REVIEWS

Developments in understanding
seismicity triggered by hydraulic
fracturing
Gail M. Atkinson   1 ✉, David W. Eaton   2 and Nadine Igonin   2
Abstract | As recently as 2015, it was common in the scientific literature to find assertions that the
risk of triggering a damaging earthquake by hydraulic fracturing (HF) — an industrial process
where pressurized fluids are used to create or open fractures within rock layers — could be treated
as negligible. However, that viewpoint has changed dramatically. It is now clear that the hazard
from induced seismicity (including HF) exceeds the natural hazard in low-​to-​moderate seismicity
environments. As such, to mitigate risk to vulnerable and critical infrastructure, it is important to
address the likelihood and triggering mechanisms of HF-​induced earthquakes. Although it is
sometimes claimed that HF-​induced earthquakes can be accurately predicted, avoided or
controlled, critical knowledge gaps still remain. In this Review , we discuss six fundamental issues
surrounding induced seismicity , focusing specifically on HF-​induced events, including: the triggering
mechanisms of HF seismicity; the relationship between tectonic environment and HF seismicity; the
similarities and differences between induced and natural events; the damage potential associated
with HF-​induced seismicity; whether HF-​induced events can be predicted; and the relative hazards
of HF-​induced and natural seismic events. We finish by outlining future research directions that are
required to minimize the uncertainty and hazard that surround induced seismicity.

1
Department of Earth
Sciences, Western University,
London, Ontario, Canada.
2
Department of Geoscience,
University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
✉e-​mail: gmatkinson@
aol.com
https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43017-020-0049-7
Induced seismicity — defined as earthquakes associated
with human activity — has been a topic of active research
for many decades1–9. Induced seismicity can be caused
by a range of human activities, including deep under-
ground mining and injection (or withdrawal) of fluids in
the subsurface10 (Table 1). In the central USA, the rate of
induced earthquakes with a magnitude >3 (greater than
the felt threshold) has increased tenfold over the past
decade11; in western Canada, the rate has increased by a
factor of 3 (refs12,13) (magnitude (M) is typically reported
on either the moment magnitude (M) or local magni-
tude (ML) scales). In the central USA, increased seismic
activity has been primarily linked to large-​volume salt-
water disposal (SWD)14, whereas in western Canada,
it is typically associated with the industrial process of
hydraulic fracturing (HF) along horizontal wellbores12.
Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, is a wellbore-
c​ ompletion method that is used to improve the recovery
of hydrocarbons from unconventional oil and gas res-
ervoirs (such as low-​permeability rocks)15. Injection of
high-​pressure fluids, usually a water–sand slurry, is used
to create an open fracture network that enhances fluid
flow within porous but otherwise impermeable strata10.
Since its inception in 1947, HF has been employed at
more than 1.8 million wells in North America, with the
first reported HF-​induced earthquake in Love County,
Oklahoma in 1979 (M 1.9)16. Technological advances,
beginning around 2009, facilitated the widespread
application of massive, multistage HF along horizontal
wellbores17.
International attention to HF-​related seismic-
ity increased in response to a series of small earth-
quakes triggered in 2011 by fracking of the Preese Hall
1 exploration well near Blackpool, UK18,19. Since 2011,
HF-​triggered earthquakes of increasing magnitudes,
up to ML 5.7, have been documented at many loca-
tions around the world20 (Fig. 1; Table 2). The largest
HF-​triggered events, which occurred in China, caused
economic losses, injuries and fatalities, leading to height-
ened concern surrounding HF-​triggered seismicity20,21.
In addition, the events in China indicate that we should
not focus solely on the probability of events occurring
(the hazard) but also on the risks associated with these
events (the consequences)22.
It is important to note, however, that there are
large parts of western Canada, North Dakota and
Pennsylvania where induced seismicity has not been
observed, even though HF operations are widespread12,23.
In fact, statistical studies12 indicate that, averaged over
western Canada as a whole, only ~0.3% of horizontally

264 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron


Key points
• Hydraulic fracturing can trigger earthquakes large enough (generally , magnitude >4)
to cause potentially damaging ground motions, with actual damage depending on
the intensity of motions and the vulnerability of nearby infrastructure.
• The triggering of anomalous events (M >2) requires a source of stress perturbation,
a pre-​existing, critically stressed fault with sufficient surface area to host a felt event
and a coupling mechanism that connects the source to the fault, either directly or
indirectly.
• Induced earthquakes are similar to their natural counterparts with respect to source
characteristics, magnitude–frequency characteristics and ground motions.
• The hazard from earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing might greatly exceed
the natural earthquake hazard in regions of low to moderate seismicity , which is
consequential for the seismic safety of nearby (<10 km) infrastructure.
• Potentially damaging induced events cannot be confidently predicted in advance
of operations. Current risk-​mitigation strategies, such as traffic light protocols, have
not yet proved reliable. Further development of hazard forecasting and mitigation
approaches is a critical future area of research.
Operationally induced
drilled HF wells are associated with events of M ≥3,
microseismicity although this value varies widely within the region24.
Weak seismicity that is Nevertheless, the increase in frequency (and magnitude)
expected to occur during of seismic events associated with HF over the past dec-
operations such as hydraulic
ade indicates that it is important to consider the hazards
fracturing or development of
an engineered geothermal and risks associated with these events, even if they only
system. originate from a small percentage of HF wells.
In this Review, we provide an overview of the cur-
rent state of knowledge of HF-​triggered seismicity. We
discuss the available literature surrounding six funda-
mental issues that have important ramifications for the
assessment and mitigation of hazards associated with
the use of HF technology: how HF triggers seismic-
ity; the relationship between the tectonic environment
and HF-​triggered seismicity; the differences between
HF-​triggered and natural earthquakes; the damage
potential of HF earthquakes; the predictability of HF
earthquakes; and the relative hazards of HF-​triggered
versus natural seismicity. Our Review is primarily
focused on HF-​triggered seismicity, but other forms of
injection-​triggered seismicity (such as enhanced geo-
thermal stimulation (EGS) and SWD) are also discussed
to illustrate common themes (Table 1).
Triggering mechanisms
Determining how HF triggers earthquakes is impor-
tant, as it represents the starting point for understand-
ing the physical processes that control HF seismicity. By
design, HF is intended to create new fractures and/or
Table 1 | Fluid-​injection processes that have been linked to induced seismicity
Industrial activity Purpose
Hydraulic fracturing Create new fractures in a
hydrocarbon-​rich source rock
for improved extraction
Enhanced geothermal Create/enhance permeability
stimulation pathways for water circulation
between two wells during
geothermal power generation
Saltwater disposal Inject water into existing
permeable formations for
disposal
NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT
Reviews
open existing fractures to enhance the permea-
bility of the reservoir and, thus, enable economic
flow rates 15. The fracturing process is commonly
associated with seismic events M <0, referred to as
operationally induced microseismicity10. Microseismic
events close to hydraulic fractures, which provide a
useful proxy for the stimulated part of the reservoir25,26,
are considered a normal part of HF. However, activa-
tion of pre-​existing fault systems during HF could
lead to larger and potentially damaging earthquakes.
In this section, we examine the triggering mechanisms
of HF-​induced earthquakes and discuss the conditions
that are required to explain larger events (M >2) trig-
gered by HF, which often occur at a substantial distance
(approximately 2 km) from the well27–29.
Necessary conditions for triggering felt events
A small fraction of HF-​induced earthquakes might
be large enough (generally, M >2) to generate ground
motions that people feel (known as felt induced events).
Researchers studying induced seismicity widely
acknowledge that certain conditions are required for the
generation of felt induced events, including: a source of
stress perturbation, a pre-​existing critically stressed fault
with sufficient surface area to host a felt event and a cou-
pling mechanism that directly or indirectly connects the
source to the fault10.
The concept of a critically stressed fault implies that it
is in a state of incipient failure and, therefore, subject to
activation in response to a perturbation that is small rela-
tive to ambient stresses30. It is often treated as a binary con-
cept (a fault either is or is not critically stressed), although,
in practice, the stress change required to reactivate a fault
will depend on the in situ stress field and the orientation
of the fault31,32. As a result, a discrete reactivation thresh-
old is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, in some cases,
induced seismicity has been postulated to result from very
small stress perturbations (<1 MPa)28,29,33,34.
Fault reactivation by pore-​pressure effects
Reactivation of a fault is often evaluated with respect
to the Mohr–Coulomb threshold, where slip will occur
if the shear stress τ exceeds the criterion:
τ > ϕσn′ + C , (1)
where σ′n is the effective normal stress (σ′n = σn − P, where
σ′n is the normal stress and P is the pore pressure), ϕ is the
Typical injection style Target formation
Vertical or horizontal Low-​permeability source rock
wells that inject a slurry with high organic content (oil,
of water and proppant gas, condensate, such as shale)
Two vertical wells Heat source with low
with fluid circulating permeability to prevent fluid
between them leakoff (such as granite)
Single vertical well Permeable reservoir rock that
that is used to inject can quickly intake and transfer
saltwater or waste water injected fluid (such as limestone).
volume 1 | May 2020 | 265
Reviews

100˚ 120˚ 140˚ 160˚ −180˚ −160˚ −140˚ −120˚ −100˚ −80˚ −60˚ −40˚ −20˚ 0˚ 20˚

Hydraulic fracturing
M5 M3 M1 Horn River Basin
60˚ Saltwater disposal M 1.0 Poland 60˚
Enhanced geothermal Montney
stimulation Duvernay
ML 4.5 Fort St. John, BC ML 2.9 England
M 4.1 Fox Creek, AB
Latitude (˚N)

40˚ Sichuan ML 3.7 Ohio 40˚

Basin ML 3.6 Oklahoma
M 4.0 Texas
M 5.3 China
20˚ 20˚

0˚ 0˚
100˚ 120˚ 140˚ 160˚ −180˚ −160˚ −140˚ −120˚ −100˚ −80˚ −60˚ −40˚ −20˚ 0˚ 20˚
Longitude (˚E)

Fig. 1 | Global distribution of induced seismicity. The global distribution of hydraulic fracturing (HF), enhanced
geothermal stimulation and saltwater disposal induced seismicity (data taken from ref.158). Documented cases of
HF-​induced seismicity include the USA (Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio), Canada (Alberta, BC), England, Poland and China.
Note that the labels reference HF events; in some areas, there are larger saltwater disposal events in the same region
that are not labelled (such as in China and Oklahoma).

Unconventional plays
Oil and gas resources whose
porosity, permeability,
fluid-​trapping mechanism or
other characteristics differ
from conventional hydrocarbon
reservoirs.
Creep
A process in which permanent
plastic deformation occurs
owing to various microscale
or atomic-​scale mechanisms.
coefficient of friction and C is the fault cohesion. We use
the sign convention that positive σn corresponds with an
increase in the compressive force acting on a surface. It is
apparent that slip might be triggered by a reduction of the
normal stress, an increase in the pore pressure, a change
in the coefficient of friction and/or loss of fault cohesion35.
Since the Denver earthquakes in the mid 1960s1 and
subsequent studies at Rangely, Colorado2, it has been
well established that a reduction in effective normal
stress on a fault due to increasing pore pressure is an
important seismogenic mechanism (Fig. 2). In the case of
HF, direct injection of pressurized fluids into a fault zone
represents a conceptually simple causative mechanism
for triggering seismicity36,37. For example, microseismic
observations tracked the direct intersection (and subse-
quent activation) of a pre-​existing fault by HF in western
Canada36.
However, hydraulic fractures typically do not
extend more than a few hundred metres from the treat-
ment well38 and the low matrix permeability of most
unconventional plays inhibits transfer of elevated pore
pressures beyond the stimulated zone12. It has been pro-
posed that high-​permeability pathways (for example,
fracture corridors) within low-​permeability rocks could
represent a mechanism by which elevated pore pressures
are rapidly transferred to larger distances27,39,40. Analysis
of the time delays between injection and seismicity can
be used to characterize the permeability of such fea-
tures41–44 and determine the cases for which increased
pore pressure might be the triggering mechanism.
Fault reactivation by poroelastic effects
In cases where there appears to be no direct hydrau-
lic connection to the well, some studies have invoked
poroelastic effects to explain fault reactivation 28,29.
An increase in pore pressure causes an expansion of the
rock frame, which pushes outwards on the surround-
ing rocks (and vice versa), perturbing the surrounding
stress field45 (Fig. 2). Because the resulting stress field
is transferred through the rock frame, it is not con-
strained by the low permeability of the pore space. For
SWD operations, poroelastic coupling has been invoked
to explain induced seismicity at a distance of >40 km
(ref.34). Similarly, tensile opening of hydraulic fractures
is thought to cause deformation in the surrounding rock
that appears to control the location of induced events.
The potential role of poroelastic effects in event trig-
gering is typically evaluated by comparing numerical
models of stress changes caused by injection with the
locations of induced seismicity29,37,46.
Fault reactivation by aseismic slip. Fault activation by
fluid injection is a complex process that depends on the
interplay between fluid pressurization and friction47.
Direct measurements of the offset on a pre-​existing
fault in south-​eastern France, following an increase in
pore pressure, demonstrate that slip can occur at slip
speeds of only ~0.01 mm s−1, accompanied by minor
brittle failure within the damage zone around the fault48.
Measurements of the frictional parameters of rocks that
characterize unconventional plays49 show that high clay
mineral content, total organic content or both increase
the probability of slow slip due to velocity-​strengthening
effects50.
Aseismic slip provides another potential triggering
mechanism for induced dynamic rupture. In this sce-
nario, pressurization of the faulted region due to HF
causes slow slip (creep) on frictionally stable parts of the
fault system near the stimulated zone. As aseismic slip
accumulates, it progressively loads other parts of the fault
system that are frictionally unstable, leading (in some
cases) to dynamic rupture51. Numerical simulations
suggest that the creep front can outpace pore-​pressure
diffusion, ultimately leading to earthquake nucleation
outside the region of increased pore pressure48,52. There is
also evidence that the presence of injected fluids and/or

266 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron


Table 2 | The largest seismic events for hydraulic fracturing by region
Region
Sichuan Basin, China 20
Fort St. John, BC, Canada109
Texas, USA154
Red Deer, AB, Canada 155
Fox Creek , AB, Canada51,86
Horn River, BC, Canada79
Ohio, USA156
Oklahoma, USA36
UK 60
Poland157
Failure criteria
A mathematical model defining
stress conditions under which
failure might occur, such as the
Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria.
NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT
Largest event Date
M 5.3 (ML 5.7) 16 December
2018
M 4.6 (ML 4.5) 29 November 2018
M 4.0 1 May 2018
M 4.4 (ML 4.2) 4 March 2019
M 4.1 12 January 2015
ML 3.8 19 May 2011
ML 3.7 3 June 2017
ML 3.6 25 July 2019
ML 2.9 26 August 2019
M 1.0 25 June 2016
aseismic creep might prolong the duration of induced
seismicity (typically, for days to weeks), giving rise to
swarm-​like behaviour, as well as enhanced susceptibility
to remote triggering53.
Triggering distance
The Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria (Eq. 1) suggest that
there are several mechanisms by which HF can trigger
seismicity. Although the direct impact of elevated pore
pressure is generally limited to the stimulated part of
a reservoir close (on the order of hundreds of metres)
to the injection well, mechanisms such as poroelastic
coupling and aseismic creep could extend the range
of influence of HF. Such effects have been used to
explain seismicity that has been triggered above51 and
below28,54–56 the target formation, as well as to distances
of ~1–2 km laterally from the well27,28,44. It is important
to recognize that the triggering mechanisms, distance
over which events can be triggered and the probability
of induced seismicity occurring is likely to depend on
the local and regional tectonic and geological structure
of the region.
Tectonic environment
Some unconventional HF plays, such as the Duvernay57,
Montney58 and Exshaw56 plays in the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), the SCOOP (South Central
Oklahoma Oil Province) and the STACK (Sooner Trend
(oil field), Anadarko (basin), Canadian and Kingfisher
(counties)) plays in Oklahoma59 and the Sichuan Basin,
China20,21, have produced high levels of seismicity.
However, the lack of induced seismicity associated with
several other unconventional HF plays, such as the
Barnett (Texas), Marcellus (centred on Pennsylvania)
and Bakken (North Dakota and Saskatchewan) shale
gas plays, demonstrates that the relationship between
HF and induced seismicity is likely to be influenced
by the tectonic setting23. For example, in the Bowland
Shale (UK), only three wells have been stimulated by
HF; yet, these have produced events with magnitudes
of M = 2.3, 1.5 and 2.9 (refs18,60). Considering the paucity of
HF operations in the Bowland Shale, the occurrence
of these events suggests a high susceptibility to induced
seismicity.
Reviews
The areas that have a high susceptibility to induced
seismicity occur within a wide range of different tec-
tonic environments. For example, areas of high sus-
ceptibility within the WCSB, such as the Duvernay and
the Montney plays, are located in the Late Cretaceous–
Paleocene foreland of the Canadian Rocky Mountain
thrust belt, which developed in a continental sedimen-
tary platform setting61. The Lower Paleozoic Sichuan
Basin in China has a very complex tectonic history,
coupled to the development of four orogenic belts62. The
Bowland Basin (UK) represents an Early Carboniferous
basin that experienced several phases of extension and
intrabasinal tectonics, including basin inversion in the
Late Carboniferous63.
The rate of induced seismicity in different environ-
ments can be directly compared by using quantitative
measures, such as the seismogenic index, Σ (ref.31), which
relates the number of events of a given magnitude to the
injection volume. The original definition of the seismo-
genic index was developed for EGS applications involv-
ing injection into one well, but adapted definitions have
been proposed for multiwell HF operations57,64. Previous
studies have shown that Σ values vary by ~10 orders of
magnitude across a selection of sites (both unconven-
tional gas and geothermal sites), demonstrating clear
variations in the susceptibility of a region to induced
seismicity. The rate of seismicity in different tectonic
environments can also be examined by comparing the
per-​well likelihood of triggering events. In the WCSB,
the per-​well probability of triggering events with M ≥3
ranges from ~0.1% for the Cardium Formation to ~5%
for the Duvernay Formation65. However, for formations
where no triggered seismicity has yet been observed,
there is no accepted methodology to forecast the
likelihood of an event.
Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain
the variation observed in the susceptibility to induced
seismicity across different tectonic settings. For example,
HF-​induced seismicity might be expected to correlate
with formations that are overpressured (pore pressures
greater than hydrostatic), as elevated pore pressure will
reduce the effective normal stress, bringing faults closer
to the Mohr–Coulomb threshold66. Alternatively, the
relative abundance of pre-​existing faults can be used to
explain the observed distribution of induced seismic-
ity: the edges of Paleozoic reef complexes in the WCSB
have been used as a proxy for the presence of basement
faulting, explaining an apparent correlation between
induced seismicity and the edges of the Swan Hills
carbonate platform67.
In addition, application of machine-​learning algo-
rithms to documented instances of triggered seismicity
in the WCSB found that a selection of features, including
the proximity to the basement, in situ stress, proximity
to fossil-​reef margins, lithium concentration and rate of
natural seismicity, were among the strongest predictor
variables for the presence of induced seismicity68. Such
algorithms might be promising but are still in learning
modes, with their utility to accurately forecast risk yet to
be established. Indeed, a series of felt events triggered by
HF near Red Deer, Alberta, including an event of M 4.4,
occurred in March 2019 in an area that was previously
volume 1 | May 2020 | 267
Reviews
Epidemic-​type aftershock
mapped by machine-​learning algorithms as having a
sequence (ETAS) models relatively low seismogenic-​activation potential68.
Cascading point processes
derived from Omori’s law Comparison with tectonic earthquakes
that can be used to simulate
the temporal patterns of
Regardless of whether induced events occur in regions
earthquake sequences that have a high seismogenic-​activation potential or
in a given region. not, it is important to compare HF earthquakes and
tectonic earthquakes to determine whether a specific
Microseismicity
event is natural or induced and if triggered earth-
Seismicity of magnitude less
than 0.
quakes have the same damage potential as their natu-
ral counterparts. A commonly employed approach to
Double-​couple distinguish natural from induced events uses a series
A mathematical model for an of questions about the temporal and spatial relation-
earthquake-​source mechanism,
consisting of two orthogonal
ship between events and industrial activities, and about
force couples. The mechanism the expected pressure perturbations69,70. In cases that
is typically parameterized return a higher number of ‘yes’ answers, there is a
using the strike and dip of the higher likelihood that the events were induced. This
fault plane, as well as the rake
approach was updated in 2019 by weighting questions
(slip vector).
according to their relative importance, and by includ-
Stress drop ing a term that describes the quality of evidence used
The co-​seismic reduction in to perform the assessment71.
shear stress acting on a fault Alternatively, a suite of assessment schemes has
(the difference between the
shear stress on the fault before
been proposed to assess whether seismic events are
an earthquake and the shear induced or natural. The first assessment scheme com-
stress after an earthquake). pares observed seismicity with seismicity simulated
from physics-​b ased models that include the effects
of depletion-​induced subsurface stress perturbations,
where the null hypothesis posits that seismicity occurs
at a regional background rate72. The second scheme
uses statistical correlations between industrial activ-
ities and parameters that describe the seismic-​event
population, such as the event frequency, magni-
tude distribution, spatial distribution and interevent
times73. The third scheme uses source mechanisms
as a discriminator, as some industrial activities, such as
collapse events during mining, might produce charac-
teristic source mechanisms that differ from those of
earthquakes74.
In addition, it has been suggested that, in Oklahoma
and California, changes in the background rate, aftershock
Increased pore pressure
along a fault due to pore-
pressure diffusion
Permeable
Changes of volume or reservoir
mass due to injection
HF in proximity to fault
or extraction causes
changes in stress on causes stress transfer
nearby faults and possible changes
in pore-fluid pressure
Fig. 2 | Possible triggering mechanisms of HF-induced seismicity. Direct and indirect
pathways to connect stress perturbation to critically stressed faults and, thereby , trigger
earthquakes. Pathways include large-​volume disposal of fluids into a permeable zone
that is in hydrological contact with faults, a change in stress due to an overlying load
or hydraulic fracturing (HF) in proximity to faults. Adapted with permission from ref.10,
Cambridge University Press.
268 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
productivity and interevent distances, as documented
through epidemic-​type aftershock sequence (ETAS) models75,
can distinguish fluid-​induced seismicity from natural
seismicity76. The ETAS model has also been applied to
identify induced events in the Sichuan Basin, China77.
Using a similar method, several distinguishing statistical
characteristics of seismicity induced by fluid injection
were identified in California78, which included higher
background rates, faster temporal decay sequences and
different spatial-​clustering properties.
In some cases, it has been straightforward to com-
pile compelling evidence that events were likely induced
by HF27,28,56,79,80. However, in specific cases, it has been
challenging to make an unambiguous assessment, with
debate continuing within both the academic literature
and the public sphere81. Often, the association can be
generic rather than specific; for example, statistical anal-
ysis of the spatio-​temporal correlation between HF and
seismicity, relative to that expected by random chance,
was used to infer that more than half of the observed
seismicity in the WCSB (with M ≥3) was related to HF12.
However, in the WCSB, it is not feasible to determine
the relationship between natural and induced events for
every well and every earthquake.
Some case studies indicate that, unlike natural events,
low-​magnitude microseismicity (M <0) associated with
HF propagation might exhibit non-​double-​couple com-
ponents82–84. Larger HF-​triggered events (M >3), how-
ever, typically have dominantly double-​couple focal
mechanisms that are consistent with regional stress
fields18,20,55,60,85,86. Moreover, the radiated spectra and
stress drop associated with large HF events appears to
be similar to that observed in shallow natural earth-
quakes87–89. In addition, ground motions generated by
induced events are comparable to those resulting from
shallow tectonic events of the same magnitude and
hypocentral distance90–92. In summary, once triggered,
M >2 HF earthquakes appear to be very similar to their
natural counterparts, which reinforces the interpre-
tation that HF triggers earthquakes by reactivation of
pre-​existing tectonic structures.
Some differences in the stress drop and, in turn,
ground motion resulting from natural and induced
earthquakes are likely to occur owing to variations in
the focal depth of the events (induced events, on aver-
age, occur at shallower depths)90. However, the focal
depths of both natural and induced events are often
poorly constrained by regional seismograph networks;
high-​density local arrays are needed to provide defin-
itive solutions. For example, a single M 4.1 earthquake
in Alberta, Canada, was identified to have occurred
at ~3-​km depth (above the treatment formation)86 and at
~5-​km depth (below the treatment formation)93 by dif-
ferent studies. In this single example, the shallower depth
estimate could be considered as the most reliable, as a
dense local network, calibrated by ground-​truth events,
was used to estimate the depth, whereas the deeper esti-
mate was based on more limited station data. Moving
forward, a new method has been developed, based on
the velocity information from co-​located, multicompo-
nent seismic data94, to provide better depth constraints
in the future.

Intensity
The effects of earthquake
ground motion on the natural
or built environment.
Epicentre
The point on the surface
vertically above an
earthquake’s focus.
NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT
Damage potential of HF earthquakes
Despite the clear evidence that earthquakes associated with
industrial processes (HF, EGS, SWD) can produce seismic
events that are M >3 and have similar source character-
istics to natural events, the potential of induced seismic-
ity to cause damage to local or critical infrastructure has
only recently been considered. Therefore, in this section,
we address the potential of HF to trigger damaging earth-
quakes, a topic that is especially important in developing
regions with a high density of vulnerable infrastructure.
Distribution of event magnitudes
Induced events, like their natural counterparts, gener-
ally follow the well-​known Gutenberg–Richter relation95,
where the number of earthquakes for a given time period
(N(M)) decreases exponentially as magnitude (M)
increases57,60,96. The Gutenberg–Richter (1944) relation
is characterized by a rate parameter (‘a-​value’) and the
decay slope (‘b-​value’):
log N (M ) = a − b M (2)
Therefore, the expected number of large events can
be predicted, in a general sense, from the observed
or modelled number of small events if the b-​value
is known60. For a typical b-​value of 1, the event rate
decreases by a factor of 10 for every increase of 1 mag-
nitude unit. HF-​driven microseismicity (M <0), which
occurs near the injection point as a direct response to
pore-​pressure perturbation, is often observed to have a
b-​value of ~2 (refs36,84,97), indicating an unusually sharp
drop in event frequency with increasing magnitude.
By contrast, injection-​triggered sequences that include
larger events (M ≥3) typically have b-​values of ~1,
similar to that observed for natural earthquakes57,96,98.
If there are no physical constraints on the maximum
size of event that can be triggered, the basic statistics of
HF-​triggered seismicity can, at least in theory, be used
to assess the likelihood of earthquakes of potentially
damaging magnitudes96. From 2010 through 2018, there
were ~20,000 horizontally drilled HF wells in western
Canada. Given the basin-​wide average incidence rate of
wells with M >3 events (0.3%)12, we would expect to have
seen approximately six HF-​triggered events of M ≥4,
with the expected value of the largest event being M ~4.7
(assuming a Gutenberg–Richter relation with b ~1).
In fact, in western Canada, seven HF-​triggered events of
M >4 were observed between 2010 and 2018, with a largest
magnitude of M 4.6 (ref.65). More broadly, we could expect
that, as the number of HF wells grows, the maximum
magnitude of HF-​triggered events would gradually rise
globally. Consistent with predictions, the largest reported
magnitudes for HF-​triggered events has increased globally
from M 2.3 in 2011 (ref.18) to ML 3.8 in 2012 (ref.79), M 4.6
in 2015 (ref.12) and ML 5.7 in 2018 (ref.20).
The largest HF-​t riggered event to date (M L 5.7,
M 5.3) occurred in the Sichuan Basin in China, caus-
ing injury to 17 people, large-​scale landslides, collapse
of nine houses and extensive damage to 390 houses20,
highlighting that HF-​triggered events can be damaging.
However, the scale of the damage that could be caused
by HF-​triggered events depends on a range of factors,
Reviews
including the magnitude of the event, its proximity to
population or critical infrastructure, the intensity of the
ground motions it generates and the vulnerability of
the local infrastructure.
Ground motions and damage potential
It is now well documented that injection-​induced earth-
quakes might produce high-​amplitude ground motions
that could damage nearby infrastructure 13,20,99–101.
Documented damage caused by HF-​induced seismicity
ranges from superficial damage of vulnerable unrein-
forced masonry structures (M 3.4)102 to major and/or
widespread damage of buildings (M 4.9–5.8)20,101,103.
The ground motion expected from induced events
was initially estimated on the basis of instrumen-
tal ground-​motion data from shallow earthquakes
in California104. However, since 2015, the amount of
quantitative information on induced ground motions
has grown dramatically, enriched by instrumental
records from events in Oklahoma105,106 and western
Canada107–110. The growth of instrumental data has ena-
bled development of ground-​motion models directly
from induced-​event databases106,110, and these models
will continue to improve in the future.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ‘Did You Feel It’
report­ing system also contains a wealth of information
about ground motion resulting from induced seismic
events, with more than 100,000 felt reports from induced
events in Oklahoma alone. Felt reports provide a rich
database of human observations and have been used to
examine the damage potential of induced events. Early
results indicated that the felt intensities of induced events
are the same as those for natural events at short distances
(<10 km), but that induced events tend to have lower
intensities at larger distances111. As a result, it was inferred
that induced events have lower stress drop on average than
do natural events, where stress drop controls the strength
of high-​frequency ground motion. Instrumental ground-​
motion data have been used to show that stress drop scales
with focal depth90, so, on average, induced earthquakes
might be expected to have a relatively low stress drop,
owing to their shallow depths (compared with natural
events). Alternatively, it has been proposed that apparent
differences in the stress drop of induced events (mostly
in central North America) and natural events (mostly in
eastern North America) might be explained by differ-
ences in their focal mechanism88. The effects of stress
drop and distance counteract at short distances, which
can explain the similar felt intensities near the epicentre
for induced events (with lower stress drop) and natural
events (with higher stress drop) in a given region.
In addition, ruptures in relatively stable intraplate
regions, such as central and eastern North America, tend
to be characterized by higher stress drops in comparison
with active interplate regions, such as California112. As a
result, it has been suggested that ground motions might
have larger amplitudes (by a factor of 1.5) for ruptures
on immature faults in comparison with mature faults113.
Consequently, the higher stress drop that is observed in
central and eastern North America, owing to the sta-
ble tectonic setting of the region, has been suggested
to offset the focal depth effect, which explains why
volume 1 | May 2020 | 269
Reviews

Peak ground acceleration ground motions for induced intraplate events in central
Maximum instantaneous and eastern North America are observed to be sim-
amplitude of the absolute ilar to those of natural California events of the same
value of the acceleration magnitude and distance91.
of the ground.
Direct comparison of the damage potential of natu-
ral and induced earthquakes (M >3.5), using compiled
ground-​motion and felt-​intensity data, is shown in
Fig. 3, with the peak ground motions used as an instru-
mental measure of damage potential. The peak ground
velocity (PGV) is an effective damage metric, with
PGV = 1–2 cm s−1 being the threshold for cosmetic dam-
age to buildings and infrastructure114,115. In addition,
compiled felt-​intensity data (Modified Mercalli Intensity,
MMI) were also used as a damage metric, where MMI = 2
is the felt threshold, MMI = 6 is considered the thresh-
old for minor damage and MMI = 7–8 is the threshold
for major damage, depending on the structural vulnera-
bility116. The felt intensities from induced seismicity can
a Recorded ground motions and model equations
then be compared with models for peak ground motions
(PGV and peak ground acceleration (PGA)), which were
converted into MMI using empirical relationships92.
Generally, ground motions and felt intensities from
natural earthquakes in California104, SWD-​induced
earthquakes in Oklahoma106 and HF-​induced earth-
quakes in western Canada110 plot in the same amplitude
range, for a specified magnitude and distance, despite
differences in the dominant triggering mechanism92.
Moreover, the consistency between the observations
and model predictions indicate that these published
models can be used to estimate the event magnitude
that is required to cause cosmetic and/or major damage
at different epicentral distances. The minimum magni-
tude that can cause damage in the epicentral region is
inferred to be M ~4.0, depending on the vulnerability of
the infrastructure. Events of M ≥4.5 are inferred to have
substantial damage potential at distances <5 km (ref.92).
b Intensity from PGV/PGA (M 4.0, 5.5) and observations
(±0.25 units)

8
10

6
1
MMI
PGV (cm s–1)

0.1 4

0.01 2
2 3 10 20 30 2 3 10 20 30
Hypocentral distance (km) Hypocentral distance (km)
Cosmetic damage NAA18 M 5.5 M 4 OK obs. M 5.5 predicted-OK
Major damage A15 M 4.0 M 5.5 OK obs. M 4.0 predicted-CA
OK M 4.0 ± 0.25 A15 M 5.5 M 4.0 median M 5.5 predicted-CA
OK M 5.5 ± 0.25 WCSB M 4.0 ± 0.25 M 5.5 median M 4.0 WCSB
NAA18 M 4.0 M 4.0 predicted-OK (from PGV)

Fig. 3 | Ground motions and damage potential from induced events. a | Peak ground velocity (PGV) observed in
Oklahoma (OK) for events of M 4.0 (±0.25) (blue circles) compared with prediction equations for Oklahoma105 (blue
line) and California103 (dashed grey line). Grey diamonds show corresponding PGV observations for M 4.0 (±0.25) for
hydraulic-​fracture events in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Horizontal lines show the approximate PGV
thresholds for cosmetic and major damage114,115. A good match between the prediction equations and measured PGVs
are observed, indicating that these equations can be used to estimate the damage potential of induced earthquakes at
various magnitudes and hypocentral distances. b | The observed Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) from events of M 4.0
(±0.25) in OK (blue circles) compared with prediction equations based on PGV and peak ground acceleration (PGA) for
OK105 (blue line) and California (CA)103 (grey dashed line). Grey diamonds display the corresponding MMI inferred from
PGV observations for M 4.0 (±0.25) for hydraulic-​fracture events in the WCSB. Once again, a good match is observed
between the MMI and prediction equations. Larger symbols show the median of the MMI observations in log-​spaced
distance bins and the shaded regions show the 25th to 75th percentiles of MMI observations. MMI = 2 is the felt threshold;
MMI = 6 is considered the threshold for minor damage; MMI = 7–8 is the threshold for major damage, depending on the
structural vulnerability. Adapted with permission from ref.92, Seismological Society of America.

270 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron


Seismic moment
A measure of the size of an
earthquake based on the
product of the rupture area,
the average amount of slip and
the force that was required to
overcome fault friction.
NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT
Hazard forecasting and risk mitigation
As induced earthquakes with M >4 have the potential to
cause damage to local infrastructure, it is not surprising
that the hazards and risks associated with HF operations
have received a large amount of attention. The hazard
refers to the likelihood of large, and potentially damag-
ing, events or ground motions, whereas the risk refers
to the probability of undesirable consequences (such
as damage) and, therefore, requires knowledge of the
vulnerability of proximal infrastructure. For HF hazard
assessment and risk mitigation, it is important to deter-
mine whether critical aspects of HF seismicity can either
be predicted in advance of operations or controlled dur-
ing operations, thus, preventing undesirable outcomes.
In this section, we review the efficacy of such strategies.
Pre-​operational assessment
Since the existence of pre-​existing, critically stressed
faults is a prerequisite for HF-​triggered events, it should
be theoretically possible to prevent induced seismicity
by mandating a setback (or respect distance) between
Magnitude that triggers Magnitude that triggers
amber scenario red scenario
Hydraulic fracturing
M >4
M >2
Alberta:
Fox Creek
(Canada)
M >3.5
M >2
Oklahoma
(USA)
M >0.5
UK M >0
Enhanced geothermal stimulation
M >2
M >1.3
Finland
M >1.7
M >1.4
Korea
Fig. 4 | Traffic light protocol thresholds for various
regions worldwide. The event magnitudes that are
required to trigger the amber and red scenarios for hydraulic
fracturing and enhanced geothermal stimulation operations
worldwide. It is clear that the magnitude required to trigger
the amber or red scenarios varies greatly between regions.
Reviews
HF and such faults117. However, in practice, it is dif-
ficult to detect faults prior to reactivation, especially
if they are strike-​slip in nature. In several cases, no
clear correlation has been found between faults that
are detected by geophysical surveys before injec-
tion began and the structures on which seismicity
occurred60,118,119. As an example, an investigation of a
prolific sequence of induced events in the Horn River
Basin, Canada, which included events as large as ML
3.6, concluded that all but one of the induced events
occurred on previously unknown faults or fractures79.
By contrast, the dozen pre-​existing faults mapped by
2D and 3D seismic imaging were not (with one excep-
tion) associated with the induced events79. Seismogenic
faults are often identified after they have been illumi-
nated by an earthquake sequence119,120 and, therefore,
it appears as though the hazard from HF-​induced seis-
micity cannot be reliably controlled by avoiding known
pre-​existing faults.
Traffic light protocols
As induced seismicity cannot be confidently mitigated
using respect distances to known fault structures, other
mitigation approaches are required. The most common
approach for risk mitigation is a traffic light protocol
(TLP)114, whereby operators are required to take prede-
fined actions: reducing injection for an amber light or
stopping injection for a red light. The thresholds used in
TLPs are usually defined by event magnitude, although
ground-​motion thresholds have also been used114,121. The
exact threshold that is used varies substantially between
different regions. For example, in Alberta and British
Columbia (WCSB), the TLP red-​light threshold is gen-
erally ML = 4 in sparsely populated regions, but ML = 3 in
some areas where events are likely to be widely felt. In
the UK, the red-​light threshold is only ML = 0.5 (ref.60)
(Fig. 4). Such vast differences in the TLP thresholds (by
a factor of over 1,000 in terms of seismic moment) reflect
that the risks associated with seismic hazards vary with
population density and other factors.
TLPs are conceptually simple and can be operated
with minimal input data: all that is required is the mag-
nitude of the largest event. In regions where monitoring
is only provided by sparse, regional networks, smaller
events cannot be detected and hypocentral uncertainties
are usually large. Therefore, the magnitude of the larg-
est event is the easiest parameter to constrain. However,
some implicit assumptions and limitations of TLPs must
be questioned. Crucially, TLPs are, by nature, retroactive:
action is taken after an event has occurred. In addition,
TLPs are based on the premise that halting injection will
stop seismicity and prevent large events from occurring.
In many cases, however, the largest events occur after
injection has ceased and induced seismicity can persist
for days to weeks122. Therefore, the red-​light threshold
must be set to a level that considers the possible distri-
bution of trailing events – including those of larger mag-
nitude. Unfortunately, there is no accepted methodology,
at present, to constrain the trailing-​event distribution.
In addition, another implicit premise of a TLP is that
larger events are preceded by smaller, precursory events
that will activate the various warning levels (green to
volume 1 | May 2020 | 271
 Reviews
1020
A such as stress transfer between events would have
Runaway
1018
rupture 1 2 3 to the small sample size, we cannot adequately assess
1016
4 5
1014
Seismic moment (Nm)
Contained
1012
rupture
1010 20
Runaway
rupture
Number of cases
15
108
10
5 rupture
106
0
A A
104
10 2
10 4
10 6
10
8
Cumulative injected volume (m3)
Fig. 5 | Relationship between cumulative injected volume and seismic moment.
Light blue circles are taken from Galis et al.132 and orange circles are taken from
Atkinson12. Violet diamonds correspond to proposed cases of runaway rupture: Pohang,
Korea (enhanced geothermal stimulation) (diamond 1), Pawnee, Oklahoma, USA
(saltwater disposal) (diamond 2), Prague, Oklahoma, USA (saltwater disposal) (diamond 3),
Fort St. John, Canada (hydraulic fracturing) (diamond 4) and Fox Creek , Canada (hydraulic
fracturing) (diamond 5). The grey and black lines display the scaling relationship between
cumulative volume and total seismic moment proposed by McGarr129 and Galis et al.132,
respectively. The background colour is used to represent the nature of the triggered
activity with respect to injected volume; events in the pale orange–white zone are
consistent with proposed mechanisms for which the magnitude scales with cumulative
volume. Events in the orange zone are larger than would be predicted based on volume.
The intermediate region represents ambiguous rupture types. The distribution of cases by
rupture type is shown by the transect A–A′, where the histogram and cumulative density
function are calculated from events perpendicular to the transect.
amber to red) in time to take mitigative action. However,
analysis of events induced by waste-​water injection in
the central USA96 revealed that the largest event during
a sequence occurs randomly and, therefore, is not nec-
essarily preceded by smaller events. Precursory events
(2 < M < 4) occurred prior to an M 4.6 event in 2015
near Fort St. John, Canada58, and for an M 4.1 event in
2016 near Fox Creek, Canada51. By contrast, in 2019, an
HF-​triggered event of M 4.4 near Red Deer, Canada, had
no precursors of M >2. Likewise, an M 4.6 HF-​triggered
event in November 2018 near Fort St. John had no
M >2 precursors. Moreover, in spite of an immediate
suspension order, the M 4.6 Fort St. John event was
shortly followed by M 3.5 and M 4.0 events109.
For HF-​triggered seismicity in the Sichuan Basin,
China, it appears that numerous 2 < M < 4 events
occurred prior to the occurrence of the larger mag-
nitude (ML 5.3 and 5.7) events20,21. It is not possible to
know, however, whether ceasing injection at an earlier
point in time could have prevented the larger seismic
272 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
7 events in the Sichuan Basin, or whether processes
continued to produce seismicity123. Moreover, owing
6
whether small-​magnitude precursors will precede all
5 large-​magnitude HF events. Complications also arise
from the possibility that the likelihood of precursory
4 events depends on the nature of the triggering process124.
In summary, there is much to learn regarding the capa-
bilities and limitations of real-​time forecasting and TLPs
3
for risk mitigation.
Magnitude
A 2
Forecasting the maximum expected magnitude
The retrospective nature of TLPs has motivated devel-
1 opment of other approaches to mitigate the hazard from
HF-​triggered seismicity. Alternative approaches are typ-
0 ically based on model forecasts, with both physical and
statistical models used to estimate the expected event
–1 magnitudes.
Contained Physical models typically require population of a large
–2 model space and a number of free parameters need to be
defined125. As such, they are challenging to apply in real
time to HF, where each of the multiple frack stages might
–3
only last for a few hours. Statistical models use the tem-
10
10
poral evolution of induced seismicity to define a small
number of parameters that can be used to extrapolate
the temporal data and produce a projection of the event
population. The projection generated includes a forecast
for the magnitude of the largest event, MMAX. Because
of their ease and simplicity of operation, such statistical
models have been widely applied31,43,60,64,96,126–128.
Various empirical relationships have been used to
characterize the maximum rupture dimensions (and,
thus, event size), as well as the cumulative seismic
moment, ΣMO, of induced earthquakes. For example,
in 2011, it was hypothesized that the maximum rup-
ture dimensions of an induced event are constrained by
the dimensions of the stimulated volume, as defined by the
spatial extent of microseismicity126. However, recent
observations of induced seismicity reveal that rup-
tures can extend ~2 km beyond the stimulated zone28,119
and, therefore, that the maximum rupture dimensions
of induced event cannot always be constrained by the
spatial extent of microseimicity.
Alternatively, a linear scaling relationship between
the cumulative injection volume, ΔV, and the cumula-
tive seismic moment, of the form ΣMO = 2µΔV, where µ
is the shear modulus, has also been proposed129. However,
the scaling relationship between ΔV and ΣMO has lim-
ited predictive power64, since it provides only an upper
bound to the expected magnitude. In addition, although
most HF-​triggered events fall well below the upper
bound, some events in the WCSB have exceeded this
limit12,130. In addition, the bound was also exceeded by
EGS at Pohang, which produced an M 5.5 event when
the limit predicted by the scaling relationship was only
MMAX = 3.7 (ref.131) (Fig. 5). To address the discrepancies
between observations and the values of MMAX predicted
by the volume-​based models, several variations of the
scaling relationships have been proposed. The varia-
tions introduced include additional parameters, such
as seismic efficiency127, seismogenic index31 or the use

Runaway rupture
The initiation of larger-​
magnitude earthquakes that
extend past the stimulated
region. These events primarily
release tectonic strain on faults
outside the stimulated region.
Foreshocks
Earthquakes that precede
the largest earthquake in a
sequence.
NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT
of geomechanical models for fracture propagation that
allow an unbounded runaway earthquake132.
All volume-​based and moment-​based models are
applied in similar ways: the scaling relationship between
ΔV and ΣMO is characterized at an early stage during
injection and then extrapolated to calculate the total
expected seismic moment budget. When combined
with the b-​value, scaling relationships can be used to
determine the expected value (with uncertainty) of
MMAX. Aftershock-​type event rate decay terms can also
be added to model the trailing seismicity after injection
has ceased133,134, and recent studies have attempted to
take volume and moment-​based models a step further
by proposing a method to evaluate the risk posed by
the expected seismicity135. Models in this vein have also
linked event occurrence to preoperational loss models,
allowing real-​time evaluation of the evolving risk22.
Forecast methods based on the observed scaling rela-
tionship between injection volumes and seismicity have
been used to guide operational decisions to mitigate
induced seismicity in geothermal sites128 and HF plays60.
However, the scaling relationship between ΔV and ΣMO
often changes during injection, potentially owing to
hydraulic fractures impinging on a larger fault60, and,
thus, the predictive ability of scaling relationships is
limited. Therefore, it is clear that hazard mitigation, via
the use of forecasting models to control the magnitude
of the largest possible event, is in its infancy.
Furthermore, observations of large events that
occur after simulation has been completed136,137, or
do not appear to fit the Gutenberg–Richter scaling of
smaller-​magnitude events130, challenge the premise that
MMAX can be controlled by controlling the volume of
injected material. When considering HF operations,
some of the largest events are outliers on the magnitude–
frequency distribution130. Such high-​magnitude outliers
have been linked130 with the concept of characteristic
earthquakes138, wherein most events represent rupture
on small patches of a larger fault, but that rupture of the
entire fault plane occurs episodically. In instances where
the entire fault plane ruptures, events that are larger
than would be expected based on power-​law scaling are
produced.
In HF operations, high-​magnitude outliers might also
arise owing to runaway rupture, where large events are
generated by triggering the release of tectonic strain on
faults outside the stimulated region132,139. Figure 5 shows
a compilation of injection-​induced seismicity data,
including the Pohang 2017 earthquake and the Fort St.
John 2018 earthquake. Five seismic events in the com-
piled data have been determined to meet the criteria for
runaway rupture. However, it remains unclear how (or
if) the concept of runaway rupture can be incorporated
into models that are used to forecast induced seismicity.
In future, highly sensitive monitoring and response
set-​ups might be able to identify fault activation prior
to a mainshock, with the potential to cease operations
before runaway ruptures are initiated140. For example,
determining the precise location of microseismicity
could be used to reveal reactivation of planar struc-
tures near the stimulated region. However, it remains
necessary to consider well-​known complexities that are
Reviews
associated with fault activation in active tectonic envi-
ronments, such as the possibility that foreshocks might
occur on different faults than the mainshock.
Seismic hazards from HF earthquakes
Although we cannot predict the location, timing and
magnitude of natural or induced events with preci-
sion, we can assess their likelihoods. For this reason,
seismic-​hazard assessment is performed probabilisti-
cally rather than deterministically. A probabilistic seis-
mic hazard analysis (PSHA) uses the spatial distribution
of events, their magnitude–frequency distribution (the
Gutenberg–Richter relation) and ground-​motion mod-
els to calculate the likelihood of exceeding different
amplitude levels of ground motion at a site141–144. For
example, building codes typically require all infra-
structure to be able to withstand ground motions with
an annual exceedance probability of 2% in 50 years (or
1/2,500 per annum), although for critical infrastruc-
ture, such as extreme-​consequence dams, this threshold
is raised to an exceedance probability of no more than
1/10,000 per annum142,145,146.
Assessing the hazards of induced seismicity
The methods used to assess hazards associated with
induced seismicity follow a similar structure to those
used for natural earthquakes, but with one key differ-
ence. For natural seismicity, activity is assumed to be
relatively stationary in space and time, such that its spa-
tial distribution and magnitude–frequency distribution
can be derived from an historical earthquake catalogue.
For injection-​induced seismicity, however, activity is
dependent on the location and activation potential of
industrial activities, which are non-​stationary.
PSHAs for induced seismicity are commonly con-
ducted as year-​by-​year hindcast exercises, in which the
hazard is assessed under the implicit assumption that
the patterns and rates of induced events will mimic those
of the preceding year99,147,148. Such hindcasts are useful for
demonstrating the impact of induced seismicity on esti-
mated hazard. However, hindcasts can only be used as
forecasts if the induced seismicity patterns are stable in
time – a situation that is unlikely, given the nature of oil
and gas operations. PSHAs aimed at forecasting seismic
hazards in advance of conducting operations must con-
sider the likelihood of triggering damaging seismicity in
the future, as well as the expected magnitude–frequency
distribution of potential events13,24. Unfortunately, the
likelihood and magnitude–frequency distribution of
future events will depend on the susceptibility of the
target formation and the injection parameters in a com-
plex way that is not yet well understood10,14,57,67,149. As a
result, large uncertainties in hazard forecasts are to be
expected13,150.
Hazard models that include the influence of injec-
tion rates, which have mostly been developed in con-
junction with SWD hazards, could potentially reduce the
uncertainties associated with such models43,151. For HF
seismicity, the seismic productivity in the Duvernay play
of Fox Creek, Alberta, has been shown to scale linearly
with injection volume, which enables the Gutenberg–
Richter relation to be modulated by operational
volume 1 | May 2020 | 273
Reviews

parameters. Future developments in hazard modelling to outline how induced-​seismicity prediction and risk
are likely to focus on developing reliable algorithms to mitigation can be improved in the future.
incorporate operational parameters into site-​specific or Certain conditions are considered necessary for an
region-​specific PSHAs. earthquake to be triggered: a source of stress pertur-
bation, a pre-​existing, critically stressed fault, a large
Relative hazards of natural versus induced seismicity enough surface area on the fault to host a felt event
Regardless of whether it is hindcast or forecast, the and a coupling mechanism that connects the source
hazard associated with induced seismicity can greatly to the fault. The coupling mechanism can represent a
exceed the pre-​existing natural hazard, particularly in direct connection between the injected fluids and the
regions of low-​to-​moderate seismicity13,99,100,147,150. The fault (such as elevated pore pressure) or an indirect
increased hazard associated with HF (or SWD) raises connection (loading by poroelastic stress transfer or
pressing socio-​economic questions concerning how stress transfer by aseismic slip). Induced seismic events
the heightened hazard might be managed, mitigated or typically occur within ~2 km of HF operations, with a
avoided. Several approaches have been suggested, which mechanism-​dependent time lag that varies from min-
consider the perceived hazard, risk and consequences, utes to years (typically, days to weeks). Further work
as well as the societal acceptance of industrial activity is encouraged to try and identify how the triggering
that could cause induced seismicity, sometimes in a mechanisms, and the distance over which events can be
risk-​matrix framework152. In general, owing to the lack triggered, is controlled by geological and tectonic factors.
of specific industrial regulations and practices153, several Multiple factors are believed to influence the suscep-
very different approaches have been used to deal with tibility of a region to HF-​induced seismicity, including
the hazards associated with induced seismicity. the degree of faulting/fracturing, fracture-​network con-
As discussed previously, the most common reg- nectivity, state of stress, overpressure and proximity to
ulatory approach to manage hazards from induced basement. Regional and local variations in such param-
seismicity has been to implement a TLP. However, the eters might explain the order-​of-​magnitude variability in
largest events cannot necessarily be predicted from the seismogenic index, a quantitative measure of the rate
the observed seismicity and might occur without nota- of induced seismicity. Future progress in understand-
ble precursors. In addition, the largest event can occur ing the relationship between tectonic environment and
after injection ceases28,122, sometimes during mitigation induced seismicity is required and can be achieved by
efforts103. Therefore, although TLPs can be a useful oper- quantifying susceptibility in a wide range of settings,
ational measure to limit the number of trailing events and identifying the physical factors and mechanisms
and invoke mitigation after the amber condition is acti- that relate to the observed differences in susceptibility.
vated, they might not reduce the likelihood of initiating a Although differences are observed in the spatio-
large induced earthquake. A case in point is a damaging ​temporal clustering properties of induced and tectonic
M 5.5 earthquake that was triggered by hydraulic stim- events (as identified by ETAS modelling) and the aver-
ulation of the Pohang geothermal field in South Korea, age depth of induced and natural events, once triggered,
despite a traffic light system that was in place with a individual induced events appear to share the same
magnitude threshold of 2.0 (later raised to 2.5)101. source and ground-​motion characteristics as their nat-
For HF operations in proximity to critical infrastruc- ural counterparts. The similarity between natural and
ture, such as major dams or nuclear power plants, a com- induced events supports the premise that triggered
bination of hazard avoidance and mitigation is required events represent reactivation of pre-​existing tectonic
to achieve stringent, mandated safety standards13. For structures. Comparative studies of induced versus natu-
example, such a strategy could involve the presence of ral events of similar magnitudes, depths and focal mech-
a minimum setback distance, such as 5 km, to remove anisms in the same tectonic setting could provide further
the possibility of large events occurring directly beneath insights into their similarities or differences. However,
critical facilities. The setback distance could then be such conditions are rarely met in regions of sparse
combined with regional seismic monitoring in the sur- natural seismicity.
rounding area, with a plan to reduce operations if the The clearest documented case of damaging earth-
rate rises above a preset threshold. The occurrence of quakes triggered by HF are the M ~5.0 to 5.5 events in
damaging (M ≥5) earthquakes triggered by HF in China the Sichuan Basin, China, which caused injuries, fatal-
has brought the need to develop improved hazard-​ ities and millions of dollars in structural damage. The
mitigation tools, and to avoid hazards in situations damage potential of triggered seismicity is dependent on
where they are unacceptable, into sharper focus20. the magnitude of the event, its proximity to population
and/or infrastructure, the intensity of resulting ground
Summary and future perspectives motion and the vulnerability of the local infrastructure.
Our Review has considered six fundamental questions Generally, we can consider M 4.0 events as the smallest
associated with the generation, damage potential and events that can cause notable damage (near the epicen-
prediction of induced seismicity. In general, we have tre). To advance knowledge of the damage potential of
focused on seismicity generated by HF, although evi- triggered earthquakes, engineering studies of how struc-
dence from SWD and EGS processes were considered, tures respond to strong, short-​duration ground motions
where relevant. Here, we summarize the key conclusions are needed.
of this Review, focusing on each of the six fundamen- At present, it is not possible to confidently forecast
tal issues, and provide a forward-​looking perspective the occurrence, or the maximum size, of an HF-​triggered

274 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

 Reviews

event. However, statistical methods can assess the likeli-
hood and expected magnitude distribution of events, at
least in a regional sense, and such assessments are useful
inputs to probabilistic seismic-​hazard analyses. Current
statistical hazard-​assessment methods carry very large
(orders of magnitude) uncertainties. Nevertheless,
dense real-​time monitoring and imaging of HF oper-
ations (for example, using microseismicity) represents
a promising new method for tracking the seismic risk
during operations.
The hazard from HF-​triggered seismicity exceeds
the natural hazard in low-​to-​moderate-​s eismicity
environments (such as Alberta and eastern British
Columbia). Detailed monitoring and response proto-
cols, including (but not limited to) TLPs, are a first step
towards mitigation in these regions. However, at present,
such retrospective strategies are not sufficient to pro-
tect critical or vulnerable infrastructure that have unac-
ceptable failure consequences. Further development of
real-​time hazard forecasting and mitigation strategies is
required, so that mitigation approaches can be verified
and applied to future HF operations.
Published online 7 May 2020

1. Healy, J. H., Rubey, W. W., Griggs, D. T. & Raleigh, C. B.
The Denver earthquakes. Science 161, 1301–1310
(1968).
2. Raleigh, C. B., Healy, J. H. & Bredehoeft, J. D.
An experiment in earthquake control at Rangely,
Colorado. Science 191, 1230–1237 (1976).
3. Simpson, D. & Leith, W. The 1976 and 1984 Gazli,
USSR, earthquakes – Were they induced? Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 1465–1468 (1985).
4. Wetmiller, R. Earthquakes near Rocky Mountain
House, Alberta, and their relationship to gas
production facilities. Can. J. Earth Sci. 23, 172–181
(1986).
5. McGarr, A. On a possible connection between three
major earthquakes in California and oil production.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81, 948–970 (1991).
6. Horner, R., Barclay, J. & MacRae, J. Earthquakes and
hydrocarbon production in the Fort St. John area of
northeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Explor.
Geophys. 30, 39–50 (1994).
7. Baranova, V., Mustaqeem, A. & Bell, S. A model for
induced seismicity caused by hydrocarbon production
in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Can. J.
Earth Sci. 36, 47–64 (1999).
8. McGarr, A., Simpson, D., Seeber, L. & Lee, W. Case
histories of induced and triggered seismicity. Int.
Handb. Earthq. Eng. Seismol. 81A, 647–664 (2002).
9. National Research Council. Induced Seismicity
Potential in Energy Technologies (National Academies
Press, 2013).
10. Eaton, D. W. Passive Seismic Monitoring of Induced
Seismicity: Fundamental Principles and Application to
Energy Technologies (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).
11. Ellsworth, W. L. Injection-​induced earthquakes.
Science 341, 1225942 (2013).
Foundational paper on the rise of injection-​induced
earthquakes in the central USA and key mechanism
of triggering-​induced seismicity.
12. Atkinson, G. M. et al. Hydraulic fracturing and
seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 87, 631–647 (2016).
First clear demonstration that HF is a dominant
triggering mechanism of seismicity in western
Canada and that there are event outliers above
the McGarr upper magnitude bound for injection-​
triggered seismicity.
13. Atkinson, G. Strategies to prevent damage to critical
infrastructure due to induced seismicity. FACETS 2,
374–394 (2017).
14. Weingarten, M., Ge, S., Godt, J. W., Bekins, B. &
Rubinstein, J. High-​rate injection is associated with
the increase in US mid-​continent seismicity. Science
348, 1336–1340 (2015).
15. King, G. E. Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every
representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter,
investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer
should know about estimating frac risk and improving
frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells.
SPE Hydraul. Fracturing Technol. Conf. https://doi.
org/10.2118/152596-​MS (2012).
16. Nicholson, C. & Wesson, R. L. Triggered earthquakes
and deep well activities. Pure Appl. Geophys. 139,
561–578 (1992).
17. Dusseault, M. & McLennan, J. Massive multi-​stage
hydraulic fracturing: where are we? 45th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symp. http://tm.spbstu.ru/
images/f/ff/Review_Massive_Multi-​Stage_Hydraulic_
Fracturing_Where_are_We.pdf (2011).
18. Clarke, H., Eisner, L., Styles, P. & Turner, P. Felt
seismicity associated with shale gas hydraulic
fracturing: the first documented example in Europe.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 8308–8314 (2014).
19. Green, C. A., Styles P. & Baptie, B. J. Preese Hall
shale gas fracturing review and recommendations for
induced seismic mitigation (Department of Energy
and Climate Change, 2012).
20. Lei, X., Wang, Z. & Su, J. The December 2018 ML 5.7
and January 2019 ML 5.3 earthquakes in South
Sichuan Basin induced by shale gas hydraulic
fracturing. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 1099–1110 (2019).
Details of the largest HF-​triggered event to date,
with billions of dollars in damages and several
deaths.
21. Lei, X. et al. Fault reactivation and earthquakes with
magnitudes of up to Mw4.7 induced by shale-​gas
hydraulic fracturing in Sichuan Basin, China. Sci. Rep.
7, 7971 (2017).
22. Langenbruch, C., Ellsworth, W. L., Woo, J. U. &
Wald, D. J. Value at induced risk: injection-​induced
seismic risk from low-​probability, high-​impact events.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085878 (2020).
23. Van der Baan, M. & Calixto, F. J. Human-​induced
seismicity and large-​scale hydrocarbon production in
the USA and Canada. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.
18, 2467–2485 (2017).
24. Ghofrani, H. & Atkinson, G. M. A preliminary
statistical model for hydraulic fracture-​induced
seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 10–64 (2016).
25. Mayerhofer, M. J. et al. What is stimulated reservoir
volume? SPE Prod. Oper. 25, 89–98 (2010).
26. Warpinski, N. R. & Wolhart, S. A validation assessment
of microseismic monitoring. SPE Hydraul. Fracturing
Technol. Conf. https://doi.org/10.2118/179150-​MS
(2016).
27. Schultz, R., Stern, V., Novakovic, M., Atkinson, G.
& Gu, Y. Hydraulic fracturing and the Crooked Lake
sequences: Insights gleaned from regional seismic
networks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 2750–2758 (2015).
28. Bao, X. & Eaton, D. W. Fault activation by hydraulic
fracturing in Western Canada. Science 354,
1406–1409 (2016).
First detailed analysis of HF-​triggered seismicity,
linking HF operations to several distinct clusters of
seismicity and showing evidence of both pore
pressure and stress perturbation activating pre-​
existing faults.
29. Deng, K., Liu, Y. & Harrington, R. M. Poroelastic stress
triggering of the December 2013 Crooked Lake,
Alberta, induced seismicity sequence. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 43, 8482–8491 (2016).
30. Zoback, M. D. Reservoir Geomechanics (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2010).
31. Shapiro, S. A., Dinske, C., Langenbruch, C. & Wenzel, F.
Seismogenic index and magnitude probability of
earthquakes induced during reservoir fluid
stimulations. Lead. Edge 29, 304–309 (2010).
32. Langenbruch, C. & Shapiro, S. A. Quantitative analysis
of rock stress heterogeneity: Implications for the
seismogenesis of fluid-​injection-​induced seismicity.
Geophysics 80, WC73–WC88 (2015).
33. Keranen, K., Weingarten, M., Abers, G., Bekins, B. &
Ge, S. Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity
since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection.
Science 345, 448–451 (2014).
34. Goebel, T. H. W., Weingarten, M., Chen, X., Haffener, J.
& Brodsky, E. E. The 2016 Mw5.1 Fairview, Oklahoma
earthquakes: Evidence for long-​range poroelastic
triggering at >40 km from fluid disposal wells.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 472, 50–61 (2017).
35. Shapiro, S. A. & Dinske, C. On stress drop, cohesion
and seismogenic index of fluid-​induced seismicity.
ESSOAr https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10501558.1
(2020).
36. Maxwell, S. C. et al. Fault activation during hydraulic
fracturing. SEG Tech. Program Expand. Abstr. https://
doi.org/10.1190/1.3255145 (2009).
37. Kettlety, T., Verdon, J. P., Werner, M. J., Kendall, J.-M.
& Budge, J. Investigating the role of elastostatic stress
transfer during hydraulic fracturing-​induced fault
activation. Geophys. J. Int. 217, 1200–1216 (2019).
38. Shapiro, S. A. & Dinske, C. Fluid-​induced seismicity:
pressure diffusion and hydraulic fracturing. Geophys.
Prospecting 57, 301–310 (2009).
39. Holland, A. Earthquakes triggered by hydraulic
fracturing in south-​central Oklahoma. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 103, 1784–1792 (2013).
40. Westaway, R. Integrating induced seismicity with rock
mechanics: a conceptual model for the 2011 Preese
Hall fracture development and induced seismicity.
Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 454, 327–359 (2017).
41. Talwani, P. & Acree, S. in Earthquake Prediction. Pure
and applied geophysics (eds Shimazaki, K. & Stuart,
W.) 947–965 (Birkhäuser, 1985).
42. Shapiro, S., Huenges, E. & Borm, G. Estimating the
crust permeability from fluid-​injection-​induced seismic
emission at the KTB site. Geophys. J. Int. 131,
F15–F18 (1997).
43. Langenbruch, C., Weingarten, M. & Zoback, M. D.
Physics-​based forecasting of man-​made earthquake
hazards in Oklahoma and Kansas. Nat. Commun. 9,
3946 (2018).
44. Igonin N., Verdon, J. P., Kendall, M. & Eaton, D.
The role of parallel fracture networks for induced
seismicity in the Duvernay Formation. EAGE Conf.
Exhibit. Proc. 2019, 1–5 (2019).
45. Segall, P. & Lu, S. Injection-​induced seismicity:
poroelastic and earthquake nucleation effects.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 5082–5103 (2015).
46. Kettlety T., Verdon, J. P., Werner, M. J. & Kendall, J.-M.
Stress transfer from hydraulic fracture opening
controlling injection-​induced fault activation.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, e2019JB018794
(2020).
47. Garagash, D. I. & Germanovich, L. N. Nucleation
and arrest of dynamic slip on a pressurized fault.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 117, B10310 (2012).
48. Guglielmi, Y., Cappa, F., Avouac, J.-P., Henry, P. &
Elsworth, D. Seismicity triggered by fluid injection–
induced aseismic slip. Science 348, 1224–1226
(2015).
49. Kohli, A. H. & Zoback, M. D. Frictional properties of
shale reservoir rocks. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
118, 5109–5125 (2013).
50. Scholz, C. Earthquakes and friction laws. Nature 391,
37–42 (1998).
51. Eyre, T. S. et al. The role of aseismic slip in hydraulic
fracturing-​induced seismicity. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav7172
(2019).
High-​resolution analysis of HF-​triggered seismicity
showing events triggered at a depth 100s of
metres above the injection zone, with evidence of
aseismic slip and long-​lived seismicity after the
completion of injection.
52. Bhattacharya, P. & Viesca, R. C. Fluid-​induced
aseismic fault slip outpaces pore-​fluid migration.
Science 364, 464–468 (2019).
53. Wang, B., Harrington, R. M., Liu, Y., Kao, H. & Yu, H.
Remote dynamic triggering of earthquakes in three
unconventional Canadian hydrocarbon regions based
on a multiple-​station matched-​filter approach. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 109, 372–386 (2019).
54. Friberg, P. A., Besana-​Ostman, G. M. & Dricker, I.
Characterization of an earthquake sequence triggered
by hydraulic fracturing in Harrison County, Ohio.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 85, 1295–1307 (2014).

NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT volume 1 | May 2020 | 275

Reviews
55. Skoumal, R. J., Brudzinski, M. R. & Currie, B. S.
Earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing in Poland
Township, Ohio. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105,
189–197 (2015).
56. Schultz, R. et al. The Cardston earthquake swarm and
hydraulic fracturing of the Exshaw Formation (Alberta
Bakken play). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105,
2871–2884 (2015).
57. Schultz, R., Atkinson, G. M., Eaton, D. W., Gu, Y. J.
& Kao, H. Hydraulic fracturing completion volume is
associated with induced earthquake productivity in
the Duvernay play. Science 359, 304–308 (2018).
Canadian case studies showing that seismic
productivity scales linearly with injection volume
and using a modified framework for induced
seismicity forecasting relying on the seismogenic
index.
58. Mahani, A. B. et al. Fluid injection and seismic activity
in the northern Montney play, British Columbia,
Canada, with special reference to the 17 August 2015
Mw 4.6 induced earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
107, 542–552 (2017).
59. Rich, J., Bailey, A., Jreij, S. & Klepacki, D. High-​
resolution insights into hydraulic fracturing strike-​slip
seismicity: hypocenter uncertainty, depth of initiation,
and genesis mechanisms. SEG Int. Expo. Annu. Meet.
(2019).
60. Clarke, H., Verdon, J. P., Kettlety, T., Baird, A. F. &
Kendall, J.-M. Real-​time imaging, forecasting, and
management of human-​induced seismicity at Preston
New Road, Lancashire, England. Seismol. Res. Lett.
90, 1902–1915 (2019).
61. Wright, G. N., McMechan, M. E. & Potter, D. E.
Structure and architecture of the Western Canada
sedimentary basin. In Geological Atlas of the Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin, G.D. Mossop and I.
Shetsen (comp.). Can. Soc. Pet. Geologists Alta. Res.
Counc. 4, 25–40 (1994).
62. Shen, C. B., Mei, L. F., Xu, Z. P. & Tang, J. G.
Architecture and tectonic evolution of composite
basin-​mountain system in Sichuan basin and its
adjacent areas. Geotecton. Metallog. 31, 288–299
(2007).
63. Clarke, H., Turner, P. & Bustin, R. Unlocking the
resource ppotential of the Bowland Basin, NW
England. SPE/EAGE Eur. Unconvent. Resour. Conf.
Exhibit. https://doi.org/10.2118/167776-​MS (2014).
64. Verdon, J. P. & Budge, J. Examining the capability of
statistical models to mitigate induced seismicity
during hydraulic fracturing of shale gas reservoirs.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108, 690–701 (2018).
65. Ghofrani, H. & Atkinson, G. Updated statistics for
seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing in the
Western Canada sedimentary basin. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200002
(2020).
Special issue on induced seismicity.
66. Eaton, D. W. & Schultz, R. Increased likelihood of
induced seismicity in highly overpressured shale
formations. Geophys. J. Intern. 214, 751–757
(2018).
67. Schultz, R. et al. Linking fossil reefs with earthquakes:
Geologic insight to where induced seismicity occurs in
Alberta. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2534–2542 (2016).
68. Pawley, S. et al. The geological susceptibility of
induced earthquakes in the Duvernay play. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 45, 1786–1793 (2018).
69. Davis, S. & Frohlich, C. Did (or will) fluid injection
cause earthquakes? Criteria for a rational assessment.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 64, 207–224 (1993).
70. Montalvo-​Arrieta, J. C. et al. El Cuchillo seismic
sequence of October 2013–July 2014 in the Burgos
Basin, northeastern Mexico: Hydraulic fracturing or
reservoir-​induced seismicity? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
108, 3092–3106 (2018).
71. Verdon, J. P., Baptie, B. J. & Bommer, J. J. An
improved framework for discriminating seismicity
induced by industrial activities from natural
earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 1592–1611
(2019).
72. Dahm, T., Cesca, S., Hainzl, S., Braun, T. & Krüger, F.
Discrimination between induced, triggered, and
natural earthquakes close to hydrocarbon reservoirs:
a probabilistic approach based on the modeling of
depletion-​induced stress changes and seismological
source parameters. J. Geophys. Res. 120,
2491–2509 (2015).
73. Schoenball, M., Davatzes, N. & Glen, J. M.
Differentiating induced and natural seismicity using
space–time–magnitude statistics applied to the Coso
Geothermal field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42,
6221–6228 (2015).
276 | May 2020 | volume 1 www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
74. Cesca, S., Rohr, A. & Dahm, T. Discrimination of
induced seismicity by full moment tensor inversion
and decomposition. J. Seismol. 17, 147–163
(2013).
75. Ogata, Y. Statistical models for earthquake
occurrences and residual analysis for point processes.
J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 9–27 (1988).
76. Llenos, A. L. & Michael, A. J. Characterizing
potentially induced earthquake rate changes in the
Brawley seismic zone, southern California. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 106, 2045–2062 (2016).
77. Lei, X. et al. A detailed view of the injection-​induced
seismicity in a natural gas reservoir in Zigong,
southwestern Sichuan Basin, China. J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth 118, 4296–4311 (2013).
78. Zaliapin, I. & Ben-​Zion, Y. Discriminating characteristics
of tectonic and human-​induced seismicity. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 106, 846–859 (2016).
79. BC Oil and Gas Commission. Investigation of
observed seismicity in the Horn River Basin
(BCOGC, 2012).
80. Farahbod, A. M., Kao, H., Cassidy, J. F. & Walker, D.
How did hydraulic-​fracturing operations in the Horn
River Basin change seismicity patterns in northeastern
British Columbia, Canada? Lead. Edge 34, 658–663
(2015).
81. Hicks, S. P. et al. A shallow earthquake swarm close to
hydrocarbon activities: discriminating between natural
and induced causes for the 2018–19 Surrey, UK
earthquake sequence. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90,
2095–2110 (2019).
82. Sileny, J., Hill, D. P., Eisner, L. & Cornet, F. H. Non–
double-​couple mechanisms of microearthquakes
induced by hydraulic fracturing. J. Geophys. Res.
Solid. Earth 114, B08307 (2009).
83. Baig, A. & Urbancic, T. Microseismic moment tensors:
a path to understanding frac growth. Lead. Edge 29,
320–324 (2010).
84. Eaton, D. W., van der Baan, M., Birkelo, B. & Tary, J. B.
Scaling relations and spectral characteristics of tensile
microseisms: Evidence for opening/closing cracks
during hydraulic fracturing. Geophys. J. Int. 196,
1844–1857 (2014).
85. Zhang, H., Eaton, D. W., Rodriguez, G. & Jia, S. Q.
Source-​mechanism analysis and stress inversion for
hydraulic-​fracturing-​induced event sequences near Fox
Creek, Alberta. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 109, 636–651
(2019).
86. Eyre, T. S., Eaton, D. W., Zecevic, M., D’Amico, D.
& Kolos, D. Microseismicity reveals fault activation
before Mw4.1 hydraulic-​fracturing induced
earthquake. Geophys. J. Int. 218, 534–546 (2019).
87. Zhang, H., Eaton, D. W., Li, G., Liu, Y. & Harrington, R. M.
Discriminating induced seismicity from natural
earthquakes using moment tensors and source
spectra. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 972–993
(2016).
88. Huang, Y., Ellsworth, W. L. & Beroza, G. C. Stress
drops of induced and tectonic earthquakes in the
central United States are indistinguishable. Sci. Adv.
8, e1700772 (2017).
89. Holmgren, J. M., Atkinson, G. M. & Ghofrani, H.
Stress drops and directivity of induced earthquakes in
the western Canada sedimentary basin. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 109, 1635–1652 (2019).
90. Yenier, E. & Atkinson, G. A regionally-​adjustable
generic GMPE based on stochastic point-​source
simulations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105, 1989–2009
(2015).
91. Atkinson, G. M. & Assatourians, K. Are ground-​motion
models derived from natural events applicable to the
estimation of expected motions for induced
earthquakes? Seismol. Res. Lett. 88, 430–441
(2017).
92. Atkinson, G. M. The intensity of ground motions
from induced earthquakes with implications for
damage potential. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 110, 1–14
(2020).
93. Schultz, R., Wang, R., Gu, Y. J., Haug, K. & Atkinson, G.
A seismological overview of the induced earthquakes
in the Duvernay play near Fox Creek, Alberta.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 492–505 (2017).
94. Poulin, A. et al. Focal-​time analysis: A new method
for stratigraphic depth control of microseismicity
and induced seismic events. Geophysics 84,
KS173–KS182 (2019).
95. Gutenberg, R. & Richter, C. F. Frequency of earthquakes
in California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, 185–188
(1944).
96. Van der Elst, N. J., Page, M. T., Weiser, D. A.,
Goebel, T. H. & Hosseini, S. M. Induced earthquake
magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 4575–4590
(2016).
Seminal paper on relationships between injected
fluid volume, seismogenic index, b-​value and
maximum observed magnitude; maximum induced
earthquake magnitudes are consistent with
Gutenberg–Richter sampling statistics.
97. Wessels, S., Kratz, M. & De La Pena, A. Identifying
fault activation during hydraulic stimulation in the
Barnett shale: source mechanisms, b values, and
energy release analysis of microseismicity. SEG Annu.
Meet. (2011).
98. Goertz-​Allmann, B. P. & Wiemer, S. Geomechanical
modeling of induced seismicity source parameters and
implications for seismic hazard assessment.
Geophysics 78, KS25–KS39 (2013).
99. Petersen, M. D. et al. Seismic-​hazard forecast for
2016 including induced and natural earthquakes in
the central and eastern United States. Seismol. Res.
Lett. 87, 1327–1341 (2016).
100. White, I., Liu, T., Luco, N. & Liel, A. Comparisons
between the 2016 USGS induced-​seismicity hazard
model, “Did You Feel It?” data, and instrumental data.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 127–137 (2017).
101. Lee, K. K. et al. Managing injection-​induced seismic
risks. Science 364, 730–732 (2019).
Learnings from the Pohang EGS project show that
induced earthquake magnitudes are not limited by
injection volume and that the largest earthquake
was a runaway earthquake; highlights need to
consider risk, not just hazard.
102. Giardini, D. Geothermal quake risks must be faced.
Nature 462, 848–849 (2009).
103. Yeck, W. L. et al. Oklahoma experiences largest
earthquake during ongoing regional wastewater
injection hazard mitigation efforts. Geophys. Res. Lett.
44, 711–717 (2017).
104. Atkinson, G. M. Ground-​motion prediction equation
for small-​to-​moderate events at short hypocentral
distances, with application to induced seismicity
hazards. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105, 981–992
(2015).
105. Rennolet, S. B., Moschetti, M. P., Thompson, E. M.
& Yeck, W. L. A flatfile of ground motion intensity
measurements from induced earthquakes in
Oklahoma and Kansas. Earthq. Spectra 34, 1–20
(2018).
106. Novakovic, M., Atkinson, G. M. & Assatourians, K.
Empirically calibrated ground-​motion prediction
equation for Oklahoma. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108,
2444–2461 (2018).
107. Novakovic, M. & Atkinson, G. M. Preliminary
evaluation of ground motions from earthquakes in
Alberta. Seismol. Res. Lett. 86, 1086–1095 (2015).
108. Mahani, A. B. & Kao, H. Ground motion from
M1.5–3.8 induced earthquakes at hypocentral
distance <45 km in the Montney Play of northeast
British Columbia, Canada. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89,
22–34 (2018).
109. Mahani, A. B. et al. Ground-​motion characteristics of
the 30 November 2018 injection-​induced earthquake
sequence in Northeast British Columbia, Canada.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 1457–1467 (2019).
110. Holmgren, J. M., Atkinson, G. M. & Ghofrani, H.
Reconciling ground motions and stress drops for
induced earthquakes in the western Canada
sedimentary Basin. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. https://doi.
org/10.1785/0120190308 (2020).
111. Hough, S. E. Shaking from injection-​induced
earthquakes in the central and eastern United States.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104, 2619–2626 (2014).
112. Allmann, B. P. & Shearer, P. M. Global variations
of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes.
J. Geophys. Res. 114, B01310 (2009).
113. Radiguet, M., Cotton, F., Manighetti, I., Campillo, M.
& Douglas, J. Dependency of near-​field ground
motions on the structural maturity of the ruptured
faults. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, 2572–2581 (2009).
114. Bommer, J. J. et al. Control of hazard due to seismicity
induced by a hot fractured rock geothermal project.
Eng. Geol. 83, 287–306 (2006).
115. Westaway, R. & Younger, P. L. Quantification of
potential macroseismic effects of the induced
seismicity that might result from hydraulic fracturing
for shale gas exploitation in the UK. Q. J. Eng. Geol.
Hydrogeol. 47, 333–350 (2014).
116. US Geological Survey. The severity of an earthquake.
USGS https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.
html (1989).
117. Wilson, M. P., Worrall, F., Davies, R. J. & Almond, S.
Fracking: how far from faults? Geomech. Geophys.
Geoenergy Georesources 4, 193–199 (2018).

118. Diehl, T., Kraft, T., Kissling, E. & Wiemer, S.
The induced earthquake sequence related to the
St. Gallen deep geothermal project (Switzerland):
Fault reactivation and fluid interactions imaged by
microseismicity. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 7272–7290
(2017).
119. Eaton, D. W. et al. Induced seismicity characterization
during hydraulic-​fracture monitoring with a shallow-​
wellbore geophone array and broadband sensors.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 1641–1651 (2018).
120. Schoenball, M. & Ellsworth, W. L. Waveform-​relocated
earthquake catalog for Oklahoma and southern
Kansas illuminates the regional fault network. Seismol.
Res. Lett. 88, 1252–1258 (2017).
121. Häring, M. O., Schanz, U., Ladner, F. & Dyer, B. C.
Characterisation of the Basel 1 enhanced geothermal
system. Geothermics 37, 469–495 (2008).
122. Baisch, S., Koch, C. & Muntendam-​Bos, A. Traffic light
systems: to what extent can induced seismicity be
controlled? Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 1145–1154
(2019).
Shows that traffic light approaches are limited in
their ability to predict and suggests that their
underlying assumptions are generally not valid.
123. Sumy, D. F., Cochran, E. S., Keranen, K. M., Wei, M. &
Abers, G. A. Observations of static Coulomb stress
triggering of the November 2011 M5.7 Oklahoma
earthquake sequence. J. Geophys. Res. 119,
1904–1923 (2014).
124. Dieterich, J. H., Richards-​Dinger, K. B. & Kroll, K. A.
Modeling injection-​induced seismicity with the
physics-​based earthquake simulator RSQSim. Seismol.
Res. Lett. 86, 1102–1109 (2015).
125. Verdon, J. P., Stork, A. L., Bissell, R. C., Bond, C. E. &
Werner, M. J. Simulation of seismic events induced by
CO2 injection at In Salah, Algeria. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 426, 118–129 (2015).
126. Shapiro, S. A., Kruger, O. S., Dinske, C. &
Langenbruch, C. Magnitudes of induced earthquakes
and geometric scales of fluid-​stimulated rock volumes.
Geophysics 76, WC55–WC63 (2011).
127. Hallo, M., Oprsal, I., Eisner, L. & Ali, M. Y. Prediction
of magnitude of the largest potentially induced seismic
event. J. Seismol. 18, 421–431 (2014).
128. Kwiatek, G. et al. Controlling fluid-​induced seismicity
during a 6.1-​km-​deep geothermal stimulation in
Finland. Sci. Adv. 5, .eaav7224 (2019).
129. McGarr, A. Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced
by fluid injection. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 1008–1019
(2014).
Highly cited empirical relation between injected
volume and maximum observed magnitude,
including presentation of an underlying physical
model and its assumptions.
130. Igonin, N., Zecevic, M. & Eaton, D. W. Bilinear
magnitude-​frequency distributions and characteristic
earthquakes during hydraulic fracturing. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 45, 12–866 (2018).
131. Ellsworth, W. L., Giardini, D., Townend, J., Ge, S.
& Shimamoto, T. Triggering of the Pohang, Korea,
earthquake (Mw 5.5) by enhanced geothermal system
stimulation. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 1844–1858
(2019).
NaTure RevIews | EaRTH & EnvIRonMenT
132. Galis, M., Ampuero, J. P., Mai, P. M. & Cappa, F.
Induced seismicity provides insight into why
earthquake ruptures stop. Sci. Adv. 3, eaap7528
(2017).
133. Mignan, A., Broccardo, M., Wiemer, S. & Giardini, D.
Induced seismicity closed-​form traffic light system for
actuarial decision-​making during deep fluid injections.
Nat. Sci. Rep. 7, 13607 (2017).
134. Broccardo, M., Mignan, A., Wiemer, S., Stojadinovic, B.
& Giardini, D. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of
fluid-​induced seismicity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44,
11357–11367 (2017).
135. Mignan, A., Karvounis, D., Broccardo, M., Wiemer, S.
& Giardini, D. Including seismic risk mitigation
measures into the Levelized Cost of Electricity in
enhanced geothermal systems for optimal siting.
Appl. Energy 238, 831–850 (2019).
136. Langenbruch, C. & Shapiro, S. A. Decay rate of fluid-​
induced seismicity after termination of reservoir
stimulations. Geophysics 75, MA53–MA62 (2010).
137. Barth, A., Wenzel, F. & Langenbruch, C. Probability of
earthquake occurrence and magnitude estimation
in the post shut-​in phase of geothermal projects.
J. Seismol. 17, 5–11 (2013).
138. Wesnousky, S. G. The Gutenberg-​Richter or
characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it?
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 1940–1959 (1994).
139. Gischig, V. S. Rupture propagation behavior and the
largest possible earthquake induced by fluid injection
into deep reservoirs. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42,
7420–7428 (2015).
140. Eaton, D. W. & Igonin, N. What controls the maximum
magnitude of injection-​induced earthquakes? Lead.
Edge. 37, 135–140 (2018).
141. Cornell, C. A. Engineering seismic risk analysis.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58, 1583–1606 (1968).
142. McGuire, R. K. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis
(Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2004).
143. Petersen, M. D. et al. Documentation for the 2008
update of the United States national seismic hazard
maps (USGS, 2008).
144. Halchuk, S., Allen, T., Adams, J. & Rogers, G. C.
Fifth generation seismic hazard model input files as
proposed to produce values for the 2015 national
building code of Canada (Geological Survey of Canada,
2014).
145. Canadian Dam Association. Seismic hazard
considerations for dam safety (CDA, 2007).
146. Reiter, L. Earthquake Hazard Analysis; Issues and
Insights (Columbia Univ. Press, 1990).
147. Alberta Energy Regulator. Initial seismic hazard
assessment for the 2016 induced earthquakes near
Fox Creek, Alberta (AER, 2017).
148. Ghofrani, H., Atkinson, G. M., Schultz, R. &
Assatourians, K. Short-​term hindcasts of seismic
hazard in the western Canada sedimentary basin
caused by induced and natural earthquakes. Seismol.
Res. Lett. 90, 1420–1435 (2019).
149. Skoumal, R. J., Ries, R., Brudzinski, M. R.,
Barbour, A. J. & Currie, B. S. Earthquakes induced
by hydraulic fracturing are pervasive in Oklahoma.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123, 10918–10935
(2018).
Reviews
150. Atkinson, G. M., Ghofrani, H. & Assatourians, K.
Impact of induced seismicity on the evaluation of
seismic hazard: some preliminary considerations.
Seismol. Res. Lett. 86, 1009–1021 (2015).
151. Norbeck, J. H. & Rubinstein, J. L. Hydromechanical
earthquake nucleation model forecasts onset, peak,
and falling rates of induced seismicity in Oklahoma
and Kansas. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 2963–2975
(2018).
152. Walters, R. J., Zoback, M. D., Baker, J. W. &
Beroza, G. C. Characterizing and responding to seismic
risk associated with earthquakes potentially triggered
by fluid disposal and hydraulic fracturing. Seismol.
Res. Lett. 86, 1110–1118 (2015).
153. Grigoli, F. et al. Current challenges in monitoring,
discrimination, and management of induced seismicity
related to underground industrial activities: A
European perspective. Rev. Geophys. 55, 310–340
(2017).
154. Fasola, S. L. et al. Hydraulic fracture injection strategy
influences the probability of earthquakes in the Eagle
Ford shale play of South Texas. Geophys. Res. Lett.
46, 12958–12967 (2019).
155. Schultz, R. & Wang, R. Newly emerging cases of
hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity in the Duvernay
East Shale Basin. Tectonophysics 779, 228393 (2020).
156. Brudzinski, M. R. & Kozłowska, M. Seismicity induced
by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal in the
Appalachian Basin, USA: a review. Acta Geophysica
67, 351–364 (2019).
157. López-​Comino, J. A. et al. Induced seismicity response
of hydraulic fracturing: results of a multidisciplinary
monitoring at the Wysin site, Poland. Sci. Rep. 8,
8653 (2018).
158. Foulger, G. R., Wilson, M. P., Gluyas, J. G., Julian, B. R.
& Davies, R. J. Global review of human-​induced
earthquakes. Earth Sci. Rev. 178, 438–514 (2018).
Acknowledgements
The authors receive financial support for their research pro-
grammes from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada. We thank James Verdon for
constructive discussions that contributed to the manuscript
and Minhee Choi for assistance in preparing the final
manuscript.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the research, writing, figure
preparation and editing of this Review.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks X. Lei,
C. Langenbruch and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for
their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© Springer Nature Limited 2020
volume 1 | May 2020 | 277