Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oil Earthquakes confirmed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shadowrider" data-source="post: 2738917" data-attributes="member: 3099"><p>Hobbes,</p><p></p><p>I didn't want to further jack that other thread. Here ya go:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not disputing them either...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As an aside this is the stupidest tripe I've seen in awhile. But some people just buy into the BS to the extent that they don't even bother to look for the contradictions that right in front of their face. They just jump on board with letting big brother tell everyone what to do, and they do so gladly it seems.</p><p></p><p>Edit to add:</p><p>This is the link I meant to post earlier. It actually does have a single well being looked at in relation to seismic activity, which kind of shocks me because it seems that that would be the 1st hypothesis to prove that causation thing that SMS was talking about and extrapolate out from there. Rinse, repeat, many many times. Might actually prove something that way. So, why only one well mentioned? Do they not want to publish findings on others? Questions questions questions...</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2015.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2015.pdf</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shadowrider, post: 2738917, member: 3099"] Hobbes, I didn't want to further jack that other thread. Here ya go: I'm not disputing them either... As an aside this is the stupidest tripe I've seen in awhile. But some people just buy into the BS to the extent that they don't even bother to look for the contradictions that right in front of their face. They just jump on board with letting big brother tell everyone what to do, and they do so gladly it seems. Edit to add: This is the link I meant to post earlier. It actually does have a single well being looked at in relation to seismic activity, which kind of shocks me because it seems that that would be the 1st hypothesis to prove that causation thing that SMS was talking about and extrapolate out from there. Rinse, repeat, many many times. Might actually prove something that way. So, why only one well mentioned? Do they not want to publish findings on others? Questions questions questions... [url]http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2015.pdf[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oil Earthquakes confirmed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom