In November 2011, a M5.0 earthquake occurred less than a day before a M5.7 earthquake near Prague, Oklahoma, which may have promoted failure of the mainshock and thousands of aftershocks along the Wilzetta fault, including a M5.0 aftershock. The M5.0 foreshock occurred in close proximity to active fluid injection wells; fluid injection can cause a buildup of pore fluid pressure, decrease the fault strength, and may induce earthquakes. Keranen et al. [2013] links the M5.0 foreshock with fluid injection, but the relationship between the foreshock and successive events has not been investigated. Here we examine the role of coseismic Coulomb stress transfer on earthquakes that follow the M5.0 foreshock, including the M5.7 mainshock. We resolve the static Coulomb stress change onto the focal mechanism nodal plane that is most consistent with the rupture geometry of the three M ≥ 5.0 earthquakes, as well as specified receiver fault planes that reflect the regional stress orientation. We find that Coulomb stress is increased, e.g., fault failure is promoted, on the nodal planes of~60% of the events that have focal mechanism solutions, and more specifically, that the M5.0 foreshock promoted failure on the rupture plane of the M5.7 mainshock. We test our results over a range of effective coefficient of friction values. Hence, we argue that the M5.0 foreshock, induced by fluid injection, potentially triggered a cascading failure of earthquakes along the complex Wilzetta fault system.

No abstract

We detected a slow slip event in the south central Alaska Subduction Zone by analyzing continuous GPS data from the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) network. The slow slip event started in early 2010 at a depth of 35 km beneath the Cook Inlet, near the down‐dip end of the locked zone, and is ongoing as of November 2011 with an accumulated magnitude ofMw 6.9. Analysis of the earthquake catalog in the same area using the stochastic Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequence model (ETAS) shows a small but detectable seismicity increase during the slow slip event. We also find a change in seismicity rate around 1998, that may suggest an earlier slow slip event in the same region. Slow slip events in Alaska appear more widespread than previously thought but have remained undetected due to their long durations, the time intervals between them, and the limited time records from the continuous GPS.