See Good Samaritan law
What's funny about these is that many of them coexist with legal precedent establishing that the police have no duty to protect citizens. So in New York for example, cops have no requirement to interfere, but ordinary citizens can be guilty of a crime if they do not.
The UK's cities have video cameras on every street corner, Australia wants to heavily regulate 3D printers in case someone decides to make a plastic gun, China DOSes web sites it doesn't like, ISIS is slaughtering Christians and Jews wherever it finds them, and the USA is a laughing stock because of its morally defunct justice system.
FTFY.
Maybe the kid shouldn't have hacked into the teachers computer
Ah, you're one of those types who equate accessing a contextual menu with hacking. Sorry, but your nerd card has been revoked.
changing desktop wallpaper [is] not befitting of a member of society
Jeeze, I bet you're the life of the party.
the scientists on the 'environmental' side
This is a generic false equivalence which contradicts the positions of the actual Oklahoman scientists who provided the majority of the material in TFA.
In fact, these scientists all support the Oklahoma oil industry and continued injection via disposal wells. They want 1) the government to recognize the scientific evidence on the matter, 2) firms and government to investigate which wells contact basement rock and 3) firms to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.
'harvest' the 'scientific results'
No harvesting or picking of results is possible in this particular case, because while there are ~25 studies supporting induced seismicity in Oklahoma, there are zero studies with alternate conclusions.
So why the focus on this particular cause?
We're discussing an article about it. The article is not about other forms of induced seismicity - although the events you mention are useful in demonstrating that the amount of water injected in Oklahoma is quite significant.
it's your political view coloring your analysis of the situation.
I read peer-reviewed research in order to understand phenomena like the one in question. You on other hand are devoted to a particular position on an empirical question regardless of published research. You've already lied about the USGS' position, and are now resorting to non sequitor as a cheap rhetorical trick, in a discussion thread already replete with astroturf.
English words do tend to have alternate definitions which can be confusing to non-native speakers. As the AC said below:
[Percentage is] an accepted euphemism for "advantage", stemming from gambling and loansharking.
1) Gallons are not a unit of energy.
I didn't say it was - the energy involved comes from 1) Earth's gravitational field and 2) the internal energy of the water. Both are proportional to the water volume. The amount of water in question, around 50 billion gallons, is not small. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a percentage in arguing with someone who doesn't believe in conservation of mass or Le Chatelier's principle.
Link with minor quakes
About magnitude 3.0 to 6.0. M3 quakes are pretty small, but underestimating 4.0 - 6.0 quakes is a dangerous mistake. Prior to 2008, magnitude 3.0 and greater quakes were very rare in Oklahoma, and structures are not earthquake resistant. That's why "minor" ~5.0 quakes are causing tens of millions of dollars in damage.
The USGS and Oklahoma Geological Survey say [huffingtonpost.com] that the quake was natural
In fact, the USGS has concluded that disposal well pumping is responsible for increased seismic activity in Oklahoma (the article you link merely quotes a single geologist who works at the USGS). And, while the OGS does officially state the quake was natural, this position is not supported by even one study result - it's instead an arbitrary, politically mandated claim. The director of the OGS himself has even published research which does support induced seismicity in Oklahoma, and in TFA strongly implied that the OGS' official position is the result of direct political interference.
TFA has nothing to do with fracking. It is about disposal wells. Indeed, TFA states that fracking is linked only to very small earthquakes, unlike disposal wells which have now been conclusively linked to earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0. Further, all of the article's scientific statements are quotes from geologists who live and work in Oklahoma, or simply relate to the amount of research which has so far linked seismic activity to disposal wells.
They should take time to learn about the geology of flyover country.
You should take the time to learn something about petroleum extraction in Oklahoma.
are we sure these are caused by fracking?
Actually, we are sure that they are not caused by fracking (which tends to cause only very small quakes of magnitude < 3.0). Rather, larger 3.0 - 6.0 magnitude quakes in Oklahoma are being caused by disposal wells via which extremely large quantities of water are being injected into the ground. TFA states that > 25 peer-reviewed studies have concluded the disposal wells are responsible, while 0 studies have produced an alternative result.
Cause even if you are, you'll never get Oklahomans (especially the government) to believe it.
The USGS has already concluded that the quakes are caused by disposal wells. The director of the OGS (interviewed in the article) essentially states that OGS is being politically prevented from agreeing with that conclusion openly. So it's only the regulatory side of Oklahoma government which has issues with empiricism.
There are some good reasons to oppose hydraulic fracturing, but "earthquakes" isn't one of them.
Guess you skipped the article, which isn't about fracking. Instead, it's about disposal wells, which unlike fracking (which as you say is linked only to very small earthquakes) have been conclusively linked to larger quakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0. According to TFA, there were 585 such earthquakes in Oklahoma in 2013, while there were just a few annually prior to 2008.
This is as silly as opposing windmills because an occasional bird gets wacked.
None of the scientists or Oklahoma residents quoted by TFA are "opposed" to disposal wells. They want 1) the empirical link between disposal wells which contact basement rock and seismic activity to be recognized; 2) firms to be required to investigate if their wells contact basement rock; and 3) to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.
The amount of energy people are putting into the ground compared to the scale of the forces involved in major faults is pretty much irrelevant.
The energy is the internal energy of billions upon billions of gallons of water. In fact, it is significant with respect to fault forces - as demonstrated by the clear empirical link between disposal wells drilled into basement rock and seismic activity.
and drillers do try to avoid working near major faults.
From TFA, it sounds that in Oklahoma many drillers do try to avoid drilling disposal wells into basement rock. However, a large part (~20%) of the total impact is coming from just a few large disposal wells owned by a single firm, which is currently resisting state attempts to determine if the wells do in fact contact basement rock.
he simple fact of the matter is that we don't have this information, i.e. there are no peer reviewed studies predicting or discounting any of your three possibilities with a reasonable degree of certainty.
This simply isn't true (can you say astroturf?). Fracking is a complete non sequitor here; disposal wells in Oklahoma have been shown to be the primary cause of increased seismic activity there by multiple tens of peer-reviewed studies, while zero papers have reached an alternative conclusion.
Seismic activity in Oklahoma is not caused by fracking, but by disposal wells via which truly vast quantities of water are injected into basement rock. Fracking tends to cause only very small earthquakes, while poorly placed disposal wells can lead to quakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0 (based on examples in TFA).
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
