Geology topics

Michael R. Brudzinski

Publications and source records attributed to Michael R. Brudzinski.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

Pore pressure threshold and fault slip potential for induced earthquakes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of north central Texas

Earthquakes were induced in the Fort Worth Basin from 2008 through 2020 by increase in pore pressure from injection of oilfield wastewater (SWD). In this region and elsewhere, a missing link in understanding the mechanics of causation has been a lack of comprehensive models of pore pressure evolution (ΔPp) from SWD. We integrate detailed earthquake catalogs, ΔPp, and probabilistic fault slip potential (FSP) and find that faults near large-scale SWD operations became unstable early, when ΔPp reached ∼0.31 MPa and FSP reached 0.24. Faults farther from SWD became unstable later, when FSP reached 0.17 and at much smaller ΔPp. Earthquake sequences reactivated with mean ΔPp of ∼0.05 MPa. The response of faults shows strong variability, with many remaining stable at higher ΔPp and few that became seismogenic at smaller changes. As ΔPp spread regionally, an ever-increasing number of faults were impacted and the most sensitive became unstable.

Texas↗

USGS2020

The induced Mw 5.0 March 2020 west Texas seismic sequence

On March 26, 2020, a M 5.0 earthquake occurred in the Delaware Basin, Texas, near the border between Reeves and Culberson Counties. This was the third largest earthquake recorded in Texas and the largest earthquake in the Central and Eastern United States since the three M 5.0–5.8 induced events in Oklahoma during 2016. Using multistation waveform template matching, we detect 3,940 earthquakes in the sequence with the first event in the area occurring in May 2018. The M 5.0 earthquake sequence occurred on a ENE (∼082°) normal fault dipping ∼37° toward the south. The earthquake caused 6 mm of oblique surface deformation, and geodetic slip inversion suggests slip was isolated above 6 km depth. We find that the sequence was most likely induced by nearby wastewater disposal operations, and seismicity rates in the region surrounding the M 5.0 will likely continue to increase in the future if disposal operations continue unaltered.

Texas↗

USGS2020

Hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) is a technique that is used for extracting petroleum resources from impermeable host rocks. In this process, fluid injected under high pressure causes fractures to propagate. This technique has been transformative for the hydrocarbon industry, unlocking otherwise stranded resources; however, environmental concerns make HF controversial. One concern is HF‐induced seismicity, since fluids driven under high pressure also have the potential to reactivate faults. Controversy has inevitably followed these HF‐induced earthquakes, with economic and human losses from ground shaking at one extreme and moratoriums on resource development at the other. Here, we review the state of knowledge of this category of induced seismicity. We first cover essential background information on HF along with an overview of published induced earthquake cases to date. Expanding on this, we synthesize the common themes and interpret the origin of these commonalities, which include recurrent earthquake swarms, proximity to well bore, rapid response to stimulation, and a paucity of reported cases. Next, we discuss the unanswered questions that naturally arise from these commonalities, leading to potential research themes: consistent recognition of cases, proposed triggering mechanisms, geologically susceptible conditions, identification of operational controls, effective mitigation efforts, and science‐informed regulatory management. HF‐induced seismicity provides a unique opportunity to better understand and manage earthquake rupture processes; overall, understanding HF‐induced earthquakes is important in order to avoid extreme reactions in either direction.

Reviews of Geophysics↗

USGS2020

Factors influencing the probability of hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity in Oklahoma

Injection‐induced seismicity became an important issue over the past decade, and although much of the rise in seismicity is attributed to wastewater disposal, a growing number of cases have identified hydraulic fracturing (HF) as the cause. A recent study identified regions in Oklahoma where ≥75% of seismicity from 2010 to 2016 correlated with nearly 300 HF wells. To identify factors associated with increased probability of induced seismicity, we gathered publicly available information about the HF operations in these regions including: injected volume, number of wells on a pad, injected fluid (gel vs. slickwater), vertical depth of the well, proximity of the well to basement rock, and the formation into which the injection occurred. To determine the statistical strength of the trends, we applied logistic regression, bootstrapping, and odds ratios. We see no trend with total injected volume in our Oklahoma dataset, in contrast to strong trends observed in Alberta and Texas, but we note those regions have many more multiwell pads leading to larger cumulative volumes within a localized area. We found a > ∼50% lower probability of seismicity with the use of gel compared to slickwater. We found that HF wells targeting older formations had a higher probability of seismicity; however, these wells also tend to be deeper, and we found the trend with well depth to be stronger than the trend with age of formation. When isolated to the Woodford formation, well depth produced the strongest relationship, increasing from ∼5%> to ∼50% probability from 1.5 to 5.5 km. However, no trend was seen in the proximity to basement parameter. Based on previously measured pore pressure gradients, we interpret the strong absolute depth relationship to be a result of the increasing formation overpressure measured in deeper portions of the basin that lower the stress change needed to induce seismicity.

Oklahoma↗

USGS2019

Temporal patterns of induced seismicity in Oklahoma revealed from multi-station template matching

Over the past decade, Oklahoma became the most seismically active region of the mid-Continental USA as a result of industry operations. However, seismic network limitations and completeness of earthquake catalogs have restricted the types of analyses that can be performed. By applying multi-station template matching on the 23,889 cataloged earthquakes in Oklahoma and Southern Kansas between late-2008 and 2016, we increased the number of detected earthquakes to 209,409 events. While the improved catalog produced an order of magnitude events than the original catalog, the frequency-magnitude distribution remains similar to the original catalog. We found that the coefficient of variation of interevent times in small spatial bins tends to spatially correlate with the location of M ≥ 4 earthquakes. The improved catalog reveals the pervasiveness of swarm-like patterns in seismicity across the entire study region. The rapid increase in seismicity rate of these swarms in 2013 coincided with a reduction in the calculated p values (power law decay rates) before and after larger events. We also used the catalog to revisit the temporal patterns in the four M ≥ 5 sequences, finding more active foreshock behavior than previously recognized and variations in aftershock behavior. When compared against poroelastic stress models for the Pawnee and Fairview sequences, the catalog shows an improved correlation with stress that accounts for variable-rate injection, supporting the conclusion that injection rate is an important contributor to seismic hazard.

Oklahoma↗

USGS2018

Earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing are pervasive in Oklahoma

Wastewater disposal is generally accepted to be the primary cause of the increased seismicity rate in Oklahoma within the past decade, but no statewide analysis has investigated the contribution of hydraulic fracturing (HF) to the observed seismicity or the seismic hazard. Utilizing an enhanced seismicity catalog generated with multi‐station template matching from 2010‐2016 and all available hydraulic fracturing information, we identified 274 HF wells that are spatiotemporally correlated with bursts of seismicity. The majority of HF induced seismicity cases occurred in the SCOOP/STACK plays, but we also identified prominent cases in the Arkoma Basin as well as some more complex potential cases along the edge of the Anadarko Platform. For HF treatments where we have access to injection parameters, modeling suggests poroelastic stresses are likely responsible for seismicity, but we cannot rule out direct pore pressure effects as a contributing factor. In all of the 16 regions we identified, ≥75% of the seismicity correlated with reported HF wells. In some regions, >95% of seismicity correlated with HF wells and >50% of the HF wells correlated with seismicity. Overall, we found ~700 HF induced earthquakes with M ≥ 2.0, including 12 events with M 3.0‐3.5. These findings suggest state regulations implemented in 2018 that require operators in the SCOOP/STACK plays to take action if a M > 2 earthquake occurs could have a significant impact on future operations.

Oklahoma↗

USGS2018

Seismicity induced by wastewater injection in Washington County, Ohio: Influence of preexisting structure, regional stress regime, and well operations

Recent seismicity in Washington County, Ohio, has been suggested to be induced by wastewater disposal operations despite injection ~2 km above the Precambrian basement. We investigated the relationships between disposal well locations and operational histories, spatiotemporal patterns of seismicity enhanced by waveform correlation, and mapped subsurface structures. We also analyzed proxies for in situ stress conditions to evaluate existing principal stress orientations and magnitudes. Double‐difference relocations of small ( M L ≤ 2.1) seismicity revealed linear clusters defining a NE‐SW orientation that parallels the trend of small‐amplitude folds in Upper Paleozoic rocks within 1–2 km of the injection well. Hypocenter depths of ~3.1 to 4.3 km indicate seismicity occurred along faults below the Silurian injection interval in lower Paleozoic strata and Precambrian crystalline basement. Similar folds/faults imaged in nearby seismic reflection lines were associated with basement‐involved fault systems that cut the injection interval targeted by the injection well, providing permeability pathways for fluid pressure increases that initiated slip. Interpreted faults were also optimally oriented in the regional stress field for reactivation due to injection‐related decreases in effective stress. Well completion records suggest that during the recorded seismicity, the Long Run‐1 well was injecting disposal fluids close to or above the fracture pressure of the targeted Silurian injection interval. A comparison of observed seismicity rates and monthly injection records from the disposal well also indicate a close correspondence between earthquake frequency and injection rate. Taken together, these results provide a physical framework for understanding why wastewater disposal operations induced the Washington County seismic sequence.

Ohio↗

USGS2018

Proximity of Precambrian basement affects the likelihood of induced seismicity in the Appalachian, Illinois, and Williston Basins, central and eastern United States

A dramatic seismicity rate increase in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) over the past decade has been largely associated with the increase in enhanced oil and gas recovery operations and change in industry practices. However, certain areas of the CEUS that have experienced large increases in oil and gas operations, such as the Bakken and Marcellus Shale plays (Williston and Appalachian Basins, respectively), have very little (if any) induced seismicity. No prior study has adequately explained the occurrence or absence of induced seismicity on a regional, basin-to-basin scale in the CEUS. In this study, we improve the basement depth characterization and induced seismicity detection for the Appalachian, Illinois, and Williston Basins to determine whether the proximity of wastewater disposal and/or hydraulic fracturing to the crystalline basement increases the likelihood of induced seismicity. We also investigate the lithologic characteristics of sedimentary strata situated between injection intervals and the crystalline basement to evaluate the role they may play in diminishing the transmission of pore pressure during well stimulations. We find that wastewater disposal in basal sediments or hydraulic fracturing operations <1 km from the Precambrian basement raise the likelihood of induced seismicity, an observation that is consistent with the apparent absence of induced seismicity related to production from the Bakken and Marcellus Shale plays.

Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, Williston Basin↗

USGS2018

Maturity of nearby faults influences seismic hazard from hydraulic fracturing

Understanding the causes of human-induced earthquakes is paramount to reducing societal risk. We investigated five cases of seismicity associated with hydraulic fracturing (HF) in Ohio since 2013 that, because of their isolation from other injection activities, provide an ideal setting for studying the relations between high-pressure injection and earthquakes. Our analysis revealed two distinct groups: ( i ) deeper earthquakes in the Precambrian basement, with larger magnitudes (M > 2), b-values < 1, and many post–shut-in earthquakes, versus ( ii ) shallower earthquakes in Paleozoic rocks ∼400 m below HF, with smaller magnitudes (M < 1), b-values > 1.5, and few post–shut-in earthquakes. Based on geologic history, laboratory experiments, and fault modeling, we interpret the deep seismicity as slip on more mature faults in older crystalline rocks and the shallow seismicity as slip on immature faults in younger sedimentary rocks. This suggests that HF inducing deeper seismicity may pose higher seismic hazards. Wells inducing deeper seismicity produced more water than wells with shallow seismicity, indicating more extensive hydrologic connections outside the target formation, consistent with pore pressure diffusion influencing seismicity. However, for both groups, the 2 to 3 h between onset of HF and seismicity is too short for typical fluid pressure diffusion rates across distances of ∼1 km and argues for poroelastic stress transfer also having a primary influence on seismicity.

Ohio↗