Louisiana Land Loss From Faults?

Just added this 2003 paper to the Methane page with the FAULT info –

Neo-Tectonic Framework of S.E. Louisiana and Applications to Coastal Restoration
“This study was conducted to test the hypothesis that most of the massive land loss in coastal Louisiana during the twentieth century resulted from fault induced subsidence. “

Info sent from Freedomrox – 🙂


7 thoughts on “Louisiana Land Loss From Faults?

  1. Is a very good document. Seen many on this topic…subsidence stressed faults…even very old ones. The industry has always known that withdrawal of oil, gas and water caused subsidence. I don’t think the public was aware of it. Not even sure they’re aware of it now. The levee authority’s (their proper name is so long) suit against the industry for coastal loss reparations only addresses erosion due to canals and lack of maintenance of the canals. I don’t know if there was anything in the drilling permits that would cover the subsidence issues. A shame. Lots of docs on that! But the fault activation from subsidence stress, induction into faults of water and hydrocarbons; then add migration of gas through sediment causing landslides! My personal favorite lately, was a document that said that land could be “mechanically decoupled from the underlying crust”. When you think of all the gas that is in and around the salt weld…I would think that would be the weakest layer of sediment…and with that gas weakening the sediments just above it. Walter’s earlier videos are what I’m afraid of…only we’d be sliding into the gulf. Now we have under the salt weld drilling and methane hydrate mining. 😦

    • I am now very suspicious of the quick way the large chunck of BP reparations money was funneled into the ‘canal erosion’ remedy. It is like a giant ad campaign saying “Lookee here! These canals are causing land loss!”. National Geographic and many for-the-public science news outlets chiming in with never a mention of drilling impacts or faults.

  2. [Furthermore, some of the sparse seismicity in the normal-fault belt may be artificially induced. Earthquakes of m bLg 3.4 and 3.9 in southeastern Texas and M 4.9 in southwestern Alabama may have been induced by extraction of oil and gas or injection of fluids for secondary recovery (Pennington and others, 1986 #1876; Chang and others, 1998 #1806; Gomberg and others, 1998 #1828; Gomberg and Wolf, 1999 #3440). Therefore, the natural seismicity rate in the normal-fault belt might be even less than the recent historical record would indicate.

    The post-rift sequence and its belt of gulf-margin normal faults may be mechanically decoupled from the underlying crust.]


  3. I think the levee authority’s suit is focusing on the canals because it is the only thing that they believe can actually stick in court because it is in their permits. I don’t think subsidence from fluid and gas withdrawal is. But, it should be! I read a doc that said that oil/gas withdrawal caused subsidence of 30 feet in Long Beach, CA. Hard to imagine. I lived there for a few years. Didn’t know anything about it. I hope the public really gets behind this. You’d think that folks would, with them all screaming right now because of flood insurance rates! There’s no real funding for the new coastal restoration plan. BP won’t be anywhere near enough. I don’t have any love for the insurance industry but, you have to admit they have taken some mighty big hits in the last 10 years. I see no reason why they (and we) should keep taking those financial hits alone; without expecting the oil and gas industry to pay their share.

    And, go groupies!!! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s