William L. Ellsworth

Injection-Induced Earthquakes

Background Human-induced earthquakes have become an important topic of political and scientific discussion, owing to the concern that these events may be responsible for widespread damage and an overall increase in seismicity. It has long been known that impoundment of reservoirs, surface and underground mining, withdrawal of fluids and gas from the subsurface, and injection of fluids into underground formations are capable of inducing earthquakes. In particular, earthquakes caused by injection have become a focal point, as new drilling and well-completion technologies enable the extraction of oil and gas from previously unproductive formations. Earthquakes with magnitude (M) ≥ 3 in the U.S. midcontinent, 1967–2012. After decades of a steady earthquake rate (average of 21 events/year), activity increased starting in 2001 and peaked at 188 earthquakes in 2011. Human-induced earthquakes are suspected to be partially responsible for the increase. Advances Microearthquakes (that is, those with magnitudes below 2) are routinely produced as part of the hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) process used to stimulate the production of oil, but the process as currently practiced appears to pose a low risk of inducing destructive earthquakes. More than 100,000 wells have been subjected to fracking in recent years, and the largest induced earthquake was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk. Yet, wastewater disposal by injection into deep wells poses a higher risk, because this practice can induce larger earthquakes. For example, several of the largest earthquakes in the U.S. midcontinent in 2011 and 2012 may have been triggered by nearby disposal wells. The largest of these was a magnitude 5.6 event in central Oklahoma that destroyed 14 homes and injured two people. The mechanism responsible for inducing these events appears to be the well-understood process of weakening a preexisting fault by elevating the fluid pressure. However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults. Outlook Injection-induced earthquakes, such as those that struck in 2011, clearly contribute to the seismic hazard. Quantifying their contribution presents difficult challenges that will require new research into the physics of induced earthquakes and the potential for inducing large-magnitude events. The petroleum industry needs clear requirements for operation, regulators must have a solid scientific basis for those requirements, and the public needs assurance that the regulations are sufficient and are being followed. The current regulatory frameworks for wastewater disposal wells were designed to protect potable water sources from contamination and do not address seismic safety. One consequence is that both the quantity and timeliness of information on injection volumes and pressures reported to regulatory agencies are far from ideal for managing earthquake risk from injection activities. In addition, seismic monitoring capabilities in many of the areas in which wastewater injection activities have increased are not capable of detecting small earthquake activity that may presage larger seismic events. Movers and Shakers We tend to view earthquakes as unpredictable phenomena caused by naturally shifting stresses in Earths crust. In reality, however, a range of human activity can also induce earthquakes. Ellsworth (p. 10.1126/science.1225942) reviews the current understanding of the causes and mechanics of earthquakes caused by human activity and the means to decrease their associated risk. Notable examples include injection of wastewater into deep formations and emerging technologies related to oil and gas recovery, including hydraulic fracturing. In addition to directly causing increased local seismic activity, activities such as deep fluid injection may have other ramifications related to earthquake occurrence. Van der Elst et al. (p. 164; see the news story by Kerr) demonstrate that in the midwestern United States, some areas with increased human-induced seismicity are also more prone to further earthquakes triggered by the seismic waves from large, remote earthquakes. Improved seismic monitoring and injection data near deep disposal sites will help to identify regions prone to remote triggering and, more broadly, suggest times when activities should, at least temporarily, be put on hold. Earthquakes in unusual locations have become an important topic of discussion in both North America and Europe, owing to the concern that industrial activity could cause damaging earthquakes. It has long been understood that earthquakes can be induced by impoundment of reservoirs, surface and underground mining, withdrawal of fluids and gas from the subsurface, and injection of fluids into underground formations. Injection-induced earthquakes have, in particular, become a focus of discussion as the application of hydraulic fracturing to tight shale formations is enabling the production of oil and gas from previously unproductive formations. Earthquakes can be induced as part of the process to stimulate the production from tight shale formations, or by disposal of wastewater associated with stimulation and production. Here, I review recent seismic activity that may be associated with industrial activity, with a focus on the disposal of wastewater by injection in deep wells; assess the scientific understanding of induced earthquakes; and discuss the key scientific challenges to be met for assessing this hazard.

Seismicity Remotely Triggered by the Magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, Earthquake

The magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake of 28 June 1992 triggered a remarkably sudden and widespread increase in earthquake activity across much of the western United States. The triggered earthquakes, which occurred at distances up to 1250 kilometers (17 source dimensions) from the Landers mainshock, were confined to areas of persistent seismicity and strike-slip to normal faulting. Many of the triggered areas also are sites of geothermal and recent volcanic activity. Static stress changes calculated for elastic models of the earthquake appear to be too small to have caused the triggering. The most promising explanations involve nonlinear interactions between large dynamic strains accompanying seismic waves from the mainshock and crustal fluids (perhaps including crustal magma).

Seismic Evidence for an Earthquake Nucleation Phase

Near-source observations show that earthquakes initiate with a distinctive seismic nucleation phase that is characterized by a low rate of moment release relative to the rest of the event. This phase was observed for the 30 earthquakes having moment magnitudes 2.6 to 8.1, and the size and duration of this phase scale with the eventual size of the earthquake. During the nucleation phase, moment release was irregular and appears to have been confined to a limited region of the fault. It was characteristically followed by quadratic growth in the moment rate as rupture began to propagate away from the nucleation zone. These observations suggest that the nucleation process exerts a strong influence on the size of the eventual earthquake.

Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake

Obtaining high-quality measurements close to a large earthquake is not easy: one has to be in the right place at the right time with the right instruments. Such a convergence happened, for the first time, when the 28 September 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake occurred on the San Andreas fault in the middle of a dense network of instruments designed to record it. The resulting data reveal aspects of the earthquake process never before seen. Here we show what these data, when combined with data from earlier Parkfield earthquakes, tell us about earthquake physics and earthquake prediction. The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, with its lack of obvious precursors, demonstrates that reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable. To reduce the societal impact of earthquakes now, we should focus on developing the next generation of models that can provide better predictions of the strength and location of damaging ground shaking.

Detailed observations of California foreshock sequences: Implications for the earthquake initiation process

We find that foreshocks provide clear evidence for an extended nucleation process before some earthquakes. In this study, we examine in detail the evolution of six California foreshock sequences, the 1986 Mount Lewis (ML = 5.5), the 1986 Chalfant (ML = 6.4), the 1986 Stone Canyon (ML = 4.7), the 1990 Upland (ML = 5.2), the 1992 Joshua Tree (MW = 6.1), and the 1992 Landers (MW = 7.3) sequence. Typically, uncertainties in hypocentral parameters are too large to establish the geometry of foreshock sequences and hence to understand their evolution. However, the similarity of location and focal mechanisms for the events in these sequences leads to similar foreshock waveforms that we cross correlate to obtain extremely accurate relative locations. We use these results to identify small-scale fault zone structures that could influence nucleation and to determine the stress evolution leading up to the mainshock. In general, these foreshock sequences are not compatible with a cascading failure nucleation model in which the foreshocks all occur on a single fault plane and trigger the mainshock by static stress transfer. Instead, the foreshocks seem to concentrate near structural discontinuities in the fault and may themselves be a product of an aseismic nucleation process. Fault zone heterogeneity may also be important in controlling the number of foreshocks, i.e., the stronger the heterogeneity, the greater the number of foreshocks. The size of the nucleation region, as measured by the extent of the foreshock sequence, appears to scale with mainshock moment in the same manner as determined independently by measurements of the seismic nucleation phase. We also find evidence for slip localization as predicted by some models of earthquake nucleation.

Foreshock sequence of the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake and its implications for earthquake nucleation

The June 28, 1992, Landers, California, earthquake (Mw = 7.3) was preceded for about 7 hours by a foreshock sequence consisting of at least 28 events. In this study we examine the geometry and temporal development of the foreshocks using high-precision locations based on cross correlation of waveforms recorded at nearby stations. By aligning waveforms, rather than trying to obtain travel time picks for each event independently, we are able to improve the timing accuracy greatly and to make very accurate travel time picks even for emergent arrivals. We perform a joint relocation using the improved travel times and reduce the relative location errors to less than 100 m horizontally and less than 200 m vertically. With the improved locations the geometry of the foreshock sequence becomes clear. The Landers foreshocks occurred at a right step of about 500 m in the mainshock fault plane. The nucleation zone as defined by the foreshock sequence is southeast trending to the south and nearly north trending to the north of the right step. This geometry is confirmed by the focal mechanisms of the foreshock sequence, which are right-lateral and follow the trend as determined by the foreshock locations on the two straight segments of the fault, and are rotated clockwise for foreshocks that occur within the step. The extent of the foreshock sequence is approximately 1 km both vertically and horizontally. Modeling of the Coulomb stress changes due to all previous foreshocks indicates that the foreshocks probably did not trigger each other. This result is particularly clear for the Mw = 4.4 immediate foreshock. Since stress transfer in the sequence appears not to have played a significant role in its development, we infer an underlying aseismic nucleation process, probably aseismic creep. Other studies have shown that earthquake nucleation may be controlled by fault zone irregularities. This appears to be true in the case of the Landers earthquake, although the size of the irregularity is so small that it is not detectable by standard location techniques.

Optimizing Correlation Techniques for Improved Earthquake Location

Earthquake location using relative arrival time measurements can lead to dramatically reduced location errors and a view of fault-zone processes with un- precedented detail. There are two principal reasons why this approach reduces lo- cation errors. The first is that the use of differenced arrival times to solve for the vector separation of earthquakes removes from the earthquake location problem much of the error due to unmodeled velocity structure. The second reason, on which we focus in this article, is that waveform cross correlation can substantially reduce measurement error. While cross correlation has long been used to determine relative arrival times with subsample precision, we extend correlation measurements to less similar waveforms, and we introduce a general quantitative means to assess when correlation data provide an improvement over catalog phase picks. We apply the technique to local earthquake data from the Calaveras Fault in northern California. Tests for an example streak of 243 earthquakes demonstrate that relative arrival times with normalized cross correlation coefficients as low as 70%, interevent separation distances as large as to 2 km, and magnitudes up to 3.5 as recorded on the Northern California Seismic Network are more precise than relative arrival times determined from catalog phase data. Also discussed are improvements made to the correlation technique itself. We find that for large time offsets, our implementation of time- domain cross correlation is often more robust and that it recovers more observations than the cross spectral approach. Longer time windows give better results than shorter ones. Finally, we explain how thresholds and empirical weighting functions may be derived to optimize the location procedure for any given region of interest, taking advantage of the respective strengths of diverse correlation and catalog phase data on different length scales.

Observations of Earthquake Source Parameters at 2 km Depth in the Long Valley Caldera, Eastern California

To investigate seismic source parameter scaling and seismic efficiency in the Long Valley caldera, California, we measured source parameters for 41 earthquakes ( M 0.5 to M 5) recorded at 2 km depth in the Long Valley Exploratory Well. Borehole recordings provide a wide frequency bandwidth, typically 1 to 200–300 Hz, and greatly reduce seismic noise and path effects compared to surface recordings. We calculated source parameters in both the time and frequency domains for P and S waves. At frequencies above the corner frequency, spectra decay faster than ω3, indicating that attenuation plays an important role in shaping the spectra (path averaged Q p = 100–400, Q s = 200–800). Source parameters are corrected for attenuation and radiation pattern. Both static stress drops and apparent stresses range from approximately 0.01 to 30 MPa. Although static stress drops do not vary with seismic moment for these data, our analyses are consistent with apparent stress increasing with increasing moment. To estimate tectonic driving stress and seismic efficiencies in the region, we combined source parameter measurements with knowledge of the stress field and a Coulomb failure criterion to infer a driving stress of 40–70 MPa. Subsequent seismic efficiencies are consistent with McGarrs (1999) hypothesis of a maximum seismic efficiency of 6%.

Scientific Drilling Into the San Andreas Fault Zone

This year, the world has faced energetic and destructive earthquakes almost every month. In January, an M = 7.0 event rocked Haiti, killing an estimated 230,000 people. In February, an M = 8.8 earthquake and tsunami claimed over 500 lives and caused billions of dollars of damage in Chile. Fatal earthquakes also occurred in Turkey in March and in China and Mexico in April.

Introduction to special section: Preparing for the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth

: 7209 Seismology: Earthquake dynamics andmechanics;7230Seismology:Seismicityandseismotectonics;8010Structural Geology: Fractures and faults. Citation: Hickman, S.,M. Zoback, and W. Ellsworth (2004), Introduction to specialsection: Preparing for the San Andreas Fault Observatory atDepth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12S01, doi:10.1029/2004GL020688.