More "fracking-induced" quakes in Oklahoma

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.

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?
 
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.

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?

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. :eusa_clap:

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.

:eusa_boohoo:

The shale bubble’s-a-poppin’. 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’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’s Over

It will require $48 trillion in investments through 2035 to meet the world’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. “But this won’t materialize unless there are credible policy frameworks in place as well as stable access to long-term sources of finance,” she said. “Neither of these conditions should be taken for granted.”

Do better. Much better. Meanwhile, oil price:

[youtube]YHv5jgXz9I8[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
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?

yeah, cool story... Price, tho

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

Quakes-Final.gif
 
^ that about sums it up. We're ultimately paying for the carbon industry's dumping by enduring their earthquakes.
 
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!".

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.

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?

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?
 
^ 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.
 
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.
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?
 
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.

How many people were killed or injured?

How many people even NOTICED?
 
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.
 
^ 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....

vhypocrite.gif
 
Last edited:
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
---
 
How many people were killed or injured?

How many people even NOTICED?

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? :eusa_hand: :cuckoo:

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?

:badgrin::badgrin:

Dot Com said:
denier reasoning on parade :thup:

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.
 
... 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. :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top