The Denver Area Earthquakes and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Disposal Well

Evans, David M.

doi:10.1130/eng-case-8.25

Cited by 66 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Microearthquakes caused by hydrofracture occur only around the well while it is being fracked and are very rarely large enough to be felt. Wastewater injection, on the other hand, has triggered felt earthquakes in other areas (Evans, 1966;Davis and Pennington, 1989;Seeber et al, 2004;Horton, 2012). The Cleburne earthquakes were located within 1-3 km of injection wellsnot near other types of production activity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4) are reported to inject into the Ellenburger limestone. It is possible that as a result of these fluid injections the pore pressure changes may migrate outside of the immediate vicinity of the well to trigger fault slip (Evans, 1966;Herrmann et al, 1981) by changing the effective stress on an existing fault surface. The range of estimated earthquake depths (1.62-4.97 km) encompasses the injection intervals of both disposal wells (API 42-251-30299, 3.18-3.28 km; API 42-251-31266.…”

Section: Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of the Cleburne, Texas, Earthquake Sequence from June 2009 to June 2010

Justinic¹,

Stump²,

Hayward³

et al. 2013

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 9 June 2009, an M bLg 2.8 earthquake shook Cleburne, Texas, a community not known to have previously experienced earthquakes. Over 50 small earthquakes followed by the end of December 2009. A temporary network of four and then five IRIS-Passcal broadband systems was deployed from June 2009 to June 2010, recording data that were used to locate 38 events with the most confident P-and S-arrival picks. Event locations were distributed along a 2 km long north-northeast trend. The location centroid was at 32.298°N, 97.372°W and at 3.6 km depth. This location is approximately 1.3 km from a saltwater disposal well that began injection in October 2007 and 3.2 km away from a second injection well that was active from September 2005 to late July 2009. Focal mechanisms estimated for the best-recorded events suggest a north-northeast-south-southwest-trending normal fault with a dip of ∼50°and a component of oblique motion (rake of ∼ − 80°). This average solution is generally consistent with the north-northeast-trending extensional faults that are prevalent across parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Stress drops calculated from P and S spectra for seven different events ranged from 3.9 to 90 bars, with most estimates between 40 and 50 bars, typical values for intraplate earthquakes. Because there were no known previous earthquakes, and the located events were close to the two injection wells and near the injection depth, the possibility exists that earthquakes may be related to fluid injection.Online Material: Tables of absolute and relative earthquake locations and a figure summarizing focal mechanism solutions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Cleburne, Texas, Earthquake Sequence from June 2009 to June 2010

Justinic¹,

Stump²,

Hayward³

et al. 2013

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beginning with the earthquakes triggered by waste fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (20), it has been recognized that subsurface fluid injection is capable of triggering felt (of sufficient magnitude to be felt by nearby populations, so typically M L > 2) seismic events on preexisting tectonic faults (21). Recently, examples of tectonic activity triggered by disposal of waste water from hydraulic fracturing have been noted.…”

Section: Geomechanical Response To Co 2 Injectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

Verdon

Kendall

Stork

et al. 2013

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

195

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geological storage of CO 2 that has been captured at large, point source emitters represents a key potential method for reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, this technology will only be viable if it can be guaranteed that injected CO 2 will remain trapped in the subsurface for thousands of years or more. A significant issue for storage security is the geomechanical response of the reservoir. Concerns have been raised that geomechanical deformation induced by CO 2 injection will create or reactivate fracture networks in the sealing caprocks, providing a pathway for CO 2 leakage. In this paper, we examine three large-scale sites where CO 2 is injected at rates of ∼1 megatonne/y or more: Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah. We compare and contrast the observed geomechanical behavior of each site, with particular focus on the risks to storage security posed by geomechanical deformation. At Sleipner, the large, high-permeability storage aquifer has experienced little pore pressure increase over 15 y of injection, implying little possibility of geomechanical deformation. At Weyburn, 45 y of oil production has depleted pore pressures before increases associated with CO 2 injection. The long history of the field has led to complicated, sometimes nonintuitive geomechanical deformation. At In Salah, injection into the water leg of a gas reservoir has increased pore pressures, leading to uplift and substantial microseismic activity. The differences in the geomechanical responses of these sites emphasize the need for systematic geomechanical appraisal before injection in any potential storage site.carbon sequestration | geomechanics | InSAR | microseismic monitoring C arbon capture and storage (CCS)-where CO 2 is captured at large point source emitters (such as coal-fired power stations) and stored in suitable geological repositories-has been touted as a technology with the potential to achieve dramatic reductions in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (1, 2). However, its success is dependent on the ability of reservoirs to retain CO 2 over long timescales (a minimum of several thousand years). If CCS is to make a significant impact on global emissions, more than 3.5 billion tons of CO 2 per year must be stored (3), which at reservoir conditions will have a volume of ∼30 billion barrels (4).Secure storage of such large volumes of CO 2 requires more than just the availability of the appropriate volumes of pore space. CO 2 is buoyant in comparison with the saline brines that fill the majority of putative storage sites. Therefore, injected CO 2 will rise through porous rocks and return to the surface, unless trapped by impermeable sealing layers (such as shales and evaporites). Preliminary estimates have tended to indicate that, from a volumetric perspective at least, sufficient storage capacity exists for many decades of CO 2 emissions in deep-lying saline aquifers that have suitable sealing capability (5).It is equally important that the integrity of the seal is not compromised by injection activitie...

show abstract

“…There are several reasons for considering varying catalog lengths: (1) it is likely that earthquakes that occurred during the most recent time will best predict the next year's activity; (2) sometimes the induced seismicity goes through alternating periods of heightened activity and dormancy that are not predictable without other industry information on fluid injection and extraction; and (3) sometimes, though injection has stopped, earthquakes can occur months or years later in the vicinity of the injection well (such as the Rocky Mountain Arsenal zone; Evans, 1966;Healy and others, 1968). Though all four catalog durations used in this assessment provide important earthquake rate information, the informed and adaptive models use different durations and assign them different weights (compare the "Catalog Duration" level in fig.…”

Section: Level 3: Earthquake Catalog Durationmentioning

confidence: 99%

2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

Petersen¹,

Mueller²,

Moschetti³

et al. 2016

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1-888-ASK-USGS (1-888-275-8747).For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.Suggested citation: Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Moschetti, M.P., Hoover, S.M., Llenos, A.L., Ellsworth, W.L., Michael, A.J., Rubinstein, J.L., McGarr, A.F., and Rukstales, K.S., 2016, 2016 One-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes (ver. 1.1, June 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1035, 52 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161035. ISSN 2331ISSN -1258 Cover: Map showing chance of damage from an earthquake in the Central and Eastern United States during 2016. Percent chances are represented as follows: pale yellow, less than 1 percent; dark yellow, 1 to 2 percent; orange, 2 to 5 percent; red, 5 to 10 percent; dark red, 10 to 12 percent.iii AcknowledgmentsWe wish to thank the November 2014 Induced Seismicity workshop participants, over 100 individuals who made valuable suggestions for revising the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project maps and models to incorporate induced seismicity. We thank State geological survey representatives and experts on induced seismicity from Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas for their guidance in delineating and discussing potential induced seismicity zones. AbstractThe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a 1-year seismic hazard forecast for 2016 for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes. The model assumes that earthquake rates calculated from several different time windows will remain relatively stationary and can be used to forecast earthquake hazard and damage intensity for the year 2016. This assessment is the first step in developing an operational earthquake forecast for the CEUS, and the analysis could be revised with updated seismicity and model parameters. Consensus input models consider alternative earthquake catalog durations, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground motion estimates, and represent uncertainties in earthquake occurrence and diversity of opinion in the science community. Ground shaking seismic hazard for 1-percent probability of exceedance in 1 year reaches 0.6 g (as a fraction of standard gravity [g]) in northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g in the Raton Basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in...

show abstract

The Denver Area Earthquakes and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Disposal Well

Cited by 66 publications

References 5 publications

Analysis of the Cleburne, Texas, Earthquake Sequence from June 2009 to June 2010

Analysis of the Cleburne, Texas, Earthquake Sequence from June 2009 to June 2010

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Denver Area Earthquakes and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Disposal Well

Cited by 66 publications

References 5 publications

Analysis of the Cleburne, Texas, Earthquake Sequence from June 2009 to June 2010

Analysis of the Cleburne, Texas, Earthquake Sequence from June 2009 to June 2010

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO 2 storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah