Well as far as being credible, Sentinal. I can't argue with well written, and expertly documented papers that are not only based on actual data collected over a period of years by more than one source, but also show how the hypothesis and the data connect. The paper on the Monticello Reservoir is far older than the diagrams provided by Cornell, but they say the same thing. The paper was a hypothesis. The diagrams show a theory. Obviously there has been much progress made on the relationship between natural gas extraction and the threat of induced seismicity. But what I don't get is this: If it has been known all this time that the method of extracting natural gas can have such far reaching consequences, why hasn't finding other methodologies for extraction been as actively pursued as has the consequences of the current method being used.