Induced seismicity refers to typically minor earthquakes and tremors that are caused by human activity that alters the stresses and strains on the Earth's crust. Most induced seismicity is of a low magnitude. A few sites regularly have larger quakes, such as The Geysers geothermal plant in California which averaged two M4 events and 15 M3 events every year from 2004 to 2009.
Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.7 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of waste water by the oil industry. "Earthquake rates have recently increased markedly in multiple areas of the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), especially since 2010, and scientific studies have linked the majority of this increased activity to wastewater injection in deep disposal wells.":2
Induced seismicity can also be caused by the injection of carbon dioxide as the storage step of carbon capture and storage, which aims to sequester carbon dioxide captured from fossil fuel production or other sources in Earth's crust as a means of climate change mitigation. This effect has been observed in Oklahoma and Saskatchewan. Though safe practices and existing technologies can be utilized to reduce the risk of induced seismicity due to injection of carbon dioxide, the risk is still significant if the storage is large in scale. The consequences of the induced seismicity could disrupt preexisting faults in the Earth's crust as well as compromise the seal integrity of the storage locations.
The seismic hazard from induced seismicity can be assessed using similar techniques as for natural seismicity, although accounting for non-stationary seismicity. It appears that earthquake shaking from induced earthquakes is similar to that observed in natural tectonic earthquakes, although differences in the depth of the rupture need to be taken into account. This means that ground-motion models derived from recordings of natural earthquakes, which are often more numerous in strong-motion databases than data from induced earthquakes, can be used. Subsequently, a risk assessment can be performed, taking account of the seismic hazard and the vulnerability of the exposed elements at risk (e.g. local population and the building stock). Finally, the risk can, theoretically at least, be mitigated, either through modifications to the hazard or a reduction to the exposure or the vulnerability.
There are many ways in which induced seismicity has been seen to occur. In the past several years, some energy technologies that inject or extract fluid from the Earth, such as oil and gas extraction and geothermal energy development, have been found or suspected to cause seismic events. Some energy technologies also produce wastes that may be managed through disposal or storage by injection deep into the ground. For example, waste water from oil and gas production and carbon dioxide from a variety of industrial processes may be managed through underground injection.
The column of water in a large and deep artificial lake alters in-situ stress along an existing fault or fracture. In these reservoirs, the weight of the water column can significantly change the stress on an underlying fault or fracture by increasing the total stress through direct loading, or decreasing the effective stress through the increased pore water pressure. This significant change in stress can lead to sudden movement along the fault or fracture, resulting in an earthquake. Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to other forms of induced seismicity. Though understanding of reservoir-induced seismic activity is very limited, it has been noted that seismicity appears to occur on dams with heights larger than 330 feet (100 m). The extra water pressure created by large reservoirs is the most accepted explanation for the seismic activity. When the reservoirs are filled or drained, induced seismicity can occur immediately or with a small time lag.
The first case of reservoir-induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria's Oued Fodda Dam.
The 6.3 magnitude 1967 Koynanagar earthquake occurred in Maharashtra, India with its epicenter, fore- and aftershocks all located near or under the Koyna Dam reservoir. 180 people died and 1,500 were left injured. The effects of the earthquake were felt 140 mi (230 km) away in Bombay with tremors and power outages.
During the beginnings of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recorded during its initial fill. After a landslide almost filled the reservoir in 1963, causing a massive flooding and around 2,000 deaths, it was drained and consequently seismic activity was almost non-existent.
The 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000 deaths, is another possible example. An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of the Zipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake.
Mining affects the stress state of the surrounding rock mass, often causing observable deformation and seismic activity. A small portion of mining-induced events are associated with damage to mine workings and pose a risk to mine workers. These events are known as rock bursts in hard rock mining, or as bumps in underground coal mining. A mine's propensity to burst or bump depends primarily on depth, mining method, extraction sequence and geometry, and the material properties of the surrounding rock. Many underground hardrock mines operate seismic monitoring networks in order to manage bursting risks, and guide mining practices.
Seismic networks have recorded a variety of mining-related seismic sources including:
- Shear slip events (similar to tectonic earthquakes) which are thought to have been triggered by mining activity. Notable examples include the 1980 Bełchatów earthquake and the 2014 Orkney earthquake.
- Implosional events associated with mine collapses. The 2007 Crandall Canyon mine collapse and the Solvay Mine Collapse are examples of these.
- Explosions associated with routine mining practices, such as drilling and blasting, and unintended explosions such as the Sago mine Disaster. Explosions are generally not considered "induced" events since they are caused entirely by chemical payloads. Most earthquake monitoring agencies take careful measures to identify explosions and exclude them from earthquake catalogs.
- Fracture formation near the surface of excavations, which are usually small magnitude events only detected by dense in-mine networks.
- Slope failures, the largest example being the Bingham Canyon Landslide.
Waste disposal wellsEdit
Injecting liquids into waste disposal wells, most commonly in disposing of produced water from oil and natural gas wells, has been known to cause earthquakes. This high-saline water is usually pumped into salt water disposal (SWD) wells. The resulting increase in subsurface pore pressure can trigger movement along faults, resulting in earthquakes.
One of the first known examples was from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, northeast of Denver. In 1961, waste water was injected into deep strata, and this was later found to have caused a series of earthquakes.
The 2011 Oklahoma earthquake near Prague, of magnitude 5.8, occurred after 20 years of injecting waste water into porous deep formations at increasing pressures and saturation. On September 3, 2016, an even stronger earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 occurred near Pawnee, Oklahoma, followed by nine aftershocks between magnitudes 2.6 and 3.6 within 3 1/2 hours. Tremors were felt as far away as Memphis, Tennessee, and Gilbert, Arizona. Mary Fallin, the Oklahoma governor, declared a local emergency and shutdown orders for local disposal wells were ordered by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.5 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of waste water by the oil industry. Prior to April 2015 however, the Oklahoma Geological Survey's position was that the quake was most likely due to natural causes and was not triggered by waste injection. This was one of many earthquakes which have affected the Oklahoma region.
Since 2009 earthquakes have become hundreds of time more common in Oklahoma with magnitude 3 events increasing from 1 or 2 per year to 1 or 2 per day. On April 21, 2015, the Oklahoma Geological Survey released a statement reversing its stance on induced earthquakes in Oklahoma: "The OGS considers it very likely that the majority of recent earthquakes, particularly those in central and north-central Oklahoma, are triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal wells."
Hydrocarbon Extraction and StorageEdit
Large-scale fossil fuel extraction can generate earthquakes. Induced seismicity can be also related to underground gas storage operations. The 2013 September–October seismic sequence occurred 21 km off the coast of the Valencia Gulf (Spain) is probably the most known case of induced seismicity related to Underground Gas Storage operations (the Castor Project). In September 2013, after the injection operations started, the Spanish seismic network recorded a sudden increase of seismicity. More than 1,000 events with magnitudes (ML) between 0.7 and 4.3 (the largest earthquake ever associated with gas storage operations) and located close the injection platform were recorded in about 40 days. Due to the significant population concern the Spanish Government halted the operations. By the end of 2014, the Spanish government definitively terminated the concession of the UGS plant. Since January 2015 about 20 people who took part in the transaction and approval of the Castor Project were indicted.
Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technologies that do not require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to be associated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure to enhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Hot dry rock (HDR) EGS actively creates geothermal resources through hydraulic stimulation. Depending on the rock properties, and on injection pressures and fluid volume, the reservoir rock may respond with tensile failure, as is common in the oil and gas industry, or with shear failure of the rock's existing joint set, as is thought to be the main mechanism of reservoir growth in EGS efforts.
HDR and EGS systems are currently being developed and tested in Soultz-sous-Forêts (France), Desert Peak and the Geysers (U.S.), Landau (Germany), and Paralana and Cooper Basin (Australia). Induced seismicity events at the Geysers geothermal field in California has been strongly correlated with injection data. The test site at Basel, Switzerland, has been shut down due to induced seismic events. On November 2017 a Mw 5.5 struck the city of Pohang (South Korea) injuring several people and causing extensive damage, the proximity of the seismic sequence with an EGS site, where stimulation operations has taken place few months prior the earthquake raised the possibility that raises the possibility that this earthquake was anthropogenic. According two different studies it seems plausible that the Pohang earthquake was induced by EGS operations.
|Pohang, South Korea||5.5|
|The Geysers, United States||4.6|
|Cooper Basin, Australia||3.7|
|Rosemanowes Quarry, United Kingdom||3.1|
Researchers at MIT believe that seismicity associated with hydraulic stimulation can be mitigated and controlled through predictive siting and other techniques. With appropriate management, the number and magnitude of induced seismic events can be decreased, significantly reducing the probability of a damaging seismic event.
Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. A seismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the cancellation of the project in December 2009.
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique in which high-pressure fluid is injected into the low-permeable reservoir rocks in order to induce fractures to increase hydrocarbon production. This process is generally associated with seismic events that are too small to be felt at the surface (with moment magnitudes ranging from −3 to 1), although larger magnitude events are not excluded. For example, several cases of larger magnitude events (M > 4) have been recorded in Canada in the unconventional resources of Alberta and British Columbia.
Carbon Capture and StorageEdit
Importance of risk analysis for CCSEdit
Operation of technologies involving long-term geologic storage of waste fluids have been shown to induce seismic activity in nearby areas, and correlation of periods of seismic dormancy with minima in injection volumes and pressures has even been demonstrated for fracking wastewater injection in Youngstown, Ohio. Of particular concern to the viability of carbon dioxide storage from coal-fired power plants and similar endeavors is that the scale of intended CCS projects is much larger in both injection rate and total injection volume than any current or past operation that has already been shown to induce seismicity. As such, extensive modeling must be done of future injection sites in order to assess the risk potential of CCS operations, particularly in relation to the effect of long-term carbon dioxide storage on shale caprock integrity, as the potential for fluid leaks to the surface might be quite high for moderate earthquakes. However, the potential of CCS to induce large earthquakes and CO2 leakage remains a controversial issue.,
Since geological sequestration of carbon dioxide has the potential to induce seismicity, researchers have developed methods to monitor and model the risk of injection-induced seismicity, in order to better manage the risks associated with this phenomenon. Monitoring can be conducted with measurements from an instrument like a geophone to measure the movement of the ground. Generally a network of instruments around the site of injection is used, though many current carbon dioxide injection sites do not utilize any monitoring devices. Modeling is an important technique for assessing the potential for induced seismicity, and there are two primary types of models used: physical and numerical. Physical models use measurements from the early stages of a project to forecast how the project will behave once more carbon dioxide is injected, and numerical models use numerical methods to simulate the physics of what is occurring inside the reservoir. Both modeling and monitoring are useful tools to quantify, and thus better understand and mitigate the risks associated with injection-induced seismicity.
Failure mechanisms due to fluid injectionEdit
To assess induced seismicity risks associated with carbon storage, one must understand the mechanisms behind rock failure. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria describe shear failure on a fault plane. Most generally, failure will happen on existing faults due to several mechanisms: an increase in shear stress, a decrease in normal stress or a pore pressure increase. The injection of supercritical CO2 will change the stresses in the reservoir as it expands, causing potential failure on nearby faults. Injection of fluids also increases the pore pressures in the reservoir, triggering slip on existing rock weakness planes. The latter is the most common cause of induced seismicity due to fluid injection.
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria state that
with the critical shear stress leading to failure on a fault, the cohesive strength along the fault, the normal stress, the friction coefficient on the fault plane and the pore pressure within the fault. When is attained, shear failure occurs and an earthquake can be felt. This process can be represented graphically on a Mohr's circle.
Comparison of risks due to CCS versus other injection methodsEdit
While there is risk of induced seismicity associated with carbon capture and storage underground on a large scale, it is currently a much less serious risk than other injections. Wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, and secondary recovery after oil extraction have all contributed significantly more to induced seismic events than carbon capture and storage in the last several years. There have actually not been any major seismic events associated with carbon injection at this point, whereas there have been recorded seismic occurrences caused by the other injection methods. One such example is massively increased induced seismicity in Oklahoma, USA caused by injection of huge volumes of wastewater into the Arbuckle Group sedimentary rock.
Risk is defined as the chance/probability of being exposed to hazard. The hazard from earthquakes depends on proximity to potential earthquake sources, their magnitudes, and rates of occurrence and is usually expressed in probabilistic terms. Earthquake hazards can include ground shaking, liquefaction, surface fault displacement, landslides, tsunamis, and uplift/subsidence for very large events (ML > 6.0). Because induced seismic events, in general, are smaller than ML 5.0 with short durations, the primary concern is ground shaking.
Ground shaking can result in both structural and nonstructural damage to buildings and other structures. It is commonly accepted that structural damage to modern engineered structures happens only in earthquakes larger than ML 5.0. The main parameters in structural damage is peak ground velocity (PGV). Ground shaking is usually measured as peak ground acceleration (PGA) in seismology and earthquake engineering. When PGA is greater than 18-34% of g (the force of gravity), moderate structural damage is possible, and very strong shaking can be perceived. In rare cases, nonstructural damage has been reported in earthquakes as small as ML 3.0. For critical facilities like dams and nuclear plants, it is crucial to ensure the ground shaking is not able to cause any unaffordable damages.
Human anxiety is another factor in determining the risk of induced seismicity. Anxiety refers to the human concern created by low-level ground shaking. Because injection-induced seismicity is generally of a small magnitude and short duration, human anxiety is often the only or primary hazard associated with felt events.
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysisEdit
Extended reading - An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is aimed to quantify the possibility of the ground motion reaching certain arbitrary levels or thresholds at a site when taking all the possible earthquakes (both natural and induced) into consideration. It is used for building codes in both United States and Canada, as well as protecting dams and nuclear plants from the damage of seismic events.
Source zone characterizationEdit
Understanding the geological background on the site is a prerequisite for seismic hazard analysis. Parameters that contribute to possible seismic events should be understood before the analysis. Formations of the rocks, subsurface structures, locations of faults, state of stresses and other parameters that contribute to possible seismic events are considered. Records of past earthquakes of the site are also required.
The magnitudes of all earthquakes that occurred at the studied site can be utilized in the Gutenberg-Richter relation, as shown below,
where is the magnitude of seismic events, is the number of events with magnitudes bigger than , is the rate parameter and is the slope. and vary at different sites. By studying the catalogs of previous earthquakes, and for one specific site can be interpreted, hence the number (probability) of earthquakes exceeding a certain magnitude can be predicted.
Ground motion consists of amplitude, frequency and duration of the shaking. PGV (peak ground velocity) and PGA (peak ground acceleration) are often used in describing ground motion. By combining PGV and PGA parameters with Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) for a certain site, ground motion potential equations can be utilized to estimate the ground motions related to induced seismic events, particularly at close distances.
The standard PSHA uses the distributions of different inputs to generate various models for prediction. Another way is to combine Monte-Carlo simulation in PSHA. By considering all the parameters, as well as the uncertainties in these parameters, seismic hazards of the interested sites can be described statistically.
In the end, PSHA is able to give an estimation of the potential damages from induced seismicity in both magnitudes and distances. In the analysis, damage thresholds can be set by MMI, PGA or PGV. Probabilistic hazard analyses indicate that hazards cannot be mitigated effectively within 5 km, that is to say, no operations should be performed (an exclusion zone) within 5 km of the site. It is also suggested that real-time monitoring and immediate response protocol be required within 25 km from the site.
This section's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Nuclear activity can cause seismic activity, but according to USGS, seismic activity is less energetic than the original nuclear blast, and generally does not produce earthquakes/aftershocks of reasonable size. In fact, they may instead release the elastic strain energy that was stored in the rock, which is recycled into the initial blast shockwave, enhancing its power output.
U.S. National Research Council reportEdit
A 2012 report from the U.S. National Research Council examined the potential for energy technologies—including shale gas recovery, carbon capture and storage, geothermal energy production, and conventional oil and gas development—to cause earthquakes. The report found that only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities among the hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public. However, although scientists understand the general mechanisms that induce seismic events, they are unable to accurately predict the magnitude or occurrence of these earthquakes due to insufficient information about the natural rock systems and a lack of validated predictive models at specific energy development sites.
The report noted that hydraulic fracturing has a low risk for inducing earthquakes that can be felt by people, but underground injection of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing and other energy technologies has a higher risk of causing such earthquakes. In addition, carbon capture and storage—a technology for storing excess carbon dioxide underground—may have the potential for inducing seismic events, because significant volumes of fluids are injected underground over long periods of time.
List of induced seismic eventsEdit
|1951||Underground nuclear test||Operation Buster–Jangle was a series of seven (six atmospheric, one cratering) nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States in late 1951 at the Nevada Test Site. This was the first underground nuclear weapons test ever conducted.||Unknown|
|1952||Fracking||Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.7 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of waste water by the oil industry. "Earthquake rates have recently increased markedly in multiple areas of the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), especially since 2010, and scientific studies have linked the majority of this increased activity to wastewater injection in deep disposal wells."||5.7|
|1967 December 11||Artificial lake||The 1967 Koynanagar earthquake occurred near Koynanagar town in Maharashtra, India on 11 December local time. The magnitude 6.6 shock hit with a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe). It occurred near the site of Koyna dam, raising questions about induced seismicity, and claimed at least 177 lives and injured over 2,200.||6.6|
|1971 November 6||Underground nuclear test||Occurred on Amchitka island, Alaska, by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. The experiment, part of the Operation Grommet nuclear test series, tested the warhead design for the LIM-49 Spartan anti-ballistic missile. With an explosive yield of almost 5-megatons TNT equivalent, the test was the largest underground explosion ever detonated. The campaigning environmental organization Greenpeace grew out of efforts to oppose the test.||7.1 mb |
|1973||Geothermal power plant||Studies have shown that injecting water into The Geysers field produces earthquakes from magnitude 0.5 to 3.0, although a 4.6 occurred in 1973 and magnitude four events increased thereafter.||4.6|
|2006 October 9||Underground nuclear test||2006 North Korean nuclear test||4.3 mb |
|2009 May 25||Underground nuclear test||2009 North Korean nuclear test||4.7 mb |
|2011 November 5||Injection wells||2011 Oklahoma earthquake||5.8|
|2013 February 12||Underground nuclear test||2013 North Korean nuclear test||5.1|
|2016 January 6||Underground nuclear test||January 2016 North Korean nuclear test||5.1|
|2016 September 9||Underground nuclear test||September 2016 North Korean nuclear test||5.3|
|2017 September 3||Underground nuclear test||2017 North Korean nuclear test||6.3|
- "Man-made geothermal earthquakes". Anderson Springs Community Alliance. 2009. Retrieved April 28, 2016.
- Hough, Susan E.; Page, Morgan (October 20, 2015). "A Century of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma?". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved November 8, 2015.
Several lines of evidence further suggest that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma during the 20th century may also have been induced by oil production activities. Deep injection of waste water, now recognized to potentially induce earthquakes, in fact began in the state in the 1930s.
- Ellsworth, W.L. (2013). "Injection-induced earthquakes". Science. 341 (6142): 7. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.460.5560. doi:10.1126/science.1225942. PMID 23846903.
- Keranen, K.M.; Weingarten, Matthew; Abers, G.A.; Bekins, B.A.; Ge, Shemin (2014). "Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection". Science. 345 (6195): 448–451. Bibcode:2014Sci...345..448K. doi:10.1126/science.1255802. PMID 24993347.
- Walsh, F.R.; Zoback, M.D. (2015). "Oklahoma's recent earthquakes and saltwater disposal". Science Advances. 1 (5): e1500195. Bibcode:2015SciA....1E0195W. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500195. PMC 4640601. PMID 26601200.
- Weingarten, Matthew; Ge, Shemin; Godt, J.W.; Bekins, B.A.; Rubinstein, J.L. (2015). "High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity". Science. 348 (6241): 1336–1340. Bibcode:2015Sci...348.1336W. doi:10.1126/science.aab1345. PMID 26089509.
- Petersen, Mark D.; Mueller, Charles S.; Moschetti, Morgan P.; Hoover, Susan M.; Llenos, Andrea L.; Ellsworth, William L.; Michael, Andrew J.; Rubinstein, Justin L.; McGarr, Arthur F.; Rukstales, Kenneth S. (April 1, 2016). 2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes (PDF) (Report). Reston, Virginia. p. 58. doi:10.3133/ofr20161035. ISSN 2331-1258.
- Keranen, Katie M.; Savage, Heather M.; Abers, Geoffrey A.; Cochran, Elizabeth S. (2013). "Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence". Geology. 41 (6): 699–702. Bibcode:2013Geo....41..699K. doi:10.1130/G34045.1. Retrieved April 28, 2016.via EBSCO
- Verdon, J.P. (2016). "Carbon capture and storage, geomechanics and induced seismicity activity". Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 8 (6): 928935. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.06.004.
- Zoback, M.D. (2012). "Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (26): 10164–8. Bibcode:2012PNAS..10910164Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1202473109. PMC 3387039. PMID 22711814.
- Bourne, S. J.; Oates, S. J.; Bommer, J. J.; Dost, B.; Elk, J. van; Doornhof, D. (2015). "A Monte Carlo Method for Probabilistic Hazard Assessment of Induced Seismicity due to Conventional Natural Gas Production". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 105 (3): 1721–1738. Bibcode:2015BuSSA.105.1721B. doi:10.1785/0120140302. hdl:10044/1/56262.
- Douglas, J.; Edwards, B.; Convertito, V.; Sharma, N.; Tramelli, A.; Kraaijpoel, D.; Cabrera, B. M.; Maercklin, N.; Troise, C. (2013). "Predicting Ground Motion from Induced Earthquakes in Geothermal Areas". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 103 (3): 1875–1897. Bibcode:2013BuSSA.103.1875D. doi:10.1785/0120120197.
- Atkinson, Gail M.; Assatourians, Karen (2017-03-01). "Are Ground‐Motion Models Derived from Natural Events Applicable to the Estimation of Expected Motions for Induced Earthquakes?". Seismological Research Letters. 88 (2A): 430–441. doi:10.1785/0220160153. ISSN 0895-0695.
- Akkar, S.; Sandıkkaya, M. A.; Şenyurt, M.; Sisi, A. Azari; Ay, B. Ö; Traversa, P.; Douglas, J.; Cotton, F.; Luzi, L. (2014-02-01). "Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE)". Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 12 (1): 311–339. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8. ISSN 1570-761X.
- Mignan, A.; Landtwing, D.; Kästli, P.; Mena, B.; Wiemer, S. (2015-01-01). "Induced seismicity risk analysis of the 2006 Basel, Switzerland, Enhanced Geothermal System project: Influence of uncertainties on risk mitigation". Geothermics. 53: 133–146. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.05.007.
- Bommer, Julian J.; Oates, Stephen; Cepeda, José Mauricio; Lindholm, Conrad; Bird, Juliet; Torres, Rodolfo; Marroquín, Griselda; Rivas, José (2006-03-03). "Control of hazard due to seismicity induced by a hot fractured rock geothermal project". Engineering Geology. 83 (4): 287–306. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.11.002.
- Douglas, John; Aochi, Hideo (2014-08-01). "Using Estimated Risk to Develop Stimulation Strategies for Enhanced Geothermal Systems". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 171 (8): 1847–1858. Bibcode:2014PApGe.171.1847D. doi:10.1007/s00024-013-0765-8. ISSN 0033-4553.
- Bommer, Julian J.; Crowley, Helen; Pinho, Rui (2015-04-01). "A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity". Journal of Seismology. 19 (2): 623–646. Bibcode:2015JSeis..19..623B. doi:10.1007/s10950-015-9478-z. ISSN 1383-4649. PMC 5270888. PMID 28190961.
- Simpson, D. W.; Leith, W. S.; Scholz, C.H. (1988). "Two Types of Reservoir-Induced Seismicity". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 78 (6): 2025–2040.
- "Dam–Induced Seismicity". International Rivers. 1967-12-11. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
- "Reservoir-Induced Seismicity". Internationalrivers.org. 1967-12-11. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
- "International Rivers". International Rivers. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
- Kerr, RA; Stone, R (2009). "A Human Trigger for the Great Quake of Sichuan?". Science. 323 (5912): 322. doi:10.1126/science.323.5912.322. PMID 19150817.
- Chinese earthquake may have been man-made, say scientists, Telegraph, February 3, 2009
- Naik, Gautam; Oster, Shai (February 6, 2009). "Scientists Link China's Dam to Earthquake, Renewing Debate". The Wall Street Journal.
- Chen, L.; Talwani, P. (1998). "Seismicity in China". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 153 (1): 133–149. Bibcode:1998PApGe.153..133C. doi:10.1007/s000240050188.
- Gibowicz, Sławomir J.; Kijko, Andrzej (1994). An introduction to mining seismology. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 0122821203. OCLC 28255842.
- Mendecki, A. J.; Lynch, R. A.; Malovichko, D. A. (2010-11-01). Routine micro-seismic monitoring in mines (PDF). Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Annual Conference. Perth, Australia. pp. 1–33.
- "Seismicity induced by surface mining: the Belchatow, Poland, earthquake of 29 November 1980". International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (in Polish). 21 (1): A8. 1984-02-01. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(84)90072-x. ISSN 0148-9062.
- Swanson, P.; Zipf, R. K. (1999-01-01). Description of a large catastrophic failure in a southwestern Wyoming Trona Mine. 37th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Vail, Colorado: American Rock Mechanics Association.
- Murphy, Michael M.; Westman, Erik C.; Barczak, Thomas M. (2012-12-01). "Attenuation and duration of seismic signals generated from controlled methane and coal dust explosions in an underground mine". International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 56: 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.022.
- "Routine United States Mining Seismicity". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 2019-05-28.
- Conners, Deanna (2019-04-10). "Bingham Canyon landslide". EarthSky. Retrieved 2019-05-28.
- Frohlich, Cliff; Hayward, Chris; Stump, Brian; Potter, Eric (2011-02-01). "The Dallas–Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 101 (1): 327–340. Bibcode:2011BuSSA.101..327F. doi:10.1785/0120100131. hdl:2152/43249.
- Madrigal, Alexis (June 4, 2008). "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake". Wired.
- U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma – Magnitude 5.8.
- Henry Fountain (March 28, 2013). "Study Links 2011 Quake to Technique at Oil Wells". The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2013.
- Record tying Oklahoma earthquake felt as far away as Arizona, Associated Press, Ken Miller, September 3, 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
- USGS calls for shut down of wells, governor declares emergency in wake of 5.6 quake in Oklahoma, Enid News & Eagle, Sally Asher & Violet Hassler, September 3, 2016. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
- Keller, G. Randy; Holland, Austin A. (March 22, 2013). Statement about the cause of 2011 Prague Earthquake Sequence (PDF). Oklahoma Geological Survey (Report). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 14, 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
- Pérez-Peña, Richard (April 23, 2015). "U.S. Maps Pinpoint Earthquakes Linked to Quest for Oil and Gas". New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2015.
- Andrews, Richard D.; Holland, Austin A. (April 21, 2015). Statement on Oklahoma Seismicity (PDF). Oklahoma Geological Survey (Report). University of Oklahoma. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
- "Induced Seismicity - Home". Esd.lbl.gov. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
- Van Eijsa, R.M.H.E; Muldersa, F.M.M; Nepveua, M; Kenterb, C.J; Scheffers, B.C. (2006). "Correlation between hydrocarbon reservoir properties and induced seismicity in the Netherlands". Engineering Geology. 84 (3–4): 99–111. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.01.002.
- Cesca, S.; Grigoli, F.; Heimann, S.; Gonzalez, A.; Buforn, E.; Maghsoudi, S.; Blanch, E.; Dahm, T. (2014-08-01). "The 2013 September–October seismic sequence offshore Spain: a case of seismicity triggered by gas injection?". Geophysical Journal International. 198 (2): 941–953. Bibcode:2014GeoJI.198..941C. doi:10.1093/gji/ggu172. ISSN 0956-540X.
- Gaite, Beatriz; Ugalde, Arantza; Villaseñor, Antonio; Blanch, Estefania (2016-05-01). "Improving the location of induced earthquakes associated with an underground gas storage in the Gulf of Valencia (Spain)". Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 254: 46–59. Bibcode:2016PEPI..254...46G. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2016.03.006. hdl:10261/132539.
- González, P.J.; Tiampo K.F.; Palano M.; Cannavó F.; Fernández J. (2012). "The 2011 Lorca earthquake slip distribution controlled by groundwater crustal unloading". Nature Geoscience. 5 (11): 821–825. Bibcode:2012NatGe...5..821G. doi:10.1038/ngeo1610. hdl:10261/73773.
- Tester, Jefferson W. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); et al. (2006). The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century (PDF). Idaho Falls: Idaho National Laboratory. pp. 4–10. ISBN 978-0-615-13438-3. Archived from the original (14MB PDF) on 2011-03-10. Retrieved 2007-02-07.
- Majer, Ernest L.; Peterson, John E. (2007-12-01). "The impact of injection on seismicity at The Geysers, California Geothermal Field". International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 44 (8): 1079–1090. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.07.023.
- Grigoli, F.; Cesca, S.; Rinaldi, A. P.; Manconi, A.; López-Comino, J. A.; Clinton, J. F.; Westaway, R.; Cauzzi, C.; Dahm, T. (2018-04-26). "The November 2017 Mw 5.5 Pohang earthquake: A possible case of induced seismicity in South Korea". Science. 360 (6392): 1003–1006. Bibcode:2018Sci...360.1003G. doi:10.1126/science.aat2010. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29700226.
- Kim, Kwang-Hee; Ree, Jin-Han; Kim, YoungHee; Kim, Sungshil; Kang, Su Young; Seo, Wooseok (2018-04-26). "Assessing whether the 2017 Mw 5.4 Pohang earthquake in South Korea was an induced event". Science. 360 (6392): 1007–1009. Bibcode:2018Sci...360.1007K. doi:10.1126/science.aat6081. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29700224.
- Bromley, C.J. & Mongillo, M.A. (February 2007), "All Geothermal Energy from Fractured Reservoirs – Dealing with Induced Seismicity" (PDF), IEA Open Journal, 48 (7): 5
- Tester 2006, pp. 5–6
- Castro-Alvarez, Fernando; Marsters, Peter; Barido, Diego Ponce de León; Kammen, Daniel M. (2018). "Sustainability lessons from shale development in the United States for Mexico and other emerging unconventional oil and gas developers". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 82: 1320–1332. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.082.
- Rutqvist, Jonny; Rinaldi, Antonio P.; Cappa, Frédéric; Moridis, George J. (2015-03-01). "Modeling of fault activation and seismicity by injection directly into a fault zone associated with hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs". Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 127: 377–386. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2015.01.019.
- Atkinson, Gail M.; Eaton, David W.; Ghofrani, Hadi; Walker, Dan; Cheadle, Burns; Schultz, Ryan; Shcherbakov, Robert; Tiampo, Kristy; Gu, Jeff (2016-05-01). "Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin". Seismological Research Letters. 87 (3): 631–647. doi:10.1785/0220150263. ISSN 0895-0695.
- Kim, Won-Young (2013). "Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 118 (7): 3506–3518. Bibcode:2013JGRB..118.3506K. doi:10.1002/jgrb.50247.
- Verdon, James P (2014). "Significance for secure CO2 storage of earthquakes induced by fluid injection". Environmental Research Letters. 9 (6): 064022. Bibcode:2014ERL.....9f4022V. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064022.
- Vilarrasa, Victor; Carrera, Jesus (2015). "Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO2 could leak". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (19): 5938–5943. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.5938V. doi:10.1073/pnas.1413284112. PMC 4434732. PMID 25902501.
- Zoback, Mark D.; Gorelick, Steven M. (2015). "To prevent earthquake triggering, pressure changes due to CO2 injection need to be limited". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (33): E4510. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112E4510Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1508533112. PMC 4547280. PMID 26240342.
- Vilarrasa, Victor; Carrera, Jesus (2015). "Reply to Zoback and Gorelick: Geologic carbon storage remains a safe strategy to significantly reduce CO2 emissions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (33): E4511. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112E4511V. doi:10.1073/pnas.1511302112. PMC 4547211. PMID 26240341.
- Davis, S. D.; Frohlich, C. (1993). "Did (or will) fluid injection cause earthquakes? – criteria for a rational assessment" (PDF). Seismological Research Letters. 64. doi:10.1785/gssrl.64.3-4.207 (inactive 2019-05-25).
- Riffault, J., Dempsey, D., Archer, R., Kelkar, S. and Karra, S. (2011), Understanding Poroelastic Stressing and Induced Seismicity with a Stochastic/Deterministic Model: an Application to an EGS Stimulation at Paralana, South Australia, 2011. 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University.
- NRC – National Research Council (2013). Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13355.
- "FAQs." Earthquakes in Oklahoma. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. <https://earthquakes.ok.gov/faqs/>.
- Wijesinghe, Nelka (July 16, 2018). "Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development". HARCresearch.org. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
- Bommer, Julian J.; Crowley, Helen; Pinho, Rui (2015-04-01). "A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity". Journal of Seismology. 19 (2): 623–646. Bibcode:2015JSeis..19..623B. doi:10.1007/s10950-015-9478-z. ISSN 1383-4649. PMC 5270888. PMID 28190961.
- Atkinson, Gail M. (2017-04-27). "Strategies to prevent damage to critical infrastructure due to induced seismicity". FACETS. 2: 374–394. doi:10.1139/facets-2017-0013.
- Baker, Jack W. "An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)" (PDF).
- Cornell, C. Allin (1968-10-01). "Engineering seismic risk analysis". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 58 (5). ISSN 0037-1106.
- McGuire, R (2004). Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Oakland, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
- ACB, CDA /. "Dam Safety Publications". www.cda.ca. Retrieved 2018-04-17.
- van der Elst, Nicholas J.; Page, Morgan T.; Weiser, Deborah A.; Goebel, Thomas H.W.; Hosseini, S. Mehran (2016-06-01). "Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 121 (6): 4575–4590. Bibcode:2016JGRB..121.4575V. doi:10.1002/2016jb012818. ISSN 2169-9356.
- Backer, Jack W. "An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)" (PDF).
- Bourne, S. J.; Oates, S. J.; Bommer, J. J.; Dost, B.; Elk, J. van; Doornhof, D. (2015). "A Monte Carlo Method for Probabilistic Hazard Assessment of Induced Seismicity due to Conventional Natural Gas Production". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 105 (3): 1721–1738. Bibcode:2015BuSSA.105.1721B. doi:10.1785/0120140302.
- "Can nuclear explosions cause earthquakes?". Usgs.gov. 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
- U.S. National Research Council Report, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies, http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Induced-Seismicity-Potential-Energy-Technologies/13355
- U.S. National Research Council Report-in-Brief, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies
- Hough, Susan E.; Page, Morgan (October 20, 2015). "A Century of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma?". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved November 8, 2015. "Several lines of evidence further suggest that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma during the 20th century may also have been induced by oil production activities. Deep injection of waste water, now recognized to potentially induce earthquakes, in fact began in the state in the 1930s."
- Goldblat, Jozef; Cox, David, eds. (1988). Nuclear Weapon Tests: Prohibition or Limitation?. SIPRI Monograph Series. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. p. 80. ISBN 978-0198291206.
- "Induced Seismicity - Home". esd1.lbl.gov. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- "M 4.3 Nuclear Explosion - North Korea". 2014-04-27. Retrieved 2017-12-30.
- "M 4.7 Nuclear Explosion - North Korea". 2009-05-28. Retrieved 2017-12-30.
- "Magnitudes for Oklahoma Earthquakes Shift Upward". www.usgs.gov. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- "M 5.1 Nuclear Explosion - 24km ENE of Sungjibaegam, North Korea". earthquake.usgs.gov. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- (www.dw.com), Deutsche Welle. "North Korea claims successful hydrogen bomb test | News | DW | 03.09.2017". DW.COM. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- "North Korea claims success in fifth nuclear test". BBC News. 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- Kisslinger, C (1976). "A review of theories of mechanisms of induced seismicity". Engineering Geology. 10 (2–4): 85–98. doi:10.1016/0013-7952(76)90014-4. ISSN 0013-7952.
- Talwani, P. (1997). "On the Nature of Reservoir-induced Seismicity". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 150 (3–4): 473–492. Bibcode:1997PApGe.150..473T. doi:10.1007/s000240050089. ISSN 0033-4553.
- Map of reservoir-induced earthquakes at International Rivers
- WEBINAR: Yes, Humans Really Are Causing Earthquakes – IRIS Consortium
- One-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes – United States Geological Survey, 2016 (with maps)
- Induced Earthquakes – United States Geological Survey site