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

Abstract

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.

Machine‐Learning‐Based Analysis of the Guy‐Greenbrier, Arkansas Earthquakes: A Tale of Two Sequences

“…While the relative locations were improved by the double‐difference algorithm, the absolute locations of most of these clusters remain uncertain due to the poor azimuthal station coverage. However, most clusters collocate with production wells both in space and time, based on the well completion date, as discussed by Yoon and coworkers (Yoon et al, ). Thus, it is likely that these clusters are associated with hydraulic fracturing operations.…”

Hydraulic Fracturing Induced Seismicity in the Southern Sichuan Basin Due to Fluid Diffusion Inferred From Seismic and Injection Data Analysis

“…In recent years, small and moderate earthquakes induced by subsurface fluid injection have been reported worldwide (e.g., Bao & Eaton, 2016;Clarke et al, 2014;Ellsworth, 2013;Goebel & Brodsky, 2018;Grigoli et al, 2017;Grigoli et al, 2018;Kim et al, 2018;Lei et al, 2017;Weingarten et al, 2015). Two most conspicuous regions with a large number of induced earthquakes reported are midcontinental United States and western Canada, which have a long history of wastewater disposal, enhanced oil recovery, and shale gas hydraulic fracturing (e.g., Atkinson et al, 2016;Friberg et al, 2014;Frohlich, 2012;Frohlich et al, 2016;Holland, 2013;Horton, 2012;Keranen et al, 2014;Schultz et al, 2015;Schultz et al, 2017;Schultz et al, 2018;Skoumal et al, 2015;Yoon et al, 2017). Multistage hydraulic fracturing stimulation nowadays has become a routine process for unconventional oil and gas production.…”

Earthquakes Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing Are Pervasive in Oklahoma

“…HF‐induced seismicity can also be differentiated from the inherent microseismicity by the locations of the events; the inherent microseismicity associated with fracture creation/opening are typically isolated near the formation being stimulated, while induced seismicity has been observed in the Precambrian basement or other sedimentary layers (e.g., 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, ).…”