just some fracking remarks

these days half of the world evolves around fracking, our future does, the us does, the crimea conflict does, Donetsk does, Cameron does, and the bbc does.
it publishes "science" these days that England is sinking, yes it will have earthquakes,
due....
what in fact? I think they suggest the metropolitan load of concrete.
in places, muddy ones close to the coast it could even be true, but it will surely not exaggerate earthquakes.
except for the sake of the fracking industry.
so I thought it would be nice to compile a guestimate of the scales and kinds of disasters in the make.

recently I realised why fracking uses such immense, unsustainable, environmentally dooming quantitys of water,
now I have read some reports from the north of north America in wich it shows that strategy already failed, shows for me...

and as a challenge (being overall more familiar with English tectonics and lignites) what it would mean for earthquakes.
that was (earth) shocking.

my estimate was that common earthquakes (3-4) for England would generally rise with an ordre of magnitude, or perhaps two.

that is ofcourse when nothing unseemingly happens.

you could for example destabilise the fault that divides Scotland and England, in such a case the maximum magnitude of quakes would easily jump another point.

a little bit more worrying still is why they actually need all that water.
the earth under us is rather full of voids, technically on the level of methane so much as everything is a void , by forcing methane from these carbonates a few things are bound to happen,
simply put the layers targeted will crunch, and loose a load of mass, become more void.

that is on a scale not easily comparable by traditional coalmining. we have no view on what extend the fracked and fracking effects can or will take place. as soon as a layer is targeted it is generally out of reach for inspection, although I think there will be attempts to bore through cheap early fracking projects and access deeper layers.

coal, lignite and shale layers are commonly extensive. they may reach from London to warshaw (rarely) or from warchau to Donetsk (commonly),

where and how such coal layers cross gas and minor-oil sources no one knows.

in how much layers touch under the earth is also pertinently unknown.
..

well so the reason they need so much water is ..
to keep it from burning..

ok. check coalmines..
did we manage to keep them from burning year in year out?
never.

in some locations in the us I a already a permanent seismic rumble is apparent.
every dust, every crunch btw. behaves like a liquid in comparison to usual geological layers.

or perhaps a swamp is a better way to express it.

in some cases it might even dampen an earthquake, for that reason, but it is more rational to expect something aking to conductivity for tectonic slips.

given the wrong circumstances we may end up creating something like the atjeh quake under a continent.

still, even if earthquakes are on the rise every where fracking is tested or perpetrated, the worst is still to come, we have not even started to touch the potential of fragging, ask the industry,
in practice I doubt projects once started can really be stopped, although ofcourse the halting of operations would achieve something.

in any case, assuming they continue and we see a rise in quake magnitude now already in the order of a whole to one and half points.....
in few years...

it could be that much worse. anyhow, every location that is sensitive to earthquakes, and that is not England very much, will be in a rather extreme risk. if for example in turkey fracking becomes an industry, the catastrophes to come could be of a proportion unknown before.

also and perhaps painfully, the fracking will loose productivity sooner than anyone'd wish..
but the quakes won't stop then.

1000 years for that appears a most optimist estimate.