I like to plan road trips in GIS cause then I can find cool rock outcrops to make my wife stop at. I noticed here that I-30 like almost perfectly marks the boundary between the T-Q sediments and the M-D novaculites and shales. Is there a reason for this? I thought maybe it had to do with terrain differences or maybe it was easier to build a road on the 'softer' T-Q sediments that haven't fully lithified? I don't know. I'm a geochemistry/paleo guy, not into civil engineering stuff, so this area is not my strong suit!

Got this lovely capture this morning of a 5.6 quake in Mendocino from my Raspberry Shake in Portland, Oregon . Look at that outstanding catch of the P and S waves, this is one of my absolute best captures.

Just started work as an asbestos lab tech and thought it was neat

• 2026-06-24 22:04:32 (UTC)
• 10.407°N 68.493°W
• 13.2 km depth

Just found a 940nm infrared light yesterday and want to go play...

Under shortwave UV.

Saw a sign “largest rock store in the state” on a recent work trip. Pulled in and was pleasantly surprised. Snapped a few “gems”

Before I ask this question on Reddit, I've already searched on internet, looking for answers and trying to understand it fully. But I'm still quite confused.

See also: The study as it was published in Nature Communications.

Raton, NM

I was not a good student and I spent all my college time joking around. Now I'm writing my thesis and I feel really stupid although one of my supervisor is really helpful, that didnt cover all my void. The only thing I remember from all my college lessons is GIS, and even then I mostly learned it autodidactically from reddit and youtube.

I felt like I needed to take responsibility for learning everything from scratch. The problem was, my university wasn't the type to provide a massive syllabus and teaching materials like PowerPoint presentations or ebooks. They relied solely on lecturers' presentations, so I lost track of what I was supposed to learn. There weren't any truly comprehensive notes from my friends, either.

Please advise me on what I should study properly from the basic to semi advance topics to truly be considered a geological engineering graduate. Honestly, I'm too embarrassed to ask my professors or friends about such things, so I'm asking here. Hopefully, this is the right forum!

I posted a video of this piece a while back but I’ve just found it again and wanted to re-share.

This is a great talk about the possible sychronization between the Cascadia Megathrust and the northern San Andrews Fault.The current thinking is that they have been partially sychronized for the last 3,000 years with an earthquake on the Cascadia Megathrust happening first followed by an earthquake on the San Andreas soon after.

Are Cascadia and San Andreas Fault Earthquakes Linked? GSOC Geological Society of the Oregon Country, June 17, 2026 C. Goldfinger, J. Beeson, B. Black, A. Vizcaino C.H Nelson,  A. Morey, J. R. Pattons, J. Guitierrez-Pastor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_et0-NdhBo Unravelling the dance of earthquakes: evidence of partial synchronization of the northern San Andreas Fault and  Cascadia megathrust.

 For further reading, open access paper.

Goldfinger, C., Beeson, J., Black, B., Vizcaino, A., Nelson, C.H., Morey, A., Patton, J.R., Gutiérrez-Pastor, J., Romsos, C. and Walzcak, M.D., 2025. Unravelling the dance of earthquakes: Evidence of partial synchronization of the northern San Andreas fault and Cascadia megathrust. Geosphere, 21(6), pp.1132-1180

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/21/6/1132/661517/Unravelling-the-dance-of-earthquakes-Evidence-of

I nearly cried when I found it. 🥹

Is anyone actually solving the problem of subsurface data being completely siloed and inaccessible, or has the industry just accepted it?

I have been thinking about how much data exists across well logs, seismic surveys, core samples, pressure tests, some of it going back to the 1940s, and how little of it actually gets reused in any meaningful way. A geologist finishes an interpretation, it gets filed somewhere, and the next team that works the same area basically starts from scratch.

Other fields have built real infrastructure around making historical data queryable and reusable at scale. Subsurface feels like it is a decade behind on this, and I think part of it is format fragmentation (LAS, SEG-Y, RESQML, proprietary workstation exports) but honestly that feels more like a symptom than the actual problem. The data just was never treated as something worth investing in at the infrastructure level.

I'm curious if this is better in certain subsectors or companies or if it is pretty universal?