Over the past decade, parts of the central United States have experienced elevated number of earthquakes and seismic damage to buildings and infrastructure. These earthquakes are caused by underground injection of wastewater from oil and gas operations, which increases pore pressures, in some cases leading to slip on faults in the geologic basement. Mitigation strategies have been proposed or implemented to reduce these earthquakes, while minimizing impact on operations, but the effectiveness of these strategies in terms of seismic risk is not well understood. Here, we show that the most effective strategies for reducing earthquake occurrence may not be the best for reducing regional seismic risk in terms of economic loss. Well locations have a large impact on seismic risk, and increasing the distance between wells typically reduces risks, with the least interruption to injection operations. Results also quantify the dramatic decrease in risk achieved by locating injection operations farther from population centers. Decreasing injected volume reduces both earthquake occurrence and risk, but large reductions in volumes are needed to achieve significant reductions in risk. These findings can be used to inform design and selection of mitigation strategies that most reduce seismic risk.
AlnæsMSBlechtaJHakeJJohanssonAKehletBLoggARichardsonCRingJRognesMEWellsGN (2015) The FEniCS Project Version 1.5. Archive of Numerical Software3(100): 9–23.
2.
AtkinsonGM (2017) Strategies to prevent damage to critical infrastructure due to induced seismicity. FACETS2(1): 374–394.
3.
AtkinsonGMEatonDWGhofraniHWalkerDCheadleBSchultzRShcherbakovRTiampoKGuJHarringtonRMLiuYvan der BaanMKaoH (2016) Hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Seismological Research Letters87(3): 631–647.
4.
BairdBWLielABChaseRE (2020) Magnitude thresholds and spatial footprints of damage from induced earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra36: 1995–2018.
5.
BaischSKochCMuntendam-BosA (2019) Traffic light systems: To what extent can induced seismicity be controlled?Seismological Research Letters90(3): 1145–1154.
6.
BakerJJayaramN (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 299–317.
7.
Barba-SevillaMBairdBWLielABTiampoKF (2018) Hazard implications of the 2016 Mw 5.0 Cushing, OK earthquake from a joint analysis of damage and InSAR data. Remote Sensing10(11): 1715.
8.
BirdsellDTKarraSRajaramH (2018) Code development for modeling induced seismicity with flow and mechanics using a discrete fracture network and matrix formulation with evolving hydraulic diffusivity. In: 52nd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Seattle, WA, June.
9.
BommerJJ (2020) From earthquakes big to small: How to frame the earthquake hazard conversation. In: 2020 national earthquake conference, San Diego, CA, 5 March.
10.
BommerJJCrowleyHPinhoR (2015) A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity. Journal of Seismology19(2): 623–646.
11.
BrownMRMGeSSheehanAFNakaiJS (2017) Evaluating the effectiveness of induced seismicity mitigation: Numerical modeling of wastewater injection near Greeley, Colorado. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth122(8): 6569–6582.
12.
CarslawHSJaegerJC (1959) Conduction of Heat in Solids. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13.
CatalliFRinaldiAPGischigVNespoliMWiemerS (2016) The importance of earthquake interactions for injection-induced seismicity: Retrospective modeling of the Basel Enhanced Geothermal System. Geophysical Research Letters43(10): 4992–4999.
14.
ChangKWSegallP (2016) Injection-induced seismicity on basement faults including poroelastic stressing. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth121: 2708–2726.
15.
ChaseRELielABLucoNBairdBW (2019) Seismic loss and damage in light-frame wood buildings from sequences of induced earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics48: 1365–1383.
16.
CornellCA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America58(5): 1583–1606.
17.
CrainKDChangJC (2018) Elevation map of the top of the crystalline basement in Oklahoma and Surrounding States. Oklahoma Geological Survey Open File Report, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, OK.
18.
DempseyDRiffaultJ (2019) Response of induced seismicity to injection rate reduction: Models of delay, decay, quiescence, recovery, and Oklahoma. Water Resources Research55(1): 656–681.
19.
DieterichJHRichards-DingerKBKrollKA (2015) Modeling injection-induced seismicity with the physics-based earthquake simulator RSQSim. Seismological Research Letters86(4): 1102–1109.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2018) P-58-1: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
22.
FEMA, 2020. FEMA P-2139-2, Short-Period Building Collapse Performance and Recommendations for Improving Seismic Design, Study of One-to-Four Story Wood Light-Frame Buildings,Vol 2.
23.
GhehnaviehEZ (2017) Seismic analysis of light-frame wood building with a soft-story deficiency. PhD Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
24.
GischigVSWiemerS (2013) A stochastic model for induced seismicity based on non-linear pressure diffusion and irreversible permeability enhancement. Geophysical Journal International194(2): 1229–1249.
25.
GoebelTHWWeingartenMChenXHaffenerJBrodskyEE (2017) The 2016 Mw5.1 Fairview, Oklahoma earthquakes: Evidence for long-range poroelastic triggering at >40 km from fluid disposal wells. Earth and Planetary Science Letters472: 50–61.
26.
GreerAWuH-CMurphyH (2020) Household adjustment to seismicity in Oklahoma. Earthquake Spectra36: 2019–2032.
27.
GuptaABakerJW (2019) A framework for time-varying induced seismicity risk assessment, with application in Oklahoma. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17(8): 4475–4493.
28.
GutenbergBRichterCF (1954) Seismicity of Earth and Associated Phenomenon. 2nd ed.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
HaagensonRRajaramHAllenJ (2020) A generalized poroelastic model using FEniCS with insights into the Noordbergum effect. Computers & Geosciences 135(February): 104399.
30.
HarveyPSHeinrichSKMuraleetharanKK (2017) A framework for post-earthquake response planning in emerging seismic regions: An Oklahoma case study. Earthquake Spectra34(2): 503–525.
31.
HaseltonCBakerJ (n.d.) The FEMA P-58 Methodology and the Seismic Performance Prediction Program (SP3). Available at: hbrisk.com/sp3 (accessed 11 February 2020).
32.
JohnsonEG (2020) Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies for WastewaterInjection-Induced Seismicity to Reduce Seismic Risk. In: MS Thesis. Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder.
33.
KeranenKMWeingartenM (2018) Induced Seismicity. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences46(1): 149–174.
34.
KeranenKMWeingartenMAbersGABekinsBAGeS (2014) Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection. Science 345(6195): 448–451.
35.
KhosravikiaFPotterAPrakhovVClaytonPWilliamsonE (2018) Should engineers be concerned about vulnerability of highway bridges to potentially-induced seismic hazards? In: 11th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.
36.
LangenbruchCZobackMD (2016) How will induced seismicity in Oklahoma respond to decreased saltwater injection rates?Science Advances2(11): e1601542.
37.
LangenbruchCEllsworthWLWooJ-UWaldDJ (2020) Value at induced risk: Injection-induced seismic risk from low-probability, high-impact events. Geophysical Research Letters47(2): e2019GL085878.
38.
LangenbruchCWeingartenMZobackMD (2018) Physics-based forecasting of man-made earthquake hazards in Oklahoma and Kansas. Nature Communications9(1): 3946.
LiuTLucoNLielAB (2019) Increases in life-safety risks to building occupants from induced earthquakes in the Central United States. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 471–488.
41.
LoggAMardalK-AWellsGN (2012) Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method. Berlin: Springer.
42.
LothCBakerJW (2013) A spatial cross-correlation model of spectral accelerations at multiple periods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(3): 397–417.
43.
McGarrA (2014) Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth119(2): 1008–1019.
44.
McGarrABekinsBBurkardtNDeweyJEarlePEllsworthWGeSHickmanSHollandAMajerERubinsteinJSheehanA (2015) Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science347(6224): 830–831.
45.
McGarrASimpsonDSeeberL (2002) Case histories of induced and triggered seismicity. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC and Kisslinger C (eds) International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, Vol. 81. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 647–661.
46.
MaurerJSegallP (2018) Magnitudes of induced earthquakes in low-stress environments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 108(3A):1087–1106.
47.
MeierPMRodríguezAABethmannF (2015) Lessons learned from Basel: New EGS projects in Switzerland using multistage stimulation and a probabilistic traffic light system for the reduction of seismic risk. In: World geothermal conference, Melbourne, Australia, April.
48.
NorbeckJHRubinsteinJL (2018) Hydromechanical earthquake nucleation model forecasts onset, peak and falling rates of induced seismicity in Oklahoma and Kansas. Geophysical Research Letters45(7): 2963–2975.
49.
PetersenMDMuellerCSMoschettiMPHooverSMLlenosALEllsworthWLMichaelAJRubinsteinJLMcGarrAFRukstalesKS (2016) 2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. USGS Numbered Series No. 2016–1035, Open-File Report. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
50.
PetersenMDMuellerCSMoschettiMPHooverSMRukstalesKSMcNamaraDEWilliamsRAShumwayAMPowersPMEarlePSLlenosALMichaelAJRubinsteinJLNorbeckJHCochranES (2018) 2018 One-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern U.S. from induced and natural earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters89(3): 1049–1061.
51.
PetersenMDMuellerCSMoschettiMPHooverSMShumwayAMcNamaraDEWilliamsRLlenosALEllsworthWLRubinsteinJLMcGarrAFRukstalesKS (2017) 2017 one-year seismic-hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters 88(3): 772–783.
52.
PorterK (2014) A beginner’s guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. In: BeerMKougioumtzoglouIAPatelliEAuIS-K (eds) Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–29.
RinaldiAPNespoliM (2017) TOUGH2-Seed: A coupled fluid flow and mechanical-stochastic approach to model injection-induced seismicity. Computers & Geosciences108: 86–97.
55.
RubinsteinJLMahaniAB (2015) Myths and facts on wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil recovery, and induced seismicity. Seismological Research Letters86(4): 1060–1067.
56.
SchultzRBerozaGEllsworthWBakerJ (2020) Risk-informed recommendations for managing hydraulic fracturing–induced seismicity via traffic light protocols. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110: 2411–2422.
57.
ShapiroSA (2015) Fluid-Induced Seismicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TheisCV (1935) The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union16(2): 519–524.
van der ElstNPageMWeiserDGoebelTHosseiniS (2016) Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected: Induced earthquake maximum magnitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth121: 4575–4590.
63.
Van ElkJBourneSJOatesSJBommerJJPinhoRCrowleyH (2019) A probabilistic model to evaluate options for mitigating induced seismic risk. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 537–564.
64.
Van Thienen-VisserKBreuneseJN (2015) Induced seismicity of the Groningen gas field: History and recent developments. The Leading Edge34(6): 664–671.
65.
VlekC (2019) Rise and reduction of induced earthquakes in the Groningen gas field, 1991–2018: Statistical trends, social impacts, and policy change. Environmental Earth Sciences78(3): 59.
66.
WaltersRJZobackMDBakerJWBerozaGC (2015) Characterizing and responding to seismic risk associated with earthquakes potentially triggered by fluid disposal and hydraulic fracturing. Seismological Research Letters86(4): 1110–1118.
YongAThompsonEMWaldDJKnudsenKLOdumJKStephensonWJHaefnerS (2016) Compilation of VS30 data for the United States. Report No. 978; Data Series. Reston, VA: USGS Publications Warehouse.
69.
ZalachorisGRathjeEM (2019) Ground motion model for small-to-moderate earthquakes in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Earthquake Spectra35(1): 1–20.
70.
ZalachorisGRathjeEMPaineJG (2017) VS 30 characterization of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas using the P-wave seismogram method. Earthquake Spectra33(3): 943–961.
71.
ZhaiGShirzaeiM (2018) Fluid injection and time-dependent seismic hazard in the Barnett Shale, Texas. Geophysical Research Letters45(10): 4743–4753.
72.
ZhaiGShirzaeiMMangaMChenX (2019) Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences116(33): 16228–16233.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
