Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal in the Appalachian Basin, USA: a review

Brudzinski, Michael R.; Kozłowska, Maria

doi:10.1007/s11600-019-00249-7

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal in the Appalachian Basin, USA: a review

Autorzy

Brudzinski Michael R. , Kozłowska Maria

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

https://www.springer.com/journal/11600

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1007/s11600-019-00249-7

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Eastern Ohio is an area of North America where a significant increase in seismicity rate was noted in the early 2010s. This increase has been associated with intensification of unconventional gas extraction performed in the Appalachian Basin and has been directly linked to two processes: hydraulic fracturing and disposal of the associated wastewater. In this paper, we review the recent seismicity in the Appalachian Basin including various episodes of induced seismicity that were temporally and spatially linked to operational activity, and we have performed some comparable analyses on the most recent sequences. The activities have not been as pervasive as other areas of North America, such that the cases are typically isolated and provide opportunities to study the seismogenic process in detail. The observed seismicity is concentrated in a narrow corridor that extends north–south in eastern Ohio and into central West Virginia, perhaps due to differences in operational targets and geologic variations. Ohio appears to have a higher prevalence of seismicity induced by wastewater disposal than surrounding states, but this is based on limited number of cases. Ohio also has an order of magnitude higher prevalence of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing than surrounding states, and prior work has suggested this is due to the targeting of the deeper Utica–Point Pleasant formation in Ohio that is closer to basement rocks than the Marcellus formation in West Virginia or Pennsylvania. In areas where hydraulic fracturing has induced seismicity, the percentage of stimulated wells that produce detectable seismicity is approximately 10–33%. Detailed studies of induced seismicity via double-difference relocation and focal mechanism analysis have revealed a series of linear fault segments, none of which correspond to previously mapped faults. Yet, the remarkable coherence in their orientation suggests these were preexisting, optimally oriented, and critically stressed. These fault orientations reveal a consistent regional stress field that only varies over a narrow azimuthal range from ~ 50° to 74°. The strongest observed seismic events in Ohio appear to occur in the Precambrian basement and indicate that these rocks have the maturity needed to produce M > 2 earthquakes and hence the greater potential hazard.

Słowa kluczowe

induced seismicity hydraulic fracturing wastewater disposal Appalachian Basin regional stress Ohio

sejsmiczność indukowana szczelinowanie hydrauliczne odprowadzanie ścieków Basen Appalachów naprężenie regionalne Ohio

Wydawca

Instytut Geofizyki PAN
Springer

Czasopismo

Acta Geophysica

Rocznik

2019

Tom

Vol. 67, no. 1

Strony

351--364

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 56 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Brudzinski Michael R.

Department of Geology and Environmental Earth Science, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA

autor

Kozłowska Maria

mkozlow@igf.edu.pl

Department of Seismology, Institute of Geophysics Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

1. Atkinson GM, Eaton DW, Ghofrani H et al (2016) Hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in the western Canada sedimentary basin. Seismol Res Lett 87:631–647
2. Bao X, Eaton DW (2016) Fault activation by hydraulic fracturing in western Canada. Science 354:1406–1409
3. Baranoski MT (2013) Structure contour map on the Precambrian unconformity surface in Ohio and related basement features (version 2.0). Columbus, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Map PG-23, scale 1:500,000, 17
4. Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:831–851
5. Ben-Zion Y, Lyakhovsky V (2006) Analysis of aftershocks in a lithospheric model with seismogenic zone governed by damage rheology. Geophys J Int 165:197–210
6. Caputo M (1976) Model and observed seismicity represented in a two-dimensional space. Ann Geofis 29:277–288
7. Chen X, Nakata N, Pennington C et al (2017) The Pawnee earthquake as a result of the interplay among injection, faults and foreshocks. Sci Rep 7:4945. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04992-z
8. Currie B, Free JM, Brudzinski MR, Leveridge M, Skoumal RJ (2018) Seismicity induced by wastewater injection in Washington County, Ohio: influence of preexisting structure, regional stress regime, and well operations. J Geophys Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jb015297
9. Davis SD, Frohlich C (1993) Did (or will) fluid injection cause earthquakes?—Criteria for a rational assessment. Seismol Res Lett 64:207–224
10. EIA (2018a) U.S. energy information administration drilling productivity report. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr-full.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2018
11. EIA (2018b) U.S. energy information administration natural gas gross withdrawals and production. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_VGM_mmcf_a.htm. Accessed 18 May 2018
12. Ellsworth WL (2013) Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 341:1225942
13. Fischer JA (1990) Proceedings of fourth U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Palm Springs, California, pp 649–658
14. Friberg P, Besana-Ostman GM, Dricker I (2014) Characterization of an earthquake sequence triggered by hydraulic fracturing in Harrison County, Ohio. Seismol Res Lett 85:1295–1307
15. Friberg P, Brudzinski MR, Kozłowska M, Loughner E, Langenkamp T, Dricker I (2017) Case studies of induced earthquakes in Ohio for 2016 and 2017. AGU fall meeting 2017 abstract
16. Friberg P, Brudzinski MR, Fasola S, Kozłowska M, Skoumal R (2018) Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing in Ohio in 2016: case study of the Conotton sequence in Harrison County. 36th General Assembly of the ESC abstract
17. Frohlich C, Hayward C, Stump B, Potter E (2011) The Dallas–Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:327–340. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100131
18. Gerrish H, Nieto A (2005) Evaluation of reservoir information in relation to earthquakes in Ashtabula, Ohio. Dev Water Sci 52:377–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5648(05)52027-6
19. Goebel THW, Kwiatek G, Becker TW, Brodsky EE, Dresen G (2017) What allows seismic events to grow big?: insights from b value and fault roughness analysis in laboratory stick-slip experiments. Geology 45:815–818. https://doi.org/10.1130/g39147.1
20. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188
21. Hansen MC, Ruff LJ (2003) The Ohio seismic network. Seism Res Lett 74(5):561–564
22. Healy JH, Rubey WW, Griggs DT, Raleigh CB (1968) The Denver earthquakes. Science 161:1301–1310
23. Holland A (2013) Earthquakes triggered by hydraulic fracturing in south-central Oklahoma. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1784–1792
24. Holtkamp SG, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS (2015) Regional detection and monitoring of injection-induced seismicity: application to the 2010–2012 Youngstown, Ohio seismic sequence. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 99:1671–1688. https://doi.org/10.1306/03311513194
25. Homman KA (2015) Seismicity in Pennsylvania [M.S. thesis]: University Park, Pennsylvania State University, p 128
26. Hurd O, Zoback MD (2012) Intraplate earthquakes, regional stress and fault mechanics in the central and eastern US and southeastern Canada. Tectonophysics 581:182–192
27. Keranen KM, Savage HM, Abers GA, Cochran ES (2013) Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence. Geology 41(6):699–702. https://doi.org/10.1130/g34045.1
28. Keranen KM, Weingarten M, Abers GA, Bekins BA, Ge S (2014) Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection. Science 345(6195):448–451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255802
29. Kim W-Y (2013) Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio. J Geophys Res 118:3506–3518. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50247
30. Kozłowska M, Brudzinski MR, Friberg P, Skoumal RJ, Baxter N, Currie BS (2018) Maturity of nearby faults influences seismic hazard from hydraulic fracturing. Proc Nat Acad Sc 115(8):E1720–E1729. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715284115
31. McDowell RR, Lewis JE, Dinterman PA (2014) West Virginia earthquakes: crustal adjustments along the Rome Trough or something else? Geol Soc Am Abs Programs 46(2):71
32. McGarr A, Bekins B, Burkardt N et al (2015) Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science 347:830–831
33. Morris A, Ferrill D, Walter G, Price A, Smart K, Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie B (2017) Lessons learned from the Youngstown, Ohio induced earthquake sequence January 2011 to January 2012. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:783–796
34. MRCSP - Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2009) Characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities in the MRCSP Region: Middle Devonian-Middle Silurian Formations: Project Final Report: 149
35. Nicholson C, Roeloffs E, Wesson RL (1988) The northeastern Ohio earthquake of 31 January 1986: was it induced? Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(1):188–217
36. ODNR (2017a) Ohio Department of Natural Resources: Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management, AGI Policy & Critical Issues Webinar: OhioNET: State of Ohio’s Response to Induced Seismicity, April 14 2017
37. ODNR (2017b) Earthquake, Batesville, OH, Noble County, June 03, 2017. (http://geosurvey.ohiodnr.gov/quakes-2010-to-present-pgs/batesville-june-03-2017). Accessed 1 Jan 2019
38. ODNR (2018a) Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Class II brine injection wells of Ohio. http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/portals/oilgas/pdf/Class_II_Map/Class%20II%20Brine%20Injection%20Wells%20of%20Ohio%2004032017.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2018
39. ODNR (2018b) Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas, resources shale well drilling and permitting. http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/shale. Accessed 18 May 2018
40. ODNR (2018c) Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas, oil and gas well production. http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/production#ARCH1. Accessed 18 May 2018
41. Rubinstein JL, Mahani AB (2015) Myths and facts on wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil recovery, and induced seismicity. Seismol Res Lett 86:1060–1067
42. Schoenball M, Ellsworth WL (2017) Waveform-relocated earthquake catalog for Oklahoma and Southern Kansas illuminates the regional fault network. Seismol Res Lett 88(5):1252–1258. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170083
43. Schultz R, Atkinson G, Eaton DW, Gu YJ, Kao H (2018) Hydraulic fracturing volume is associated with induced earthquake productivity in the Duvernay play. Science 359:304–308
44. Seeber L, Armbruster JG (1993) Natural and induced seismicity in the Lake Erie-Lake Ontario region: reactivation of ancient faults with little neotectonic displacement. Géog Phys Quatern 47:363–378
45. Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Kim W-Y (2004) A fluid-injection-triggered earthquake sequence in Ashtabula, Ohio: implications for seismogenesis in stable continental regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(1):76–87. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020091
46. Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS, Levy J (2014) Optimizing multi-station earthquake template matching through re-examination of the Youngstown, Ohio sequence. Earth Planet Sci Lett 405:274–280
47. Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS (2015a) Induced earthquakes during hydraulic fracturing in Poland Township. Ohio. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(1):189–197. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140168
48. Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS (2015b) Microseismicity induced by deep wastewater injection in Southern Trumbull County, Ohio. Seismol Res Lett 86(5):1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150055
49. Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS (2015c) Distinguishing induced seismicity from natural seismicity in Ohio: demonstrating the utility of waveform template matching. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120:6284–6296. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012265
50. Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS (2016) An efficient repeating signal detector to investigate earthquake swarms. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121:5880–5897. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB012981
51. Skoumal RJ, Brudzinski MR, Currie BS (2018) Proximity of Precambrian basement affects the likelihood of induced seismicity in the Appalachian, Illinois, and Williston Basins, central and eastern United States. Geosphere 14(3):1365–1379. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01542.1
52. Snee J-EL, Zoback M (2018) State of stress in the Permian Basin, Texas and New Mexico: implications for induced seismicity. Lead Edge 37(2):127–134. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle37020127.1
53. Waldhauser F, Ellsworth WL (2000) A double-difference earthquake location algorithm: method and application to the northern Hayward Fault, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:1353–1368
54. Walsh FR, Zoback MD (2015) Oklahoma’s recent earthquakes and saltwater disposal. Sci Adv 1(5):e1500195. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500195
55. Weingarten M, Ge S, Godt JW, Bekins BA, Rubinstein JL (2015) High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity. Science 348:1336–1340
56. Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(4):859–869

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-3067a586-7124-47b1-a632-3e0945f1b8f7