It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
New Zealand's powerful earthquake that smashed buildings, cracked roads and twisted railway lines around Christchurch ripped a new 11ft wide fault line in the earth's surface, a geologist said yesterday.
www.istockanalyst.com...
The whole dairy farm is like the sea now, with real (soil) waves right across the dairy farm. We don't have physical holes (but) where the fault goes through it's been raised a metre or metre and a half," he said.
Originally posted by grantbeed
I didn't realise this quake created a new fault line. I had heard that it was on a already existing fault, that had not been discovered due to the massive silt deposits in the Canterbury region.
Experts always expcted there to be fault lines here, but they had never had the funding to find out exactly where they were.
This is known as liquefication-a very deep very bad quake
Originally posted by space cadet
I want to know, if any of you have a background in geology, what is the significance of new fault lines forming? I am starting to believe a little in the expanding earth theory!
So it may not be new after all, just not all that active, at least in terms of human timeframes. I'd be interested in finding out more about the predictions of Jarg Pettinga when I've got the time to look over his studies.
Preliminary investigations suggest that the fault was not previously recognized as a major earthquake source because it resides under the Canterbury Plains and had no prior visible geomorphic expression. However, U Canterbury scientist Jarg Pettinga predicted the presence of such faults in a paper published 12 years ago.
Much is being made in the media of this as being a "new fault". This is probably not a "new fault" in the sense that the earthquake caused a previously unruptured part of the Earth's crust to rupture. My suspicion is that this fault has had earthquakes in the past, but has a sufficiently long recurrence interval (time between earthquakes) such that any prior evidence of past earthquakes was not visible on the surface prior to this earthquake.
Originally posted by space cadet
Actually the liqufication doesn't have anything to do with the new faultline, I just thought it was interesting that it occurred during this quake. Typically it happens with soils that are only about 10000 yrs old, moved around during wind, rain, flood, ect.
Much of the Canterbury Plains consist of sediments with soil profiles that suggest the surfaces are ~16,000 years old (person. commun. P. Almond, Lincoln Uni) - if these show no prior evidence of faulting then a reasonable conclusion, as proposed by GNS scientists, is that there had not been an earthquake on this fault in the last 16,000 years prior to this event. However, given the active nature of Canterbury's major rivers, it is possible that the oldest surface cut by the fault may be less than 16,000 years old, and may be as young as 6.000 yrs old. In that case, it is possible that the recurrence interval on the fault is much shorter than 16,000 yrs.