Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; October 1978; v. 68; no. 5; p. 1469-1485
© 1978 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LEBLANC, G.
Right arrow Articles by ANGLIN, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Induced seismicity at the Manic 3 reservoir, Quebec

GABRIEL LEBLANC* and F. ANGLIN

DIVISION OF SEISMOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL STUDIES EARTH PHYSICS BRANCH DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES & RESOURCES, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Canada, KIA OY3

Abstract

Six weeks after the start of filling of the Manic 3 reservoir a long sequence of induced earthquakes began. The main shock, mbLg = 4.1, occurred on October 23, 1975, preceded by 1 month of foreshock activity and followed by more than 1,000 aftershocks in the next 4 months. After 2 years, the activity still persists, although the microshocks are substantially reduced in frequency and magnitude. Station MNQ, about 80 km from the activated source, served as an efficient monitor providing data from which increasing induced seismicity was predicted and for evaluating the subsequent activity. Two portable networks were deployed around the source, one in 1975 and the other in 1976. The activity was very shallow, with an average value of 1.5 km, and the cluster of microearthquakes spread over an area of 4 by 4 km. No systematic spatial migration was observed. The activity appeared to have been triggered by the water percolating through joint systems and along northwest oriented planes. The presence of regional stresses and local inhomogeneities, structural and lithological, are suggested as the principal causes, and not the dimensions of the reservoir and the water height.

Footnotes

* Present address: Weston Geophysical Corp., P.O. Box 550, Westboro, Massachusetts 01581.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
M. Lamontagne, Y. Hammamji, and V. Peci
Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity at the Toulnustouc Hydroelectric Project, Quebec North Shore, Canada
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2008; 98(5): 2543 - 2552.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
D.W. SIMPSON, W.S. LEITH, and C.H. SCHOLZ
Two types of reservoir-induced seismicity
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1988; 78(6): 2025 - 2040.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
F. M. ANGLIN and G. G. R. BUCHBINDER
Induced seismicity at the LG3 reservoir, James Bay, Quebec, Canada
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1985; 75(4): 1067 - 1076.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
J. E. SHIRLEY
Tasmanian seismicity--natural and reservoir-induced
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1980; 70(6): 2203 - 2220.
[Abstract] [PDF]


JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Seismological Society of America