Oil Earthquakes confirmed

[1krr]

The more carbon dioxide we exhale or produce, the more the process of photosynthesis converts it back into oxygen and carbon. Ever wonder why the oxygen levels never seem to decline with the more and more hydrocarbon fuels we consume? As long as we have green things, sunshine and water, photosynthesis will strike a balance. That is all the science in a nutshell, not just the half in an agenda.

Woody

The flip side is that we don't have nearly the amount of green stuff that we used to. And while we may have the same amount of oxygen, we have more carbon dioxide and that is what they point to as the issue. The atmosphere, like the Earth's crust is a system of variables that will find a balance. When you change some of those variables, the system will find a new balance.

I'm not an environmentalist, it just seems to me that all things require a happy median and I do worry that we will unbalance the system and it may bite us where the sun don't shine. I also don't trust excessive collections of power whether that be in big government or big energy. Like any good individualist, I like to limit the control others have on my life which is why I am so very in favor of increasing competition in the energy industry by adding other prime movers (wind, solar, nuclear, etc etc).

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What does California have to do with Oklahoma quakes? Did the quakes migrate some how and settle in the central part of the state??
There is TON UPON TONS of evidence for global warming, but "some" people refuse to acknowledge the scientists findings. Those "same" people will refuse to listen to scientists about injection wells. Just wasting your breath.

It's about plate tectonics. California hasn't fallen off into the ocean just yet. We're still connected. Fractures occur in the weak spots. Evidently, our weak spots are weaker than the ones I California(or our stresses larger). Don't worry, though. As soon as our weak spots take up(or lose) enough stress and become harder, plate tectonics will find the next weak or overstressed spot. That just might turn out to be California again, or Iowa, or Massachusetts.

Mankind is not so powerful that we can - either on purpose or inadvertently - control plate tectonics.

Woody

 

[Eagle Eye]

Seems like a simple (relatively) solution would be to find a known inactive fault, like the Meers fault, and drill a bunch of disposal wells on it. Build them to the exact specs of working disposal wells and start pumping. If that ***** wakes up, you might make a believer out of me...or not...because I don't have to believe for either position to be true. It is what it is.

That would be much smarter and more economical than shutting down all working disposal wells in the state to see if the quakes stop...

That would be much smarter. But even if we do this, then one could argue ... well this is different because it is not like it is in oklahoma. So those results only apply to that location. Not proof that drilling causes quakes in Oklahoma

 

[uncle money bags]

Isnt the Meers fault in Oklahoma?

 

[1krr]

Seems like a simple (relatively) solution would be to find a known inactive fault, like the Meers fault, and drill a bunch of disposal wells on it. Build them to the exact specs of working disposal wells and start pumping. If that ***** wakes up, you might make a believer out of me...or not...because I don't have to believe for either position to be true. It is what it is.

That would be much smarter and more economical than shutting down all working disposal wells in the state to see if the quakes stop...

I think that would be awesome, but where would we do this and not wreck some innocent bystander's property if it turns out the science is correct?

 

[dennishoddy]

Im glad you brought this up. This happens to be my field. bear with me on this one
Q1. where does the Carbon dioxide we breath out come from?
A1: it came from the atmosphere, was fixed (taken up) by a plant and converted into a sugar using the energy of light and hydrogens found in water.
So, that carbons cycles back and forth and there is no NET increase in C.
Q2:Where does the carbon dioxide cars release come from?
A2: Fossil fuels that have been locked away underground. So by releasing it, there is a NET increase in CO2. see?

Yes, one would think that more co2 means more plant productivity (biomass), right? Not the case. Plants are most often not limited by Co2, instead they are limited by Nitrogen or Phosphorous or some other nutrient. So, more co2 in the air will only increase plant productivity to a degree, until plants are limited by another nutrient. Either way. we are increasing the NET Co2 concentration by taking the C that was locked away ouderground and burning it, thereby releasing it into the atmosphere.

I hope i was clear enough

Ok, It wasn't clear enough for me.

We live on a planet with an atmosphere. Within that atmosphere, we have different concentrations of gas that we breathe.

So If I simulate that atmosphere in a container where the concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere equal what is in that container, what happens to O2 when I introduce a higher concentration of CO2?

I'll let you explain it.

 

[farmerbyron]

Im glad you brought this up. This happens to be my field. bear with me on this one
Q1. where does the Carbon dioxide we breath out come from?
A1: it came from the atmosphere, was fixed (taken up) by a plant and converted into a sugar using the energy of light and hydrogens found in water.
So, that carbons cycles back and forth and there is no NET increase in C.
Q2:Where does the carbon dioxide cars release come from?
A2: Fossil fuels that have been locked away underground. So by releasing it, there is a NET increase in CO2. see?

Yes, one would think that more co2 means more plant productivity (biomass), right? Not the case. Plants are most often not limited by Co2, instead they are limited by Nitrogen or Phosphorous or some other nutrient. So, more co2 in the air will only increase plant productivity to a degree, until plants are limited by another nutrient. Either way. we are increasing the NET Co2 concentration by taking the C that was locked away ouderground and burning it, thereby releasing it into the atmosphere.

I hope i was clear enough

One thing that has always got me about the GW crowd is their lack of support for expansion of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a zero carbon emission source that is economical and does not require a reduction in the standard of living. Yet virtually no green group advocates for this solution. Instead the solutions brought forward focus on moving wealth from one group of people to another. That is not a plan to reduce anything other than the credibility of the GW alarmists.

 

[1krr]

One thing that has always got me about the GW crowd is their lack of support for expansion of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a zero carbon emission source that is economical and does not require a reduction in the standard of living. Yet virtually no green group advocates for this solution. Instead the solutions brought forward focus on moving wealth from one group of people to another. That is not a plan to reduce anything other than the credibility of the GW alarmists.

I don't know if I qualify as a GW alarmist but I saw nuke it baby. It always amazes me that tree hugger types always go anti-nuclear when it is the one thing that could completely step in and replace all fossil fuel based electricity production tomorrow. Also amazes me that the country of the Kyoto Accords turned off all their nuclear plants for imported fossil fuels.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Ok, It wasn't clear enough for me.

We live on a planet with an atmosphere. Within that atmosphere, we have different concentrations of gas that we breathe.

So If I simulate that atmosphere in a container where the concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere equal what is in that container, what happens to O2 when I introduce a higher concentration of CO2?

I'll let you explain it.

i'll let the experts explain it. Maybe just stick with the abstract written in bold
http://132.239.121.69/publications/ralph/3_Seasonal.pdf

i guess the bottom line is that your "container" is a poor representation of the earth.

 

[1krr]

Ok, It wasn't clear enough for me.

We live on a planet with an atmosphere. Within that atmosphere, we have different concentrations of gas that we breathe.

So If I simulate that atmosphere in a container where the concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere equal what is in that container, what happens to O2 when I introduce a higher concentration of CO2?

I'll let you explain it.

I think he is saying you are taking C from under the ground where it is not in the atmosphere and reacting it with O2 which creates a net increase decrease in atmospheric oxygen (O2) and a net increase of carbon dioxide (CO2). The oxygen is now bound to carbon that wasn't in the atmosphere before it was dug up and burned.