Journal of Seismology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 1139–1155 | Cite as

Mechanism of the ML4.0 25 April 2016 earthquake in southwest of France in the vicinity of the Lacq gas field

  • Hideo Aochi
  • André Burnol


The source mechanism of the ML 4.0 25 April 2016 Lacq earthquake (Aquitaine Basin, South-West France) is analyzed from the available public data and discussed with respect to the geometry of the nearby Lacq gas field. It is one of the biggest earthquakes in the area in the past few decades of gas extraction and the biggest after the end of gas exploitation in 2013. The routinely obtained location shows its hypocenter position inside the gas reservoir. We first analyze its focal mechanism through regional broad-band seismograms recorded in a radius of about 50 km epicentral distances and obtain EW running normal faulting above the reservoir. While the solution is stable using regional data only, we observe a large discrepancy between the recorded data on nearby station URDF and the forward modeling up to 1 Hz. We then look for the best epicenter position through performing wave propagation simulations and constraining the potential source area by the peak ground velocity (PGV). The resulting epicentral position is a few to several km away to the north or south direction with respect to station URDF such that the simulated particle motions are consistent with the observation. The initial motion of the seismograms shows that the epicenter position in the north from URDF is preferable, indicating the north-east of the Lacq reservoir. This study is an application of full waveform simulations and characterization of near-field ground motion in terms of an engineering factor such as PGV. The finally obtained solution gives a moment magnitude of Mw 3.9 and the best focal depth of 4 km, which corresponds to the crust above the reservoir rather than its interior. This position is consistent with the tendency of Coulomb stress change due to a compaction at 5 km depth in the crust. Therefore, this earthquake can be interpreted as a relaxation of the shallow crust due to a deeper gas reservoir compaction so that the occurrence of similar events cannot be excluded in the near future. It would be necessary to continue monitoring such local induced seismicity in order to better understand the reservoir/overburden behavior and better assess the local seismic hazard even after the end of gas exploitation.


25 April 2016 earthquake Near-field ground motion Peak ground velocity Lacq gas field 



We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which improved our manuscript.

Funding information

This study has been funded by internal Research & Development fund from BRGM. The calculation of Green’s function was carried out at French National Supercomputing Center (GENCI/CINES) under the grants c2016-046700 (2016), A0010406700 (2017), and A0030406700 (2017-18).


  1. Aochi, H., A. Ducellier, F. Dupros, M. Delatre, T. Ulrich, F. De Martin and M. Yoshimi, Finite difference simulations of seismic wave propagation for the 2007 Chuetsu-Oki earthquake : validity of models and reliable input ground motion in the near-field, Pageoph, 170, 43–64, doi:, 2013a
  2. Aochi H, Ulrich T, Ducellier A, Dupros F, Michea D (2013b) Finite difference simulations of seismic wave propagation for understanding earthquake physics and predicting ground motions: advances and challenges. J Phys Conf Ser 454:012010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardainne, T.,2005 Etude de la sismicité de Lacq et analyse des formes d’ondes par décomposition en chirplets, PhD thesis, University of Pau, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardainne T, Dubos-Sallée N, Sénéchal G, Gaillot P, Perroud H (2008) Analysis of the induced seismicity of the Lacq gas field (southwestern France) and model of deformation. Geophys J Int 172:1151–1162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battaglia J, Aki K (2003) Location of seismic events and eruptive fissures on the Piton de la Fournaise volcano using seismic amplitudes. J Geophys Res 108:2364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Oates S, Cepeda JM, Lindholm C, Bird J, Torres R, Marroquin G, Rivas J (2006) Control of hazard due to seismicity induced by a hot fractured rock geothermal project. Eng Geol 83:287–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchon M (1981) A simple method to calculate Green’s functions for elastic layered media. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 71:959–971Google Scholar
  8. Cara M et al (2015) SI-Hex: a new catalogue of instrumental seismicity for metropolitan France. Bull Soc Géol France 2015(186):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collino F, Tsogka C (2001) Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media. Geophysics 66:294–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dominique, P.,2016 Microseismicity in post mining context—the coal basin of Gardanne (Fuveau, Bouches du Rhone, Provence, Journées Nationales de Géotechniques et de Géologie de l’Ingénieur, Nancy, France, . (extended abstract in French with English abstract)Google Scholar
  11. Douglas J, Aochi H, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2007) The importance of crustal structure in explaining the observed uncertainties in ground motion estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 5:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreger DS, Helmberger DV (1993) Determination of source parameters at regional distances with single station or sparse network data. J Geophys Res 98:8107–8125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldberg, D., 1989Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning, Addison-Wesley Professional, ISBN 978–0201157673,Google Scholar
  14. Grasso JR, Wittlinger G (1990) Ten years of seismic monitoring over a gas field. Bull. Seism Soc Am 80(2):450–473Google Scholar
  15. Holland, J. H., 1975 Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Hough SE (2014) Shaking from injection-induced earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 104:2619–2626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ide S, Aochi H (2005) Earthquakes as multiscale dynamic ruptures with heterogeneous fracture surface energy. J. Geophys. Res. 110:B11303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King GCP, Stein RS, Lin J (1994) Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 84:935–953Google Scholar
  19. Kubo A, Fukuyama E, Kawai H, Nonomura K (2002) NIED seismic moment tensor catalogue for regional earthquakes around Japan: quality test and application. Tectonophysics 356:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Okada Y (1985) Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 75:1435–1454Google Scholar
  21. Okada Y (1992) Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 82:1018–1040Google Scholar
  22. Segall P (1992) Induced stresses due to fluid extraction from axisymmetric reservoirs. Pageoph 139:535–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Segall P, Grasso J-R, Mossop A (1994) Poroelastic stressing and induced seismicity near the Lacq gas field, southwestern France. J Geophys Res 99:15423–15438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Souriau A, Granet M (1995) A tomographic study of the lithosphere beneath the Pyrenees from local and teleseismic data. J Geophys Res 100(B9):18117–18134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ulrich T, Aochi H (2015) Rapidness and robustness of finite source inversion from elliptical patches method using continuous GPS and acceleration data: 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. Pageoph 172:3439–3453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 84:974–1002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orléans Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations