Argonia and Caldwell volleyball teams advance to state tournaments

first_imgSumner Newscow report — Caldwell and Argonia, both top seeds in their respective volleyball regionals, are on their way to state!CALDWELL:Caldwell won the Class 1A Div. 1 sub-state volleyball tournament in South Haven. Caldwell had a bye in the first round. After South Haven defeated Central Burden in an exciting three-game match 21-25, 25-18, 25-21, the Sumner County rivals squared off in the second round. Caldwell would win  25-17, 25-12.The Lady Bluejays then played a tough three-game match with Cedar Vale-Dexter. After losing the first match 25-22, Caldwell would come back and win 25-15, and 25-12 to go to state.Caldwell, now at 36-3, will play in the Class 1A Division 1 state volleyball tournament in Hays. The Bluejays are the No. 1 seed with a 36-3. The Jays will play a round robin with Lacrosse 16-20, Spearville 29-6, and Goessel 32-8. On the bottom half of the bracket it will be Hoxie 35-3, Scandia-Pike Valley 25-23, Centralia 34-5, and Waverly 30-8.The top two teams of each bracket will advance to the championship round on Saturday. For the state tournament bracket click here.ARGONIA: Going in as the only team with a winning record, the 31-5 Argonia team, had little trouble winning the Chetopa Class 1A Division II sub-state. Argonia received an open bye in the first round. In the second, Argonia beat Colony-Crest 25-7, 25-4. In the championship game, Argonia beat Buffalo-Altoona-Midway 25-4, 25-6.Argonia will now go to the Class 1A Div. II state tournament at Fort Hays State University. Argonia, 34-5, will be the No. 3 seed in the Pool II bracket. Sharon Springs 34-4 , Attica 21-16, and Logan 24-12 are in the same bracket as Argonia. In the Pool 1 bracket it will be Baileyville B&B 37-3, Ingalls 18-18, Beloit-St. Johns/Tipton 28-8 and Dighton 27-12.The top two teams of each bracket will advance to the championship round on Saturday. For the state tournament bracket click here. Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. There are no comments posted yet. Be the first one! Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img read more

Huge study links wastewater injection wells to earthquakes

first_imgBefore 2008, Oklahoma experienced roughly one noticeable earthquake per year. By 2014, that number had soared to almost one a day, and the state is not alone. Scientists have documented an astronomical rise in seismic activity across the central and eastern United States, linking it to wastewater pumped into the ground from burgeoning oil and gas production. Now, new research suggests that high rates of fluid injection—rather than other factors such as volume or depth—may be the root of the problem.Since the 1960s, geologists have recognized that fluid injection can induce earthquakes by raising the hydraulic pressure along a fault, pushing the two sides apart to let the crust slide along it. But scientists don’t know exactly which aspect of well operation matters most.Until now, most studies have focused on individual earthquakes and their connection to nearby wells. But that approach can make it hard to spot the difference between wells that are linked to quakes and those that aren’t, says Matthew Weingarten, a Ph.D. student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead author of the new study, published in this week’s issue of Science. “You would never know that cancer or other diseases are more likely in smokers if you don’t look at the vast majority of other people who don’t smoke,” he says. EPA Email “Oklahoma’s recent earthquakes and saltwater disposal” “High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity” “Seismicity triggered by fluid injection–induced aseismic slip” So Weingarten’s team compiled the first comprehensive data set of all injection wells operating in the central and eastern United States. They looked both at wells used for enhanced oil recovery—in which fluid is injected to flush lingering oil from a depleted reservoir—and at those used to dispose of wastewater from conventional oil and gas extraction or from hydraulic fracturing (fracking).center_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country The scientists found that disposal wells were 1.5 times more likely to be associated with earthquakes, although the region contains far more enhanced recovery wells. The link was strongest at higher injection rates, above about 300,000 barrels per month. Other potentially important factors—such as the pressure at the well-head, the total volume of fluid injected, and whether fluid was injected near basement rock—did not appear to make much difference at a regional scale, the researchers say.They propose that injecting fluid quickly may induce earthquakes by jacking up reservoir pressure more drastically and over a larger area than adding it more slowly would. The elevated pressures increase the chances of triggering slip on a nearby fault that is already under natural stress. “You’re looking at a balance between the rate you’re putting fluid in and the rate it can diffuse away,” says Katie Keranen, a seismologist at Cornell University who was not involved in the study. That would explain why wells used for enhanced oil recovery are less likely to trigger earthquakes: Pumping out oil as water is injected helps keep the pressure in check.Weingarten says the team’s results suggest that limiting injection rates may reduce earthquake hazard. Previous studies that showed a potential link have already spurred some states to take action. In Kansas, regulators issued an order in March to ramp down injection rates in three hard-hit areas. Since then, earthquake activity appears to have quieted down, says Rex Buchanan, the interim director of the Kansas Geological Survey in Lawrence, although it’s too early to say for sure.The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has also adopted a “traffic light” system to force operators to decrease or even halt injection at potentially quake-prone wells. “All options available to us to address this are on the table,” said Tim Baker, director of Oklahoma’s Oil and Gas Conservation Division in Oklahoma City, in a statement issued last month.Another new study, published this week in Science Advances, found that Oklahoma’s earthquake activity has increased in areas where disposal rates have sky rocketed. However, it raises questions about the benefits of reducing the injection rates at individual wells. “A number of wells injecting right next to each other could have the same effect as one well injecting their combined volume,” says Rall Walsh, a Ph.D. student in geophysics at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and the lead author of the study. For neighboring wells, he says, the question is, “how close is close?”Nor does the new research explain why large areas of the country—including North Dakota, the Gulf Coast, and the Michigan Basin—have experienced few earthquakes despite having disposal wells with high injection rates. Maybe fluids aren’t reaching the bedrock there, or background stress levels in the crust are lower, says William Ellsworth, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California. Understanding the reason could help well operators and regulators “assess the hazard of a project perhaps before it has begun,” Ellsworth says.The new study sets the stage for work that may provide more answers about the relatively new problem of induced earthquakes. “I’m very happy they did it in a time frame that actually makes sense so people can discuss it,” says Murray Hitzman, a geologist at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, who chaired the National Research Council’s committee on induced seismicity. “All this is happening really fast.”Related content: Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Fluid disposal (left) raises underground pressure and earthquake risk, but using fluid to drive out oil (right) keeps pressure in check. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img read more