40 Case histories of induced and triggered seismicity

McGarr, A.; Simpson, D. W.; Seeber, Leonardo

doi:10.1016/s0074-6142(02)80243-1

Cited by 281 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, these events are referred to not as "induced" but rather "triggered" by the fluid injection. This argument is consistent with that of McGarr and Simpson (1997), in that the term "induced" indicates a causative activity that accounts for most of the stress change or energy required to produce the earthquakes, whereas the term "triggered" describes a process that accounts for only a small fraction of the same stress change or energy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Discrete element modeling of fluid injection–induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhanced geothermal systems, shale gas, and geological carbon sequestration all require underground fluid injection in high-pressure conditions. Fluid injection creates fractures, induces seismicity, and has the potential to reactivate nearby faults that can generate a large magnitude earthquake. Mechanisms of fluid injection-induced seismicity and fault reactivation should be better understood to be able to mitigate larger events triggered by fluid injection. This study investigates fluid injection, induced seismicity, and triggering of fault rupture using hydromechanical-coupled discrete element models. Results show that a small amount of fluid pressure perturbation can trigger fault ruptures that are critically oriented and stressed. Induced seismicity by rock failure shows in general higher b-values (slope of magnitude-frequency relation) compared to seismicity triggered by the fault fracture slip. Numerical results closely resemble observations from geothermal and shale-gas fields and demonstrate that discrete element modeling has the potential to be applied in the field as a tool for predicting induced seismicity prior to in situ injection.Key words: induced seismicity, fault reactivation, large-magnitude events, triggered seismicity, magnitude-frequency relation b-value.Résumé : Les systèmes géothermiques améliorés, l'extraction du gaz de schiste et la séquestration du carbone géologique nécessitent l'injection de fluides à haute pression dans le sous sol. Ce type d'injection génère des fractures, cause des secousses sismiques et peut réactiver des failles avoisinantes, lesquelles peuvent provoquer des tremblements de terre de forte magnitude. Il serait utile de mieux comprendre les mécanismes des séismes induits par l'injection de fluides et ceux de la réactivation de failles, et ce afin d'être en mesure de prévenir les événements graves causés par l'injection de fluide. Dans le présent article, on étudie l'injection de fluides, la sismicité induite et le déclenchement de ruptures de failles à l'aide de modèles couplés hydromécaniques basés sur la méthode des éléments discrets. Les résultats montrent qu'une légère perturbation de la pression du fluide injecté peut déclencher des ruptures d'orientation critique soumises à des contraintes. La sismicité induite par la rupture de roches est généralement caractérisée par des valeurs de b (pente de la fonction de relation entre la magnitude et la fréquence) par rapport à celles observées dans le cas de la sismicité déclenchée par le cisaillement de rupture des failles. Les résultats numériques se rapprochent beaucoup des observations faites sur les sites géothermiques ou d'extraction de gaz de schiste et montrent que la modélisation basée sur la méthode des éléments discrets pourrait être utilisée sur ces sites comme outil servant à prédire la sismicité induite avant l'injection de fluides in situ. [Traduit par la Rédaction] Mots-clés : sismicité induite, réactivation de failles, incidents de forte magnitude, sismicité déclenchée, valeur de b: pente ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Discrete element modeling of fluid injection–induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The potential for anthropogenic activities to trigger earthquakes has been widely acknowledged by the scientific community [31][32][33][34]. In particular, the generation mechanisms and magnitudes of anthropogenic earthquakes depend on several factors, such as the volume of the injected or extracted fluids, the extent of the perturbation [35], the geometry and orientation of the fault planes, the hydraulic connection between the injection and extraction zones and the fault planes [14], the magnitude of the tectonic stress field, and the distance between anthropogenic activities and earthquake source.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Did Anthropogenic Activities Trigger the 3 April 2017 Mw 6.5 Botswana Earthquake?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:On 3 April 2017, a M w 6.5 earthquake occurred in Botswana, representing the secondstrongest earthquake registered since 1949. Such an intraplate event occurred in a low seismic hazard area and was suspected to be an artificial earthquake induced by nearby anthropogenic activities (gas extraction). The possible relation between anthropogenic activities and the earthquake occurrence has been qualitatively investigated. We estimated the geometric and kinematic characteristics of the causative fault from the modeling of Sentinel-1 InSAR interferograms. Our best-fit solution for the main shock is represented by a normal fault located at a depth greater than 20 km, dipping 65 • northeast, with a right-lateral component, and a mean slip of 2.7 m. The retrieved fault geometry and mechanism are incompatible with the hypothetical stress perturbation caused by the anthropogenic activities performed in the area. Therefore, the 3 April 2017 Botswana earthquake can be classified as a natural intraplate earthquake.

show abstract

“…The increased pore pressure reduces the frictional resistance to fault slip, allowing elastic energy already stored in the surrounding rocks to be released in earthquakes that would occur someday as the result of natural geologic processes (8). This effect was first documented in the 1960s in Denver, Colorado when injection into a 3-km-deep well at the nearby Rocky Mountain Arsenal triggered earthquakes (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Zoback¹,

Gorelick

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

724

380

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. We argue here that there is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of CO 2 into the brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors. Because even small-to moderate-sized earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of CO 2 repositories, in this context, large-scale CCS is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.carbon sequestration | climate change | triggered earthquakes

show abstract

40 Case histories of induced and triggered seismicity

Cited by 281 publications

References 60 publications

Discrete element modeling of fluid injection–induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault

Discrete element modeling of fluid injection–induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault

Did Anthropogenic Activities Trigger the 3 April 2017 Mw 6.5 Botswana Earthquake?

Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About