Alright boys, I'm out. We'll pick this one up in the morning. Getting to old for after midnight internet debates. But it has been interesting and entertaining so I appreciate the forum and the participation in the thread. This is how it should be!
I started off in the oil field as a lowly Frac hand, worked my butt off and eventually became a Frac supervisor/Treater. That was while I was at SLB. After I left SLB, I became a completions foreman. I was responsible for all aspects of the completions process. From well prep, to Frac, to drill outs, to running production strings, to production. I have worked in several different states and in many different formations. I am very familiar with both cased hole and open hole completions. I have far more knowledge of Frac operations than anything else, which helps me to understand what is happening both on surface and down hole.
Having an understanding of bottom hole conditions and understanding what it takes to make a good Frac is what causes me to question the validity of the idea that a low pressure waste water well can cause such a spike in seismic activity.
The states with similar geology are having a lot more quakes, not just OK. Not as dramatic as OK but still enough to cause other states to shut down injection wells. (OK has shut down injection wells also)
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...used-by-oil-and-gas-operations-study-says.ece
This is good article about the exact same discussion going on in TX.
The OCC adopted a traffic light system in Dec 2013 where they sometimes restrict the pressures and volumes of injection wells near faults or even can shut them down if a 4.0 or higher quake occurs in proximity to that well.
The OGS as well as the OCC has known all along about the relationship between injection wells and earthquakes.
What is different now is they are beginning to acknowledge it openly to the public.
I did something of the kind in a previous thread about earthquakes in OK and a potential link with injection wells, and you can see the overlay here:
https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?200531-Felt-that-quake!&p=2574956&viewfull=1#post2574956
The purple and yellow blotches are the injection wells, and the blue and red dots are seismic events (blue representing events during 1970-2005, and red denoting events from 2005 to 2014).
Greening does not equal more biomass. Greening refers to the leafing out of vegetation. The relationship between c02 and greening does not imply that co2 results in higher biomass (C uptake by plants). It only means that leafing out is affected. So the premise of your arguments i completely beside the point that i am making, which is, that CO2 fertilization will not cause a linear increase in biomass production because other nutrients, such as water, N, P, K. are limiting this process.
Bottom line is you are using terminology incorrectly when implying that the effect of co2 on greening equals the effect of c02 on productivity.
And to your statement "I can't believe I'm having to post links to articles about CO2 fertilization and the greening of the planet that has occurred as a result" is baseless because it is evident that you don't understand what you are posting.
Greening does mean more biomass. Leaves use sunlight to capture CO2 from the atmosphere in a process called photosynthesis. More leaves, more CO2, more biomass. The study you linked showed it happening in an actual forest.
This article, which you conveniently ignored, specifically talks about the earth's biomass production in relation to available CO2. Try reading it with an open mind.
http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/larse/pubs/running_bioscience.pdf
Well, good morning. Do we have a consensus yet?
Afraid not
What an expert you are! This manuscript is advertising a method of measuring NPP and GPP (do you know the difference?)
Go to page 559. read second to last sentence.
They did not conduct a controlled study in which they comapred non C fertilized growth with C fertilized growth. Therefore they cannot conclude that C02 alone is responsible for any increase in NPP or GPP. The absence of knowledge about scientific controls again validates my claim that you not of the things you speak.
The manuscript I posted has the adequate controls i speak of and they found that Co2 first increases productivity but in the long term there is no difference and actually can decrease productivity in the long term.
Do you understand how Co2 is even fixed? Do you know what rubisco is? If you did, you might know about Co2 saturation, which occurs when the amount of Co2 no longer affects the rate of C fixation, because it is not the limiting factor.
Unfortunately it seems that we are doing the same thing, you and I. Posting links to articles that support our view points. The difference is that i am actually decently well read in this field whereas i have my doubts that you know the difference between NPP and GPP, or respiration and photorespiration.
Similar threads
