Gold explodes out of water during earthquakes: study

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2013 8:12 PM GMT
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/18/gold-explodes-out-of-water-during-earthquakes-study/
  • Rhi_Bran

    Posts: 904

    Mar 20, 2013 1:42 AM GMT
    As a geologist I find this fascinating, and it makes sense. You can precipitate quite a bit of gold from an aqueous system really fast by rapidly altering the conditions of the system, provided that there's a shit ton of gold in solution (though there rarely is in most cases). Gold loves to come out of solution as soon as it can since it's not stable as a loose ion, although it doesn't like to go back into solution once it's precipitated.

    However, what they don't mention is that it takes a great deal of time and many many earthquakes to form the massive joint systems that allow a vast amount of hydrothermal fluid transportation. You need a LOT of deep hydrothermal fluid to precipitate even small amounts of gold. If the system isn't being fed gold from somewhere else, you're not going to have rapidly agglomerating deposits - you're just going to jiggle around gold that's already in the system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 10:11 AM GMT
    Now watch the greedy fuckers start working on technology that'll induce earthquakes. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 10:37 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidNow watch the greedy fuckers start working on technology that'll induce earthquakes. icon_lol.gif


    They already have that technology. It's called horizontal slickwater fracturing (aka "fracking") and frack water disposal. BTW, the OP, riddler78, fully supports fracking. Weird, right?

    http://news.yahoo.com/unusual-dallas-earthquakes-linked-fracking-expert-says-181055288.html

    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/oops-looks-fracking-can-cause-earthqu

    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/508151/studies-link-earthquakes-to-wastewater-from-fracking/

    From a recent report out of Youngstown Ohio:

    "...That disposal has already left some in Youngstown shaken in ways no one anticipated. In 2011 on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve, Youngstown had two significant earthquakes. The first was a 2.7 magnitude quake and the second 4.0. Columbia University seismologist John Armbruster was hired by the state of Ohio to determine the cause of those quakes. In his expert opinion the high pressure used to dispose of the waste water caused the quakes. In March 2012 the state agreed and closed the site indefinitely. The state of Ohio believed him and shut down the well where the fracking water was being disposed. It remains closed."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 2:11 PM GMT
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/15/us-usa-earthquakes-fracking-idUSBRE85E14K20120615

    The fracking drilling technique used to tap shale oil and gas is unlikely to trigger earthquakes, but underground injection of waste water from drilling offers more risks for seismic activity, a new U.S. study said on Friday.

    The National Research Council study, which also examined the risk of earthquakes associated with tapping geothermal energy and carbon capture and storage, found that the total balance of fluid injected or removed underground was the biggest factor in causing earthquakes related to energy development.

    "Although induced seismic events associated with these energy technologies have not resulted in loss of life or significant damage in the United States, some effects have been felt by local residents and have raised concern about additional seismic activity," the council said. [...]

    The council's report said fracking does not pose a high risk for seismic events, citing only one 2.3 magnitude earthquake in Blackpool, England that has been officially linked to fracking for shale gas.


    Where fracking was getting blamed even though there wasn't any fracking:
    http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2011-08-24/reactions-east-coast-earthquake/transcript

    Yeah, I'll take that. I'll take that. Well, first, I don't know of any fracking activities in the area where the earthquake occurred. Fracking is this process where large volumes of fluids are injected in order to fracture a rock formation that has gas in it, you know, natural gas methane, in order to enhance the recovery of that. And fracking itself, actually, does not put very much energy into the ground.


    A risk easily managed: http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20120620_16_A1_Changi297525&r=9909

    Changing the way wastewater injection wells are planned and operated can largely resolve most concerns about man-made earthquakes resulting from oil-field activity, a scientist told the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday.

    "I think it is clear, with proper planning, monitoring and response, the occurrence of small to moderate earthquakes associated with waste injection can be reduced and the risk associated with these events effectively managed," Mark Zoback, professor of geology at Stanford University, told the committee in Washington.
  • Rhi_Bran

    Posts: 904

    Mar 24, 2013 5:18 PM GMT
    Most people who are scared shitless about mining today are people who were alive back in the 50's and 60's when the mining industry had almost 0 environmental regulation and did what they pleased.

    Nowadays, the industry isn't like that, though there is lasting animosity towards it because of their past mistakes. Mining tanked for decades up until the late 1990's and early 2000's, when all the old firms started to put all their plans for remediation into effect. Now, it's unheard of for a mining company to not have a huge team of environmental specialists to do research in conjunction with new ventures. It takes years and years of consulting, planning, and research to actually start up a mine. Usually at least a decade.

    PolyMet up here in Minnesota has been doing loads of environmental work and revising for their North Met mine since for years since everyone is up in arms about sulfate runoff. Which, granted, is a legitimate concern, but it can be controlled, mitigated, and neutralized.

    Some people are just convinced that doing anything underground will inevitably destroy the earth. Mining companies are just as concerned about the environment as you are.
  • Guycicle

    Posts: 228

    Mar 24, 2013 11:41 PM GMT
    I'm not sure how closely related this is, but I was watching NBC's Shark Tank a while back and this guy tried to 'sell' his idea/patent on a machine that extracted gold from the ocean. They all dismissed him as being crazy, and to be honest I did as well, but then again there can be a very thin line between 'crazy' and 'genius.'



    http://sharktanksuccess.blogspot.com/2012/12/gold-generator.html
  • Rhi_Bran

    Posts: 904

    Mar 25, 2013 2:30 AM GMT
    Yes, there is gold in the ocean's waters.

    About thirteen billionths of a gram per liter.

    No matter what method you could possibly devise to extract it, it would never be cost effective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2013 10:20 AM GMT
    Rhi_Bran saidMost people who are scared shitless about mining today are people who were alive back in the 50's and 60's when the mining industry had almost 0 environmental regulation and did what they pleased.

    Nowadays, the industry isn't like that, though there is lasting animosity towards it because of their past mistakes. Mining tanked for decades up until the late 1990's and early 2000's, when all the old firms started to put all their plans for remediation into effect. Now, it's unheard of for a mining company to not have a huge team of environmental specialists to do research in conjunction with new ventures. It takes years and years of consulting, planning, and research to actually start up a mine. Usually at least a decade.

    PolyMet up here in Minnesota has been doing loads of environmental work and revising for their North Met mine since for years since everyone is up in arms about sulfate runoff. Which, granted, is a legitimate concern, but it can be controlled, mitigated, and neutralized.

    Some people are just convinced that doing anything underground will inevitably destroy the earth. Mining companies are just as concerned about the environment as you are.


    Mining companies are just as concerned about the environment as the rest of the world? According to whom, exactly? Industry lobbyists?

    "Oil and gas drilling generally, and fracking in particular, are provided with numerous loopholes and exemptions from federal law, including:"

    http://www.edcnet.org/learn/current_cases/fracking/federal_law_loopholes.html

    "In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress created the so-called "Halliburton loophole" to clean water protections in federal law to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating this process, despite serious concerns that were raised about the chemicals used in the process and its demonstrated spoiling and contamination of drinking water. In 2001, Cheney's "energy task force" had touted the benefits of hydrofracking, while redacting references to human health hazards associated with hydrofracking. Halliburton, which was previously led by Cheney, reportedly earns $1.5 billion a year from its energy operations, which rely substantially on its hydrofracking business."