|
| |
http://pesn.com/2005/01/25/6900062_Exxon_Tripped_Indonesian_Tsunami/
You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News >
Jan. 25, 2005 |
|
Could Exxon-Mobil Works Have Tripped Indonesian Tsunami?
More than 1600 Indonesian troops have
guarded the Exxon-Mobil facilities in
Aceh at one time in recent years. The
Indonesian government gleans more than
$100 million per year from the works. |
One cubic mile of natural gas extracted every four years at epicenter
Aceh facility presents a probable man-made trigger in 9.0 earthquake with
accompanying tsunami that killed more than 225,000 people. Think of a
gigantic boulder sitting precariously, nudged over the edge with a small lever.
[See: Discussion
with Seismologist (follows)]
by Paul Noel, JAH, Sterling
D. Allan and Mary-Sue
Halliburton
ACEH, INDONESIA -- Exxon-Mobil has a 60-billion-standard-cubic-foot-per-day
facility near Aceh. In the span of four years the company extracts more than one
cubic mile of natural gas from the formations beneath what has turned out to
be the epicenter of the Aceh earthquake. The gas field there has been producing
for much longer than four years, and is one of the largest such facilities in
the world.
Scientists have known for some time that earthquakes in the order of 4.0 on the
Richtor scale have been caused by oil drilling and other earth intrusive
practices.
click for enlargement
Correlation of Increase in Major Earthquakes to
Increse in Oil Combustion
from 1900 to 2000 (ForceBorne.com)
An analogous phenomena can be seen with earthquakes
associated with large Hydro Dams. For example, Fontana Dam (USTVA North
Carolina) has been associated with up to 4.0 earthquakes and routinely causes
2.5 quakes some fifty-plus years after construction.
Due to its much greater scale, and the presence of six geological faults in the
area, the Three Gorges Dam in China will create very large earthquakes if its
reservoirs are ever filled completely. According to Chinese news reports,
tremors measuring 6.1 and 5.8 on the Richter scale hit the Zhangye region at
8:41 p.m. and 8:48 p.m. on Oct. 25, 2003.
Water was drained to safe levels over the next two
days, and the China Daily reported that the dams were structurally compromised:
"Cracks five centimetres wide had opened in the walls of the Shuangshuzhi
reservoir, while the Zhaizhaizi reservoir had developed a fissure one centimetre
wide and 410 metres long", the newspaper reported.
The weight of water overlying an unstable geological formation or fault exerts
incredible pressure to which the rock layers inevitably yield. Therefore it is
legitimate to ask, "What role did the extraction of oil and gas from the
immediate area play in the 9.0 Aceh earthquake on Dec. 26, 2004?"
World oil production alone (not including natural gas) is approximately 80 to
100 million barrels of oil per day. That is a tremendous volume of oil, too
large to even visualize in your minds eye, which is being extracted EVERY
DAY.
The worlds oilfields are pressurized naturally by natural-gas within the oil.
We've all probably seen "oil gushers" on films involving oil
discovery: oil shoots high into the air as it is forced out of the ground by the
natural-gas pressure in the underground oilfield.
The oil is not only pressurized, but is also hot. As it is extracted, the
pressure gradually decreases until the oil well is no longer pressurized.
Comparable to an empty aerosol can that still has some liquid in it, but which
is no longer expelled by depressing the spout, the gas pressure decreases to the
point where the drilling company needs to burn energy for pumping. Thus it
becomes less profitable to extract the oil.
In some cases, in order to extract the remaining oil, cold water is
injected/pumped into the well, causing the oil to float on top of the injected
water. As the oil well fills with cold water, the last remaining oil which
floats up on top of it is forced up through the well head to the surface, until
the well is "dry" i.e. "empty", but not literally
"dry" since it is now filled with water.
During these various stages of the oil-extraction process, the outer crust of
the globe is gradually being depressurized and cooled internally, causing
contraction for both of these reasons. When objects cool down they automatically
shrink/contract in size. If you let high-pressure air or gas out of a cylinder
ice forms around the outlet, and cools the entire cylinder. If you let some of
the air out of a football, or basketball, the ball shrinks and goes badly out of
shape.
Apply that to the Earth and you have earthquakes as the crustal layers shift in
response to the loss of pressure from below while the water pressure above
increases. This is simple common sense - not rocket science. It is a fact so
simple that anyone who understands the oil-extraction process would understand
the effects. Or at least, they should understand.
Therefore, the people doing this oil extraction should know the risk of
triggering earthquakes, even if they ignore the consequences of rapidly dropping
the underground pressure -- as the financial gurus and oil executives apparently
regularly do.
Should these executives and decision-makers, who are also the profit-makers, be
required to accept liability for the consequences?
Another obvious fact that is never quoted in relation to global warming is that
internal combustion engines do not just give off greenhouse gases, they also
give off tremendous heat every single one of them. If you try putting your
hand near the cooling-radiator or exhaust manifold of a running engine, you are
going to snatch it away again quickly to prevent burns. The professors never
factor this into the global-warming equations, and never mention it in the news.
They mention only the gas emissions.
Think about the millions of engines giving off tremendous heat every day, some
all day every day. Compound this on top of the greenhouse gases and you can see
why the scientists' and professors' prognostications have turned out to be
wrong. The ice caps are melting much faster than the "experts" first
predicted, and faster than they are still wrongly predicting now. What
pressures does this shift in weight from the poles place on the planet?
If oil is continually being created deep in the earth, as some theorists
argue, what happens when this new oil rises into a former oil deposit that
is now filled with water? Will this also result in further earthquakes as
pressure builds up with gas being forced into the same space?
To connect the dots, therefore, we have to link the rapid harvesting of
subterranean and undersea oil, and the reason for doing so the thirsty tanks
of obsolete gas-guzzling vehicles with the consequence of earthquakes and
tsunamis. Not only in Asia, but also around the world, are many oilfields with
rapidly dropping pressure, into which water is being pumped to extract the last
expensive barrels. How many more disastrous quakes will humanity face as the
result of this artificially-maintained appetite for fuel?
Whether or not the oil/gas extraction from the Aceh area was indeed the single
tripping factor will need to be determined by those with the instrumentation and
access to the data necessary to draw a definitive conclusion. But what can
be said definitively is that these man-made intrusions do place stress on the
earth and that stress is answered by an increase in the frequency of occurrence
of earthquakes.
See also below: Seismologist
rebuffs this assertion
Additional Comments by Article Authors
References
- ExxonMobil,
Aceh and the Tsunami - In Aceh, the company operates one of the
largest gas fields in the world and they're being sued for gross human
rights violations. (Democracy Now; Jan. 4, 2005) (related)
- Oil
Drilling and Earthquakes - cites multiple references (Google
Answers; April 25, 2004)
Q. "Given the fact that oil has been pumped out of the ground
24/7/365 by thousands upon thousands of pumps all over the world for so many
years, what replaces the space previously held by the oil?"
A. "the removal of oil can cause earthquakes, even in regions
normally quiet when it comes to seismic activity..."
- Four collaborative anecdotes
- Posted below. Tesla's NY quake; San Andreas tinkering; magnetic
field changes; N-bombs and quakes.
- Troop
deployment to guard Exxon and other vital enterprises - At least
1600 troops guarding Exxon interests alone in the Aceh region in 2001.
- Exxon
'helped torture in Indonesia' - "The Asia-Pacific region
contributes about 13% of ExxonMobil's worldwide production of oil and
gas." Ini 2000, gas from Indonesia yielded 118 cargoes of
LNG." (BBC; June 22, 2001)
- OIL:
The Cause of Most Earthquakes and Bad Weather - Robert L. Cook, alt
energy inventor, addresses oil extraction and earthquakes; global warming
and ice cap water redistribution stresses; atmospheric pressure
modifications. "What would happen if the sunken earth of the
Antarctic region were to spring back up (even a few hundred feet) after
enough ice melts away? Could this trigger a worldwide earthquake?"
- Earthquake:
Coincidence or a Corporate Oil Tragedy? - "Sound bombing"
or seismic tests of ocean floors to test for oil and gas had been carried
out near the sites of the Tasmanian beachings recently. (Independent
Media TV; Dec. 28, 2004)
Whale Beachings in Tasmania, Australia and New Zealand on
November 30th, 2004
(Robin
Good)
- Three
Gorges Dam - is situated near six active fault lines and above 15
million people.
- Dam
on dangerous ground - recent earthquakes (Three Gorges Probe news
service; Dec. 18,
2003)
- Seismologist Study
Mining-induced Earthquakes - The Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, the premier scientific journal dedicated to earthquake
research, has just published a trio of articles about earthquakes caused by
underground coal mining in east-central Utah. (PhysOrg; March 11,
2005)
- Magma
Oil - List of references that support the theory that some oil is
generated deep within the earth and replenished. (FreeEnergyNews
directory)
- When
Will We Learn (PDF) - Michael Horn says that Billy Meier warned
thirty years ago that earthquakes would accompany our oil and gas
extraction.
Meier was specifically warned about the connection of earthquakes to
the extraction of petroleum and natural gas, as well as the damming of
waters and over-building of huge cities. The first confirmation I
found for the petroleum connection was from Paul Segal, a geophysics
professor at Stanford University in 1990.
I will be discussing this and more on the Art Bell radio show this
Saturday night, Jan. 29, from 11:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. PST (www.coasttocoastam.com)
Art is also well known for exploring the latest developments in
alternative energy sources.
Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
www.theyfly.com |
Feedback
See continued dialogue which backs away from this initial assertion.
From: "Agnew, James" <James.Agnew{at}conservation.ca.go*v>
To: <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.co*m>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: "Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped by Exxon-Mobil
Works"
I can assure you that the M9.0 earthquake was entirely natural, occurring on a
subduction zone many miles beneath the surface of the earth - much deeper than
man has ever drilled. These types of earthquakes have occurred millions of
times in the geologic past and will continue to occur into the foreseeable
future. It's called Plate Tectonics, and Man has nothing to do with it. Oil
& gas are often found at subduction zones. Exxon had nothing to do with
this earthquake or any other earthquake. It is true that small to moderate
quakes have been produced by damming rivers and by extracting or injecting
fluids into the ground, but an earthquake of this magnitude is entirely
naturally-produced through the subduction process.
Sincerely,
James D. Agnew, M.S.
Associate Seismologist
California Geological Survey
801 K St., MS 13-35
Sacramento, CA 95814-3531
Tel. (916) 323-4282
Email: James.Agnew{at}conservation.ca.go*v
Sterling's Reply
I find a telling contradiction in two adjoining sentences: "Exxon
had nothing to do with this earthquake or any other earthquake. It is true
that small to moderate quakes have been produced by damming rivers and by
extracting or injecting fluids into the ground."
This causes me to question your objectivity, defending Exxon on the one hand
as having never caused an earthquake, yet in the very next breath saying
that extracting or injecting fluids into the ground has caused earthquakes.
I do not believe that more shallow subduction zones have no effect on the
deeper subduction zones. To me, that would be like someone saying,
"The moon has no effect on the earth. It is too far
away." I don't buy it, despite your credentials. I've seen
too many times when the professionals err while the common man sees
clearly. Think Titanic.
* * * *
From: "Agnew, James" <James.Agnew@conservation.ca.gov>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: Seismologist on: "Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped
by Exxon-Mobil Works"
Sterling,
I should have added one more sentence: "The wells that caused the small
earthquakes were water wells, not oil or gas wells." The most famous
example is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal fluid injection well near Rangeley,
Colorado (a federal government-owned wastewater injection well). The
high-pressure injection of large volumes of waste fluids caused small
earthquakes to occur - none of them caused any damage to surface structures. I
am not aware of any oil or gas wells ever causing earthquakes to occur.
There is no such thing as a "shallow subduction zone over a deep
subduction zone." They are all deep (deeper than any well ever drilled by
Man).
I would agree that it is always a good idea to question authority. However, in
this case, your story's logic is akin to saying that, if I were buying
something in a convenience store and the store gets robbed around the same
time, somehow I am at fault.
Jim Agnew
P.S. I have never worked in the oil & gas industry and have nothing to
"defend" but the truth. My expertise is in the study of earthquakes.
* * * *
Sterling's Response
I guess what confused me is the statement: "Oil & gas are often
found at subduction zones." If man has never drilled there, how
do they find oil & gas there? I'm a bit confused on that one.
Here are some references about Oil Drilling and earthquakes:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=335789
"the removal of oil can cause earthquakes, even in regions normally
quiet when it comes to seismic activity..."
Sorry to question you again, but it seems strange to me that you as a
seismologist are not familiar with this.
I would respect your researched answer on this. You might find a Pandora's
box in your profession by probing this, and may end up without a job?
* * * *
From: "Agnew, James" <James.Agnew{at}conservation.ca.go*v>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda{at}pureenergysystems.co*m>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Seismologist on: "Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped
by Exxon-Mobil Works"
Sterling,
First, let me state that "Google Answers" is not exactly a fount of
reliable knowledge; it appears to be written by anyone who feels like writing,
no matter what their educational credentials are. From what I have read in the
sci.geo.earthquakes Usenet group, it's not worth spending any time reading
anything there. ... If you want reliable geologic information, consult the
USGS at www.usgs.gov or us here at the
California Geologic Survey at www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/index.htm.
Most geologists are happy to tell people the facts as they are currently
known.
At the site you pointed me to, there is only one anecdotal mention of oil
extraction causing actual earthquakes, which allegedly occurred in the
Wilmington oil field (near Torrance & San Pedro in Southern CA), although
the writer gives no reference which I can check. However, even this allegation
is suspect, because earthquakes happen naturally all the time in that area
anyway. If earthquakes occurred due to oil extraction there, they would have
been very small, and it would be very hard to blame them on the oil extraction
since the area is so highly seismic already.
Oil, gas and water extraction can be followed by subsidence (lowering of the
ground elevation by several feet due to compaction of the ground) and even
"movement" of the ground (most probably along pre-existing joints in
the rock), but the movement is rarely, if ever, coincident with earthquakes,
and is not enough to cause large quakes. Certainly nothing Man could do could
cause a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. The world's total nuclear arsenal set off at
once would not be that large. Since all the nukes are still here, the only
possible conclusion is that the Sumatran quake occurred naturally.
Please note that I did not say "man has never drilled at subduction
zones". They drill there all the time because that's where a lot of the
oil is. They find oil there using conventional geophysical techniques, such as
seismic reflection (bouncing sound waves off the various layers in the earth).
Oil and gas are there because the subduction process (sliding of one of
earth's surface plates under another during large earthquakes) has scraped
huge quantities of ocean sediments, which contain oil from dead plants and
organisms raining down over millions of years, off the subducting plate and
plastered them onto the upper plate. This causes enormous quantities of oil
& gas in those disturbed sediments to migrate along paths of least
resistance, usually upward, until they reach a barrier (such as a fault which
cuts off the migration path), where they "pool" in the spaces
between the rock particles. Those areas can be imaged by the seismic
reflection survey, and that's where they drill for oil & gas. Sometimes
they're right and find oil & gas, and sometimes they're wrong (dry holes).
I do not know what "Magma oil" is. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Certainly there is no "oil" in liquid magma. Are you referring to
hydrogen, which is present in the lithosphere?
Jim Agnew
Sterling's Reply
Thanks for your patience in answering. Don't you think the oil/gas
extraction could possibly have a "tripping" effect, like Wiley
Coyote pushing a boulder over on the road runner? (excuse the simple
analogy). You remove that much gas and the pressure it was producing within
the earth might push on the wrong rock.
Think of it this way. An avalanche is set off by even the slightest
vibration. It's just waiting to go. Why couldn't the acts of man have been
the trigger for the 9.0 quake that was "waiting to go"?
Think of the amount of energy contained in the avalanche compare to the
amount of energy expended to trigger the avalanche. Is this not a fair
comparison?
Magma oil:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/
Sterling
* * * *
Seismologist Gives Explanation of Indonesian Quake
From: "Agnew, James" <James.Agnew{at}conservation.ca.go*v>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.co*m>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: Seismologist on: "Indonesian Tsunami Probably Tripped
by Exxon-Mobil Works"
Sterling,
No, I don't believe that anything Man could have done would contribute to a
quake of this size. The depths of boreholes are small (a few km at most)
compared to the depth of the hypocenter of the earthquake (30 km deep, as
reported by the USGS) and the oil is being extracted from the overlying
sediments, not from the Indian plate that is thrusting its way under the Sunda
plate. In addition, the epicenter of the quake was located under the ocean,
far from the drilling area - 250 km south-southeast of Banda Aceh. The
pressure release of oil removal is miniscule compared to the required forces
necessary to force one plate under another, and those pressure releases could
not reach the hypocenter by any known mechanism.
These plate forces are caused, ultimately, by radioactive decay within the
earth's mantle, which causes it to heat up and convect - I like to compare it
to a pot of oatmeal (real oatmeal, not "instant" - I'm showing my
age) boiling on the stove; the water roils upward in response to heating from
below (like the mid-ocean ridge system), giving off heat when it reaches the
surface (like volcanoes), then sinking again to be re-heated (like subduction
zones). The oatmeal "scum" floating on top of the pot is equivalent
to the earth's crust. Drilling into this "scum" is not going to
affect the ultimate reason for the earthquakes - the convection from below.
Were it not for this radioactive decay, the earth would have cooled off eons
ago to the point where it was entirely solid and plate motions could not occur
(And, ironically, you and I could not exist). Looking at a map of Sumatra, you
can see that it is covered with active volcanoes, which are the release of
heat above the plunging subduction zone.
Avalanches occur in response to downward gravity forces only. The plate
motions are responding not only to gravity but to internal convection forces
within the earth, which include both horizontal and vertical forces, so the
analogy doesn't really hold, although I can see why you might think so.
See the following USGS site for a good description of the quake: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_slav_ts.html
I will look at the web site you mentioned.
Jim Agnew
* * * *
Sterling's Reply
In your oatmeal analogy, there is no crusted surface, but the surface is
slightly cooled magma, to make the comparison.
In the earth, we have a hard, thick crust that floats on the magma beneath.
Because of this, it is going to take some kind of "trigger point"
to shift the crust, whether small or large. Pressure builds, then it snaps,
small or large. With this in mind, its seems to me that my avalanche analogy
again has merit in which a smaller phenomenon (extracting massive oil/gas)
serves as a "trigger" for the much larger 9.0 snapping event.
What does give your argument strength is how far removed the epicenter was
from where the oil/gas extraction was taking place. Still, a rifle
fired in one canyon can set off an avalanche in another.
* * * *
From: "Agnew, James" <James.Agnew{at}conservation.ca.go*v>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.co*m>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: Seismologist puts Indonesian quake question to rest
Sterling,
My boiling oatmeal analogy wasn't meant to be a perfect model of the earth; it
just is easier for me to explain it to others that way, because it is more
"real" to them. You do pose a good point, though - The trigger
mechanism for earthquakes is currently under study by the USGS and others; I
don't think anyone has come up with a fully accepted model of just what does
finally set an earthquake in motion. There are so many possible variables to
consider that it's hard to pin down any one thing as "causing" the
quake. Most researchers think that faults are prevented from moving
continuously by "asperities", or areas of higher friction along the
fault (such as bends in the fault, for example). In the asperity model, when
the pushing force of the plate motion slowly becomes greater than the
restraining frictional force, the earthquake happens. This is a classic study
in Chaos Theory - how and when the "state" of the fault changes from
quiet to moving. Some researchers think periods of heavy rain, which
percolates down into the fault, may hasten the earthquake by lowering the
frictional restraining force just enough to allow the fault to move. There are
many other competing hypotheses currently under study. One important finding
is that much of the fault motion occurs "aseismically" (without any
noticeable shaking) after the earthquake - sometimes even more motion than in
the quake itself. Other faults, such as the Hayward fault in the Oakland &
Berkeley area in California, seem to move continuously without any noticeable
earthquake, but are punctuated by occasional large damaging quakes.
If and when we ever do figure it out, we might be able to predict earthquakes
accurately enough to provide a timely warning and prevent deaths. 30 years
ago, we thought we almost had it figured out; now accurate prediction seems
pretty far away.
Jim Agnew
May have Shifted a few minutes either way; that's it
From: erickrieg{at}verizon.ne*t
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Seismologist on: "Indonesian Tsunami
Probably Tripped by Exxon
Sterling,
The earthquake was a result of incredible forces known to be deep in the earth
since the beginning of recorded history. Exxon's work may have been able to
shift the inevitable earthquake maybe a few minutes either way - that's it.
by J.R., Jan. 27, 2005
The article was interesting. There are however three other considerations:
1) In the early 20th century Nicola Tesla was studying mechanical resonance
using a dual chambered device about the size of a soda can. He strapped it to
he support beams in his laboratory in NY City and generated an earthquake that
shook several square blocks. There is a court order on file blocking him from
further testing of the device within the city limits of NY.
2) In the early 1980's a bored laid off oil field employee in southern
California dropped seismic sensors into a hole under his mobile home and
monitored them using his home PC. He found regular rhythm patterns that could
only be artificial before several small earthquakes. Someone was trying to
relieve the stress on the San Andreas fault. He reported it to the press and
the day the news hit the papers, the rhythm stopped.
3) Much has been made about the relationship between the magnetic field and
the earth's crust. The magnetic field strength has dropped from 4 gauss in the
air (roughly 4000 gauss in the crust) to 0.4 gauss (400 gauss in the crust) in
the past 2000 years. This weakening has weakened the integrity of the crust.
Further, military experiments in Russia, Greenland, Finland, and the USA using
atmospheric heaters (HAARP comes to mind) cause movement in the magnetic
field. These movements lead to further weakening along critical stress points.
4) There have been two good correlations done between underground nuclear
testing and earthquake activity. One of them was reported on the net. I'll try
to find it again and give you the address. The other one is a classified Air
Force document I had access to while working in a nuclear detection outfit in
the 1970's. Watch the news for underground test announcements and then watch
for a couple of days and you will see as many as three 6+ quakes.
Just interesting info.
[J.R.]
Follow-up Stories
 Shell
Oil May Have Spurred Gulf Quake - Extraction of oil, gas, and
brines can trigger earth movements. The epicenter of the 5.2 earthquake on
Feb. 10 coincides with Shell Oil's Brutus field. Could the Gulf Coast be
priming for an Aceh-like tsunami? (PESN; February 15, 2006)
See also
Page posted by SDA
Jan. 25, 2005
Modified with more references and editing Jan. 26, 2005
Last updated February 15, 2006
| |
|
Feed