Scientists convinced of tie between earthquakes and drilling

[webfact]

Scientists convinced of tie between earthquakes and drilling
By ALICIA CHANG

LOS ANGELES (AP) — With the evidence coming in from one study after another, scientists are now more certain than ever that oil and gas drilling is causing hundreds upon hundreds of earthquakes across the U.S.

So far, the quakes have been mostly small and have done little damage beyond cracking plaster, toppling bricks and rattling nerves. But seismologists warn that the shaking can dramatically increase the chances of bigger, more dangerous quakes.

Up to now, the oil and gas industry has generally argued that any such link requires further study. But the rapidly mounting evidence could bring heavier regulation down on drillers and make it more difficult for them to get projects approved.

The potential for man-made quakes "is an important and legitimate concern that must be taken very seriously by regulators and industry," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

He said companies and states can reduce the risk by taking such steps as monitoring operations more closely, imposing tighter standards and recycling wastewater from drilling instead of injecting it underground.

A series of government and academic studies over the past few years — including at least two reports released this week alone — has added to the body of evidence implicating the U.S. drilling boom that has created a bounty of jobs and tax revenue over the past decade or so.

On Thursday, the U.S. Geological Survey released the first comprehensive maps pinpointing more than a dozen areas in the central and eastern U.S. that have been jolted by quakes that the researchers said were triggered by drilling. The report said man-made quakes tied to industry operations have been on the rise.

Scientists have mainly attributed the spike to the injection of wastewater deep underground, a practice they say can activate dormant faults. Only a few cases of shaking have been blamed on fracking, in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are pumped into rock formations to crack them open and free oil or gas.

"The picture is very clear" that wastewater injection can cause faults to move, said USGS geophysicist William Ellsworth.

Until recently, Oklahoma — one of the biggest energy-producing states — had been cautious about linking the spate of quakes to drilling. But the Oklahoma Geological Survey acknowledged earlier this week that it is "very likely" that recent seismic activity was caused by the injection of wastewater into disposal wells.

Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than it was before 2008, state geologists reported. Oklahoma historically recorded an average of 1.5 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater each year. It is now seeing an average of 2.5 such quakes each day, according to geologists.

Angela Spotts, who lives outside Stillwater, Oklahoma, in an area with a number of wastewater disposal wells, said the shaking has damaged her brick home. She pointed to the cracked interior and exterior walls, and windows and kitchen cabinets that are separating from the structure.

"There's been no doubt in my mind what's causing them," Spotts said. "Sadly, it's really taken a long time for people to come around. Our lives are being placed at risk. Our homes are being broken."

Yet another study, this one published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, connected a swarm of small quakes west of Fort Worth, Texas, to nearby natural gas wells and wastewater disposal.

The American Petroleum Institute said the industry is working with scientists and regulators "to better understand the issue and work toward collaborative solutions."

The Environmental Protection Agency said there no plans for new regulations as a result of the USGS study.

"We knew there would be challenges there, but they can be overcome," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Thursday at an energy conference in Houston.

For decades, earthquakes were an afterthought in the central and eastern U.S., which worried more about tornadoes, floods and hurricanes. Since 2009, quakes have sharply increased, and in some surprising places.

The ground has been trembling in regions that were once seismically stable, including parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

The largest jolt linked to wastewater injection — a magnitude-5.6 that hit Prague, Oklahoma, in 2011 — damaged 200 buildings and shook a college football stadium.

The uptick in Oklahoma quakes has prompted state regulators to require a seismic review of all proposed disposal wells. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry, has ordered dozens of disposal wells to stop operating or change the way they are run because of concerns they might be triggering earthquakes, said spokesman Matt Skinner.

"There are far more steps that will be taken," Skinner said.

Last year, regulators in Colorado ordered an operator to temporarily stop injecting wastewater after the job was believed to be linked to several small quakes.
___

AP writers Tim Talley in Oklahoma City, Donna Bryson in Denver and Jon Fahey in Houston contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-24

[JetsetBkk]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

[sprq]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

May we please know your credentials in climatology? My guess is you have none, yet somehow believe that you know better than 98 per cent of climatologists who assure us that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality, and a soon-to-be disastrous one.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

I think it is funny that people will so easily discount science in this day and age, yet they are so willing to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that man lived with dinosaurs just because some religious zealot tells them it's true.

[arjunadawn]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

May we please know your credentials in climatology? My guess is you have none, yet somehow believe that you know better than 98 per cent of climatologists who assure us that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality, and a soon-to-be disastrous one.

I rarely ask posters to cite numbers, stats, etc., but since you dispute another with a defined "98%" of "climatologists" can you please reference any source where I can look that up to move closer to your position? That would be great. Please steer clear of the scientists who fudged numbers, or excluded data.

Whether or not your polysyallabic man-made climate change exists or not is an inferior premise to conclude therefore there is adverse climate change. After all, a rock hitting earth causes climate changes that adjust and recover in a homeostatic fashion; volcanoes also give and take to the norms established by the earths utterly dynamic give and take toward equilibrium. The absurdity that man looks out notes his efforts insult the environment (which it does) but then concludes that nothing short of leftist political placebos can alter the disastrous path we are on is sheer science fiction.

That you can suggest a poster who does not offer his bona fides regarding climate observations and therefore has an inferior position is only made less ridiculous by you not citing your own and rebutting him. In any event, the idea that a person needs have letters after his name to have a superior point of view insults every farmer or navigator who has ever lived since the beginning of time; only a totally detached assertion can maintain letters after a name make intelligent arguments. There is climate change. Ok. But there has always and variously been climate change.

The OP has little to do with climate change unless one is unable to control their underlying Mother Gaia ideology and thus lumps drilling with carbon fuel burning. A elementary drop out from red neck OK, or AR could have told you drilling causes this mini quakes; one does not need letters after their name to observe and measure the obvious either.

NOTE: It would be anthropogenic not morphic- morphology is form and gen... is giving life to, creating causing, etc. Of course anthropo is man. Your intention is valid but when used in an introductory rebuttal to another accuracy should be your ally. In the final analysis, it is anthropocentric for you to believe man is central to all life.

Edited April 24, 2015 by arjunadawn

[SOTIRIOS]

...it is too obvious....especially considering what they also pump in down there....

...it is suicide....

[car720]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

May we please know your credentials in climatology? My guess is you have none, yet somehow believe that you know better than 98 per cent of climatologists who assure us that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality, and a soon-to-be disastrous one.

So you have spoken to every one of these scientists individually?

More likely that you have read something in a newspaper while sitting on the throne.

Off with his head!

[car720]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

May we please know your credentials in climatology? My guess is you have none, yet somehow believe that you know better than 98 per cent of climatologists who assure us that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality, and a soon-to-be disastrous one.

I rarely ask posters to cite numbers, stats, etc., but since you dispute another with a defined "98%" of "climatologists" can you please reference any source where I can look that up to move closer to your position? That would be great. Please steer clear of the scientists who fudged numbers, or excluded data.

Whether or not your polysyallabic man-made climate change exists or not is an inferior premise to conclude therefore there is adverse climate change. After all, a rock hitting earth causes climate changes that adjust and recover in a homeostatic fashion; volcanoes also give and take to the norms established by the earths utterly dynamic give and take toward equilibrium. The absurdity that man looks out notes his efforts insult the environment (which it does) but then concludes that nothing short of leftist political placebos can alter the disastrous path we are on is sheer science fiction.

That you can suggest a poster who does not offer his bona fides regarding climate observations and therefore has an inferior position is only made less ridiculous by you not citing your own and rebutting him. In any event, the idea that a person needs have letters after his name to have a superior point of view insults every farmer or navigator who has ever lived since the beginning of time; only a totally detached assertion can maintain letters after a name make intelligent arguments. There is climate change. Ok. But there has always and variously been climate change.

The OP has little to do with climate change unless one is unable to control their underlying Mother Gaia ideology and thus lumps drilling with carbon fuel burning. A elementary drop out from red neck OK, or AR could have told you drilling causes this mini quakes; one does not need letters after their name to observe and measure the obvious either.

NOTE: It would be anthropogenic not morphic- morphology is form and gen... is giving life to, creating causing, etc. Of course anthropo is man. Your intention is valid but when used in an introductory rebuttal to another accuracy should be your ally. In the final analysis, it is anthropocentric for you to believe man is central to all life.

Ditto!!!

[canuckamuck]

Here is their definitive proof

Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than it was before 2008, state geologists reported. Oklahoma historically recorded an average of 1.5 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater each year. It is now seeing an average of 2.5 such quakes each day, according to geologists.

So in the year of 2013 they had one more earthquake, bringing the total to 2,5 earthquakes, than they did in 2008.

2 questions:

How is a near doubling the same as 70 times the amount.

How do you have 1.5 or 2.5 earthquakes. Did they happen at New Years Eve?

Angela Spotts, who lives outside Stillwater, Oklahoma, in an area with a number of wastewater disposal wells, said the shaking has damaged her brick home. She pointed to the cracked interior and exterior walls, and windows and kitchen cabinets that are separating from the structure.

And then they go on do cement their conclusion by bringing in the expert opinion of a housewife, that knows for certain that drilling instigated earthquakes are destroying her house.

They make an overwhelming case...

Well the smell of BS is overwhelming anyhoo.

Edited April 24, 2015 by canuckamuck

[Soutpeel]

Here is their definitive proof

Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than it was before 2008, state geologists reported. Oklahoma historically recorded an average of 1.5 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater each year. It is now seeing an average of 2.5 such quakes each day, according to geologists.

So in the year of 2013 they had one more earthquake, bringing the total to 2,5 earthquakes, than they did in 2008.

2 questions:

How is a near doubling the same as 70 times the amount.

How do you have 1.5 or 2.5 earthquakes. Did they happen at New Years Eve?

Angela Spotts, who lives outside Stillwater, Oklahoma, in an area with a number of wastewater disposal wells, said the shaking has damaged her brick home. She pointed to the cracked interior and exterior walls, and windows and kitchen cabinets that are separating from the structure.

And then they go on do cement their conclusion by bringing in the expert opinion of a housewife, that knows for certain that drilling instigated earthquakes are destroying her house.

They make an overwhelming case...

Well the smell of BS is overwhelming anyhoo.

It was the plot line in a James Bond movie wasn't it

[Expat1]

..."So in the year of 2013 they had one more earthquake, bringing the total to 2,5 earthquakes, than they did in 2008.

2 questions:

How is a near doubling the same as 70 times the amount.

How do you have 1.5 or 2.5 earthquakes. Did they happen at New Years Eve?"

You may want to reread the statement, partner. I concur on the 70 times comment. It appears it's a lot more. It says,

"Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than it was before 2008, state geologists reported. Oklahoma historically recorded an average of 1.5 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater each year. It is now seeing an average of 2.5 such quakes each day, according to geologists."

So 1.5 quakes per year to 2.5 quakes per DAY. 2.5 quakes x 365 days = 912.5 quakes per year. That is a sh#tload. 912.5 / 1.5 = 608.3x / year more in 2013 than was in 2008.

Perhaps they are including other smaller quake data not given to the reader here. In any case, that ain't normal.

I was in the oil & offshore biz for 14 years out here and I know for certain water reinjection caused quakes in Kalimantan as it was the oil coy geologists that brought it up.

I wish them good luck back there with this, oil is king in America and it's political, financial and media cartels will pretty much back whatever they say.

[sead]

Think you can empty oil and gas around the world without destabilising balance and rotation. We are all screwed in near future. Have to convert to buddhism asap and do some bad shit so i can get reborn in next life. ...

[NeverSure]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

May we please know your credentials in climatology? My guess is you have none, yet somehow believe that you know better than 98 per cent of climatologists who assure us that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality, and a soon-to-be disastrous one.

98% of scientists who study and write about this don't dare speak out against it. Most of them work for the government in universities etc., or they get grants from the government for research. If they spoke out against climate change they would be ostracized and lose careers not to mention money.

There are many who have a vested monetary interest in this "science" and they have to "go along to get along".

Big Oil already has the non-fracking oil fields and fracking is driving the price of their oil too low. This is worldwide. Long before fracking was talked about there were many other "environmental" concerns to keep the little guy out. It takes big bucks to comply with all of the newer regulations and just who is it who can afford those big bucks? Who is it who has a huge interest in keeping the little guy out of the oil business?

People regularly squawk about "big oil" but they can't see them at work in the background. "Climate change" cuts across all segments of industry, drives up costs and regulations and keeps the little guy out of coal, oil, logging, mining, energy utilities, and you name it.

You figure out the rest of that equation. Maybe some day you'll see how you pay the cost of "global warming" which had to be changed to "climate change" because it was proven to be a fraud? You pay on behalf of Big Oil when they get the little guy shut down and oil prices go back up.

[MAJIC]

They may very well be right, but I don't hear the Scientists coming out in favour of no more nuclear underground and under sea bomb testing! maybe they get paid too much to fund,earthquake and drilling research, and blame earthquakes on drilling instead of the real nuclear culprits?

Edited April 24, 2015 by MAJIC

[godden]

Tax it and it will go away.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Why are conservatives & the religious constantly at war with science?

Scientists or business interests. Hmmm. Who should I believe?

[canuckamuck]

..."So in the year of 2013 they had one more earthquake, bringing the total to 2,5 earthquakes, than they did in 2008.

2 questions:

How is a near doubling the same as 70 times the amount.

How do you have 1.5 or 2.5 earthquakes. Did they happen at New Years Eve?"

You may want to reread the statement, partner. I concur on the 70 times comment. It appears it's a lot more. It says,

"Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than it was before 2008, state geologists reported. Oklahoma historically recorded an average of 1.5 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater each year. It is now seeing an average of 2.5 such quakes each day, according to geologists."

So 1.5 quakes per year to 2.5 quakes per DAY. 2.5 quakes x 365 days = 912.5 quakes per year. That is a sh#tload. 912.5 / 1.5 = 608.3x / year more in 2013 than was in 2008.

Perhaps they are including other smaller quake data not given to the reader here. In any case, that ain't normal.

I was in the oil & offshore biz for 14 years out here and I know for certain water reinjection caused quakes in Kalimantan as it was the oil coy geologists that brought it up.

I wish them good luck back there with this, oil is king in America and it's political, financial and media cartels will pretty much back whatever they say.

Ok I screwed that up, missed the word day and read year.

[car720]

..."So in the year of 2013 they had one more earthquake, bringing the total to 2,5 earthquakes, than they did in 2008.

2 questions:

How is a near doubling the same as 70 times the amount.

How do you have 1.5 or 2.5 earthquakes. Did they happen at New Years Eve?"

You may want to reread the statement, partner. I concur on the 70 times comment. It appears it's a lot more. It says,

"Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than it was before 2008, state geologists reported. Oklahoma historically recorded an average of 1.5 quakes of magnitude 3 or greater each year. It is now seeing an average of 2.5 such quakes each day, according to geologists."

So 1.5 quakes per year to 2.5 quakes per DAY. 2.5 quakes x 365 days = 912.5 quakes per year. That is a sh#tload. 912.5 / 1.5 = 608.3x / year more in 2013 than was in 2008.

Perhaps they are including other smaller quake data not given to the reader here. In any case, that ain't normal.

I was in the oil & offshore biz for 14 years out here and I know for certain water reinjection caused quakes in Kalimantan as it was the oil coy geologists that brought it up.

I wish them good luck back there with this, oil is king in America and it's political, financial and media cartels will pretty much back whatever they say.

Ok I screwed that up, missed the word day and read year.

At least you've got the goolies to say that you screwed up. Good onya!

[Stray]

Think you can empty oil and gas around the world without destabilising balance and rotation. We are all screwed in near future. Have to convert to buddhism asap and do some bad shit so i can get reborn in next life. ...

A couple of points for you to consider before you pass your 'knowledge' onto others.

Another term for oil, natural gas, coal etc. is 'fossil fuel'. Now, in that term there is a hint as to the origin of this material. That's right! They are the product of plant and animal matter.

Now, using your argument that the extraction of fossil fuel, from the earth's crust, will destabilize the rotation of the planet, my question to you is, what was keeping the planet stable prior to the formation of the fossil fuel?

Another point to consider. The amount of material that is extracted from the earth's crust is so infinitesimally small, in comparison to the whole of the planet, that even the complete removal of this material would have no affect on balance and rotation. The plants and animals that died and were part of the process that created the fossil fuels took up a much greater mass on the planet, when they were alive, yet their demise and parting had zero effect on the planet's stability.

Finally, a point that is never mentioned, the process that creates fossil fuels is still active, i.e., oil, natural gas, coal is still being created within the earth's crust.

[arjunadawn]

They may very well be right, but I don't hear the Scientists coming out in favour of no more nuclear underground and under sea bomb testing! maybe they get paid too much to fund,earthquake and drilling research, and blame earthquakes on drilling instead of the real nuclear culprits?

This is a stunning graphic. thank you

[arjunadawn]

Why are conservatives & the religious constantly at war with science?

Scientists or business interests. Hmmm. Who should I believe?

Your question goes to the heart of the matter, but I am uncertain if it takes you where you think it does.

Sentence 1: I have no particular understanding why religious folks are at war with science, as you say, other than the same reason that conservatives are, and that is threefold:

a) Its not the science per se that is so antagonistic but the fact that the science is a great big wooden horse laden with pet leftist projects in its belly- everything from the distasteful eugenics population control to revising the chain of being placing humans on par with a mule- these sorts of canned leftist utopia pet agendas always ride the wake of the abused science.

b), the science: its not science. Modern climatologists oil and polish their near improbable models so they appear to glide effortlessly, until you look closer. Either context is absent, data fudged, chronology excluded, sun activity minimized, select cores dubious, etc. Thus noting the climate variously changes or the earth rattles does not make science or man made science change.

c) Most pertinently, science is at war with [not] everything traditional-conservative, only that which is intransigent to the priest class of the Scientific Community,

sentence 2: Scientists or business interests are hardly separable. Since they are hardly separable they are suspicious. Since they are suspicious, see Sentence 1- this is why conservatives are skeptical of political engineered scientist conclusions. Rarely can actual science be done in varied fields without genuflecting to special interests, grants, funding, and what is accepted as science (remember, when a body of knowledge is accepted as science by definition it excludes. When science has a practice process that excludes, it is no longer science- period! It is special interest, and no different than religion at this point. Most research academia today is this way).

Science should increasingly be viewed with great suspicion, and this is sad. However, it was long ago hijacked and increasingly, not always, is a tool of politics.

[Credo]

Science should increasingly be viewed with great suspicion, and this is sad. However, it was long ago hijacked and increasingly, not always, is a tool of politics.

The truth is that science is and has moved steadily forward. Some people's political views haven't and science conflicts with those views so, like with religion, it is science that must be wrong.

[arjunadawn]

Science should increasingly be viewed with great suspicion, and this is sad. However, it was long ago hijacked and increasingly, not always, is a tool of politics.

The truth is that science is and has moved steadily forward. Some people's political views haven't and science conflicts with those views so, like with religion, it is science that must be wrong.

.in all honesty I don't get this; I'd like to. If you've time might you explain it please. Thank you.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Why are conservatives & the religious constantly at war with science?

Scientists or business interests. Hmmm. Who should I believe?

Your question goes to the heart of the matter, but I am uncertain if it takes you where you think it does.

Sentence 1: I have no particular understanding why religious folks are at war with science, as you say, other than the same reason that conservatives are, and that is threefold:

a) Its not the science per se that is so antagonistic but the fact that the science is a great big wooden horse laden with pet leftist projects in its belly- everything from the distasteful eugenics population control to revising the chain of being placing humans on par with a mule- these sorts of canned leftist utopia pet agendas always ride the wake of the abused science.

b), the science: its not science. Modern climatologists oil and polish their near improbable models so they appear to glide effortlessly, until you look closer. Either context is absent, data fudged, chronology excluded, sun activity minimized, select cores dubious, etc. Thus noting the climate variously changes or the earth rattles does not make science or man made science change.

c) Most pertinently, science is at war with [not] everything traditional-conservative, only that which is intransigent to the priest class of the Scientific Community,

sentence 2: Scientists or business interests are hardly separable. Since they are hardly separable they are suspicious. Since they are suspicious, see Sentence 1- this is why conservatives are skeptical of political engineered scientist conclusions. Rarely can actual science be done in varied fields without genuflecting to special interests, grants, funding, and what is accepted as science (remember, when a body of knowledge is accepted as science by definition it excludes. When science has a practice process that excludes, it is no longer science- period! It is special interest, and no different than religion at this point. Most research academia today is this way).

Science should increasingly be viewed with great suspicion, and this is sad. However, it was long ago hijacked and increasingly, not always, is a tool of politics.

Silly post. Just more business interests trying to convince voters the scientists are all stupid or corrupt.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Why are conservatives & the religious constantly at war with science?

Scientists or business interests. Hmmm. Who should I believe?

Your question goes to the heart of the matter, but I am uncertain if it takes you where you think it does.

Sentence 1: I have no particular understanding why religious folks are at war with science, as you say, other than the same reason that conservatives are, and that is threefold:

a) Its not the science per se that is so antagonistic but the fact that the science is a great big wooden horse laden with pet leftist projects in its belly- everything from the distasteful eugenics population control to revising the chain of being placing humans on par with a mule- these sorts of canned leftist utopia pet agendas always ride the wake of the abused science.

b), the science: its not science. Modern climatologists oil and polish their near improbable models so they appear to glide effortlessly, until you look closer. Either context is absent, data fudged, chronology excluded, sun activity minimized, select cores dubious, etc. Thus noting the climate variously changes or the earth rattles does not make science or man made science change.

c) Most pertinently, science is at war with [not] everything traditional-conservative, only that which is intransigent to the priest class of the Scientific Community,

sentence 2: Scientists or business interests are hardly separable. Since they are hardly separable they are suspicious. Since they are suspicious, see Sentence 1- this is why conservatives are skeptical of political engineered scientist conclusions. Rarely can actual science be done in varied fields without genuflecting to special interests, grants, funding, and what is accepted as science (remember, when a body of knowledge is accepted as science by definition it excludes. When science has a practice process that excludes, it is no longer science- period! It is special interest, and no different than religion at this point. Most research academia today is this way).

Science should increasingly be viewed with great suspicion, and this is sad. However, it was long ago hijacked and increasingly, not always, is a tool of politics.

"Science should increasingly be viewed with great suspicion"

Conservatives, business interests....and religious whacks like the Taliban might agree.

[Credo]

Science and scientists are not easily swayed by political agendas. They are on the cutting edge of research and what direction that research will uncover is unknown. Once science has uncovered a link it tends to move on to new uncharted territory. It does not dwell on the past. Technology applies what science discovers.

Do you think scientists care whether there is a cause or correlation between oil drilling and earthquakes? Do you think they made this stuff up for some reason? The facts seem to stand on their own, but we do yet know the mechanics at work. Whether there are more or less small earthquakes probably won't affect the need for oil and drilling will continue.

It is big business and its interest that prefer to protect their realm.

[canuckamuck]

Science has replaced religion for many in this age. 400 years ago, one would never question a priest and the church could make whatever decisions it wished. Priests were beyond reproach because they worked for God. Today scientists have that same privilege. "they cannot be corrupt, they use science". As if science was some ethical institution. incapable of misuse. We forget what scientists can come up with in the way of war weapons.

Although it is true that scientific method is intended to be completely unbiased. These days much of science is the compilation and manipulation of statistics. The technician at the weather station may be applying cold science while recording data. But the suits at the top are free to pick and choose data sets that suggest a favorable position. Add some marketing and emotion, and presto you have a cause and an army of useful idiots waiting for first blood.

Science is no longer a case of hard working geniuses locked away in their personal labs, working on their personal obsession. It is often massive unattached and unacquainted groups of technicians making data sets and sending them up the line; on the payroll of major institutions which have all the conscience of banksters and politicians.

It is nice to stick NASA's logo on reports, but the integrity that built our age of information has passed into the hands of those who really run things.

I often hear that big business is against science. This is ridiculous, big business owns the scientists and all those prestigious foundations too.

Edited April 26, 2015 by canuckamuck

[kaorop]

What is this? Global Warming, Mk. II?

Better throw lots of money at these "scientists", guarantee them jobs for life, get every other scientist remotely connected to seismology on board, ridicule all scientists who aren't believers, etc, etc.

May we please know your credentials in climatology? My guess is you have none, yet somehow believe that you know better than 98 per cent of climatologists who assure us that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality, and a soon-to-be disastrous one.

98% of scientists who study and write about this don't dare speak out against it. Most of them work for the government in universities etc., or they get grants from the government for research. If they spoke out against climate change they would be ostracized and lose careers not to mention money.

There are many who have a vested monetary interest in this "science" and they have to "go along to get along".

Big Oil already has the non-fracking oil fields and fracking is driving the price of their oil too low. This is worldwide. Long before fracking was talked about there were many other "environmental" concerns to keep the little guy out. It takes big bucks to comply with all of the newer regulations and just who is it who can afford those big bucks? Who is it who has a huge interest in keeping the little guy out of the oil business?

People regularly squawk about "big oil" but they can't see them at work in the background. "Climate change" cuts across all segments of industry, drives up costs and regulations and keeps the little guy out of coal, oil, logging, mining, energy utilities, and you name it.

You figure out the rest of that equation. Maybe some day you'll see how you pay the cost of "global warming" which had to be changed to "climate change" because it was proven to be a fraud? You pay on behalf of Big Oil when they get the little guy shut down and oil prices go back up.

Thats some heavy tinfoil hat you got going there, keeping or buying out the small guys was happening long before

the climate issues became public and regulations placed on them.

[impulse]

Personally, I think this is great news for the drilling guys.

Big, destructive earthquakes happen when a lot of energy builds up between 2 plates that are rubbing together, and that energy is released all at once. If drilling is allowing the same energy to be released in a series of small, non-destructive earthquakes rather than "the big one", perhaps we won't see another New Madrid quake (Google it) in our lifetimes.

But seriously, it will be years, if ever before scientists will be able to tell whether drilling increases (or decreases) the potential for damage from earthquakes- even long after they correlate drilling with increased seismic activity. Even bazillions of 2-3 scale quakes don't amount to much damage...

In the meantime, every single energy source (yes, even solar and wind) has its environmental risks and environmental costs, and until we're all ready to walk to work in our unlit, unheated building, and quit flying, we're going to have to live with the risks.

That's not to say the risks should not be regulated- they should be, and they are.

Edited April 26, 2015 by impulse

[RickBradford]

Do you think scientists care whether there is a cause or correlation between oil drilling and earthquakes?

Probably not. Does the media care? Yes, passionately. And it's the media that counts.

That is why this single scientific paper has been splashed all over the legacy media's front pages, while other studies, which show that whatever increased seismic effects are caused by drilling, they are minimal and in no way a threat, never see the light of day.

But you can see why the media falls for all these climate 'apocalypses' -- their ultimate target is fracking, and hence oil, and hence big business. These were their targets last week, they are the targets this week, and they will be the targets next week.

So how long will it take before some drooling nimrod tries to link the Nepal earthquake to climate change?

UPDATE: Too late -- they've already started.

(The first response has it about right)

Peter Locke @UncleBibby

that nepal earthquake thing is scary & depressing... hundreds dead... is this from climate change or fracking or is it just a nature thing?

What is scary and depressing is the sheer ignorance on display.

This is only Twitter, of course, but I will bet that within 24 hours some dim-bulb moocher off the public teat -- a bureaucrat, politician, or NGO activist, will claim a link, and that no scientist will dare stand up and confront their nonsense.

Edited April 26, 2015 by RickBradford