The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009

Frohlich, Cliff; Hayward, Chris; Stump, Brian W.; Potter, Eric C.

doi:10.1785/0120100131

Cited by 163 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And for the J-A and J-D groups, the NEIC locations had too-large uncertainties to identify individual wells; this study's more accurate locations are essential for identifying the responsible wells. Only the DFW and J-Cleburne groups had been confidently associated with particular wells prior to this study (7,8); in both areas this association had been confirmed only because temporary local seismograph networks had been installed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…There is evidence supporting this hypothesis for the DFW earthquakes (7). Here the relocated epicenters were situated along a northeast-southwest (NE-SW) trend, and both proprietary seismic data and regional tectonic maps (16) indicated a NE-SW trending subsurface fault within 1 km of the epicentral region (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…For the remaining regional events, I picked P and S arrival times and/or identified events as quarry blasts. I then located events using a standard iterated least-square method using a flat-layered velocity model (7). Depths for quarry blasts were fixed at 300 m; earthquake depths were fixed at 5 km, the depth determined for DFW hypocenters using temporary local network data (7).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas

Frohlich

2012

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

228

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, temporary seismographs deployed under the EarthScope USArray program were situated on a 70-km grid covering the Barnett Shale in Texas, recording data that allowed sensing and locating regional earthquakes with magnitudes 1.5 and larger. I analyzed these data and located 67 earthquakes, more than eight times as many as reported by the National Earthquake Information Center. All 24 of the most reliably located epicenters occurred in eight groups within 3.2 km of one or more injection wells. These included wells near Dallas-Fort Worth and Cleburne, Texas, where earthquakes near injection wells were reported by the media in 2008 and 2009, as well as wells in six other locations, including several where no earthquakes have been reported previously. This suggests injection-triggered earthquakes are more common than is generally recognized. All the wells nearest to the earthquake groups reported maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water per month (24,000 m 3 ∕mo) since October 2006. However, while 9 of 27 such wells in Johnson County were near earthquakes, elsewhere no earthquakes occurred near wells with similar injection rates. A plausible hypothesis to explain these observations is that injection only triggers earthquakes if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a suitably oriented, nearby fault that is experiencing regional tectonic stress. Testing this hypothesis would require identifying geographic regions where there is interpreted subsurface structure information available to determine whether there are faults near seismically active and seismically quiescent injection wells.induced earthquakes | triggered earthquakes | unconventional gas development | seismic hazards | domestic energy policy

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas

Frohlich

2012

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

228

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1, 3 and 4). Most of the LME reported in the literature have occurred either after long-term fluid injection (Ake et al, 2005;Frohlich et al, 2011, McGarr, 2014, or as a result of reservoir impoundment (Gupta, 2002(Gupta, , 2011, both of which can bring pre-existing fractures in the shallow crust closer to failure. Of the short-term stimulation activities, EGS stimulations have generally shown a much higher propensity to produce LME, compared, e.g., to hydraulic fracturing in the oil-and gas industry.…”

Section: Source Mechanism Of Larger Magnitude Events (Lme)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this overview we report results of analysing induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs in various tectonic settings within the framework of the European Geothermal Engineering Integrating Mitigation of Induced Seismicity in Reservoirs (GEISER) project. In the reconnaissance phase of a field, the subsurface fault mapping, in situ stress and the seismic network are of primary interest in order to help assess the geothermal resource. The hypocentres of the observed seismic events (seismic cloud) are dependent on the design of the installed network, the used velocity model and the applied location technique. During the stimulation phase, the attention is turned to reservoir hydraulics (e.g., fluid pressure, injection volume) and its relation to larger magnitude seismic events, their source characteristics and occurrence in space and time. A change in isotropic components of the full waveform moment tensor is observed for events close to the injection well (tensile character) as compared to events further away from the injection well (shear character). Tensile events coincide with high Gutenberg-Richter -values and low Brune stress drop values. The stress regime in the reservoir controls the direction of the fracture growth at depth, as indicated by the extent of the seismic cloud detected. Stress magnitudes are important in multiple stimulation of wells, where little or no seismicity is observed until the previous maximum stress level is exceeded (Kaiser Effect). Prior to drilling, obtaining a 3D -wave ( ) and -wave velocity ( ) model down to reservoir depth is recommended. In the stimulation phase, we recommend to monitor and to locate seismicity with high precision (decametre) in real-time and to perform local 4D tomography for velocity ratio ( / ). During exploitation, one should use observed and model induced seismicity to forward estimate seismic hazard so that field operators are in a position to adjust well hydraulics (rate and volume of the fluid injected) when induced events start to occur far away from the boundary of the seismic cloud.

show abstract

“…triggered seismicity | fluid injection | carbon sequestration I nduced seismicity related to underground injection of liquids has been widely reported (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) but there are very few reports of gas injection triggering earthquakes large enough to be felt or cause damage at the surface. Thus, the injection-induced earthquakes of concern are not the tiny events accompanying hydrofracturing that have magnitudes of 1.5 or smaller; rather, they are the larger-magnitude earthquakes sometimes caused by injection for water flooding, enhanced production, or waste disposal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%