Hi Canie,

Read this part:

That's where the so-called initiation points come in. "All earthquakes start in small areas," says William Ellsworth, who has studied quakes in Southern California as a member of the USCG Earthquake Hazards Team. These initiation points can be as small as a foot or as large as a mile or two across. Instead of lubricating 350 miles, it might be possible to concentrate on just eight or 10 miles—costly, but not prohibitive.

Unfortunately, scientists understand very little about the dynamics of initiation points—how smooth or rough the faults are, what kind of rock is found there, what goes on just before and after a quake. Laboratory experiments can reproduce the pressures to simulate the environment at the initiation point, but without knowing the effects of pressure building up over the centuries, any attempt to release it could backfire. Says Mary Lou Zoback, chief scientist of the hazards team: "If we generated a 1906 earthquake, that would be the end of the USCG." And maybe Los Angeles too.
________________________________

In this part is where it gets a little ambiguous. They are bringing up fluid injection and explaining much about it and then backing off saying they are going to drill this amazing hole and fill it full of instruments.

You cannot know how an earthquake happens until you watch one in progress. So are they going to spend 17 million in drilling a hole to wait, no they aren't. After spending more than $40 million dollars to monitor Parkfield for 15 years and the near 6.0 hasn't rolled through yet, I would suppose you might want to make one happen to see the results.

If you pay close attention at first the article mentions northern CA, and the woman who comments says it might touch off something in southern CA. So which end of the state are we talking about? My guess is right about in the middle, Parkfield. No place else has been studied so greatly and everyone knows that earthquakes occur under Middle Mountain and you can bet by now they probably have it down to nanno hairs as to where to drill. Remember, they would have never mentioned fluid injection unless this project had something to do with it.

To the unspecting public it looks like just another science project, but to anyone who knows anything about fluid injection, well, that's a whole different banana.

I sent this article to a scientist and asked him for his opinion and it was the same as mine, its not a good thing.

As I recall there are four projects under the heading of Earthscope. Though this article only mentions one, it remains possible that three other sites are involved, I'm not certain. I wonder if it costs 17 million to drill only one hole, plus equipment and salaries.

So I'll do like I always do, research. Find out where exactly they are talking about and exactly what they plan on doing in the drilling project. In the meantime I'm going to find out who in Congress has the ability to veto this plan and if it is a fluid injection project, I'm going to be first in line to ask them to reject it. But I'll put it in terms they can understand the best, "class action lawsuit" on behalf of the citizens of the State of California, who have a right to stop people from tinkering with earthquake faults. We have enough problems now with what comes naturally. If they want to drill a hole, let them go out into the great basin. The crust is the thinest on the continent at only 6 miles deep instead of 20 or so here in CA, they could strike magma and if something happened, there are few inhabitants other than snakes and mice. Might be less costly as well.

Ok, coming down from the soap box...Pat