Hazard and Risk Potential of Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development-Induced Seismicity within the Central United States

Taylor, O. C.; Lee, Theodore A.; Lester, Alanna P.

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000178

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Common geophysical practice adheres to the premise that seismicity below M5.0 is not significant for generating damaging ground motions and, thus, is not considered a substantial hazard to critical infrastructure [1,2,4]. Increased MMI combined with encroaching spatiotemporal proximity to critical infrastructure begs the question, "Could future small magnitude-induced events affect federal flood control structures and critical infrastructure?"…”

Section: Geoengineering-induced Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…e exponential rise in induced seismicity in the CeUS since 2008 is correlated with an increase in Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) from small, relatively shallow events [1,2,5,22]. Common geophysical practice adheres to the premise that seismicity below M5.0 is not significant for generating damaging ground motions and, thus, is not considered a substantial hazard to critical infrastructure [1,2,4].…”

Section: Geoengineering-induced Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent advances in fluid-based geoengineering activities, hydraulic fracturing/ enhanced recovery technology, population growth, and worldwide energy consumption rates are suspected of contributing to the exponential increase in seismic activity within these historically aseismic regions by altering deep lithology effective stress states, which result in subsurface shear failure [1-3, 5, 6, 8-20]. Seismologists and earthquake engineers have recently issued concerns about fluid-based geoengineering activities being the genesis of moderate induced seismicity [1,2,4,[19][20][21], yet the topic of damage potential of geoengineering-induced seismicity remains relatively unexplored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent induced seismic research has shown that the current standard of practice for risk assessment for infrastructure is not applicable for the UHP-induced seismic hazard in historically aseismic continental regions [1,2] but is critically important for understanding the immediate impact potential to USACE-owned dams and levees throughout the Central and southwest central United States (CeUS). Engineering, economic, social, and political decision-making matrices must therefore, include the questions of "What is the largest expected induced seismic event?"…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and "What is the probability of an induced seismic event generating a potentially damaging ground motion?" e answers to these questions are currently the focus of emerging research [1][2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Can Repetitive Small Magnitude-Induced Seismic Events Actually Cause Damage?

Taylor

Lester

Lee

et al. 2018

Advances in Civil Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geoengineering activities such as reservoir impoundment, mining, wastewater injection, geothermal systems, and CO 2 capture have been linked directly to induced seismicity. With the industrial boom in natural shale gas production regions previously aseismic areas have seen an exponential growth in the frequency of small magnitude events, with multiple events observed in close proximity within a 24-hour time period. While the overwhelming majority of induced seismic research has focused on the causality, the potential risk posed to critical federal infrastructure has escaped scrutiny. is proposes the question, "Can repetitive small magnitude-induced seismic events actually cause damage?" A review of the potential risk is presented herein, concluding that a simplistic definitive statement of whether single or multiple small magnitude-induced seismic events do or do not cause damage to critical infrastructure cannot be justified, and warrants additional study. However, recent observations and research suggest the likelihood that these geoengineering-induced events can and do cause detrimental degradation of the subsurface (damaging the overlying structure) is not insignificant.

show abstract

Section: Geoengineering-induced Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Geoengineering-induced Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can Repetitive Small Magnitude-Induced Seismic Events Actually Cause Damage?

Taylor

Lester

Lee

et al. 2018

Advances in Civil Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A preliminary statistical model for hydraulic fracture‐induced seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

Ghofrani

Atkinson

2016

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We characterize the statistical relationship between hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in western Canada by using the concept of cellular seismicity. We determine the regionally averaged probability that hydraulic fracture operations will be associated with M ≥ 3 seismicity within a 10 km grid cell. This rate is 0.01 to 0.026 at the 95th percentile confidence limit. Monte Carlo simulations confirm that the observed correlations are extremely unlikely (≪1%) to have been obtained by chance. Proximity to a disposal well and proximity to the Swan Hills Formation, which has been suggested as a proxy for basement controlled faults, appear to increase the likelihood that hydraulic fracturing will trigger seismicity.

show abstract