Question: Could the recent rise in seismic activity be related to offshore drilling?

[skeptic]

I'm honestly curious about this, and have not found anything online that disputes the possibility or confirms it.

Is it possible that the recent expansions of offshore drilling and natural gas drilling might be exacerbating extreme seismic activity such as the Haiti quake and the Japan quake?

Note that I am not trying to make a statement with this, I'm just asking.

I am honestly curious if the recent increase in seismic activity is related to HAARP or other wave energy research. High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tesla reportedly tested an aerial energy transmission system that caused large waves on the opposite side of the earth. Then Tesla may have begun using the earth's crust itself as a medium to propogate energy.

Here is an introduction: Tesla and HAARP

HAARP? really? I have a serious doubt that man made radio waves shot into the upper atmosphere can cause things like earthquakes. Again its a matter of scale, 4MW of radio energy vs. a few million atom bombs worth of energy from even a high/moderate earthquake.

In the case of pulse energy it is a little more than simple scale. It's like the phenomena wherein a platoon of soldiers can bring a bridge crashing down if they cross it in lock step cadence instead of random footsteps.

If a wave is propagated thru the mantle and happens to be in tune with the harmonic value of the earth itself it can build on itself until it triggers something.

 

[skeptic]

there are tons of articles that say the 2004 earthquake tsunami were caused by drilling for fossil fuels...

granted, this link is from a "green" site, but the chart speaks for itself:

Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped by Exxon-Mobil Works

do a google on 2004 tsunami oil/natural gas extraction

One cubic mile of natural gas extracted every four years at epicenter Aceh facility presents a probable man-made trigger in 9.0 earthquake with accompanying tsunami that killed more than 225,000 people.

That is one cubic mile at sea level pressure, not at the depth of the gas resevoir. In the case of the maconda spill the pressure at the bottom of the wellhead was in excess of 10,000 psi, or 690 times the pressure at the surface. Since nat gas is a compressible gas that cubic mile would have only occupied 1/690th of a cubic mile of space deep within the earth, and therefore only 1/2800th of a cubic mile was removed each year. But even that is misleading because nat gas is dissolved into liquids and forced into crevices in solid and fractured rock deep within the earth.

 

[skeptic]

There is no known increase in major quakes over the last century. There is only a known awareness of major quakes.

But to assert that major quakes have increased as much as combustion of fossil fuels has increased is way beyond absurd.

That is so pathetically dishonest as to be criminal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

there are tons of articles that say the 2004 earthquake tsunami were caused by drilling for fossil fuels...

granted, this link is from a "green" site, but the chart speaks for itself:

Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped by Exxon-Mobil Works

do a google on 2004 tsunami oil/natural gas extraction

On a whim I googled 2004 tsunami alien, guess what I found?

Tsunami... Alien Intervention?

 

[Care4all]

There is no known increase in major quakes over the last century. There is only a known awareness of major quakes.

But to assert that major quakes have increased as much as combustion of fossil fuels has increased is way beyond absurd.

That is so pathetically dishonest as to be criminal.

yeah, i guess it does seem absurd....i should have paid closer attention to it, initially....

 

[Care4all]

here's another article explaining more:

Could Exxon-Mobil works have triggered Indonesian tsunami?

 

[Samson]

There is no known increase in major quakes over the last century. There is only a known awareness of major quakes.

But to assert that major quakes have increased as much as combustion of fossil fuels has increased is way beyond absurd.

That is so pathetically dishonest as to be criminal.

Call me pathetically dishonest...BUT:

It appears that the number of major quakes has increased in direct proportion to the number of openly gay democratic congressmen.

 

[Samson]

here's another article explaining more:

Could Exxon-Mobil works have triggered Indonesian tsunami?

here's an article explaining EVEN MORE!!!

Could Absurd-Speculation trigger Mass Hysteria?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Call me pathetically dishonest...BUT:

It appears that the number of major quakes has increased in direct proportion to the number of openly gay democratic congressmen.

I would, but I am laughing to hard.

 

[boedicca]

No. Off shore drilling would not cause a tectonic plate the size of Connecticut to move.

 

[Care4all]

here's another article explaining more:

Could Exxon-Mobil works have triggered Indonesian tsunami?

here's an article explaining EVEN MORE!!!

Could Absurd-Speculation trigger Mass Hysteria?

hmmmm let's see...

1. I did not start this thread.

2. I did google the author's supposition to see if I could find anything on the topic

3. I shared what was being said.

You got a problem with that slick?

 

[skeptic]

There is no known increase in major quakes over the last century. There is only a known awareness of major quakes.

But to assert that major quakes have increased as much as combustion of fossil fuels has increased is way beyond absurd.

That is so pathetically dishonest as to be criminal.

yeah, i guess it does seem absurd....i should have paid closer attention to it, initially....

Kudos.

 

[Samson]

here's another article explaining more:

Could Exxon-Mobil works have triggered Indonesian tsunami?

here's an article explaining EVEN MORE!!!

Could Absurd-Speculation trigger Mass Hysteria?

hmmmm let's see...

1. I did not start this thread.

2. I did google the author's supposition to see if I could find anything on the topic

3. I shared what was being said.

You got a problem with that slick?

I prefer "Bub."