Characteristics of Induced/Triggered Earthquakes during the Startup Phase of the Guy–Greenbrier Earthquake Sequence in North–Central Arkansas

Ogwari, P.; Horton, Steve; Ausbrooks, Scott M.

doi:10.1785/0220150252

Cited by 20 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their improved catalog, complete down to M 0.2 and containing events down to M − 0.6, revealed seismicity that started in the shallow (2–4 km depth) sedimentary formation below injection Well 1 and migrated southwest and down into the basement (deeper than 4 km) from September to October 2010. However, Ogwari et al () found only scattered seismicity without any particular spatial or temporal characteristics during the time immediately following injection, from 7 July 2010 to the end of August 2010. We chose to study the 3 month time period from 1 June to 1 September 2010.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…The permanent seismic network in Arkansas is sparse but includes a three‐component broadband seismic station WHAR (Figure , black triangle) recording 100 Hz data continuously since May 2010, located close to the Guy‐Greenbrier Fault and in the area being prepared for production (Horton, ; Ogwari et al, ). ARK1 and ARK2, two temporary three‐component stations that started recording on 11 June 2010, were the only other available local seismic stations operating during 1 June to 1 September 2010; they are also known as CH1 and CH2 (Mousavi et al, ; Ogwari et al, ) or CHKGRS and CHKGUY (Huang et al, ), respectively. We first detect earthquakes on the single station WHAR then use data from all three stations to confirm these detections and to locate and estimate magnitudes of the newly detected earthquakes.…”

Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We perform a retrospective analysis to understand how the Guy‐Greenbrier earthquake sequence initiated and to determine whether it was induced by wastewater injection. Ogwari et al () detected and located earthquakes in the first 4 months of the sequence, starting from the onset of wastewater injection at Well 1 on 7 July 2010 to 20 October 2010. Their improved catalog, complete down to M 0.2 and containing events down to M − 0.6, revealed seismicity that started in the shallow (2–4 km depth) sedimentary formation below injection Well 1 and migrated southwest and down into the basement (deeper than 4 km) from September to October 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These events are likely caused by reactivation of nearby critically stressed faults that are well oriented to slip in the local stress field (Maxwell, ). Ogwari et al () found a cluster of seismicity west of the Guy‐Greenbrier Fault that was probably induced by hydraulic fracturing from 29 September to 4 October 2010. We search for spatial and temporal correlations between seismicity and the many production wells with hydraulic fracturing stimulation (Figure , small red‐orange triangles with black lines) during 1 June to 1 September 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seismicity During the Initial Stages of the Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas, Earthquake Sequence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze the background seismicity, initiation, and earliest stages of the Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas, earthquake sequence, which was potentially induced by wastewater injection starting in July 2010, during the 3 month time period 1 June to 1 September 2010. High‐resolution observations of low‐magnitude seismicity, and the high‐quality Arkansas public well database, facilitate detailed analysis of spatial and temporal correlations between earthquakes, wastewater injection, and hydraulic fracturing. We detected 14,604 earthquakes, with magnitudes −1.5≤ML≤2.9, using two sensitive, waveform similarity‐based event detection methods in parallel: Fingerprint And Similarity Thresholding, and template matching. We located the 1,740 largest earthquakes that form 16 spatially compact clusters, using P and S phases from 3 stations with the double‐difference relocation algorithm and an improved velocity model constrained by the location of quarry blasts. We enhanced the temporal resolution of these event clusters by assigning smaller unlocated events to a cluster based on waveform similarity. Most clustered earthquakes during this time were both spatially and temporally correlated with hydraulic fracturing stimulation at several production wells. For one cluster, microseismicity was correlated with individual stages of stimulation. Many other wells had no detectable nearby seismicity during stimulation. We found a smaller number of events located on the Guy‐Greenbrier Fault that were likely induced by wastewater injection. The concurrent presence of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater injection presents a challenge for attribution and seismic hazard characterization, but the combination of precision seismology and high‐quality well information allows us to disentangle the effects of these two processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seismicity During the Initial Stages of the Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas, Earthquake Sequence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Basel, Bachmann et al (2011) found that the coinjection period exhibited characteristically lower truncation magnitude (~2) compared to the postinjection data (~3). An increased proportion of smaller earthquakes was also observed in Guy-Greenbrier sequence during wastewater Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 10.1002/2017JB015003 injection (Ogwari et al, 2016). This characteristic lower coinjection truncation magnitude has been attributed to the an unproportionally high rate of small earthquakes during the injection period (Segall & Lu, 2015).…”

Section: Time-dependent Magnitude-frequency Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 83%

The Dallas‐Fort Worth Airport Earthquake Sequence: Seismicity Beyond Injection Period

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2008 Dallas‐Fort Worth Airport earthquakes mark the beginning of seismicity rate changes linked to oil and gas operations in the central United States. We assess the spatial and temporal evolution of the sequence through December 2015 using template‐based waveform correlation and relative location methods. We locate ~400 earthquakes spanning 2008–2015 along a basement fault mapped as the Airport fault. The sequence exhibits temporally variable b values, and small‐magnitude (m < 3.4) earthquakes spread northeast along strike over time. Pore pressure diffusion models indicate that the high‐volume brine injection well located within 1 km of the 2008 earthquakes, although only operating from September 2008 to August 2009, contributes most significantly to long‐term pressure perturbations, and hence stress changes, along the fault; a second long‐operating, low‐volume injector located 10 km north causes insufficient pressure changes. High‐volume injection for a short time period near a critically stressed fault can induce long‐lasting seismicity.

show abstract

Current challenges in monitoring, discrimination, and management of induced seismicity related to underground industrial activities: A European perspective

Grigoli

Cesca

Priolo

et al. 2017

Reviews of Geophysics

285

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the deep socioeconomic implications, induced seismicity is a timely and increasingly relevant topic of interest for the general public. Cases of induced seismicity have a global distribution and involve a large number of industrial operations, with many documented cases from as far back to the beginning of the twentieth century. However, the sparse and fragmented documentation available makes it difficult to have a clear picture on our understanding of the physical phenomenon and consequently in our ability to mitigate the risk associated with induced seismicity. This review presents a unified and concise summary of the still open questions related to monitoring, discrimination, and management of induced seismicity in the European context and, when possible, provides potential answers. We further discuss selected critical European cases of induced seismicity, which led to the suspension or reduction of the related industrial activities.

show abstract

Characteristics of Induced/Triggered Earthquakes during the Startup Phase of the Guy–Greenbrier Earthquake Sequence in North–Central Arkansas

Cited by 20 publications

References 22 publications

Seismicity During the Initial Stages of the Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas, Earthquake Sequence

Seismicity During the Initial Stages of the Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas, Earthquake Sequence

The Dallas‐Fort Worth Airport Earthquake Sequence: Seismicity Beyond Injection Period

Current challenges in monitoring, discrimination, and management of induced seismicity related to underground industrial activities: A European perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About