Click to get your own widget

Friday, January 06, 2012

Earthquakes - How "Environmentalists" Use Language to Promote Fear

    In their anxiety to suppress technology which can make the world rich the ecofascists have been desperately searching for an argument against shale gas. The only one that has seemed to hold any water is that extracting the gas can cause "earthquakes". This "magnitude 2.3 earthquake" was used to stop the British industry in its tracks, at a time when the American economy is starting back into modest growth purely because this new energy source has cut gas costs to 1/4 of ours.

    However the Richter scale works on 10 fold increases for each point.

  Below 5 on the Richter scale, which is the magnitude for international reporting, it cannot honestly be called a quake.

"4.0–4.9 Light Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely. 13,000 per year (est.)

5.0–5.9 Moderate Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. 1,319 per year"

    "Rattling noises" are purely an Earth tremor.

tremor. A shaking or vibrating movement, as of the earth.

    Actually a 2.3 tremor is 1/500th of even the dividing line and "not felt but recorded" and there are over a million of them annually. I think one should quake much more about the thought of there being a single elected politician or journalist anywhere in the country willing to pretend that any of the claims of any of the murdering ecofascist parasites, unsupported by overwhelming independent proof, being worth a moment's consideration. In any case the word "quake" can never honestly be used instead of tremor to describe such low magnitude "threats".

Magnitude -  Description Earthquake effects - Frequency of occurrence

Less than 2.0 - Micro Micro earthquakes, not felt.[14] Continual

2.0–2.9 - Minor Generally not felt, but recorded. 1,300,000 per year (est.)

3.0–3.9 - Often felt, but rarely causes damage. 130,000 per year (est.)

4.0–4.9 - Light Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely. 13,000 per year (est.)

5.0–5.9 - Moderate Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. 1,319 per year

6.0–6.9 - Strong Can be destructive in areas up to about 160 kilometres (99 mi) across in populated areas. 134 per year

7.0–7.9 - Major Can cause serious damage over larger areas. 15 per year

8.0–8.9 - Great Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometres across. 1 per year

9.0–9.9 - Devastating in areas several thousand kilometres across. -1 per 10 years (est.)

10.0+ - Massive Never recorded, widespread devastation across very large areas; see below for equivalent seismic energy yield. - Extremely rare (Unknown/May not be possible)

H/T Al Fin

Labels: , ,

If Neil Craig had read his own link he would have seen that it in fact listed one of the *main* criticisms of fracking:

But it [fracking] has been criticised because of claims that there is a potential for chemicals to contaminate groundwater.

There are other concerns as well--such as permanent environmental degradation and the displacing of communities and naive homeowners to are duped into selling mineral rights on their lands. If Mr. Craig actually *read* about this, he would understand it. (An excellent start would be Daniel Yergin's chapter on natural gas in *The Quest: Energy Security and the Remaking of the Modern World*, by Daniel Yergin. Of course Mr. Craig does not read--not even his own links.)

And the earthquake concern did not stop UK natural gas production "in its tracks".

What really happened? According to Mr. Craig's *own link*:

Cuadrilla Resources, a privately held exploration and production company, said it had temporarily halted the use of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” at its site at Weeton in Lancashire while a review was being conducted.

The company is choosing to show responsibility and caution--unlike the 37-vote wonder, who would be willing to watch Edinburgh Castle crumble from aftershocks if it meant another kilogram of LNG.
A point of pedantry, since you are quite right to deride the ridiculous claim that a 2.3 is an "earthquake" but it is certainly not true that anything under a 5.0 cannot be termed a quake.
Christchurch experienced quite a bit of damage in the 4.9 on Boxing Day 2010, simply because it was very shallow.

The Richter scale doesn't actually measure how much the ermm ... earth quakes in an earthquake.
Richard all boundaries create anomalous situations wherever they are put but I will hold to 5 on the ruchter as being the most reasonable dividing line between the lowest quakes. Being able to cause "a bit of damage" should not be beyond the abilities of a tremor but there is a difference between that and the terrifying threat "quake" implies.

The other post is from Skip our resident representative of what those climate scientists "printed in the finest journals" aspire to.

With the disrespect for mere fact climate "scientists" aspire to he has pretended I said "earthquakes" were the only argument against exploiting gas when what I actually said is that it is the only one that potentially holds water.

That people who freely sell their mineral rights for substantial amounts of money might have to stand by their contract is not a serious problem. If Skip, or anybody who believes climate "scientists" are in sopme way honest were being truthful they would be able to point to where they have publicly said that selling anything shopuld be made illegal in case somebody might find they gad to live by their contract. I do not expect Skip or any of his kind to be able to do so.

If Skip has any evicence to suggest that Caudrilla stopped its development in its tracks (though fortunately not permanently) for commercial reasons rather than political pressure he will certainly produce it. That would be a first for the lying scum. No offence to Skip or any of the other econazis.
Yep, with you on the econazis (and all the nazis you tereleesly expose, for that matter)

I think it is best to ditch Richter completely, simply because it is a measurement of the energy released at the epicentre. The Christchurch 4.9 caused no deaths because much of the city was sealed off around vulnerable buildings. A very shallow 4.9 in the UK would probably cause 100s of deaths, due to the brick housing.

For this very reason, we (silly sods who live on fault lines) pay more attention to the alternative, the Mercalli scale - which is, unlike Richter, a genuine attempt to measure how much the earth's surface quakes...

After over a year of this stuff, we're all bloody experts here in Christchurch.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.