Modeling Earthquake Rate Changes in Oklahoma and Arkansas: Possible Signatures of Induced Seismicity

Research Article| October 01, 2013 Modeling Earthquake Rate Changes in Oklahoma and Arkansas: Possible Signatures of Induced Seismicity Andrea L. Llenos; Andrea L. Llenos U.S. Geological Survey, MS 977, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025allenos@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Andrew J. Michael Andrew J. Michael U.S. Geological Survey, MS 977, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025allenos@usgs.gov Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2013) 103 (5): 2850–2861. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130017 Article history first online: 14 Jul 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael; Modeling Earthquake Rate Changes in Oklahoma and Arkansas: Possible Signatures of Induced Seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2013;; 103 (5): 2850–2861. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130017 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search 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. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.