WTF is with the abrupt money talk in the middle of the article? The author just can't resist the urge to bash on the evil oil men? This really spoiled the article for me.
The references to money buying political influence are both brief and relevant. I don't see how you could write a credible article on this topic without observing the existence of powerful economic incentives.
(Edit: I originally wrote 'credible argument' which doesn't make much sense)
The oil business is interesting to economists because the real world market comes quite close to the economic model of perfect competition; it's fast and cheap to set up or shut down a well (relative to the value of the oil one may extract), the commodity is standardized and fungible, there are enough producers in the market that they exist as price-takers, and the price of oil is widely known and tracked throughout the economy - far better then any other single commodity. Why wouldn't you consider the economic factors in a story like this?
Well, the article could be simply about the physics of geology or it could add some context.
One important thing about this is indemnification. Since these quakes are induced by industry and some quakes cause superficial (on the earth's surface) damage, the question of who pays for damage to structures arises. Whose drilling caused it? Since it probably can't accurately be pinpointed, it's more likely there be some kind of industrywide insurance scheme which would cover these incidents.
Because the money is the important thing. These earthquakes are a product of oil production, and they have a negative impact on people in those communities. Oil production makes a small number of people very rich, and those people use that money to buy political influence, which means that the state continues to allow them to do something that has strong negative externalities, and doesn't force them to appropriately compensate those who are affected.
