Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Which NZ cities has the lowest possibility of being hit by earthquake?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    10

    Default Which NZ cities has the lowest possibility of being hit by earthquake?

    As title suggests and out of curiosity, I wonder which NZ cities has the lowest possibility of being hit by earthquake?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Scotland - rural England
    Posts
    863

    Default

    Can't answer specifically, but have you looked at Geonet?

    http://www.geonet.org.nz/index.html

    P

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Painstaking_Sue View Post
    As title suggests and out of curiosity, I wonder which NZ cities has the lowest possibility of being hit by earthquake?

    There are several factors to take into account: Distance to a fault line, actual ground material and a "general " hazard factor.
    Considering only the latter there are two regions with the lowest coefficient: Northland from the top down to Bombay and the lower east coast of South Island from about Waimate to Fortrose. This includes Whangarei and Auckland in the north and Oamaru and Dunedin in the south.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralf-nz View Post
    There are several factors to take into account: Distance to a fault line, actual ground material and a "general " hazard factor.
    Considering only the latter there are two regions with the lowest coefficient: Northland from the top down to Bombay and the lower east coast of South Island from about Waimate to Fortrose. This includes Whangarei and Auckland in the north and Oamaru and Dunedin in the south.
    Perhaps I should also provide the source for this: New Zealand Standard NZS 1170.5:2004 "Structural Design Actions", "Part 5: Earthquake actions - New Zealand"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Pompy UK - Rangiora SI
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Bearing in mind that the Christchurch earthquake was cause by a previously unknown fault

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stanley Bay, Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wilson182 View Post
    Bearing in mind that the Christchurch earthquake was cause by a previously unknown fault
    Only partially true in this case.

    Yes; the actual fault that moved was unknown but there are large numbers of faults in the area that are known; some of which are relatively big. So an earthquake of Christchurch's magnitude was not unexpected. What is unexpected is the number, and magnitude, of aftershocks caused by the new Greendale fault.

    Therefore, when asking where you are least likely to experience an earthquake Christchurch would never have been an option - as an earthquake was always a distinct possibility!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stanley Bay, Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralf-nz View Post
    There are several factors to take into account: Distance to a fault line, actual ground material and a "general " hazard factor.
    Considering only the latter there are two regions with the lowest coefficient: Northland from the top down to Bombay and the lower east coast of South Island from about Waimate to Fortrose. This includes Whangarei and Auckland in the north and Oamaru and Dunedin in the south.
    Top of my head I would say Dunedin; Auckland could always have a large earthquake caused by the movement of large amounts of magma as a prelude to the formation of the next island!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Pompy UK - Rangiora SI
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James 1077 View Post
    Only partially true in this case.

    Yes; the actual fault that moved was unknown but there are large numbers of faults in the area that are known; some of which are relatively big. So an earthquake of Christchurch's magnitude was not unexpected. What is unexpected is the number, and magnitude, of aftershocks caused by the new Greendale fault.

    Therefore, when asking where you are least likely to experience an earthquake Christchurch would never have been an option - as an earthquake was always a distinct possibility!
    All true James,
    What I was trying to say was there could be any number of unknown faults - anywhere in the world really..... Until an event happens you will never really know if you live near one or not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Manchester > Now Tauranga
    Posts
    4,393

    Default

    If you're worried about natural disasters then saty away from NZ altogether. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis are all possibilities, with the chance of one leading to the other two! But the chances are tiny, things designed to survive most events, and it's part of life. You're probably less likely to get caught in a terrorist attack in NZ than the US or UK, so it all balances out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chch, NZ
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    I would say Christchurch (after a year or so) because all other cities in NZ have plate pressure building up. Christchurch is in the process of being released up and thus, probably won't see another major earthquake for 100s of years.

    Just my guess

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •