skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma

Abstract

Induced seismicity linked to geothermal resource exploitation, hydraulic fracturing, and wastewater disposal is evolving into a global issue because of the increasing energy demand. Moderate to large induced earthquakes, causing widespread hazards, are often related to fluid injection into deep permeable formations that are hydraulically connected to the underlying crystalline basement. Using injection data combined with a physics-based linear poroelastic model and rate-and-state friction law, we compute the changes in crustal stress and seismicity rate in Oklahoma. This model can be used to assess earthquake potential on specific fault segments. The regional magnitude–time distribution of the observed magnitude (M) 3+ earthquakes during 2008–2017 is reproducible and is the same for the 2 optimal, conjugate fault orientations suggested for Oklahoma. At the regional scale, the timing of predicted seismicity rate, as opposed to its pattern and amplitude, is insensitive to hydrogeological and nucleation parameters in Oklahoma. Poroelastic stress changes alone have a small effect on the seismic hazard. However, their addition to pore-pressure changes can increase the seismicity rate by 6-fold and 2-fold for central and western Oklahoma, respectively. The injection-rate reduction in 2016 mitigates the exceedance probability of M5.0 by 22% in western Oklahoma, while that of central Oklahoma remainsmore » unchanged. A hypothetical injection shut-in in April 2017 causes the earthquake probability to approach its background level by ~2025. We conclude that stress perturbation on prestressed faults due to pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic effects, is the primary driver of the induced earthquakes in Oklahoma.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo; ; ORCiD logo;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC)
OSTI Identifier:
1545640
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1572040
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC02-05CH11231; SC0019307
Resource Type:
Published Article
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 116; Journal Issue: 33; Journal ID: ISSN 0027-8424
Publisher:
National Academy of Sciences
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Zhai, Guang, Shirzaei, Manoochehr, Manga, Michael, and Chen, Xiaowei. Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma. United States: N. p., 2019. Web. doi:10.1073/pnas.1819225116.
Zhai, Guang, Shirzaei, Manoochehr, Manga, Michael, & Chen, Xiaowei. Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma. United States. doi:10.1073/pnas.1819225116.
Zhai, Guang, Shirzaei, Manoochehr, Manga, Michael, and Chen, Xiaowei. Mon . "Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma". United States. doi:10.1073/pnas.1819225116.
@article{osti_1545640,
title = {Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma},
author = {Zhai, Guang and Shirzaei, Manoochehr and Manga, Michael and Chen, Xiaowei},
abstractNote = {Induced seismicity linked to geothermal resource exploitation, hydraulic fracturing, and wastewater disposal is evolving into a global issue because of the increasing energy demand. Moderate to large induced earthquakes, causing widespread hazards, are often related to fluid injection into deep permeable formations that are hydraulically connected to the underlying crystalline basement. Using injection data combined with a physics-based linear poroelastic model and rate-and-state friction law, we compute the changes in crustal stress and seismicity rate in Oklahoma. This model can be used to assess earthquake potential on specific fault segments. The regional magnitude–time distribution of the observed magnitude (M) 3+ earthquakes during 2008–2017 is reproducible and is the same for the 2 optimal, conjugate fault orientations suggested for Oklahoma. At the regional scale, the timing of predicted seismicity rate, as opposed to its pattern and amplitude, is insensitive to hydrogeological and nucleation parameters in Oklahoma. Poroelastic stress changes alone have a small effect on the seismic hazard. However, their addition to pore-pressure changes can increase the seismicity rate by 6-fold and 2-fold for central and western Oklahoma, respectively. The injection-rate reduction in 2016 mitigates the exceedance probability of M5.0 by 22% in western Oklahoma, while that of central Oklahoma remains unchanged. A hypothetical injection shut-in in April 2017 causes the earthquake probability to approach its background level by ~2025. We conclude that stress perturbation on prestressed faults due to pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic effects, is the primary driver of the induced earthquakes in Oklahoma.},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1819225116},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
number = 33,
volume = 116,
place = {United States},
year = {2019},
month = {7}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1819225116

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Injection-Induced Earthquakes
journal, July 2013


Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection
journal, July 2014


High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity
journal, June 2015


Surface uplift and time-dependent seismic hazard due to fluid injection in eastern Texas
journal, September 2016


Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas
journal, August 2012


Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio: INDUCED SEISMICITY IN YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
journal, July 2013

  • Kim, Won-Young
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 118, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/jgrb.50247

The 2001-Present Induced Earthquake Sequence in the Raton Basin of Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado
journal, September 2014

  • Rubinstein, J. L.; Ellsworth, W. L.; McGarr, A.
  • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 104, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1785/0120140009

Multiscale Analysis of Spatiotemporal Relationship Between Injection and Seismicity in Oklahoma
journal, October 2018

  • Haffener, Jackson; Chen, Xiaowei; Murray, Kyle
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 123, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018JB015512

The spatial footprint of injection wells in a global compilation of induced earthquake sequences
journal, August 2018


The Denver EarthquakeS
journal, September 1968


Induced seismicity associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems
journal, June 2007


Injection-induced seismicity: Poroelastic and earthquake nucleation effects: INJECTION INDUCED SEISMICITY
journal, July 2015

  • Segall, P.; Lu, S.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 120, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015JB012060

How will induced seismicity in Oklahoma respond to decreased saltwater injection rates?
journal, November 2016


Hydromechanical Earthquake Nucleation Model Forecasts Onset, Peak, and Falling Rates of Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma and Kansas
journal, April 2018

  • Norbeck, J. H.; Rubinstein, J. L.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017GL076562

Physics-based forecasting of man-made earthquake hazards in Oklahoma and Kansas
journal, September 2018

  • Langenbruch, Cornelius; Weingarten, Matthew; Zoback, Mark D.
  • Nature Communications, Vol. 9, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06167-4

Response of Induced Seismicity to Injection Rate Reduction: Models of Delay, Decay, Quiescence, Recovery, and Oklahoma
journal, January 2019

  • Dempsey, David; Riffault, Jeremy
  • Water Resources Research, Vol. 55, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018WR023587

Oklahoma experiences largest earthquake during ongoing regional wastewater injection hazard mitigation efforts: The 3 September 2016,
journal, January 2017

  • Yeck, W. L.; Hayes, G. P.; McNamara, D. E.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 44, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071685

A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering
journal, February 1994

  • Dieterich, James
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 99, Issue B2
  • DOI: 10.1029/93JB02581

An Experiment in Earthquake Control at Rangely, Colorado
journal, March 1976


Optimal Fault Orientations within Oklahoma
journal, September 2013


Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection: Limits on fluid injection earthquakes
journal, February 2014

  • McGarr, A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 119, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JB010597

Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected: INDUCED EARTHQUAKE MAXIMUM MAGNITUDES
journal, June 2016

  • van der Elst, Nicholas J.; Page, Morgan T.; Weiser, Deborah A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 121, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1002/2016JB012818

Locations of Injection-Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma Controlled by Crustal Structures
journal, March 2018

  • Pei, Shunping; Peng, Zhigang; Chen, Xiaowei
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 123, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017JB014983

Wastewater Disposal and the Earthquake Sequences During 2016 Near Fairview, Pawnee, and Cushing, Oklahoma: Induced Earthquake Sequences During 2016
journal, September 2017

  • McGarr, A.; Barbour, Andrew J.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 44, Issue 18
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017GL075258

Oklahoma's induced seismicity strongly linked to wastewater injection depth
journal, February 2018


Fluid Injection and Time-Dependent Seismic Hazard in the Barnett Shale, Texas
journal, May 2018

  • Zhai, Guang; Shirzaei, Manoochehr
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018GL077696

Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969-1982
journal, June 1985


Multiple Change‐Point Detection in Spatiotemporal Seismicity Data
journal, May 2018

  • Fiedler, Bernhard; Zöller, Gert; Holschneider, Matthias
  • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 108, Issue 3A
  • DOI: 10.1785/0120170236

Geologic influence on induced seismicity: Constraints from potential field data in Oklahoma: Geologic Influence on Induced Seismicity
journal, January 2017

  • Shah, Anjana K.; Keller, G. Randy
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 44, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071808

The Effects of Varying Injection Rates in Osage County, Oklahoma, on the 2016 M w  5.8 Pawnee Earthquake
journal, May 2017

  • Barbour, Andrew J.; Norbeck, Jack H.; Rubinstein, Justin L.
  • Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 88, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1785/0220170003

Earthquakes in Kansas Induced by Extremely Far‐Field Pressure Diffusion
journal, February 2018

  • Peterie, Shelby L.; Miller, Richard D.; Intfen, John W.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017GL076334

The 2016 Mw5.1 Fairview, Oklahoma earthquakes: Evidence for long-range poroelastic triggering at >40 km from fluid disposal wells
journal, August 2017


In Situ Stress and Active Faulting in Oklahoma
journal, December 2016

  • Alt, Richard C.; Zoback, Mark D.
  • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 107, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1785/0120160156

Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence
journal, June 2013

  • Keranen, Katie M.; Savage, Heather M.; Abers, Geoffrey A.
  • Geology, Vol. 41, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1130/G34045.1

Temporal Correlation Between Seismic Moment and Injection Volume for an Induced Earthquake Sequence in Central Oklahoma
journal, April 2018

  • Chen, Xiaowei; Haffener, Jackson; Goebel, Thomas H. W.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 123, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017JB014694

Temporal variation in the magnitude‐frequency distribution during the Guy‐Greenbrier earthquake sequence
journal, August 2015

  • Huang, Yihe; Beroza, Gregory C.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 42, Issue 16
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065170

Optimizing multi-station earthquake template matching through re-examination of the Youngstown, Ohio, sequence
journal, November 2014

  • Skoumal, Robert J.; Brudzinski, Michael R.; Currie, Brian S.
  • Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 405
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.08.033

Hydraulic properties of injection formations constrained by surface deformation
journal, June 2019


Investigation of injection-induced seismicity using a coupled fluid flow and rate/state friction model
journal, November 2011


Earthquakes Induced by the Stimulation of an Enhanced Geothermal System below Basel (Switzerland)
journal, September 2009


Poroelasticity: Efficient modeling of strongly coupled, slow deformation processes in a multilayered half‐space
journal, March 2003

  • Wang, Rongjiang; Kümpel, Hans‐Joachim
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 68, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.1567241

Geomechanical analysis of fluid injection and seismic fault slip for the M w 4.8 Timpson, Texas, earthquake sequence : GEOMECHANICS OF FLUID INJECTION TIMPSON
journal, April 2016

  • Fan, Zhiqiang; Eichhubl, Peter; Gale, Julia F. W.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 121, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/2016JB012821