Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$62.00



View/Hide Left Panel

TABLE 6.1 Criteria to Determine if Injection May Cause Seismicity

Question NO APPARENT RISK CLEAR RISK Texas City, Texas Tracy, Quebec Denver RMA, Colorado
Background Seismicity
1a Are large earthquakes (M ≥ 5.5) known
in the region (within several hundred km)?
NO YES NO YES YES
1b Are earthquakes known near the injection
site (within 20 km)
NO YES NO YES NO?
1c Is rate of activity near the injection site
(within 20 km) high?
NO YES NO NO NO
Local Geology
2a Are faults mapped within 20 km
of the site?
NO YES YES YES NO?
2b If so, are these faults known to
be active?
NO YES NO NO NO
2c Is the site near (within several hundred
km of) tectonically active features?
NO YES NO? YES YES
State of Stress
3 Do stress measurements in the region
suggest rock is close to failure?
Injection Practices
NO YES NO NO? YESa
4a Are (proposed) injection practices
sufficient for failure?
NO YES NO? YES YESa
4b If injection has been ongoing at the
site, is injection correlated with
the occurrence of earthquakes?
NO YES NO N.A. N.A.
4c Are nearby injection wells associated
with earthquakes?
NO YES NO N.A. N.A.
TOTAL “YES” ANSWERS 0 10 1 5 4

aAssumes stress measurements completed prior to survey.

NOTE: RMA, Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
SOURCE: Davis and Frohlich (1993).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement