Proximity of Precambrian basement affects the likelihood of induced seismicity in the Appalachian, Illinois, and Williston Basins, central and eastern United States

Abstract

A dramatic seismicity rate increase in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) over the past decade has been largely associated with the increase in enhanced oil and gas recovery operations and change in industry practices. However, certain areas of the CEUS that have experienced large increases in oil and gas operations, such as the Bakken and Marcellus Shale plays (Williston and Appalachian Basins, respectively), have very little (if any) induced seismicity. No prior study has adequately explained the occurrence or absence of induced seismicity on a regional, basin-to-basin scale in the CEUS. In this study, we improve the basement depth characterization and induced seismicity detection for the Appalachian, Illinois, and Williston Basins to determine whether the proximity of wastewater disposal and/or hydraulic fracturing to the crystalline basement increases the likelihood of induced seismicity. We also investigate the lithologic characteristics of sedimentary strata situated between injection intervals and the crystalline basement to evaluate the role they may play in diminishing the transmission of pore pressure during well stimulations. We find that wastewater disposal in basal sediments or hydraulic fracturing operations <1 km from the Precambrian basement raise the likelihood of induced seismicity, an observation that is consistent with the apparent absence of induced seismicity related to production from the Bakken and Marcellus Shale plays.

Earthquakes Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing Are Pervasive in Oklahoma

“…Previously, regional analysis investigating the likelihood of HF‐induced seismicity has only been conducted within the Appalachian, Illinois, and Williston Basins in the United States (Skoumal et al, , ; Brudzinski & Kozłowska, ) and in western Canada (Atkinson et al, ; Ghofrani & Atkinson, ). Skoumal et al () associated ~0.35% of the HF wells in Ohio with M > 2 induced seismicity; further analysis in Ohio by Brudzinski and Kozłowska () expanded to smaller‐magnitude earthquakes (approximately M > −1) raised the Ohio statewide incidence rate to ~2.7%.…”

“…Skoumal et al () associated ~0.35% of the HF wells in Ohio with M > 2 induced seismicity; further analysis in Ohio by Brudzinski and Kozłowska () expanded to smaller‐magnitude earthquakes (approximately M > −1) raised the Ohio statewide incidence rate to ~2.7%. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, induced seismicity was associated with ~0.05% and ~0.3% of HF wells, respectively (Skoumal et al, ; Brudzinski & Kozłowska, ). In western Canada, ~0.3% of HF wells were associated with M ≥ 3 seismicity (Atkinson et al, ).…”

“…While these incidence rates help to broadly describe the likelihood of HF‐induced seismicity, these values are largely a factor of industrial and geologic conditions, which can vary considerably within each region. For example, the change in the predominant target formation from the deeper Point Pleasant‐Utica Shale (<~1 km from the Precambrian basement) in Ohio to the shallower Marcellus Shale (>~1.5 km from the basement) in Pennsylvania is a significant factor contributing to the higher likelihood of HF‐induced seismicity in Ohio than in Pennsylvania (Skoumal et al, ). The occurrence of HF‐induced seismicity can also dramatically differ on scales of a few kilometers.…”

“…A number of geologic conditions have been suggested to influence the likelihood of HF‐induced seismicity. These include wells that are stimulated in highly overpressured shale formations (Eaton & Schultz, ), in carbonate formations with high permeabilities (Schultz et al, ), and in proximity to the Precambrian basement (Skoumal et al, ). However, while these geologic parameters may influence the likelihood of an earthquake being induced, the only geologic parameter that has been suggested to influence the magnitudes of HF‐induced seismicity are wells in proximity to the Precambrian basement (Kozłowska et al, ).…”

“…Individual case examples of HF‐induced seismicity have been now be identified in Alberta (e.g., Wang et al, ), Arkansas (Yoon et al, ), British Columbia (e.g., B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, ), California (Kanamori & Hauksson, ), China (e.g., Lei et al, ), England (Clarke et al, ), Ohio (e.g., Skoumal et al, ), Oklahoma (e.g., Holland, ), Pennsylvania (Skoumal et al, ), and West Virginia (Skoumal et al, ).…”