A Complete Waste of Space

no, I'm saying, and the data bears me out, that after 20 years of dumping wastewater into underground wells in Oklahoma, the seismic activity rocketed upward(about 10 years into the process), and that it now is more seismically active than California(which is both larger and situated nearer to major known faults).
Do try to keep up.

Show me the data and it's "irrefutable" source....

Here's what I found...

"The USGS is trying to "stay agnostic as to whether the earthquakes are induced or natural," says Rubinstein. "In some sense, from a hazard perspective, it doesn't matter whether the earthquakes are natural or induced. An increase in earthquake rate implies that the probability of a larger earthquake has also risen," said Rubinstein, whose method seeks to balance all of the possible ways the hazard might change given the changing earthquake rate.

But what's the likelihood of induced seismicity from any specific well?

"We can't answer the question at this time," said Atkinson, who said the complex problem of assigning seismic hazard to the effects of induced seismicity is just beginning to be addressed."



Old Pudfark sez: " Ya better factor in all that illegal traffic from the south...them pounding feet are just as likely a factor.... "

Pudfark wrote:Here's what I found...

"The USGS is trying to "stay agnostic as to whether the earthquakes are induced or natural," says Rubinstein. "In some sense, from a hazard perspective, it doesn't matter whether the earthquakes are natural or induced. An increase in earthquake rate implies that the probability of a larger earthquake has also risen," said Rubinstein, whose method seeks to balance all of the possible ways the hazard might change given the changing earthquake rate.

But what's the likelihood of induced seismicity from any specific well?

"We can't answer the question at this time," said Atkinson, who said the complex problem of assigning seismic hazard to the effects of induced seismicity is just beginning to be addressed."

Source?

USGS

USGS is not a certfied propagandist source of disinformation.
You need to find a more reliable source



HH

Pudfark wrote:USGS

Your quote source.
(I can't believe I had to explain that)

Well if'n ya want it bad enough....you'll find it.
If'n ya don't? You can come here and whine about it, some more.
If ya don't know how to find it?
It'd be a waste of my time to post it for ya.

Quick search of the forums will provide you the embarrassing info....of how many "sources" you've posted in the past 4 years.
Then again...ya could search them forums for my posted sources...and feel the burning shame of your ask, again.

So, consider this?
"I frackin' told you".

Embarrassed? Really?
Seems to me you're too embarrassed by your own source to post a link to it.

But that was a nice speech, Pud.
Really, it was.

This R_D...memorize it.