--> Assessing Potential Seismic Hazards from Induced Earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States
[First Hit]

AAPG Eastern Section Meeting

Datapages, Inc.Print this page

Assessing Potential Seismic Hazards from Previous HitInducedNext Hit Earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States

Abstract

Previous HitInducedNext Hit Previous HitseismicityNext Hit related to unconventional oil and gas production has drawn much attention in recent years in the central and eastern United States, Arkansas, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas in particular. For example, the 2011 M 5.7 Prague, Okla., earthquake resulted in more than $10 million in insured losses. However, assessing the seismic hazard from Previous HitinducedNext Hit Previous HitseismicityNext Hit is not an easy task because of large inherent uncertainties in location, magnitude, and recurrence interval of earthquakes, as well as ground-motion attenuation. Thus, how to quantify and communicate the inherent uncertainty are critical for assessing seismic hazard from Previous HitinducedNext Hit Previous HitseismicityNext Hit.

Seismic hazards include primary ones that are directly generated by an earthquake (fault rupture): surface rupture and ground motion (shaking) and secondary ones that could be caused by strong ground motion under certain site conditions: amplification, liquefaction, and landslides. Surface rupture occurs in the vicinity of the fault rupture, whereas ground motion can propagate far away from the fault, affecting a much larger area. Secondary hazards are concentrated at locations with certain site conditions under the influence of strong ground motion. No surface rupture has been found to be associated with Previous HitinducedNext Hit earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Also, amplification, liquefaction, and landslides are not major concerns because the magnitudes of Previous HitinducedNext Hit earthquakes are less than M 6.0. Thus, ground-motion hazard is the main concern from Previous HitinducedNext Hit earthquakes.

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis has been used to assess ground-motion hazard from Previous HitinducedNext Hit earthquakes. However, PSHA is scientifically invalid because it contains a mathematical error: equating the annual probability of exceedance (i.e., the probability of exceedance in 1 year and a dimensionless quantity) with a frequency or rate of exceedance (i.e., the annual frequency of exceedance and a dimensional quantity with the unit of 1/year). Thus, PSHA should not be used for ground-motion hazard assessment from Previous HitinducedNext Hit earthquakes. We propose using a scenario-based seismic hazard analysis to assess ground-motion hazard from Previous HitinducedTop earthquakes.