New Concerns Over Earthquakes In Oklahoma Near Vast Oil-Storage Facility (nytimes.com) 103
HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reported on October 14, 2015 that a magnitude 4.5 quake struck Saturday afternoon about three miles northwest of the Cushing Hub, a sprawling tank farm that is among the largest oil storage facilities in the world, now holding 53 million barrels of crude with a capacity for 85 million barrels. The Cushing oil hub stores oil piped from across North America until it is dispatched to refineries. The Department of Homeland Security has gauged potential earthquake dangers to the hub and concluded that a quake equivalent to the record magnitude 5.7 could significantly damage the tanks and a study by Dr. Daniel McNamara study concludes that recent earthquakes have increased stresses along two stretches of fault that could lead to quakes of that size. "It's the eye of the storm," says Dana Murphy, vice chairman of the state's oil and gas regulatory body, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
"When we see these fault systems producing multiple magnitude 4s, we start to get concerned that it could knock into higher magnitudes," says Daniel McNamara, author of a paper published online that a large earthquake near the storage hub "could seriously damage storage tanks and pipelines." "Given the number of magnitude 4s here, it's a high concern."
"When we see these fault systems producing multiple magnitude 4s, we start to get concerned that it could knock into higher magnitudes," says Daniel McNamara, author of a paper published online that a large earthquake near the storage hub "could seriously damage storage tanks and pipelines." "Given the number of magnitude 4s here, it's a high concern."
No worries... (Score:4, Funny)
They'll be OK.
Spill concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realize if there's a major spill, the problem can extend beyond loss of oil and money, don't you?
We can hope the berms and so forth work, but in the case of an earthquake, the ground's integrity can be disrupted, so it's not a sure bet by any means.
There is certainly reason for concern.
As for Slashdot's choice of stories, meh. Don't like the headline, don't read.
Re: Spill concerns (Score:1)
The oil could even leak back down into the ground where it came from.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. In the process, going through the aquifer (where it is pretty much guaranteed not to benefit the water's potability), making the ground difficult (or impossible) for plants to grow, out-gassing fumes into the air (oil stinks... ever really take a sniff?), making locomotion over the affected area more difficult, as well as risky (whoops), and of course, unless you like oil-coated, well, everything, it is simply ugly (I'm gonna need some feathers over here for these people.)
But, yes, there is a vague, p
Re: (Score:2)
It might have been a joke in reference to an ex-science teacher running for the Conservatives in the Canadian election that says the ground will absorb oil spills.
From the article at CBC [www.cbc.ca]:
"Oil is a natural substance. So spilling into the environment, the land will absorb it, 'cause that's what oil is," she said during an interview with CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, certainly funny, if so -- and sad at the same time -- but obscure to me, I'm afraid.
99% OK structures not designed for quakes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should start with all the Democrats in congress, as they are all 1% ers.
Re: (Score:1)
If you have electricity, regular internet access, a computer to access the internet, and a place to set that computer up - you're in the 1%.
Me? I'm well within the bounds of being in this 1% and I still don't know why I'd be hated by default. I'm pretty damned ethical and do quite a bit to help those who can not help themselves. But, go ahead and hate me if it makes you feel better. I'm not even a Republican. :/
Re: (Score:1)
Probably, all thing considered. Add to that the regular access and regular power and a place to set such up - maybe. It's probably not far off. I should have said PC. I suppose they could be using a mobile though. Either way, they're damned privileged compared to a buttload of other people which is really the point.
Also, I've tried using the mobile site. They were probably on a PC.
slight engineering rework (Score:2)
Set the required earthquake and containment parameters, give the tank farm operators 3-5 yrs to start phasing in upgrades, and 5-10 years to finish. Done.
Zzzzzzzz.
Little quakes (Score:5, Informative)
I have always been told that little quakes unload the pressure that creates big quakes.
Which is it?
THe fear mongering is running rampant.
That said, what measures have been taken to contain a spill caused by some entity storing that much material in one locale?
Re:Little quakes (Score:5, Insightful)
backwards- lubricating fluids are relieving stress (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's both. It always depends on what the composition of materials around the fault are made of, and what forces and materials are being introduced along the fault. In this case, we are introducing tons of lubrication and material into the ground and causing the fault(s) to shift.
If you haven't listened to this beautiful song illustrating what fracking in Oklahoma has done to earthquake frequency, you should. Each sound is an earthquake and the frequency increase from 2008 to 2013 increasing with fracking, h
Re:Little quakes (Score:5, Informative)
I have always been told that little quakes unload the pressure that creates big quakes.
You have always been lied to [usgs.gov], at best being misled by people who thought they knew more than they did.
Re: (Score:1)
You apparently didn't actually read the article (typical /.er). Lots of small quakes *do* take away the built up energy which leads to a large quake. Unfortunately, there are never enough small quakes to eliminate *all* of the pent up energy and you will still occasionally get a large quake. However, it will not be quite as large as if no small quakes had occurred.
Please actually read your references. See the last paragraph of the very first fact/fiction then the one specifically dealing with this topic.
Cap
Re:Little quakes (Score:4, Informative)
You apparently didn't actually read the article (typical /.er).
This is at least the second and I believe the third discussion in which I have cited this link. I read the whole thing the first time.
Lots of small quakes *do* take away the built up energy which leads to a large quake. Unfortunately, there are never enough small quakes to eliminate *all* of the pent up energy and you will still occasionally get a large quake.
You just failed at logic. Either small quakes significantly diminish the magnitude of large quakes, or they don't. And they don't. You made it through the reading comprehension part, but the logic escaped you.
See the last paragraph of the very first fact/fiction
Okay, I will help you understand it, against my better judgement as it is probably a fat waste of time. "Parts of the San Andreas Fault system adapt to this movement by constant "creep" resulting in many tiny shocks and a few moderate earth tremors. In other parts, strain can build up for hundreds of years, producing great earthquakes when it finally releases." What this means is that the small quakes which occur along the [San Andreas] fault do not diminish the intensity of the large quakes along the same fault line. You failed at logic there, too.
then the one specifically dealing with this topic.
Oh, you mean where it says "This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event." ... that one? The one that agrees with me? Yeah, I read that one too. Now we know why you're too cowardly to log in. You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
No, only one of them is correct because the other AC up there fails to understand orders of magnitude.
Some energy is released in small quakes. Say 100 units. The big quake, though, involves orders of magnitude more energy. Say 1000000 units.
What good is even a lot of small quakes going to do about the big quake. This is in addition to what you just pointed out.
Re: (Score:2)
And look at the earthquake map. Oklahoma is a specific region of regular moderate quakes. Nothing terribly unexpected going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
Fracking has been going on for 50+ years. But what records we have of earthquakes in North America are barely a blip in geological time. I think it's far too soon to be sure the one is to blame for the other.
nothing to see here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Zorin Industries has fully insured its equipment against earthquake damage and its oil against loss. In the event of a catastrophe, Max Zorin will pull the cord on his golden parachute, paying himself the money from the insurance policies as a severance package, then leaving a bankrupt Zorin Industries responsible for the cleanup.
(yes, I know there is no Zorin Industries, but feel free to insert whatever compan(ies) actually own the oil tankers here.)
Re: (Score:2)
those little quakes can also be signs that the plates are slipping, and that a bigger quake is on the way.
it not very cut and dry
Re: (Score:2)
Which is it?
Gotta love it when someone demands a simple explanation to a complex question. Incidentally, you're not from the area in question, are you? Simple explanations reign supreme there; accuracy, not so much...
Re: (Score:2)
Any earthquake moves strain from one location in the Earth to another location. Those movements change local stresses. This can go both ways - moving stress away from one location to another on lowering the stresses at the first and raising it at the other.
Bunding. Absolutely standard [wikipedia.org] tec
Well, frack you Oklahoma (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems unlikely there would be a major ecological disaster from tank rupture, and pipeline ruptures could be contained rather quickly.
Unfortunately, some spillage is an accepted part of the energy trade-off provided by crude oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Earthen dams. Earthquakes. Doesn't seem like the one could be counted on to respect the other.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't have to tear it down. just fracture it, create a hole, that allows the previously contained oil to run out. probably into a nearby stream.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't have to tear it down. just fracture it, create a hole, that allows the previously contained oil to run out. probably into a nearby stream.
If the fault doesn't run through it, it's spectacularly unlikely to do that. It's still stupid to be fracking. Here in Lake county Calpine Geothermal had to pay out a shitload of money for the structural damage to homes caused by increased seismicity resulting from pumping primary treated sewage into the ground to restore output from the geothermal vents which provide the force behind The Geysers, a geothermal facility perpetually under production estimates and over budget. I know that was a massive run-on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Liberals don't hate poor people the love then. They love how dependent they are, and the love how good hand outs sound to someone struggling to get by, they love the way that buys votes.
The trick is keeping poor people poor while keeping up the appearance of trying to help them. Strategies include.
1) High property taxes ( because it looks like the wealthy pay more but really when you break it out along in come its pretty regressive)
These support expensive but deliberately ineffective education programs wh
Re: (Score:2)
another Poes Law
Re: Time to cut funding for research (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law
Economic dangers of renewables... (Score:2, Funny)
We're all lucky they didn't build a solar power or wind farm there - can you imagine the toxic spillover that would be caused if an earthquake would hit one of those?
Drill baby, Drill!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course they didn't build them, given the total lack of wind in OK, except in certain areas in and around Oklahoma City.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course they didn't build them, given the total lack of wind in OK, except in certain areas in and around Oklahoma City.
Oh, really? https://search.yahoo.com/searc... [yahoo.com]
4s? Quick someone tell them about... (Score:2)
They're getting excited about 4s and 5s? Quick someone tell them about the petrochemical depots near LA.
concern: quakes occurrence is power law (Score:2)
The maximum size quake is bounded by the largest possible fault area, a number not well understood yet.
Re:4s? Quick someone tell them about... (Score:4, Informative)
CA has mandatory minimum seismic design requirements.
OK doesn't.
And the energy companies are fighting efforts to add those requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
In a less hyperbolic example, the Jr high school i went to in Washington was designed b
Re: (Score:2)
Californians also seem to think a bus shelter needs a roof and no walls. That's not entirely true in Minneapolis.
These happen every day (Score:1)
A quake in the 4.x range happens 10,000 - 15,000 times per year. In the 5.x range, 1,000 - 1,500 times per year. So we're seeing quakes like these happen several times a day, every single day, all over the world and there's not a single instance of ecological disaster the FUD being spread in the article tells us to believe.
A magnitude 5.x earthquake "Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly constructed buildings. At most, none to slight damage to all other buildings. Felt by everyone." So a 5.7 arou
Re:These happen every day (Score:5, Interesting)
But not in OK.
And that's the point.
We went from an average of 10 quakes a year BF (before fracking) to over 900 in this year alone.
And the year aint over yet.
we can't even determine the new average yet, cause each year has been higher than the previous one in an ever increasing trend.
And youre estimate of what causes dmg is off too.
House foundations (almost always slabs here) are cracking, requiring (very expensive) shoring/piering. Brick siding is falling off houses. Particularly older houses, which is the majority in the state (not a big new home market, most current dwellings date from the 70s/80s on average).
And we're talking about quakes in the 3's doing that.
and the article is talking about a facility located near the swarms.
a facility that was never designed with seismic activity in mind, because we don't have those rules in OK like they do in CA.
So no its not FUD, but your post is rather ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NewsOK, aka The Oklahoman, our local paper, is well known across the state as a shill for the energy companies.
After all, it's owned by one.
So thanks for linking to a news story they published that has already been dismissed by scientists across the state and country several times.
Re: (Score:2)
not flamebait.
verifiable fact.
those who abuse the mod system can fuck right off.
Re: (Score:1)
According to USGS, those 3's you say doing all that damage create, " Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck." The same intensity of a passing truck is cracking foundations and bringing down walls? I call bullshit.
Carbon Sequestration (Score:2, Offtopic)
We have seen that the relatively minor amount of water injected into the ground during fracking operations tends to induce earthquakes.
Carbon dioxide under pressure (supercritical CO2) is a solvent that is at least as good as water, and sequestration proposals call for pumping gigatons of liquid carbon dioxide underground, into the same kind of strata that once held oil. Does anyone think that this will not tend to induce earthquakes?
Releasing oil from a storage area would cause an environmental mess - som
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting comparison. I too am pro-nuke but it's hard, beyond the obvious, to find arguments that make as much sense as this. I will be stealing this line of thinking for my next argument.
Re: (Score:2)
What I fail to understand is that the very same people who eschew nuclear power because the waste products "Will be dangerous for centuries" don't have a concern about storing vast quantities of carbon dioxide underground.
What you failed to understand is that you're wrong all around. I eschew nuclear power because humans have been proven to mismanage nuclear waste, and I also am opposed to pumping CO2 into the ground, and I'm opposed to fracking as well. I am pro- solar and wind.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the main stream Global Climate Change people will only accept Wind or Solar as a solution to CO2 emissions. Carbon Sequestration is something the fossil fuel industry throws out there, especially coal industry, as a red herring to appease politicians in coal mining areas.
Carbon sequestration is a wonderful thing. You just have to do it meaningfully. Reforestation with followup maintenance to make sure the trees don't just die is meaningful. And as an aside, carbon credit trading is bullshit. Cap and no trade, thanks.
The Department of Homeland Security? (Score:2)
Why is The Department of Homeland Security poking its nose in everywhere? Why are they "gauging potential earthquake dangers" when this would normally be monitored and studied by the USGS?
Re: (Score:2)
Look! A Danger! Quick, before it gets away!
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
Oscar Wilde
Re: (Score:2)
Making sure things are secure from natural disasters actually sounds like what the should be doing instead of being the department of "OMG TERRISTS!"
That being said, I would expect the USGS to actually have the best interests of the people in mind, and certainly not the DHS.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, I would expect the USGS to actually have the best interests of the people in mind, and certainly not the DHS.
If I were running the DHS, when I got done petting my persian cat and polishing my monocle I would probably have some of my underlings look into doing some things which are actually good for the country so I could point at them when people asked if I ever actually did anything useful.
Good. (Score:2)
Let's face it. it's going to take a major catastrophe to get America's collective head out of its ass. Of course Fox News will blame the whole thing on Obama, but eventually, people will figure out that we're being screwed by big corporations.
Unfortunately, history (Deephorizon) has shown us that, even after being screwed by big companies, the deep south still votes republican -- the base thinks that the free market should regulate itself. Hey, you voted for these clowns, live with the consequences.
Why DHS? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
USGS can monitor the situation with respect to the earthquakes but what could they do about making sure the tanks are safe or what would happen if the tanks failed? Maybe FEMA.
compare with New Madrid (Score:2)
When Memphis falls down, people are going to lose their minds. It's just a guessing game as to when. Nobody is prepared for it and the USG will drag down the rest of the country to deal with a relatively local disaster. "United we stand, together we fall".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I just want to know if it can withstand a tsunami? (Score:2)
a strategy (Score:1)