Hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity in western Canada: insights from focal mechanism and swarm analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismicity rate in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) has increased substantially in the past 4 years, mainly due to local hydraulic fracturing (HF) operations for shale gas exploration. Aside from consistent shallow (<5 km, above the basement) hypocenters, it has been suggested that the focal mechanisms of these earthquakes exhibit strong non-double-couple (non-DC) component similar to microseismic events. In this paper, we systematically analyze the source parameters and fault characteristics of intermediate (M~4) earthquakes in the WCSB. The resulting focal mechanisms show either major strike-slip (in central Alberta) or thrust (e.g., along the Canadian Rockies) faulting mechanisms. We validate the induced nature of the newest seismic cluster (January 2016, Crooked Lake) via the spatial-temporal relationship between the seismic swarm and injections at a nearby HF well. We are able to determine the orientation (N-S) of the reactivated fault. Through statistical comparisons, we demonstrate that, unlike microseismic events, the non-DC component of induced earthquakes is similar to that of natural earthquakes at comparable depths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".