Oil Earthquakes confirmed

[CHenry]

Here some more reading on the quakes.
http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-me-quake-frack-20150423-htmlstory.html

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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.

Yet the oxygen levels are not decreasing. All this "extra" carbon dioxide should be consuming twice as much oxygen than carbon that is being oxidized. I don't see it happening. Whether we burn trees or peat moss or swamp gas, we generate energy for heat and manufacturing processes, yet our oxygen levels remain constant. Switching from wood to fossil fuels hasn't changed our energy production per capita for a given time period. We simply switched fuels.

Nature recycles it.

And, what about all the water produced from burning fossil fuels? Take gasoline for instance. It is basically octane - eight carbon atoms and eighteen hydrogen atoms. Burning one molecule of octane consumes 25 atoms of oxygen. You get 8 molecules of carbon dioxide and nine molecules of water. Why aren't we drowning? Photosynthesis takes care of it all. Water and carbon dioxide are absorbed by plants and both are broken down through photosynthesis with energy from the sun into free oxygen and all manner of hydrocarbons - some of which we eat! Some of it becomes the wood fibers we build our homes out of. Some of it becomes nectar and pollen that the bees make honey out of. It goes on and on.

If you want to shut that process down, you'd better come up with something akin to Soylent Green to feed the masses - otherwise, you'll have riots on your hands.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here some more reading on the quakes.
http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-me-quake-frack-20150423-htmlstory.html

Isn't it funny how none of those graphs show the equivalent decline in California earthquakes? It appears to me that the disingenuous bastards are simply going after the oil companies fortunes. They certainly are not letting a good disaster go to waste!

Woody

 

[Eagle Eye]

Yet the oxygen levels are not decreasing. All this "extra" carbon dioxide should be consuming twice as much oxygen than carbon that is being oxidized. I don't see it happening. Whether we burn trees or peat moss or swamp gas, we generate energy for heat and manufacturing processes, yet our oxygen levels remain constant. Switching from wood to fossil fuels hasn't changed our energy production per capita for a given time period. We simply switched fuels.

Nature recycles it.

And, what about all the water produced from burning fossil fuels? Take gasoline for instance. It is basically octane - eight carbon atoms and eighteen hydrogen atoms. Burning one molecule of octane consumes 25 atoms of oxygen. You get 8 molecules of carbon dioxide and nine molecules of water. Why aren't we drowning? Photosynthesis takes care of it all. Water and carbon dioxide are absorbed by plants and both are broken down through photosynthesis with energy from the sun into free oxygen and all manner of hydrocarbons - some of which we eat! Some of it becomes the wood fibers we build our homes out of. Some of it becomes nectar and pollen that the bees make honey out of. It goes on and on.

If you want to shut that process down, you'd better come up with something akin to Soylent Green to feed the masses - otherwise, you'll have riots on your hands.

Woody

Im sorry sir but this is silly.
There are limitations to photosynthesis (PS) just like any natural process. PS relies on an enzyme that binds Co2 with a 5C molecule. The enzyme function is limited by many things, including Co2 and O2 concentration, Nitrogen (which is needed to build the enzyme), Temperature (enzyme works slower at cold temperatures, faster at warm temps, but too warm and i may not function at all).
To claim that Photosynthesis will "take care of it all" is just plain wrong.

 

[lkothe]

Sweet!!
Who needs daytime soap operas, we got our own "As the world turns"

IMHO, we don't KNOW jack about how this big ball we live on works....we might think we do but things are so intertwined that results may be decades or even centuries down the road.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Nice, You just claimed that people are raising hell about this because they want the oil companie's money? Got any proof for that statement? If you break someones stuff you oughtta pay for it. This is about responsibility.

No proof yet. That's why I said it appears that way to me. Any time you leave out half of an equation your results are always questionable, subject to disbelief, and likely subject to ridicule.

If you want to add some credibility, why don't you address the concurrent reduction in earthquakes in California?

Woody

 

[excat]

Isn't it obvious, those Cali communist bastards shipped all their earthquakes to us via the US Postal Service, it just took them a 100 years to get here which should be no surprise!

Maybe in 100 years, Oklahoma is going to be the fault line for the division of the United States, where one continent will be Democrat, and the other is Republican....

 

[Hobbes]

No proof yet. That's why I said it appears that way to me. Any time you leave out half of an equation your results are always questionable, subject to disbelief, and likely subject to ridicule.

If you want to add some credibility, why don't you address the concurrent reduction in earthquakes in California?

Woody

Totally different geology than OK, TX, KS, CO, AR.
They're not related.

 

[Eagle Eye]

No proof yet. That's why I said it appears that way to me. Any time you leave out half of an equation your results are always questionable, subject to disbelief, and likely subject to ridicule.

If you want to add some credibility, why don't you address the concurrent reduction in earthquakes in California?

Woody

Just because you think that there should be some explanation about this does not mean that scientists now have to go and find one.
Maybe It's not addressed because professionals don't believe there is meaningful connection. You are not the only logical person out there, the professionals think about this for a living. Maybe you can take a hint from them

 

[dieseltech09]

Just because you think that there should be some explanation about this does not mean that scientists now have to go and find one.

Just because you think its already proven doesn't mean it is either.