Nah, that won't fly.
I still have it (unchecked). You must have been naughty.
I learned after posting that comment that some of the quakes happened in places without a significant seismic history. And thar the fracking may have caused a redistribution of stresses by weakening the gas bearing strata. (Which is not the same as crowing "You said you weren't causing quakes and now you can! Which is it, huh? Huh?")
The fun part will be taking Big Oil to court. How well have the areas where they operate been monitored?
I thought all quakes dissipated energy reducing the total stress, but this may still be true while increasing concentration elsewhere as you suggest. Another reply to my comment says that the fractured layer isn't as strong as before, resulting in new shifts and accomodation in faults that were stable. What do you think?
Yes, the "small force triggering a big release" part is alright. The flaw lies in assuming theres a single bowling ball; to follow your analogy, imagine that balls keep coming in at a more or less constant rate until the shelf flexes and all come down (avalanches work like this too). Wouldn't you rather shake the shelf to make one ball fall at a time? (IIRC, avalanches are sometimes triggered on purpose).
Plate movement doesn't stop either, and the fault can accommodate and dissipate its stress in big or small jolts. But again, read the other post I told you about.
So it's not really about faults accommodating plate displacement, but about new dynamics created by collapse in the fractured rock. And the statistics suggest that something is indeed changing. Are there any measurements of the strata backing up this?
Yes, there's a reply to my original post that the fillers do not stabilize the damage well enough, and that's causing new dynamics in faults that were until now quiescent.
That analogy doesn't resemble fault dynamics at all. Perhaps a better one would be pushing a heavy object along a hard floor; as it moves, some points of contact stick, flexing the structure a tiny bit until the stress exceeds the static friction, and every little jolt is like a seismic event. That's how regular fault accommodation causes quakes, and the longer the points of friction are stuck a bigger jolt becomes more likely.
But never mind - there are other replies to my top-level comment that propose other sources of stress / energy.
Now we're talking. There's one thing that doesn't add up to me: does the energy delivered by the process approximate the energy released seismically?
Huh? Don't all quakes release energy?
Both. Since you can't be bothered to read what I wrote attentively, I'll tryoto expand and break it down:
Fracking releases the energy in the faults, thus fracking triggers quakes. But the energy doesn't come from fracking - it comes from plate tectonics. And the quake would have happened anyway, possibly causing more damage like a pressure pot with a defective release valve. So fracking doesn't cause *additional* quaking - it replaces a few (possibly) big quakes with several smaller ones.
That makes the faults more prone to slippages and earthquakes.
If my meager understanding of earthquakes is correct, these small slippages release in small bits the tectonic stress that could otherwise build up until a bigger quake happens. So, frack away?
The air interface may be "free" in a marginal-cost sense. SMSCs (and the associated charging solutions in the case of real-time billing systems) aren't, and companies like Acision make their fortunes selling these.
The term "resolution" predates raster images, and thus it means more than "pixel count":
Optical resolutionÂdescribes the ability of an imaging e system to resolve detail in the object that is being imaged.