14 thoughts on “Washington DC”

  2. It shook pretty good here for about 20 seconds, no damage but definitely an earthquake. The local emergency network called around by telephone later to say the epicenter was Mineral VA (north of Richmond). That’s about 120 miles from us and about the same from Washington DC. It was certainly felt as far as New Jersey, a friend called from there to say she was in the shower when it happened.

  4. Some seriously interesting points about this.
    1. There is no fault line there.
    2. The earthquake was very shallow, less than a kilometer deep.
    3. The epicentre is located on the gas bearing shales where all the hoohaa about fracking is under dispute.
    4. It is extremely near a major geological discontinuity between the abutment of the shales and the massif of the Appalachian chain.

    One has serious wonderings if it all may be related. Not that I expect that to be posited knowing the ability of corporations to suppress information.

  6. Well I guess my brother will be awake right now. He fairly close near Warrenton.

    CO, is there any justification behind all the fracking protests? Shell wants to frack in the Karroo in this country. It is a vast stretch of semi arid land that supports about 1 sheep per every couple of hectares. Water is scarce and much of it comes from boreholes and that is what is upsetting the community. Shell says fracking will take place way below the deepest borehole and will have no impact. What say you?

  7. That’s a great question Sipu, my local daily is forever full of articles against this fracking business (I live a lot closer to the area in question) must say that although I’ve tried to follow it, it’s all a bit confusing.

    However, FEEG’s link tells us that this is ‘a well known seismic area’ and that a 5.9 occurred there in 1897.

  8. They want to Frack in Frickin’ Blackpool here in Blighty. The environutters are positively effervescing. I don’t like the sound of it myself too easy to pollute the water table. Of course the sponsors of the scheme say it is impossible, but they do stand to make a bagload of cash out of it and I doubt their motivation.

  10. Ferret, interesting link…

    Energy company Cuadrilla suspended fracking operations near Blackpool in June, over fears of a link to two minor earthquakes in the area.

    From there I went to here BBC – What is fracking

  13. CO: There is an argument that lubricating the abutments of the major plates (by fracking perhaps) would release the built up strain more gradually than otherwise, I would be happy with ten 5.7’s rather than one 8.0.

  14. Interestingly one of the directors of the US Geological Service was on a late night radio show on NPR.
    Evidently there is already proof that fracking causes earthquakes. There have been two incidences of swarms of earthquakes caused by fracking, both in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Neither particularly prone areas to earthquakes. This was admitted last night and the first I have heard of it and I pay attention to this topic.
    Mineral county hasn’t had an earthquake since the 1800’s, this is NOT an earthquake prone area! You need one every few weeks to qualify!!!
    It strikes me that fracking is bad news. Evidently the pressure used far exceeds that which is needed to flush oil out of oil sands plus the chemicals added appear to be seriously toxic and have/do/will contaminate water supplies.
    I think the permanent damage from fracking- the jury is still out. BUT! Here in the US the oil companies are advertising it like crazy on the TV to soften up the population, which rather tells me they know it will do harm to the environment! I can see permanent damage to water tables, both in their quality and presence. Water tables are only there because there is an impermeable barrier below them holding them in place, destroy the underlying structures and no water table, no water! Not a lot of point of having fuel in uninhabitable land is there? How much of a country has to be rendered uninhabitable before enough is enough in the search for fossil energy?
    As far as damage through earthquakes goes, it will depend very much on the nature and age of the sediments. Here in the West the earthquakes jive up late quaternary sedimentary soils that have only been laid down the day before yesterday, they are still mobile, they absorb the shocks which cannot travel far through such laterally. It is akin to shaking down a jar of sweeties so that you can get a few more in at the top. Consolidation absorbs shock. On the East Coast you have some seriously old rocks in the Appalachian chain, very stable abutted up to them on the coastal plain are sedimentary rocks but much much older than in the West, early tertiary and well consolidated, the shock has nowhere to go locally so travels right through the whole series up the coast right to New England. Equally the buildings are much older and often single skin brick as in Christchurch. Hence the damage at even a low 5.8.
    Wooden houses being much more flexible take nowhere near the damage at that level.
    As a frame of reference, no-one gets too excited about a 5.8 on the West Coast, hence the joke circulating in LW’s no 12. Just moves the dust around a bit.

Add your Comment