and only took exception to my post proving it doesn't.

Then again, we all know you are a hack.

By the way, all those little quakes are only a problem in the minds of hacks who hate science.


----------



## RGR (Jul 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Seriously, Fracking should be banned over a fault that can produce a 6+ or above quake. You'd have to be a total fucking idiot to frack that.



You have to be a total fucking idiot to believe that fault zones are what is hydraulically stimulated during completion operations of a well.

OhwaitI'm responding to Matthew.it all fits.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



More and more science is coming around to disagree with you. You just don't get more quakes, then California in Oklahoma. So sorry to rain on your parade...You people were also wrong about smoking...How did that work out for you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 15, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Actually, as mamooth pointed out, and my link to a government study confirms, the theory is that waste water injection causes minor earthquakes. And, again as mamooth pointed out, that is not fracking. 

But feel free to pretend you actually know what you are talking about.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 15, 2014)

hardrock said:


> Oklahoma had it's oil boom  in the 1920's. There were a lot more wells drilled then than now.
> 
> "Fracking" is short for fracturing the tube through which the well was drilled with explosives
> to allow the oil to enter the well.
> ...



That is not what 'fracking' is. A really ignorant post, that serves neither the proponents nor opponents of the practice.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 15, 2014)

I'm getting tired of deniers putting their heads in the sand while this is going on!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 15, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> I'm getting tired of deniers putting their heads in the sand while this is going on!!!



Funny thing is that there is a serious danger of earthquakes caused by man who haven't been fracking. Want to know what the cause is?

Wells.



> Winter rains and summer groundwater pumping in Californias Central  Valley make the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges sink and rise by a few  millimeters each year, creating stress on the states earthquake faults  that could increase the risk of a quake.
> Gradual depletion of the Central Valley aquifer because of  groundwater pumping also raises these mountain ranges by a similar  amount each year  about the thickness of a dime  with a cumulative  rise over the past 150 years of up to 15 centimeters (6 inches),  according to calculations by a team of geophysicists.
> While the seasonal changes in the Central Valley aquifer have not yet  been firmly associated with any earthquakes, studies have shown that  similar levels of periodic stress, such as that caused by the motions of  the moon and sun, increase the number of microquakes on the San Andreas  Fault, which runs parallel to the mountain ranges. If these subtle  seasonal load changes are capable of influencing the occurrence of  microquakes, it is possible that they can sometimes also trigger a  larger event, said Roland Bürgmann, UC Berkeley professor of earth and  planetary science at UC Berkeley.
> The stress is very small, much less than you need to build up stress  on a fault toward an earthquake, but in some circumstances such small  stress changes can be the straw that broke the camels back; it could  just give that extra push to get a fault to fail, Bürgmann said.



Central Valley groundwater depletion raises Sierra and may trigger small earthquakes


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 15, 2014)

yes, I read about that. We can thank Big Agri & their powerful interests for that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> hardrock said:
> 
> 
> > Oklahoma had it's oil boom  in the 1920's. There were a lot more wells drilled then than now.
> ...



^ Fracking moron


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> I'm getting tired of deniers putting their heads in the sand while this is going on!!!



People must be, like, dropping dead in the street from all this stuff.

.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 15, 2014)

Lubricating faults is a sure way get them to slip. That is exactly what fracking does if there is a fault where the fracking is done. There are many faults that show no evidence of their existance at surface. 

Oklahoma Earthquake Swarm 2014: Rise In Oklahoma Earthquakes Tied to Fracking Wastewater Has Citizens And Scientists Searching For Answers

Roy Grissom was lying in bed one morning in 2011 when his house in Oklahoma suddenly shook. Heavy concrete window sills ripped from the walls, pulling out chunks of brick as they fell. The older home&#8217;s foundation split and the plaster ceiling began to crack. The house shuddered again, and then again.

Grissom never expected to feel an earthquake in Prague (pronounced &#8220;PRAY-geh&#8221, a town of 2,500 people settled by Czech immigrants. &#8220;Fires or tornadoes, sure, but not an earthquake. Not in Oklahoma,&#8221; the former school superintendent told International Business Times.

The 5.7-magnitude earthquake &#8211; the strongest in the state&#8217;s history &#8211; and a series of related shocks destroyed 13 other homes and injured two people that November, racking up nearly $1 million in damage across the small town.

This spring, federal scientists confirmed the quake&#8217;s likely cause: Wastewater from oil and gas operations -- created by both conventional oil drilling and modern techniques like fracking -- had been injected in the ground near a fault zone, triggering the seismic reaction. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) dubbed the event the &#8220;largest human-caused earthquake associated with wastewater injection.&#8221;


----------



## Samson (Jul 15, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> I grew up in Oklahoma in the 1960-80's and remember earthquakes happening there several times.
> 
> They were always small and would just rattle the dishes setting inside the china cabinet and make the ash tray scoot across the coffee table.   ..



Me too.

But it was from Artillary Fire.

Fort Sill....


----------



## Samson (Jul 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Lubricating faults is a sure way get them to slip. That is exactly what fracking does if there is a fault where the fracking is done. There are many faults that show no evidence of their existance at surface.
> 
> Oklahoma Earthquake Swarm 2014: Rise In Oklahoma Earthquakes Tied to Fracking Wastewater Has Citizens And Scientists Searching For Answers
> 
> ...



Yes developing energy sources involves risk.

I understand some people have been "electrocuted" by energy that is in practically every home in America.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jul 26, 2014)

Samson said:


> Yes developing energy sources involves risk.
> 
> I understand some people have been "electrocuted" by energy that is in practically every home in America.



Yeah, electricity isn't an "energy source," dip****.  Do better with your analogies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 26, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Lubricating faults is a sure way get them to slip. That is exactly what fracking does if there is a fault where the fracking is done. There are many faults that show no evidence of their existance at surface.
> 
> Oklahoma Earthquake Swarm 2014: Rise In Oklahoma Earthquakes Tied to Fracking Wastewater Has Citizens And Scientists Searching For Answers
> 
> ...



LOL

Obama's "Scientists" say fracking caused it

What a fracking idiot


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 26, 2014)

Lubricating faults?????

Seriously???


----------



## RGR (Jul 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> But feel free to pretend you actually know what you are talking about.



You were responding to Matthew....he has nearly changed the first level definition of what that name means in the dictionary, to something resembling "person who pretends they know what they are talking about, usually assigned by parents who want to warn the world".


----------



## RGR (Jul 27, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Yes developing energy sources involves risk.
> ...



Says the parrot. Polly want a cracker? Is this the best your church can send you into battle with nowadays? Did you bring a brain back with you this time?

"Energy isn't a source".....undoubtedly said with a pseudo serious voice worthy of the oil-ignorant at TOD...which priests of peak are you representing now that the eggheads tucked tail and ran, in light of how silly "terminal decline" claims look in the face of the fastest increases in US oil production in the HISTORY of the country?


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 27, 2014)

what did I miss?


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jul 27, 2014)

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



yeah, cool story...    Price, tho

LOL... you're so beaten, yet such an arrogant ass in defeat.  I knew you'd be along with more substance-free trollness in no time. ...  I need only ring the bell, and you come running.

See, dipshit, a meager 3 million bpd increase (entirely due to unsustainable shale plays) in the U.S. isn't the world game-changer you're hoping it is. You know this is true. I could tell that the last time I was here, when your response to Kopitz' presentation at Columbia Univ. was a whole lot of this juvenile tripe above. I actually kinda felt bad for you that day. Reduced to acting like a grade schooler, and ironically suggesting someone else is the religious zealot. 

Kopitz obliterated your entire "no problem" platform in February, and no amount of faux technical industry jargon you spew changes the overarching data, nor helps you understand the macro-economics of dying world net energy.  You're too stupid and arrogant for that, a truly dangerous combination.

I'm sorry that yet another shale reserve pipe dream got revised back down to reality recently, this time down some 95% in Calif. That must have left you snake oil frauds mighty butthurt, being so dead wrong yet again, trying to regroup after the government has to openly admit some 2/3 of previously stated reserves don't actually exist in any reasonable economic scenario. Meanwhile, Bakken wells are still down, what some 69% after the first year of production? Gosh, your pet industry needs to run ever faster and faster each year just to remain in place. Exhausting tread mill that must be. And utterly unsustainable, to anyone honest about basic arithmetic.



_The shale bubble&#8217;s-a-poppin&#8217;. In 2012, the IEA forecast that oil extraction rates from US shale formations (primarily the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas) would continue growing for many years, with America overtaking Saudia Arabia in rate of oil production by 2020 and becoming a net oil exporter by 2030.* In its new report, the IEA says US tight oil production will start to decline around 2020*. One might almost think the IEA folks have been reading Post Carbon Institute&#8217;s analysis of tight oil and shale gas prospects! www.shalebubble.org* This is a welcome dose of realism, though the IEA is probably still erring on the side of optimism: our own reading of the data suggests the decline will start sooner and will probably be steep.*​_​
You're going to need to muddy the water all over again with wondrous new prose about the "imminent" technology of the future. Your last round really fell flat. Reality is catching up to your fraudulent sales pitch. See, price kinda matters. Always did. Foreign investment is drying up, and the oil majors are scaling their efforts way back. Awwww. Gonna take some Baghdad Bob-level spin to overcome the financial realities c***-slapping your story in the face lately.

Oil price is breaking the back of the world economy, and yet the majors need it much higher because they can't turn a profit. Peak was always about the economics of producing abundant crap oil Kinda destroys any spin you can muster, to this point.

IEA says the Party&#8217;s Over

_It will require $48 trillion in investments through 2035 to meet the world&#8217;s growing energy needs, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday from Paris. IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in a statement the reliability and sustainability of future energy supplies depends on a high level of investment. &#8220;But this won&#8217;t materialize unless there are credible policy frameworks in place as well as stable access to long-term sources of finance,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Neither of these conditions should be taken for granted.&#8221;​_
Do better. Much better. Meanwhile, oil price:

[youtube]YHv5jgXz9I8[/youtube]


----------



## RGR (Jul 27, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > Says the parrot. Polly want a cracker? Is this the best your church can send you into battle with nowadays? Did you bring a brain back with you this time?
> ...



Can we take this as a "no", you still aren't going to bring back anyone from the church that can think?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> See, dipshit, a meager 3 million bpd increase (entirely due to unsustainable shale plays) in the U.S. isn't the world game-changer you're hoping it is.



No oil production is "sustainable" you halfwit. And at the EIA conference in Washington two weeks ago Yergin gave quite a decent summary as to why the US extra millions of barrels a day was EXACTLY a game changer, mentioning that the world would be in a world of hurt without it, considering all the disruptions and whatnot that have been taking place around the world.

Please tell me you were there and learned something, rather than just collecting the newest Malthusian dream fantasy scenarios to cut and paste? Thinking not being a strong point for a parrot?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 27, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> When are you carbon junkies gonna learn that extraction has a price and a steep one at that?
> 
> USGS: 7 small earthquakes shake central Oklahoma
> 
> ...



How many people were killed or injured?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 27, 2014)

Just so everyone is clear, this is how it all happens.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 27, 2014)

^ that about sums it up. We're ultimately paying for the carbon industry's dumping by enduring their earthquakes.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 27, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Which people were wrong about smoking?  They used to call cigarettes "coffin nails" in the 19th Century.  So who do you imagine believed they weren't bad for your health?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 27, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ^ that about sums it up. We're ultimately paying for the carbon industry's dumping by enduring their earthquakes.



ROFL!  How man earthquakes have you "endured?"  An earthquake of less than 6.0 on the Richter scale is barely noticeable.  Only a bona fide pussy would think it was something that had to be "endured." It would be like enduring thunder from lighting striking 10 miles away.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> When are you carbon junkies gonna learn that extraction has a price and a steep one at that?
> 
> USGS: 7 small earthquakes shake central Oklahoma
> 
> ...


Is there any kind of conclusive evidence of fracking causing it? Because I'm somewhat familiar with how it works, and it doesn't seem probable to me. But who knows?


----------



## RGR (Jul 27, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > When are you carbon junkies gonna learn that extraction has a price and a steep one at that?
> ...



How many people even NOTICED?


----------



## Grandma (Jul 28, 2014)

Along the West Coast building strict codes were enacted to prevent damage from earthquakes.

Those codes do not exist in other parts of the country. Buildings and bridges in New England are at the highest risk, as some of them date back to the Colonial Period. A minor earthquake can cause extensive damage, knocking homes off foundations and collapsing brick walls, as occurred around Youngstown, Ohio in December of 2011.


----------



## RGR (Jul 28, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ^ that about sums it up. We're ultimately paying for the carbon industry's dumping by enduring their earthquakes.



their earthquakes? Tell us again, how you haven't ever used fossil fuel derived products? Because otherwise you are just blaming some industry for giving you exactly what YOU have demanded.

You don't get to blame the consequences of YOUR behavior on others without being...well...you know....


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 28, 2014)

RGR said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



so if someone cuts down a 4,000+ yr old Bristlecone pine just to manufacture paper cups thats ok because most people didn't see them do it?  

denier reasoning on parade


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 28, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Idiot reasoning on parade let just exaggerate some more.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2014)

Grandma said:


> Along the West Coast building strict codes were enacted to prevent damage from earthquakes.



The topography in the west -- hilly with folded rock layers -- tends to dampen earthquakes. Earthquakes travel through the ground with less attenuation in the east, with sandy soils and higher water tables also making it worse. This is what a 5.7 gets you in Oklahoma.

Fracking's Latest Scandal? Earthquake Swarms | Mother Jones
---
On that night in November, just as he and Mary were about to slip into bed, there was "a horrendous bang, like an airliner crashing in our backyard," Joe recalls. Next came 60 seconds of seismic terror. "The dust was flying and we were hanging onto the bed watching the walls go back and forth." Joe demonstrates by hunching over and gripping the mattress in their bedroom. He points to the bathroom. "The mirror in the vanity exploded as if somebody blew it out with a shotgun." When the shaking stopped, Joe surveyed the damage. "Every corner of the house was fractured," he says. The foundation had sunk two inches. But most frightening was what Joe discovered in the living room: "Our 28-foot-tall freestanding chimney had come through the roof." It had showered jagged debris onto a brown leather sofa positioned in front of their flat-screen TV. Joe shows me the spot. "It's Mary's favorite perch. Had she been here" He chokes up.

The earthquake registered a magnitude 5.7*the largest ever recorded in Oklahomawith its epicenter less than two miles from the Reneaus' house, which took six months to rebuild. It injured two people, destroyed 14 homes, toppled headstones, closed schools, and was felt in 17 states
---


----------



## RGR (Jul 28, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If they own the property or have logging rights to it? Of course it is okay. How would anyone except some communist halfwit think otherwise?





			
				Dot Com said:
			
		

> denier reasoning on parade



I didn't deny a single thing. Only commented that earthquakes, that no one notices, are somewhat of a tempest in a teacup issue. Certainly I have created THOUSANDS of "earthquakes" with every hydraulic stimulation I did back in the 90'sand I was standing right on top of the epicenter and you knowI never even felt the things.

Far from being a denier, I am quite well aware of the quantity, and size, of the microseismic events I have been personally responsible for. And you didn't notice them any more than I did.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 28, 2014)

... yet you are are a denier. Do you deny that?


----------



## RGR (Jul 28, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ... yet you are are a denier. Do you deny that?



I deny that science is run by consensus. I deny that you can change the opinion of a zealot using facts or evidence. I deny that most zealots review all available evidence on BOTH sides of an issue with equal zeal. I deny that academics are as objective and impartial as most think.

So..wellyeah..I do deny some things I guess.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jul 30, 2014)

RGR said:


> I deny that you can change the opinion of a zealot using facts or evidence.



You being a perfect example of said zealotry.



RGR said:


> I deny that most zealots review all available evidence on BOTH sides of an issue with equal zeal.



You being a perfect example of said bias.


----------



## RGR (Jul 31, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that you can change the opinion of a zealot using facts or evidence.
> ...



Really? Is that what it is now, when folks know more on your favorite topic? Are you ever going to bring back malthusian church members with functioning intellectual abilities?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that most zealots review all available evidence on BOTH sides of an issue with equal zeal.
> ...



Oh now come on, I know i've embarrassed you badly with your "I'll give you 3 for 2" and other famous displays of retardation, but you don't get to use my superior knowledge of YOUR side of the debate as a claim of bias.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jul 31, 2014)

RGR said:


> Really? Is that what it is now, when folks know more on your favorite topic? Are you ever going to bring back malthusian church members with functioning intellectual abilities?



The only things you know more about are on-the-ground drilling intricacies as a wildcatter. You're no development geologist, and you don't appear to know jack about the macro-economics of the equation. Never forget that. I surely won't. 



RGR said:


> Oh now come on, I know i've embarrassed you badly with your "I'll give you 3 for 2" and other famous displays of retardation, but you don't get to use my superior knowledge of YOUR side of the debate as a claim of bias.



You've never once embarrassed me on any aspect of our exchanges. What happens is I leave you out of bullets and trolling on a personal level, at which point I know I've won.

The "3 for 2 exchange" never happened the way you keep trolling it happened, and I've challenged you numerous times to link , and instead you run from it. That's because you're a liar and a coward, and it's easier for you to just wait for another day to re-write forum history.


----------



## RGR (Jul 31, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Is that what it is now, when folks know more on your favorite topic? Are you ever going to bring back malthusian church members with functioning intellectual abilities?
> ...



I've never been a wildcatter in my life. But I've drilled quite a few wells. Are you sure you can't find us someone with functioning synapses? Or at the very LEAST knows something about the business?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You're no development geologist, and you don't appear to know jack about the macro-economics of the equation. Never forget that. I surely won't.



I am certainly no geologist. Or economist. But neither am I ignorant of the particulars of either of these disciplines. And when I discuss these issues, I don't require parroting the work of others to work through the problem. You really do need to bring back someone from your church that knows something, rather than just you cutting and pasting the work of others, and pretending you understand the concepts involved, rather than just parroting them.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> You've never once embarrassed me on any aspect of our exchanges.



Now don't lie, your "I'll give you 4 of something if you give me 3 back" was a classic EROEI disaster on your part, and your pretending to understand the Hirsch report was another unmitigated mess. You tucked tail and ran from that one so fast I thought you were The Flash!



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The "3 for 2 exchange" never happened the way you keep trolling it happened, and I've challenged you numerous times to link , and instead you run from it.



Why should I have to link to YOUR cockup? It isn't my fault that you proved at that moment that not only did you know nothing about EROEI, but you can't even THINK about what you were saying.

Jiggsy hands me 5 widgets. I hand him back 4. Obviously then I have just acquired a free widget! And Jiggsy wants to keep doing this scheme...forever! Except with hydrocarbons and whatnot!

Talk about a money making proposition, I was drooling all over the prospect of getting the tanker cars and pipelines built to your location to turn this scheme of yours into reality! But alas....I had to go and tell you how stupid it was...and only THEN did you realize that you needed help from a 2nd grader to get the math straight.

But have no fear! Link or not, certainly I won't rat you out to your church...they might excommunicate you. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> That's because you're a liar and a coward, and it's easier for you to just wait for another day to re-write forum history.



A couple weeks ago I was listening to Yergin and speaking with Adam Sieminski in Washington at the EIA conference...where were you? Let me guess...you were praying to the prophets of peak, crying....asking that they grant your wish and put the fastest growing oil production in the history of the United States back in the genie bottle.Or maybe you were concerned about how your church looks, in the aftermath of reality? Still pining away for TOD perhaps? Never fear, Malthusians never really go away, they just recycle bad ideas every few years and pretend the last round of "how stupid can a Malthusian get" never happened. Memories of a goldfish. Like you, and your EROEI stunt that you now pretend you don't remember.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Aug 1, 2014)

RGR said:


> I am certainly no geologist. Or economist.



You sure aren't, as displayed over and over again.



RGR said:


> But neither am I ignorant of the particulars of either of these disciplines.



LOL... Yes you are, RGR. Yes you are. Incredibly ignorant. Just admit it. It's OK, we're here for you. You're a poster who, when challenged to explain <2% growth since oil price began its wild volatility, punted to "so? drive less!!" ... .

 If you weren't ignorant to them, you would have attempted to offer a counter-narrative for what $100/bl oil is already doing to the global economy. You know, something deeper than "so? ride a bike."  ... 



RGR said:


> And when I discuss these issues, I don't require parroting the work of others to work through the problem. You really do need to bring back someone from your church that knows something, rather than just you cutting and pasting the work of others, and pretending you understand the concepts involved, rather than just parroting them.



See, dipshit. Here's how it works: You back up your assertions with links to mainstream and academic articles that anyone reading along can verify. You don't spew a bunch of unfalsifiable jargon and insinuate a "trust me" blanket over it all. 

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not parroting, it's sourcing your fucking claim. I guess the clergy at your church instruct you fracktard zealots never to back up your work before they disperse you upon the masses. That would require facts, which you don't often have.



RGR said:


> Now don't lie, your "I'll give you 4 of something if you give me 3 back" was a classic EROEI disaster on your part,



LOL... epic liar. There was no "give you, give me" angle to what I conveyed, you fraud. I explained EROEI as how much energy you have to spend in order to get energy back in usable form. You're so fucking stupid, you've re-written the exchange in your empty head so often that it's pathological for you by now.



RGR said:


> Why should I have to link to YOUR cockup?



Because with your vast history of forum dishonesty, when you can't back-up your claim, it makes you look like a liar all over again. See how this works?



RGR said:


> It isn't my fault that you proved at that moment that not only did you know nothing about EROEI, but you can't even THINK about what you were saying.



LOL... troll. Re-writing forum history in an effort to make yourself not look so empty. Not how it happened. You're the one who ran from the exchange pretending EROEI doesn't matter.



RGR said:


> A couple weeks ago I was listening to Yergin and speaking with Adam Sieminski in Washington at the EIA conference...where were you? Let me guess...you were praying to the prophets of peak, crying....asking that they grant your wish and put the fastest growing oil production in the history of the United States back in the genie bottle.



ROFLMAO!!!!! ... Yergin... Leave it to you to source a long-debunked cornucopian who pretends peak doesn't matter because price doesn't matter. Now I see where you get your hollow dogma. 

Yeah, there's plenty of junk oil, Dan. If the world could afford it as $200 per 42-gallon barrel. Back here in reality, the world can't afford it at $100, let alone the $200/bl. you'd need to make your "plenty" a reality. Might wanna tell your loyal lap-dog, RGR, here that price kinda matters. He still doesn't get it.

"fastest growing"... good stuff.

Unconventional oil production? It's a short-term blip that is already showing signs of exhaustion. Expect decline by the end of the decade, if the majors' dumping CAPEX is any indication. 

You're such as arrogant douchebag on this issue, yet you have so much invested in your snake oil pitch, you'll never back down now. I suspect by 2020 or so, when your industry is officially terminal, you'll do a "Big Fitz" and quietly disappear like the gutless coward that you are.


----------



## RGR (Aug 1, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > I am certainly no geologist. Or economist.
> ...



How would you know? Parrots aren't exactly widely known for their ability to think, much less figure out what they don't know, or recognize those who aren't so limited.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > But neither am I ignorant of the particulars of either of these disciplines.
> ...



You are, as usual, incorrect. Remaining silent on certain topics (even though I haven't on this one, and you, as usual, are just ignoring what was written because it doesn't fit within your script) does not imply ignorance...but does perhaps demonstrate something you can't....the ability to think and consider.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> See, dipshit. Here's how it works: You back up your assertions with links to mainstream and academic articles that anyone reading along can verify. You don't spew a bunch of unfalsifiable jargon and insinuate a "trust me" blanket over it all.



We have discussed this before. Your inability to access a library got in the way, you can't even access the 1989 Colin Campbell prediction of peak oil because your church has banned all knowledge on it. And you, only being able to parrot, and without a at LEAST national class geoscience library, can't be bothered in learning about it. Which requires you to put restrictions on what I am allowed to know....and of course....I have no such restriction in my professional study of this particular topic. You should up your game, rather than recommending that everyone else dumb down theirs to the limited level of information your church provides you with.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not parroting, it's sourcing your fucking claim.



of what value is that when you can't be bothered to go to the liberry to learn anything? I realize that the propaganda you so enjoy citing is easy to get at...that is the entire point....your references are pimping, selling, advocating...something...therefore they must advertise everywhere, and parrots like you love it.

But the instant a real reference from a real science journal is involved? You dissolve like sugar in water.

Watch how easy this is.

"... it is unsafe to rest in the assurance that plenty of petroleum will be found in the future merely because it has been in the past." 

Snider, L., Brooks, B., American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 1936

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Would you like to discuss the article in question? Assuming you can find at your local library, it not being among the circular references provided by your church.

Of course, the context will be important as well, ranging from Hubbert's prediction of peak oil in the US in 1938 (on or before 1950), the Secretary's 1943 claim of "Is America Running out of Oil?", and various other claims of scarcity of the period.

I'm sure this is all covered in your parrot briefing materials. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > A couple weeks ago I was listening to Yergin and speaking with Adam Sieminski in Washington at the EIA conference...where were you? Let me guess...you were praying to the prophets of peak, crying....asking that they grant your wish and put the fastest growing oil production in the history of the United States back in the genie bottle.
> ...



Well, those of us who do this for a living are forced to talk to everyone. I was at PCI's home office in Santa Rosa in June. Have you either been to EITHER places, or talked to the real people involved?

Feel free to get back with me when you are given the response by your church on the information they keep from you.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 1, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that you can change the opinion of a zealot using facts or evidence.
> ...



JiggsCasey is right. 

deniers.


----------

