This presentation employs map animation to display three years of earthquakes (March 2009-February 2011) in north-central Arkansas, and uses spatial-analysis buffers to identify the number of people and the critical facilities at risk.

1. An Arkansas Case Study
Nancy Cole
Intro to GIS Class
May 2, 2012

2. U.S. Shale-Gas Fields
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

3. Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

4. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

5. Fayetteville Shale Gas Rig
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

6. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

7. Fracking-Fluid Holding Pond in Arkansas
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

8. UIC or
Underground Injection Control
Well
Used for the disposal
of fracking fluids
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

9. Data Sources
1. Well Data:
Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission GeoStor Web site
2. Earthquake Data:
Center for Earthquake Research and Information Web
site
3. Basemap:
U.S. Census Bureau 2010 TIGER/Line shapefiles Web
site
4. Population Data:
U.S. Census Bureau Fact Finder 2 Web site
5. Critical-Facility
Locations:
U.S. Geological Survey’s GNIS (Geographic
Names Information System) Web site
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

10. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

11. Methods Overview
Primarily Faulkner County
3 Years: March 2009-2012
8 fracking-disposal wells
1,483 earthquakes
Magnitude
Graph of Earthquakes 03/01/2009 - 02/29/2012
4
3
2
1
0
25-Aug-09
23-Nov-09
21-Feb-10
22-May-10
20-Aug-10
18-Nov-10
16-Feb-11
17-May-11
15-Aug-11
13-Nov-11
Date
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions
11-Feb-12

12. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

13. Earthquake Magnitude Scale
Richter Magnitude
Estimated Effects
2.5 or less
Usually not felt, but can be recorded by seismograph.
2.5 to 5.4
Often felt, but only causes minor damage.
5.5 to 6.0
Slight damage to buildings and other structures.
6.1 to 6.9
May cause a lot of damage in very populated areas.
7.0 to 7.9
Major earthquake. Serious damage.
8.0 or greater
Great earthquake. Can totally destroy communities
near the epicenter.
Source: Michigan Tech
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

14. Frequency of Occurrence of Earthquakes
Magnitude
Annual Average
8 and higher
1¹
7 - 7.9
15 ¹
6 - 6.9
134 ²
5 - 5.9
1,319 ²
4 - 4.9
13,000 (estimated)
3 - 3.9
130,000 (estimated)
2 - 2.9
1,300,000 (estimated)
¹ Based on observations since 1900.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
² Based on observations since 1990.
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

15. Primary Tools
1. Map animation
When and where did the earthquakes occur?
2. Spatial-analysis buffers
How many people were at risk?
What “critical facilities” were at risk?
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

16. Map animation - When and where did the earthquakes occur?
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

17. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

18. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

19. Spatial analysis buffers - What “critical facilities” were at risk?
5-Mile Radius
Facilities/County Cleburne
Airports
0
Bridges
0
Dams
0
Hospitals
0
Schools
0
Conway
0
0
0
0
0
Faulkner
3
0
4
0
9
Van Buren
0
0
0
0
0
Total
3
0
4
0
9
Van Buren
0
0
0
0
3
Total
5
4
7
0
17
10-Mile Radius
Facilities/County Cleburne
Airports
0
Bridges
0
Dams
0
Hospitals
0
Schools
2
Introduction
Background
Data
Conway
0
0
0
0
0
Methods
Faulkner
5
4
7
0
12
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

20. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

21. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

22. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

23. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

24. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

25. Conclusions
Steve Horton concluded:
1. The close spatial and temporal correlation of the Guy-Greenbrier earthquake
“swarm” with disposal-well use – at high volumes and pressures – indicate that
fluid-injection triggered the earthquakes.
2. Similar earthquakes were triggered in the 1960s in Colorado at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal (5.2 magnitude) and Paradox Valley (4.3 magnitude).
3. The peak of the Arkansas earthquake swarm tended to lag disposal activity at
wells 6 and 7 by 15 weeks.
4. The newly-identified Guy-Greenbrier fault could produce a magnitude 6.0
earthquake.
5. The location of fracking-waste disposal wells should be regulated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions

26. Introduction
Background
Data
Methods
Tools
Results
Maps
Conclusions