USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70048493

Modeling earthquake rate changes in Oklahoma and Arkansas: possible signatures of induced seismicity

Abstract

The rate of ML≥3 earthquakes in the central and eastern United States increased beginning in 2009, particularly in Oklahoma and central Arkansas, where fluid injection has occurred. We find evidence that suggests these rate increases are man‐made by examining the rate changes in a catalog of ML≥3 earthquakes in Oklahoma, which had a low background seismicity rate before 2009, as well as rate changes in a catalog of ML≥2.2 earthquakes in central Arkansas, which had a history of earthquake swarms prior to the start of injection in 2009. In both cases, stochastic epidemic‐type aftershock sequence models and statistical tests demonstrate that the earthquake rate change is statistically significant, and both the background rate of independent earthquakes and the aftershock productivity must increase in 2009 to explain the observed increase in seismicity. This suggests that a significant change in the underlying triggering process occurred. Both parameters vary, even when comparing natural to potentially induced swarms in Arkansas, which suggests that changes in both the background rate and the aftershock productivity may provide a way to distinguish man‐made from natural earthquake rate changes. In Arkansas we also compare earthquake and injection well locations, finding that earthquakes within 6 km of an active injection well tend to occur closer together than those that occur before, after, or far from active injection. Thus, like a change in productivity, a change in interevent distance distribution may also be an indicator of induced seismicity.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 33.03° to 36.91° latitude; -102.88° to -89.54° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael. 2013-09-30. Modeling earthquake rate changes in Oklahoma and Arkansas: possible signatures of induced seismicity. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130017

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗