<blockquote>
  <p>Is it possible that the recent droughts are signs of epic crust failure?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>No</strong>. Even though your 5 points do not make much sense, I'll try to answer it anyway.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>There are no continental plates. There are lithospheric plates, consisting of both continental crust and oceanic crust. While it is true that arches in construction (buildings and bridges) are held "up" by lateral stress and gravity, lithospheric plates are not arches. Directly below the crust there exists a mantle, made out of a ductile, yet solid, material. The crust can't just "fall down".</p></li>
<li><p>Movements that occur along plate boundaries are controlled by tectonic forces much larger than anything that we humans can even think of affecting. While it is true that some seismic activity can be explained by extraction of resources, these are usually up/down movements. Thus, extracting oil from the Los Angeles area will not cause the movement along the San Andreas fault to move any slower or faster.</p></li>
<li><p>So yes, there are large earthquakes, including recently, in the ring of fire. I don't understand how is this supposed to be related to droughts. There earthquakes are controlled by forces deep down in the Earth. Furthermore, the plate boundaries are under kilometres of ocean water. Whether or not there is rain on the continents is irrelevant.</p></li>
<li><p>Gas is not formed simply by evaporation of oil. Releasing pressure does not turn oil to gas. This is a long process that takes geological time spans. Deep water that may be affected by geothermal heat has long residence times - hundreds and thousands of years. A few years of drought will not do much for it. Most of the oil and gas are being produced in sedimentary basins, far away from plate boundaries. These have nothing to do with earthquakes near these fault lines. Even the fields that are somewhat close to fault boundaries - the amount of oil or gas that's actually in the ground is negligible relative to how much rock there is. It's not like there are lakes or pools of oil and gas. It's all in between the grains of whatever sedimentary rock is there (usually sandstone).</p></li>
<li><p>The term you are looking for is <em>subduction</em>. Yes, there is some subduction activity (otherwise we wouldn't have volcanoes such as Mt St Helens). This is nothing new, and again, this has nothing to do with droughts.</p></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-18T03:02:55.577Z
@TekiHaken - Your last comment *"[...] to let people have an easier time understanding the theory"* concerns me. Are you **asking** a StackExchange type Question or are you **promoting** a theory by attempting to disguise it as a question?
O.M.Y.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T08:29:42.043Z
*"Movements that occur along plate boundaries are controlled by tectonic forces much larger than anything that we humans can even think of affecting"* - that might be a bit over-stated. Mining has [been linked to earthquake triggering](http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/73/can-mining-trigger-earthquakes), for instance. Not saying that the mining is a bigger force, but it still clearly has an effect.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T11:41:30.427Z
@naught101 indeed. Read the next sentence in the answer. In any case, those are usually small, unrelated to droughts, and definitely will not cause an "epic crust failure".
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T12:32:29.940Z
@naught101: mining near faults can induce earthquakes, but such quakes will never be of large magnitude. My experience has been such quakes are no larger than magnitude 2 or 3.
Fred
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T16:51:49.623Z
@Michael I beg to differ, 1. It's misleading to call the mantle "solid". It's known to flow, which is closer to a viscous liquid. Also, because of the lateral stress between plates, the mantle doesn't receive the full weight of the crust. That is why I compare the crust to arch. Yes, it doesn't "fall down", but it can still "press down" and a big sudden downward movement of a significant crust plate create big ripples in the mantle and crust.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T16:57:23.123Z
@Michael 2. Yes, usually, mining only caused small earthquakes so far, but think of the cumulative effect over _decades_ and _a century_. The empty spaces left underground and the continuous compression becomes increasingly significant.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T17:34:31.280Z
3. Depletion of water reservoir is linked with seismic activity, from the Amos study. Further reasoning in next point.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T17:43:47.957Z
@Michael 4. Fossil fuels are sensitive to temperature. I remember that above a certain temperature, oil becomes gas. Also, yes, if you take the droughts out of context, they are insignificant. But keep in mind that these droughts _are successively happening around active fault lines which are weakened by a century of human development_.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T17:57:52.580Z
@TekiHaken the link between droughts and crust goes no deeper than the surface characteristics.  The presence of surface water (oceans, lakes, rivers, soil moisture, evapotranspiration), the surface terrain (hills, mountains, valleys, etc) and general atmospheric flows affect droughts.
casey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T18:04:59.513Z
@casey I explained how additional underground heat may affect surface water.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T21:18:12.660Z
@TekiHaken you have presented a theory, but I fail to see how what you propose is going to have any effect on evaporative moisture flux aff the surface of oceans and lakes, the movement of mountains on non-geologic timescales or modify atmospheric circulation.  It is the atmosphere's lack of bringing water to a region that causes drought, not the mantle "baking" the earth.  The sun is much better at baking the earths surface when it is very dry.
casey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T21:46:19.660Z
@casey Have you checked the Blob? Beside, I am arguing for a cumulative effect of many heat sources at play.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T22:59:26.193Z
@TekiHaken: I think there are problems with scale here. The 5 points you present above all have some basis in reality, but I think the scale required for each of them to be relevant in this context is much larger than what is actually happening. Perhaps you could ask separate questions along the lines of *"How much drying would a 0.1°C rise in crust temperature cause?"* (I suspect that value is many orders of magnitude larger than what you're talking about), and *"How much heat has human geological activity caused?"* and *"How much gas is produced by oil depressurisation?"*
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-16T00:50:00.447Z
@naught101 I did consider separating this into multiple questions, but I would like to stress again that all factors do play a role. Even though it may not be the scale you are looking for, but the Amos study did say that California lost 160 km3 of groundwater after 150 years. This doesn't include oil. Now, bear in mind that there are other oil and water wells all round the fault lines of the Pacific. Hope you get a better grasp of how big are the holes that humans dug.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-16T01:26:12.940Z
@TekiHaken you're saying that all factors do play a role. However, it seems that you do not yet understand what the factors are by themselves. I recommend splitting this into separate questions. This is becoming a discussion and that's not what the site is for.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-16T02:29:19.927Z
@TekiHaken This isn't the right platform to attempt persuasive argumentation against an answer.  Stack Exchange is a question & answer site, and is not a forum or discussion venue.  It also appears you might be fishing for an answer you want since you seem to be very reluctant to listen to reasoning that doesn't fit with your view on the matter.  I'll echo the comment above that you should try to understand the individual factors and ask narrowly scoped questions about them to help you reach that understanding.  Welcome to the site.
casey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-16T04:21:26.097Z
@casey I'm not convinced one way or the other by the answers given so far, so I just reply why I thought the given answers are wrong. I'm supposed to pick a satisfactory answer on this site, no?
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-16T05:56:19.863Z
@teki: You won't get a satisfactory answer to this question. People are asking you to split it out into separate, smaller questions so that you *will* get satisfactory answers.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-16T13:11:03.063Z
Fine, I will split it up and eventually recombine it to let people have an easier time understanding the theory.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T08:07:29.180Z
2017-02-17T01:23:08.790Z
2017-02-17T01:23:08.790Z
Gimelist
<p>The full question is: Is it possible that the recent, successive, long droughts from Australia to the West Coast of both American continents are signs of epic crust failure?</p>

<p>The question is aimed specifically at the possible link between droughts at those specific areas and the weakening/loosening of lateral stress between tectonic plates.</p>

<p>The reasoning is based on the following observations:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The crust is not rooted in the mantle, and is cut in numerous crustal plates. Tectonic plates are held in place like an arch, so the gravity and lateral stress and friction are the main forces holding them up. Mantle flow provides uneven support to continental plates and is actually the main destabilizing force according to current theories.</p></li>
<li><p>Based on the idea above, if humans dig up too much underground materials around the fault lines, the edges of the fault lines are weakened: there is less material to keep up adequate lateral stress. Then, the soil around the softer/weaker side of the fault will deform and be compacted, or fail and result in earthquake. Deformation/compaction and fault failure do happen naturally too, but humans may have extracted too much underground resources for the natural healing process to catch up with the rate of weakening at the edges. It is known that the fault of the West Coast is lacking stress and the soil is deformed in the Amos et al. (2014) study. If this keeps up, the arch structure of the crust will crumble down catastrophically, and in chain reaction too. And it doesn't take "much" edge weakening to fail an arch.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Additional information: The Amos study says that California lost 160 KM^3 of groundwater in the past 150 years. Now, add the amount of oil extracted. Then, add the amount of oil, water, minerals that are extracted along the West Coast of North and South America, Australia, Japan, South East Asian Islands. This should give some idea of how big are the holes human dug underground.</p>

<ol start="3">
<li><p>The scenario may correspond with the Pacific plates. There are numerous oil, and water extracting operations all around the Pacific. After decades of intensive and continuous resource extractions, it may be showing terminal signs of  the natural healing process failing to catch up with the rate of weakening at the edges. First, there are quite a few very strong earthquakes concentrated in the last ten years (<a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php" rel="nofollow">http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php</a>). This alone may be trivial since the Pacific Ring of Fire is well known to churn out earthquakes. However, combined with the recent persistent droughts of Australia, Chile, US (especially California), and this year, Canada, the situation may be really concerning.</p></li>
<li><p>Droughts alone can be caused by weather patterns. Climate change can cause it too, but it is a global factor, as opposed to more localized factor such as weather patterns. However, I think that underground processes can also cause drought. Aquifers can store a lot of heat, so the lack of underground water means  that the geothermal energy will dissipate into the surrounding soil, basically slowly baking it. Less water also means that the soil is more prone to compression. Compression, especially continuous, even if it's slow, also generates heat. Oil reservoirs are also similar, but since oil is more reactive to heat by transforming into gas, and continuously extracted by humans, their pore pressure varies more. The presence of oil reservoirs around the fault lines may serve as springs. By extracting oil/gas, humans lessen the expansion force of those liquid and gas and reduce the pore pressure, which stabilizes the fault line. But in the long term, as is the case now, the reality is that there will be not enough oil to provide adequate pore pressure/lateral stress/counter-compression force. This may be the cause of the recent frequent strong earthquakes; the plates are loosening. Eventually, all the edges of the Pacific ring will all fail in an epic catastrophe, as the arch structure of the crust crumbles.  Also, by removing oil, it liberates more space for gas to form. Gas is more compressible and heated by compression; it is another source geothermal heat. It is like a bike air pump/air suspension system. The idea is that the excess of geothermal energy causes surface water to dry out faster.</p></li>
<li><p>Another possibility is that the fault line of the West American continent is already caving in and is dipping deeper/entering into more contact with the mantle. The mantle is a way stronger source of heat, and without adequate of underground heat absorbers, the surface soil becomes baked. I think that it's also the cause of the Blob (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_%28Pacific_Ocean%29" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_%28Pacific_Ocean%29</a>). The heat of the soil is escaping into the ocean, forming the Blob. Combined with El Nino, it worsens the drought.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In summary, humans have dug up resources around active fault lines of the Pacific for more than a century. The weakened soil/plate edges lead to excessive geothermal energy affecting the surface.</p>

<p>So yeah, in the end, is it possible that the recent droughts are signs of epic crust failure?</p>

<p>Please kindly point out if my observation/logic makes sense and/or may correspond with reality.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-17T03:01:13.113Z
I love the last line... "Please kindly point out if my observation/logic makes sense and/or may correspond with reality."
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T02:07:48.260Z
Is this a question? I am not sure it fits the guidelines http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T02:31:45.083Z
It looks like I need to word it better.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T02:49:47.307Z
I pulled this wall of text from email, so the wording does not sound much like a question. However, I do want to know the answer.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T04:05:05.920Z
*"Continental plates are held in place like an arch"*... what? Aren't they held in place more like a tile in soft grout? It's not like there is a big air space underneath them. The mantle is a solid/extremely viscous fluid, not liquid... I suspect that there are lot more unsupported assumptions further down here that make this question quite difficult to deal with (e.g. the "concentrated volcanos" statement [doesn't seem very well supported](https://plot.ly/~naught101/4/magnitude-vs-date-utc/?share_key=K4SvtLy6xUlynWzRDQs725) [low R2]). Perhaps you should split it up into separate questions?
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T04:14:51.390Z
No, continental plates are not held together like your comparison, because 1. Earth is not flat. 2. If it's like a tile, there would be little to no lateral stress. But we know that the plates are pushing hard against each other. Lastly, I never mentioned volcanos, you might have mixed up with some other question.
Teki Haken
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T06:57:07.907Z
@TekiHaken He meant earthquakes
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-15T06:59:47.017Z
@naught101 thanks for that link, that website looks like it could be a great tool.
Isopycnal Oscillation
<geophysics><earthquakes><groundwater><petroleum><drought>
Is it possible that the recent droughts are signs of epic crust failure?
Teki Haken
# Is it possible that the recent droughts are signs of epic crust failure?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-10-15)

The full question is: Is it possible that the recent, successive, long droughts from Australia to the West Coast of both American continents are signs of epic crust failure?

The question is aimed specifically at the possible link between droughts at those specific areas and the weakening/loosening of lateral stress between tectonic plates.

The reasoning is based on the following observations:

1. The crust is not rooted in the mantle, and is cut in numerous crustal plates. Tectonic plates are held in place like an arch, so the gravity and lateral stress and friction are the main forces holding them up. Mantle flow provides uneven support to continental plates and is actually the main destabilizing force according to current theories.
2. Based on the idea above, if humans dig up too much underground materials around the fault lines, the edges of the fault lines are weakened: there is less material to keep up adequate lateral stress. Then, the soil around the softer/weaker side of the fault will deform and be compacted, or fail and result in earthquake. Deformation/compaction and fault failure do happen naturally too, but humans may have extracted too much underground resources for the natural healing process to catch up with the rate of weakening at the edges. It is known that the fault of the West Coast is lacking stress and the soil is deformed in the Amos et al. (2014) study. If this keeps up, the arch structure of the crust will crumble down catastrophically, and in chain reaction too. And it doesn't take "much" edge weakening to fail an arch.

Additional information: The Amos study says that California lost 160 KM^3 of groundwater in the past 150 years. Now, add the amount of oil extracted. Then, add the amount of oil, water, minerals that are extracted along the West Coast of North and South America, Australia, Japan, South East Asian Islands. This should give some idea of how big are the holes human dug underground.

3. The scenario may correspond with the Pacific plates. There are numerous oil, and water extracting operations all around the Pacific. After decades of intensive and continuous resource extractions, it may be showing terminal signs of the natural healing process failing to catch up with the rate of weakening at the edges. First, there are quite a few very strong earthquakes concentrated in the last ten years (<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php>). This alone may be trivial since the Pacific Ring of Fire is well known to churn out earthquakes. However, combined with the recent persistent droughts of Australia, Chile, US (especially California), and this year, Canada, the situation may be really concerning.
4. Droughts alone can be caused by weather patterns. Climate change can cause it too, but it is a global factor, as opposed to more localized factor such as weather patterns. However, I think that underground processes can also cause drought. Aquifers can store a lot of heat, so the lack of underground water means that the geothermal energy will dissipate into the surrounding soil, basically slowly baking it. Less water also means that the soil is more prone to compression. Compression, especially continuous, even if it's slow, also generates heat. Oil reservoirs are also similar, but since oil is more reactive to heat by transforming into gas, and continuously extracted by humans, their pore pressure varies more. The presence of oil reservoirs around the fault lines may serve as springs. By extracting oil/gas, humans lessen the expansion force of those liquid and gas and reduce the pore pressure, which stabilizes the fault line. But in the long term, as is the case now, the reality is that there will be not enough oil to provide adequate pore pressure/lateral stress/counter-compression force. This may be the cause of the recent frequent strong earthquakes; the plates are loosening. Eventually, all the edges of the Pacific ring will all fail in an epic catastrophe, as the arch structure of the crust crumbles. Also, by removing oil, it liberates more space for gas to form. Gas is more compressible and heated by compression; it is another source geothermal heat. It is like a bike air pump/air suspension system. The idea is that the excess of geothermal energy causes surface water to dry out faster.
5. Another possibility is that the fault line of the West American continent is already caving in and is dipping deeper/entering into more contact with the mantle. The mantle is a way stronger source of heat, and without adequate of underground heat absorbers, the surface soil becomes baked. I think that it's also the cause of the Blob (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_%28Pacific_Ocean%29>). The heat of the soil is escaping into the ocean, forming the Blob. Combined with El Nino, it worsens the drought.

In summary, humans have dug up resources around active fault lines of the Pacific for more than a century. The weakened soil/plate edges lead to excessive geothermal energy affecting the surface.

So yeah, in the end, is it possible that the recent droughts are signs of epic crust failure?

Please kindly point out if my observation/logic makes sense and/or may correspond with reality.

**Tags:** geophysics, earthquakes, groundwater, petroleum, drought

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Is this a question? I am not sure it fits the guidelines http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask  
> **username_0**: It looks like I need to word it better.  
> **username_0**: I pulled this wall of text from email, so the wording does not sound much like a question. However, I do want to know the answer.  
> **username_3**: *"Continental plates are held in place like an arch"*... what? Aren't they held in place more like a tile in soft grout? It's not like there is a big air space underneath them. The mantle is a solid/extremely viscous fluid, not liquid... I suspect that there are lot more unsupported assumptions further down here that make this question quite difficult to deal with (e.g. the "concentrated volcanos" statement [doesn't seem very well supported](https://plot.ly/~username_3/4/magnitude-vs-date-utc/?share_key=K4SvtLy6xUlynWzRDQs725) [low R2]). Perhaps you should split it up into separate questions?  
> **username_0**: No, continental plates are not held together like your comparison, because 1. Earth is not flat. 2. If it's like a tile, there would be little to no lateral stress. But we know that the plates are pushing hard against each other. Lastly, I never mentioned volcanos, you might have mixed up with some other question.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 He meant earthquakes  
> **username_2**: @username_3 thanks for that link, that website looks like it could be a great tool.  
> **username_1**: I love the last line... "Please kindly point out if my observation/logic makes sense and/or may correspond with reality."  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-10-15. Score: 13

> Is it possible that the recent droughts are signs of epic crust failure?

**No**. Even though your 5 points do not make much sense, I'll try to answer it anyway.

1. There are no continental plates. There are lithospheric plates, consisting of both continental crust and oceanic crust. While it is true that arches in construction (buildings and bridges) are held "up" by lateral stress and gravity, lithospheric plates are not arches. Directly below the crust there exists a mantle, made out of a ductile, yet solid, material. The crust can't just "fall down".
2. Movements that occur along plate boundaries are controlled by tectonic forces much larger than anything that we humans can even think of affecting. While it is true that some seismic activity can be explained by extraction of resources, these are usually up/down movements. Thus, extracting oil from the Los Angeles area will not cause the movement along the San Andreas fault to move any slower or faster.
3. So yes, there are large earthquakes, including recently, in the ring of fire. I don't understand how is this supposed to be related to droughts. There earthquakes are controlled by forces deep down in the Earth. Furthermore, the plate boundaries are under kilometres of ocean water. Whether or not there is rain on the continents is irrelevant.
4. Gas is not formed simply by evaporation of oil. Releasing pressure does not turn oil to gas. This is a long process that takes geological time spans. Deep water that may be affected by geothermal heat has long residence times - hundreds and thousands of years. A few years of drought will not do much for it. Most of the oil and gas are being produced in sedimentary basins, far away from plate boundaries. These have nothing to do with earthquakes near these fault lines. Even the fields that are somewhat close to fault boundaries - the amount of oil or gas that's actually in the ground is negligible relative to how much rock there is. It's not like there are lakes or pools of oil and gas. It's all in between the grains of whatever sedimentary rock is there (usually sandstone).
5. The term you are looking for is *subduction*. Yes, there is some subduction activity (otherwise we wouldn't have volcanoes such as Mt St Helens). This is nothing new, and again, this has nothing to do with droughts.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: *"Movements that occur along plate boundaries are controlled by tectonic forces much larger than anything that we humans can even think of affecting"* - that might be a bit over-stated. Mining has [been linked to earthquake triggering](http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/73/can-mining-trigger-earthquakes), for instance. Not saying that the mining is a bigger force, but it still clearly has an effect.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 indeed. Read the next sentence in the answer. In any case, those are usually small, unrelated to droughts, and definitely will not cause an "epic crust failure".  
> **username_6**: @username_3: mining near faults can induce earthquakes, but such quakes will never be of large magnitude. My experience has been such quakes are no larger than magnitude 2 or 3.  
> **username_0**: @Michael I beg to differ, 1. It's misleading to call the mantle "solid". It's known to flow, which is closer to a viscous liquid. Also, because of the lateral stress between plates, the mantle doesn't receive the full weight of the crust. That is why I compare the crust to arch. Yes, it doesn't "fall down", but it can still "press down" and a big sudden downward movement of a significant crust plate create big ripples in the mantle and crust.  
> **username_0**: @Michael 2. Yes, usually, mining only caused small earthquakes so far, but think of the cumulative effect over _decades_ and _a century_. The empty spaces left underground and the continuous compression becomes increasingly significant.  
> **username_0**: 3. Depletion of water reservoir is linked with seismic activity, from the Amos study. Further reasoning in next point.  
> **username_0**: @Michael 4. Fossil fuels are sensitive to temperature. I remember that above a certain temperature, oil becomes gas. Also, yes, if you take the droughts out of context, they are insignificant. But keep in mind that these droughts _are successively happening around active fault lines which are weakened by a century of human development_.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 the link between droughts and crust goes no deeper than the surface characteristics.  The presence of surface water (oceans, lakes, rivers, soil moisture, evapotranspiration), the surface terrain (hills, mountains, valleys, etc) and general atmospheric flows affect droughts.  
> **username_0**: @username_7 I explained how additional underground heat may affect surface water.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 you have presented a theory, but I fail to see how what you propose is going to have any effect on evaporative moisture flux aff the surface of oceans and lakes, the movement of mountains on non-geologic timescales or modify atmospheric circulation.  It is the atmosphere's lack of bringing water to a region that causes drought, not the mantle "baking" the earth.  The sun is much better at baking the earths surface when it is very dry.  
> **username_0**: @username_7 Have you checked the Blob? Beside, I am arguing for a cumulative effect of many heat sources at play.  
> **username_3**: @username_0: I think there are problems with scale here. The 5 points you present above all have some basis in reality, but I think the scale required for each of them to be relevant in this context is much larger than what is actually happening. Perhaps you could ask separate questions along the lines of *"How much drying would a 0.1°C rise in crust temperature cause?"* (I suspect that value is many orders of magnitude larger than what you're talking about), and *"How much heat has human geological activity caused?"* and *"How much gas is produced by oil depressurisation?"*  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I did consider separating this into multiple questions, but I would like to stress again that all factors do play a role. Even though it may not be the scale you are looking for, but the Amos study did say that California lost 160 km3 of groundwater after 150 years. This doesn't include oil. Now, bear in mind that there are other oil and water wells all round the fault lines of the Pacific. Hope you get a better grasp of how big are the holes that humans dug.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 you're saying that all factors do play a role. However, it seems that you do not yet understand what the factors are by themselves. I recommend splitting this into separate questions. This is becoming a discussion and that's not what the site is for.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 This isn't the right platform to attempt persuasive argumentation against an answer.  Stack Exchange is a question & answer site, and is not a forum or discussion venue.  It also appears you might be fishing for an answer you want since you seem to be very reluctant to listen to reasoning that doesn't fit with your view on the matter.  I'll echo the comment above that you should try to understand the individual factors and ask narrowly scoped questions about them to help you reach that understanding.  Welcome to the site.  
> **username_0**: @username_7 I'm not convinced one way or the other by the answers given so far, so I just reply why I thought the given answers are wrong. I'm supposed to pick a satisfactory answer on this site, no?  
> **username_3**: @username_0: You won't get a satisfactory answer to this question. People are asking you to split it out into separate, smaller questions so that you *will* get satisfactory answers.  
> **username_0**: Fine, I will split it up and eventually recombine it to let people have an easier time understanding the theory.  
> **username_5**: @username_0 - Your last comment *"[...] to let people have an easier time understanding the theory"* concerns me. Are you **asking** a StackExchange type Question or are you **promoting** a theory by attempting to disguise it as a question?  

---

