Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 174, Issue 6, pp 2443–2456 | Cite as

Statistical Studies of Induced and Triggered Seismicity at The Geysers, California

  • A. Hawkins
  • D. L. Turcotte
  • M. B. Yıkılmaz
  • L. H. Kellogg
  • J. B. Rundle


This study considers the statistics of fluid-induced and remotely triggered seismicity at The Geysers geothermal field, California. Little seismicity was reported before steam extraction began in 1960. Beginning in 1980 the residual water associated with power generation was re-injected, producing induced seismicity. Beginning in 1997 large-scale injections of cold water began to enhance the generation of steam. This led to an increase in M < 1.2 earthquakes from approximately 5 per month to 20. Two excellent seismic networks generate two earthquake catalogs for the fluid-induced seismicity at The Geysers. Although this seismicity satisfies Gutenberg–Richter (GR) scaling to a good approximation, the scaling parameters differ. We propose a correction that eliminates this problem. We show that the seismicity at The Geysers is nearly independent of time for the period 2009–2014 and suggest that this supports our hypothesis that the seismic moment release is in near balance with the geodetic moment accumulation in the region. Our study demonstrates that aftershocks of the larger fluid-induced earthquakes also satisfy GR scaling as well as Omori’s law for their time dependence. Our results support the hypothesis that the earthquakes are caused by the reduction in friction on faults due to the injected fluids. Statistics of remotely triggered earthquakes and their associated aftershocks at The Geysers are also presented. The 8/24/14 M = 6.02 South Napa earthquake triggered an M ≈ 4.38 event as well as some 80 other M > 1.25 events. The GR and decay statistics are given. However, to separate aftershocks from remotely triggered earthquakes, an additional triggered sequence is studied. The M = 7.2 4/4/10 Baja earthquake triggered some 34 M > 1.25 earthquakes at The Geysers in the first hour including an M = 3.37 event. We conclude that the remotely triggered seismicity is dominated by local aftershocks of the larger remotely triggered earthquakes.


Fluid-induced seismicity remotely triggered seismicity The Geysers geothermal seismicity 



Data products and metadata for this study were accessed through the Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC), doi: 10.7932/NCEDC. We thank Douglas Neuhauser of the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory for discussions about earthquake data catalogs.


  1. Aiken, C., & Peng, Z. (2014). Dynamic triggering of microearthquakes in three geothermal, volcanic regions of California. Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, 119, 6992–7009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Båth, M. (1965). Lateral inhomogeneities of the upper mantle. Tectonophysics, 2, 483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beall, J. J., Wright, M. C., Pingol, A. S., & Atkinson, P. (2010). Effect of high rate injection on seismicity in The Geysers. Geothermal Resources Council Transaction, 34, 1203–1208.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, K., Jarpe, S., Hutchings, L., Saltiel, S., Peterson, J., & Majer, E. (2011). Preliminary investigation of an aseismic ‘doughnut hole’ region in the northwest Geysers, California. Thirty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2, 595–601.Google Scholar
  5. Brodsky, E. (2006). Long-range triggered earthquakes that continue after the wave train passes. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(L15313), 1–5.Google Scholar
  6. Chéry, J. (2008). Geodetic strain across the San Andreas Fault reflects elastic plate thickness variations (rather than fault slip rate). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 269, 352–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson, T.E., & Weldon, R.J. (2013). Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model, Appendix B, Geological slip rate data and geologic deformation model, USGS Open-File Report 2013-1165.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, B., & Douglas, J. (2014). Magnitude scaling of induced earthquakes. Geothermics, 52, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freed, A. M. (2005). Earthquake triggering by static, dynamic, and postseismic stress transfer. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 335–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guilhem, A., Hutchings, L., Dreger, D., & Johnson, L. (2014). Moment tensor inversions of M ~ 3 earthquakes in The Geysers geothermal fields, California. Journal of Geophysical Research, 119, 2121–2137.Google Scholar
  11. Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. (1954). Seismicity of the earth and associated phenomena. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hanks, T. C., & Kanamori, H. (1979). A moment–magnitude scale. Journal Geophysical Research, 84, 2348–2350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, D. P., Reasenberg, P. A., Michael, A., Arabaz, W. J., Beroza, G., Brumbaugh, D., et al. (1993). Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. Science, 260, 1617–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, L. R. (2014a). A source model for induced earthquakes at The Geysers geothermal reservoir. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 171, 1625–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, L. R. (2014b). Source mechanisms of induced earthquakes at The Geysers geothermal reservoir. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 171, 1641–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jolivet, R., Bürgmann, R., & Houlié, N. (2009). Geodetic exploration of the elastic properties across and within the northern San Andreas Fault zone. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 288, 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Majer, E., Baria, R., Stark, M., Oates, S., Bommer, J., Smith, B., et al. (2007). Induced seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal systems. Geothermics, 36, 185–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. NCEDC (2014), Northern California Earthquake Data Center. UC Berkeley Seismological Laboratory. Dataset. doi: 10.7932/NCEDC.
  19. Prejean, S., Hill, D. P., Brodsky, E. E., Hough, S. E., Johnston, M. J. S., Malone, S. D., et al. (2004). Remotely triggered seismicity on the United States west coast following the M w 7.9 Denali fault earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94, S348–S359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prentice, C., Larsen, M., Kelsey, H., & Zachariasen, J. (2014). Late Holocene slip rate and ages of prehistoric earthquakes along the Maacama Fault near Willits, Mendocino County, northern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104, 2966–2984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prescott, W. H., Savage, J. C., Svarc, J. L., & Manaker, D. (2001). Deformation across the Pacific-North America plate boundary near San Francisco, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 106, 6673–6682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmitt, A., Grove, M., Harrison, T., Lovera, O., Hulen, J., & Walters, M. (2003). The Geysers-Cobb Mountain Magma System, California (Part 1): U-Pb zircon ages of volcanic rocks, conditions of zircon crystallization and magma residence times. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 67, 3423–3442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shcherbakov, R., & Turcotte, D. (2004). A modified form of Båth’s law. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94, 1968–1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shcherbakov, R., Turcotte, D. L., & Rundle, J. B. (2006). Scaling properties of the Parkfield aftershock sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96, 5379–5384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stark, M., & Davis, S. (1996). Remotely triggered micro-earthquakes at The Geysers geothermal field, California. Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stimac, J., Goff, F., & Wohletz, K. (2001). Thermal modeling of the Clear Lake magmatic-hydrothermal system, California, USA. Geothermics, 30, 349–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Utsu, T. (1961). A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks. Geophysical Magazine, 30, 521–605.Google Scholar
  28. Utsu, T. (2002a). Relationships between magnitude scales. In W. H. K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, & C. Kisslinger (Eds.), International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, part A (pp. 733–746). Amsterdam: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Utsu, T. (2002b). Relationships between magnitude scales. In W. H. K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, & C. Kisslinger (Eds.), International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, part A (pp. 733–746). Amsterdam: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations