Hydromechanical Earthquake Nucleation Model Forecasts Onset, Peak, and Falling Rates of Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma and Kansas

Norbeck, Jack H.; Rubinstein, Justin L.

doi:10.1002/2017gl076562

Cited by 72 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Region (g) has step‐like injection rate increase and mostly stays relatively stable during the time period of 2009 and 2011. Norbeck and Rubinstein () found good agreement between forecasted seismicity rate with declustered background seismicity rate in this area; however, the full catalog has strongly variable seismicity rate, causing difficulty in correlation analysis. The best‐fitting diffusion starting time from grid search is about 2 years after the second‐stage injection rate increase in 2007 (Figure h), suggesting that the threshold injection rate to trigger seismicity in this area is about 6 × 10 5 m 3 /month (or 2 × 10 4 m 3 /day) in this area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Multiscale Analysis of Spatiotemporal Relationship Between Injection and Seismicity in Oklahoma

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many previous studies have suggested that wastewater disposal is the most probable factor affecting increased seismicity in Oklahoma since 2009. While this relationship is clear at the state scale, a systematic quantitative analysis of the spatiotemporal relationships between injection and seismicity is needed. We first apply multiscale analyses to assess the temporal correlation between injection rate and seismicity rate at a range of different grid sizes, which demonstrate clear temporal correlations within the two main seismic regions at variable time delays. The time delay variability decreases with larger grid sizes, whereby the average time delay ranges from 150 to 220 days. The average time delay at large scales is consistent with inferred large‐scale diffusive migration away from areas of high injection rates with diffusivities of 0.5 to 2.0 m2/s. The inferred large‐scale diffusivities are consistent with an expected range of diffusivity within the Arbuckle Group where wastewater disposals are occurring. However, individual earthquake clusters have diffusivities that are about one to two orders lower than the large‐scale models. We interpret this as a manifestation of a two‐layered diffusion model with high diffusivity within the injection layer above basement, which facilitates stress transfer at a larger spatial footprint, triggering seismic slip at multiple seismogenic faults within the crystalline basement with low diffusivity, similar to fluid‐driven clusters in other tectonic regions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Multiscale Analysis of Spatiotemporal Relationship Between Injection and Seismicity in Oklahoma

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The observed pore pressure change in the Arbuckle is similar to modeled pore pressure changes in the Arbuckle for Oklahoma's Guthrie‐Langston earthquake sequence (Schoenball et al, ). In addition, Norbeck & Rubinstein, use analytical solutions and show that pressurization at 3 to 4 km depth where seismicity occurs can reach 25% of the pressurization in the aquifer. Their results fits well with our observation of 0.6 MPa pressure change in the Arbuckle aquifer (or 0.15 MPa in the crystalline basement) can cause M 3+ seismicity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accelerated Fill‐Up of the Arbuckle Group Aquifer and Links to U.S. Midcontinent Seismicity

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Arbuckle Group aquifer is the principal disposal zone for oil and gas field brines and hazardous/nonhazardous wastewater across the U.S. midcontinent and is traditionally viewed as an infinite capacity aquifer. Thousands of wells annually dispose hundreds of millions of barrels of wastewater into the aquifer across Kansas and Oklahoma, but direct links between injection and recent increases in seismicity have been hindered by a lack of pressure data for the Arbuckle Group. Here we present a newly compiled data set for 49 wells across Kansas that provides a unique perspective on the aquifer's performance over two decades. Statistical analysis of falloff test pressures, static fluid levels, and injection volumes shows that Arbuckle pressures and fluid levels are rising, recently at faster rates, likely associated with increased wastewater injection. The new data also suggest that the pressure diffusion, the primary driver of induced seismicity, can reach distances up to 25 km from an injection point and is connected to static fluid level rises. The compiled dataset explains the recent surge in midcontinent seismicity. The data set also suggests that the Arbuckle has finite storage capacity and that wastewater disposal across parts of the midcontinent may soon require alternatives.

show abstract

“…To understand physical drivers behind the recent decline of seismicity in Oklahoma, we have developed a simplified model of injection, pressure buildup, and induced seismicity for the region referred to by Langenbruch and Zoback () and Norbeck and Rubinstein () as Western Oklahoma (WO). Within this ∼13,000 km 2 region in the northwest of the state (Figure ), injection has predominantly occurred inside a circular region of radius approximately 50 km (see Langenbruch & Zoback, , Figure 2).…”

Section: An Induced Seismicity Model For Western Oklahomamentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of Induced Seismicity to Injection Rate Reduction: Models of Delay, Decay, Quiescence, Recovery, and Oklahoma

Dempsey

Riffault

2019

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When injection‐induced seismicity poses a risk to communities, it is common to reduce the injection rate or halt operations. This applies both to individual wells and well clusters, such as those within the Area of Interest for Triggered Seismicity in Western Oklahoma, where in 2016 a 40% volume reduction mandate was imposed by the state regulator. Here we quantify how induced seismicity responds to an injection reduction. We introduce models of pressure diffusion in idealized geometries coupled to steady state pressurization and rate‐state models of earthquake triggering. We find that the delay in seismicity onset and then postreduction behavior—decay, sometimes quiescence, and recovery of the seismicity rate—depend on the critical triggering pressure and on diffusion and rate‐state parameters. We have adapted our model to replicate the timing of onset, peak, and recent pace of decline of seismicity triggered by wastewater injection in Western Oklahoma. Our analysis implies that diffusivity in the Arbuckle formation is high (between 44 and 277 m2/s). The critical triggering pressure is inferred to be between 0.021 and 0.077 MPa, and fluid overpressure at 4.5‐km depth in the basement is estimated to have increased by as much as 0.190 MPa. We simulate future seismicity out to 2025 for three scenarios. Fixing the 2018 injection rate, already less than the limit imposed by the state regulator, we find a high likelihood of further M ≥ 5 earthquakes. This suggests that the volume reduction mandate in Western Oklahoma is, at present levels, inadequate.

show abstract

Hydromechanical Earthquake Nucleation Model Forecasts Onset, Peak, and Falling Rates of Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma and Kansas

Cited by 72 publications

References 57 publications

Multiscale Analysis of Spatiotemporal Relationship Between Injection and Seismicity in Oklahoma

Multiscale Analysis of Spatiotemporal Relationship Between Injection and Seismicity in Oklahoma

Accelerated Fill‐Up of the Arbuckle Group Aquifer and Links to U.S. Midcontinent Seismicity

Response of Induced Seismicity to Injection Rate Reduction: Models of Delay, Decay, Quiescence, Recovery, and Oklahoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About