1
Industry Contributed Fault Map of Oklahoma Published as Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1 Stephen Holloway, Austin Holland, G. Randy Keller Introduction The Oklahoma Geological Survey has recently assembled a statewide fault database in order to gain a better understanding of potential seismic hazards and subsurface ge- ology. This database includes a compilation of surface and subsurface faults in Oklaho- ma based on available data contributed in voluntary cooperation with members of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA). The objectives of this database are to: 1. Identify significant subsurface and surface faults within Oklahoma. Particularly of in- terest in this effort was the contribution of faults in lower stratigraphic units, because most of the seismicity within Oklahoma is occurring below sedimentary units in crystal- line basement (Darold et al., 2015). 2. Compile previously unreleased, proprietary industry contributions with a focus on metadata and quality of the fault location and other important information. 3. Enhance the Oklahoma Fault Database and maps that can be used for research, and by the public, industry, and state agencies. 4. Encourage future high quality contributions from the oil and gas industry and others. The Oklahoma Fault Database is not intended to be a map of faults within Oklahoma, although such products can be derived from this effort (Holland, 2015; Marsh and Hol- land, 2016). Instead, the Oklahoma Fault Database is a GIS-enabled database that may provide several representations of the same fault. This has the advantage of pro- viding assessments of where geologist agree and faults can be considered to have low spatial uncertainty and areas where there is little or no agreement; these faults would be considered to have high spatial uncertainty. In addition, the source of the fault and other key information such as the formation or formations the fault can be seen to offset. Each fault is assigned a quality rating, which is based on how the fault was con- strained, which can dramatically help in assessing faulting structure within an area. The Oklahoma Fault Database is designed to be available to all stakeholders through the OGS. Application The compilation of data voluntarily contributed by industry presented a number of chal- lenges, including: • Each contributor may have a different the definition of what is a "significant" fault. The choice of what was a significant fault and the method of interpretation was left to each contributor. • Differences in interpretation of subsurface data can and does occur throughout indi- vidual organizations as well as between organizations. • The faults contributed to this effort become public record. Faults are already being used in the permitting and evaluation of existing wells by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Holland et al., 2014). This means that voluntary data contributions could potentially inhibit an organizations ability to operate within an area. • It is often the case that individuals submitting data for an organization my not be fa- miliar with the data enough to accurately provide the requested metadata. • Oil and gas companies have many different software systems and methods of rep- resenting faults that may or may not be easily compatible or represented in the re- quested format. Capturing relevant metadata was a major goal of the Oklahoma Fault Database effort. Metadata regarding faults is especially important, as a fault is a 3-dimensional struc- ture with a wide variety of properties that are both potentially known and unknown. The OGS developed a framework for metadata that was provided to contributors that de- scribed the type of metadata requested (Table 1). Metadata takes time and effort to fill out correctly and fully capture. To encourage more data contributions, we attempted to establish a balance between forcing a rigid metadata requirement and making the pro- cess of contributing valuable data as easy as possible. The metadata and geospatial information for the industry contributions is stored in a geospatially enabled relational database. The data contributions are provided in a number of geospatial formats derived directly from the database. The geospatial data and metadata can be downloaded from the OGS website’s Oklahoma Fault Database page. The data can then be explored by standard GIS applications both spatially and from the metadata. To further ease the contribution process, we created a secure online submission file server and communicated with the various industry contributors to ensure the integrity of the data. Contributors were given a login and password to the secure file server and provided with a list of instructions, a list of defined fault attributes, a shapefile of prelim- inary statewide faults from prior publications, and an example database. OGS staff are available for technical assistance. Discussion As of May, 2016, seven companies have provided contributions and with a highly varied rate of metada- ta reporting. The data contributions from the oil and gas industry contain more than 6,000 individual fea- tures (Figure 1). There are still significant areas where the Oklahoma Fault Database would benefit from additional contributions from the oil and gas industry, but the current contributions have added a great deal of information about faults within Oklahoma, particularly in Western Oklahoma (Figure 2). This effort represents a culmination of many discussions with individuals and organizations within the oil and gas industry that started in 2010. It took a broad industry acceptance and the leadership of the Oklahoma In- dependent Petroleum Association to make this effort a reality. The oil and gas contributions to the Oklahoma Fault Database will be an ongoing process as more data contributions are received the data and metadata will be formatted such that it is compatible and added to the database. As new data is added to the database it will become available through the access meth- ods provided on the Oklahoma Fault Database webpage. The Oklahoma Geological Survey welcomes future data contributions, especially in areas without existing coverage (Figure 1). Capturing adequate metadata has proven the most challenging aspect of this effort. In order to aid in the submission process, it may be beneficial to allow aggregated metadata for entire or partial data contribu- tions. This change may mean that more metadata is submitted for contributed faults. Adequate represen- tation and understanding of fault orientations including strike and dip will allow researchers to conduct assessments of fault stability within the regional stress-field such as done by Hurd and Zoback (2012). The other commonly reported metadata such as formations the faults intersect may aid in various hydro- logic modeling efforts (Carrel, 2014; Keranen et al., 2014). OBJECTID Unique identification number assigned automatically when a feature is added in ArcGIS. SHAPE Default feature type is polyline z. Assigned automatically when a feature is added in ArcGIS. SHAPE_LENGTH Length of the polyline in decimal degrees. Calculated automatically in ArcGIS. NAME Name of the fault (if known). TOPFORMATION Name of geologic formation intersected by the top of fault (if known). BOTFORMATION Name of geologic formation intersected by the bottom of fault (if known). Also indicate basement or other information if known. TOPZ Depth in meters to top of fault (if known). BOTZ Depth in meters to bottom of fault (if known). DIPDIRECTION Dip direction for the entire fault or section, not the individual arc. Allowable values: C = center, E = east, N = north, NE = northeast, NW = northwest, S = south, SE = southeast, SW = southwest, and W = west. SLIPRATE Slip rate of fault (if known). Defines the assigned slip rate category. Allowable values are between 1 and 4 and determines line width: 1=>5 mm/year (extra wide; .048): 2 =1-5 mm/year (wide; .0325): 3 =0.2-1 mm/year (medium; .025); 4 =<.2 mm/year (thin; .015) SLIPSENSE Sense of slip (if known). Allowable choices are: normal, reverse, strike slip, and thrust. SUBSURFACE Define if fault is subsurface (if known). Yes if a subsurface fault. No if surface fault. Default is null. QUALITY Self-reported estimate of the quality of the fault location. Examples listed. Excellent (3-D seismic, outcrop field mapping) Good (2-D seismic with well control, inferred field mapping) Fair (dense well control) Poor (sparse well control) Unknown DATASOURCE Type of information used to control fault location. Seismic (2-D) Seismic (3-D) Well log Field mapping Other MAPPEDSCALE One of four allowable choices provided in a pull-down menu. Mapped scale can be used to control visualization of the fault at various scales. Allowable values: 1:24,000, fault should be more continuous than discontinuous and mapping is accurate at <10,000 scale. 1:50,000, fault should be more continuous than discontinuous and mapping is accurate at <25,000 scale. 1:100,000, fault could be more discontinuous than continuous and mapping is accurate at <50,000 scale. 1:250,000, fault location may be inferred or is poorly constrained. Other COMPANY Name of company. This is a private field and will not be shared with the public. CONTRIBUTOR Name of contributor. This is a private field and will not be shared with the public. References Carrel, J., 2014, Field-Scale Hydrogeologic Modeling of Water Injection into the Arbuckle Zone of the Midcontinent, M.S. Thesis: University of Oklahoma, 103 p. Darold, A. P., Holland, A. A., Morris, J. K., and Gibson, A. R., 2015, Okla- homa Earthquake Summary Report 2014: Okla. Geol. Surv. Open-File Report, v. OF1-2015, p. 56. Holland, A., Keller, G. R., Darold, A., Murray, K., and Holloway, S., 2014, Multidisciplinary Approach to Identify and Mitigate the Hazard from In- duced Seismicity in Oklahoma, Amer. Geophys. Union Fall Meeting: San Francisco, CA, Amer. Geophys. Union. Holland, A. A., 2013, Optimal Fault Orientations within Oklahoma: Seis- mol. Res. Lett., v. 84, no. 5, p. 876-890. Holland, A. A., 2015, Preliminary Fault Map of Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geo- logical Survey Open File Report, v. OF3-2015. Hurd, O., and Zoback, M. D., 2012, Regional Stress Orientations and Slip Compatibility of Earthquake Focal Planes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone: Seismol. Res. Lett., v. 83, no. 4, p. 672-679. Keranen, K. M., Weingarten, M., Abers, G. A., Bekins, B. A., and Ge, S., 2014, Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity 2009-2014 in- duced by massive wastewater injection: Science. Marsh, S. and Holland, A. A., 2016. Comprehensive Fault Database and Interpretive Fault Map of Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF2-2016. Figure 1. Map of industry contributions to the Oklahoma Fault Database. Published as Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) for their cooperation and Russell Standridge of the Oklahoma Geological Survey for assistance with GIS. Funding for this project is provided by RPSEA through the "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources" program authorized by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005. RPSEA (www.rpsea.org) is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to provide a stewardship role in ensuring the fo- cused research, development and deployment of safe and environmentally responsible technology that can effectively deliver hydrocarbons from domestic resources to the citizens of the United States. RPSEA, oper- ating as a consortium of premier U.S. energy research universities, industry, and independent research or- ganizations, manages the program under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. Table 1. Metadata and definitions requested from contributors. Figure 2. Map of in- dustry contributions to the Oklahoma Fault Database (blue) shown in comparison with the Comprehen- sive Fault Database (red). § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ § ¨ ¦ ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6N 5 4 3 2 1N 21 26W 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1W 1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26E C I M A R R O N T E X A S B E A V E R H A R P E R W O O D S W O O D W A R D E L L I S R O G E R M I L L S D E W E Y C U S T E R B E C K H A M W A S H I T A G R E E R H A R M O N J A C K S O N K I O W A T I L L M A N C O T T O N C O M A N C H E S T E P H E N S J E F F E R S O N L O V E C A R T E R M A R S H A L L J O H N S T O N A T O K A B R Y A N C H O C T A W P U S H M A T A H A M C C U R T A I N L E F L O R E L A T I M E R P I T T S B U R G C O A L P O N T O T O C M U R R A Y G A R V I N C A D D O G R A D Y C A N A D I A N B L A I N E K I N G F I S H E R M A J O R A L F A L F A G R A N T G A R F I E L D K A Y N O B L E O S A G E P A W N E E W A S H I N G T O N N O W A T A C R A I G O T T A W A D E L A W A R E M A Y E S A D A I R C H E R O K E E M U S K O G E E S E Q U O Y A H H A S K E L L R O G E R S T U L S A W A G O N E R O K M U L G E E M C I N T O S H H U G H E S S E M I N O L E O K F U S K E E C R E E K C L E V E L A N D M C C L A I N P O T T A W A T O M I E O K L A H O M A L I N C O L N L O G A N P A Y N E 44 40 35 44 40 35 Ponca City Tulsa Stillwater Cushing Oklahoma City Lawton 95° 96° 97° 98° 34° 99° 35° 100° 36° 37° 103° 102° 101° 7 15 16 17 21 20 19 18 1S 10S 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 26 25 24 23 22 14 13 12 11 27E 1E 27 28 29N 28E 1E 29N 1N 1W 8 19 8 2 1N 11 29N 35° 4 95° 16 17 9 18 23 2 10 14 6 13 22 14 5 17 5 2 4 16 8 11 18 16 7 6 17 11 19 11 10 9 100° 13 25 12 24 10 11 22 20 37° 4 18 5 25W 23 6 27 10 3 4 3 10 17 19 9 15 9 4 19 7 25 18 7 7 102° 14 2 3 16 23 6 22 25W 20 1E 8 19 26 8 3 8 3 10 5 22 21 23 3 18 17 28 1N 27 27 24 21 11 9 7 18 15 24E 23 14 36° 24 22 99° 16 5 2 17 23 6 96° 24 7 2 17 4 21 12 9 26 22 20 20 3 12 13 14 15 2 21 3 13 1W 4 5 12 34° 101° 6 19 7 98° 15 15 6 1S 14 5 26 7 4 28 11 25 5 26 12 15 2 2 22 18 20 12 13 21 13 13 20 9 16 97° 8 6 24 9 8 14 7 15 20 10 4 5 23 21 19 3 10 6 25 16 24 12 103° SCALE 1:750 000 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS
