world oil reserves gone in 19 years

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like 2,700+ earthquakes in Oklahoma since 2010, when before 2009 they averaged 1-2 per year?

Such statistics are meaningless. Seismography, like all other sciences, is constantly improving. The main reason there are "more" earthquakes in many regions is because detection has been improved. If you limited your search to earthquakes over four on the Richter scale, the point where minor damage may begin, you will probably not find a noticeable increase.

What you see in Oklahoma is an increase in very low energy earthquakes due to the relief of pressure cause mostly by injection of waste water. Those are not old stresses, but old stresses that are being released. And it is far better to release them in a series of low energy quakes rather than in one large one.

 

[Spiderman]

Such statistics are meaningless. Seismography, like all other sciences, is constantly improving. The main reason there are "more" earthquakes in many regions is because detection has been improved. If you limited your search to earthquakes over four on the Richter scale, the point where minor damage may begin, you will probably not find a noticeable increase.

I wish you were a theist, so I could give God the credit for all your wisdom!

God is speaking through you, mate!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wish you were a theist, so I could give God the credit for all your wisdom!

God is speaking through you, mate!

This has been known for a while. That injecting water can release earthquakes. Some have even suggested it for California in quake regions. It would allow a series of very small quakes instead of rare huge ones. Though the fear of lawsuits from possible damage all but guarantees that this will never happen.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Such statistics are meaningless. Seismography, like all other sciences, is constantly improving. The main reason there are "more" earthquakes in many regions is because detection has been improved. If you limited your search to earthquakes over four on the Richter scale, the point where minor damage may begin, you will probably not find a noticeable increase.

What you see in Oklahoma is an increase in very low energy earthquakes due to the relief of pressure cause mostly by injection of waste water. Those are not old stresses, but old stresses that are being released. And it is far better to release them in a series of low energy quakes rather than in one large one.

They're only meaningless to those who find them inconvenient.

I don't know if photos are still broken or not, so here's a link to a map of fracking sites, and their injection quantities, in Oklahoma.
http://maps.fractracker.org/3.13/?appid=8c62863a9d43488db4f426b83a181574

Here's a map of epicenter's in Oklahoma. (USGS Archive Map)
http://2015.padjo.org/files/images/tutorials/cartodb/ok-schoolquakes/ok_earthquakes_new_layer.png

That last map comes from an enormous study, covering nearly everything you can imagine.
http://2015.padjo.org/tutorials/mapping/077-ok-schools-quakes/#the-usgs-earthquake-archive-data

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're only meaningless to those who find them inconvenient.

I don't know if photos are still broken or not, so here's a link to a map of fracking sites, and their injection quantities, in Oklahoma.
http://maps.fractracker.org/3.13/?appid=8c62863a9d43488db4f426b83a181574

Here's a map of epicenter's in Oklahoma. (USGS Archive Map)
http://2015.padjo.org/files/images/tutorials/cartodb/ok-schoolquakes/ok_earthquakes_new_layer.png

That last map comes from an enormous study, covering nearly everything you can imagine.
http://2015.padjo.org/tutorials/mapping/077-ok-schools-quakes/#the-usgs-earthquake-archive-data

You really need to read your sources. From the last one:

"My loose query of the USGS archive resulted in 6,400+ earthquakes, most of which are so light as to not disturb a sleeping cat, and a few which aren't even inside Oklahoma's borders (not that tremors obey political lines, but that's an epistemological issue that we'll ignore for now):"


When it comes to significant quakes, and these would be of magnitude 4.5 or more there were only 8 from 2011 to 2015 and those were all still very low level quakes. You are letting yourself get scared by sheer numbers of "earthquakes" where even the strongest one would have to be within a few miles of to even feel.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You really need to read your sources. From the last one:

"My loose query of the USGS archive resulted in 6,400+ earthquakes, most of which are so light as to not disturb a sleeping cat, and a few which aren't even inside Oklahoma's borders (not that tremors obey political lines, but that's an epistemological issue that we'll ignore for now):"

When it comes to significant quakes, and these would be of magnitude 4.5 or more there were only 8 from 2011 to 2015 and those were all still very low level quakes. You are letting yourself get scared by sheer numbers of "earthquakes" where even the strongest one would have to be within a few miles of to even feel.

I read. Thanks.

I'm not concerned with the few thousand microquakes, but with the couple thousand larger ones. They are caused, admittedly by you in a previous post but reluctantly by certain former Attorney Generals/EPA directors and the companies that are profiting from them, by activities surrounding the procurement of fossil fuels. And those slightly larger quakes are still causing damage on scales large enough that construction requirements are being changed, schools have to prepare their students, parents, faculty, and staff for them, insurance companies are having to offer protection against them, and counties are having to set aside management programs for claims from them.

These are damages directly related to fossil fuel extraction and salt water flushing(I can't think of the word right now) and that's the whole point.

Natural earthquakes we can't do much about. But with man-made quakes we can. And that was the point of conversation that we seem to be leaving behind as we bicker about how many thousand little earthquakes in a non-earthquake prone area is a "good" number.

Pretending that these activities aren't causing actual problems is dishonest.

Also, I'm not responding so much to the idea of a threat of high-level earthquakes as much as I'm responding to the idea that fracking isn't causing these quakes in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read. Thanks.

I'm not concerned with the few thousand microquakes, but with the couple thousand larger ones. They are caused, admittedly by you in a previous post but reluctantly by certain former Attorney Generals/EPA directors and the companies that are profiting from them, by activities surrounding the procurement of fossil fuels. And those slightly larger quakes are still causing damage on scales large enough that construction requirements are being changed, schools have to prepare their students, parents, faculty, and staff for them, insurance companies are having to offer protection against them, and counties are having to set aside management programs for claims from them.

These are damages directly related to fossil fuel extraction and salt water flushing(I can't think of the word right now) and that's the whole point.

Natural earthquakes we can't do much about. But with man-made quakes we can. And that was the point of conversation that we seem to be leaving behind as we bicker about how many thousand little earthquakes in a non-earthquake prone area is a "good" number.

Pretending that these activities aren't causing actual problems is dishonest.

Also, I'm not responding so much to the idea of a threat of high-level earthquakes as much as I'm responding to the idea that fracking isn't causing these quakes in the first place.

What "couple thousand" larger ones? I could quote it where it said that there were only 8 of 4.5 or larger over the time period that I mentioned. And even the quakes that were mentioned over 4.5 were not large earthquakes.

Your own sources tell us that these are not actual problems. You should not accuse others of being dishonest merely because you cannot understand the very sources that you sited.

 

[Shaul]

You mean like 2,700+ earthquakes in Oklahoma since 2010, when before 2009 they averaged 1-2 per year?

So post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? Ridiculous! Earthquakes have happened in Oklahoma before there was any oil drilling. Obviously there are other causes. Any increase could be caused by other reasons such as the massive depletion of the aquifers. Oil drilling is done around the world. So why aren’t there increases in earthquakes in all those other drilling areas too? Face it, there is no causal linkage established between oil drilling and earthquakes. Your are fishing for excuses to demonize oil.

 

[dfnj]

Another trillion gallons just discovered:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-....html?utm_source=Google&utm_campaign=Petroteq

 

[Subduction Zone]

So post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? Ridiculous! Earthquakes have happened in Oklahoma before there was any oil drilling. Obviously there are other causes. Any increase could be caused by other reasons such as the massive depletion of the aquifers. Oil drilling is done around the world. So why aren’t there increases in earthquakes in all those other drilling areas too? Face it, there is no causal linkage established between oil drilling and earthquakes. Your are fishing for excuses to demonize oil.

To be fair the increase in small earthquakes has been observed long before this when water is injected back into the ground. But it just appears to be the release of old built up stress. And it is arguably much better to have a series of small quakes than one large quake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another trillion gallons just discovered:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-....html?utm_source=Google&utm_campaign=Petroteq

This is an example of why I would go with a later date for peak oil rather than an earlier one. Technology will continue to advance ever increasing proven reserves.

 

[james dixon]

So, by all means, find a solution...but if you realize there isn't anything you can do... well....worry not! It's not the end of the world. And even if it were, there's always the next life!

The problem with your approach is that you have thrown in the towel without even giving it a try.

 

[james dixon]

This is an example of why I would go with a later date for peak oil rather than an earlier one.

The article you noted states--

The traditional oil sands extraction methods are considered the dirtiest production method on the planet… and the most expensive, with breakeven pricing coming in as high as $75 a barrel.

Now, for the first time, a small company has taken the lead in this sector – with a proven, patented and potentially highly profitable oil sands processing technology.

Notice the article above states, patented and potentially highly profitable oil sands processing technology.

In other words, it is a theory in oil extraction that has not yet been proven and not one barrel of oil has as of yet been extracted using this method.

I am not trying to diminish the possibilities this may offer, I am just saying, don’t count your chickens before they hatch. And even if it did it would not supply the worlds oil needs.

Never the less, it is good news and thanks for providing it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article you noted states--

The traditional oil sands extraction methods are considered the dirtiest production method on the planet… and the most expensive, with breakeven pricing coming in as high as $75 a barrel.

Now, for the first time, a small company has taken the lead in this sector – with a proven, patented and potentially highly profitable oil sands processing technology.

Notice the article above states, patented and potentially highly profitable oil sands processing technology.

In other words, it is a theory in oil extraction that has not yet been proven and not one barrel of oil has as of yet been extracted using this method.

I am not trying to diminish the possibilities this may offer, I am just saying, don’t count your chickens before they hatch. And even if it did it would not supply the worlds oil needs.

Never the less, it is good news and thanks for providing it.

I did not provide it and it is hardly good news. You are aware that oil is probably the biggest single contributor to global warming I hope.

 

[james dixon]

You are aware that oil is probably the biggest single contributor to global warming I hope.

Yes, I am aware that burning fossil fuels adds unwanted gases into our atmosphere.

Having said that, I hope you are aware that climate change is not a result of our burning fossil fuels. Google "earths ice age"

Having said that; we are running out of oil so these fears of your will soon fade into the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I am aware that burning fossil fuels adds unwanted gases into our atmosphere.

Having said that, I hope you are aware that climate change is not a result of our burning fossil fuels. Google "earths ice age"

Having said that; we are running out of oil so these fears of your will soon fade into the past.

Please, your inability to understand why we are in an ice age right now does not help you. And no, we are not "running out of oil" at least not fast enough. The damage done already will only be made much worse by the time we do run out.

 

[james dixon]

The damage done already will only be made much worse by the time we do run out.

I don't think we will ever run out of fossil fuels, we will just stop using it
and the sooner the better

 

[james dixon]

Please, your inability to understand why we are in an ice age right now does not help you.

Is the earth in an ice age period?

Robin Adams, Researcher in Computer Science at Chalmers University of Technology (2018-present)

Answered Sep 18 2017 · Author has 697 answers and 1.8m answer views

The way geologists use the term “ice age”, yes it is. An ice age is a time when there is ice covering the Earth’s poles. When we look at the whole of the Earth’s history, this is rare. Most of the time, warm water can flow from the equator to the poles, and so ice cannot form. An ice age happens when something blocks this flow, as is the case now because there is land over the South Pole, and the Arctic Ocean is almost surrounded by land.

Within an ice age, there are glacial periods when the ice is growing, and interglacial periods when the ice is shrinking. When most people talk about “the last ice age” (the time when there were sabre-tooth tigers and woolly mammoths around), they mean the last glacial period. With this meaning, the answer to your question is no: the Earth is currently in an interglacial period, the ice at the poles is shrinking.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Earth-still-in-an-ice-age

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is the earth in an ice age period?

Robin Adams, Researcher in Computer Science at Chalmers University of Technology (2018-present)

Answered Sep 18 2017 · Author has 697 answers and 1.8m answer views

The way geologists use the term “ice age”, yes it is. An ice age is a time when there is ice covering the Earth’s poles. When we look at the whole of the Earth’s history, this is rare. Most of the time, warm water can flow from the equator to the poles, and so ice cannot form. An ice age happens when something blocks this flow, as is the case now because there is land over the South Pole, and the Arctic Ocean is almost surrounded by land.

Within an ice age, there are glacial periods when the ice is growing, and interglacial periods when the ice is shrinking. When most people talk about “the last ice age” (the time when there were sabre-tooth tigers and woolly mammoths around), they mean the last glacial period. With this meaning, the answer to your question is no: the Earth is currently in an interglacial period, the ice at the poles is shrinking.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Earth-still-in-an-ice-age

That has nothing to do with the problem of AGW.. Why are you using science that you do not understand and reject to support yourself? That makes no sense at all.

 

[james dixon]

That makes no sense at all.

You stated that we were in an ice-age so I did some checking and found educated people who disagree with you. I have also seen a National Geographic show that stated that the ice at the poles were melting. The program also included fly overs that showed skyscraper chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the ocean.

Based on your avatar, it makes no since on your part to deny this.
As for me, I have no clue. I do not have the education on this topic to provide a valid point of view.

Up until now I was relying on folks in the know like yourself to tell me the truth.

now I know better