Post on 04-Jul-2020
PROCEEDINGS, Thirty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 24-26, 2014
SGP-TR-202
Micro-seismicity and seismic moment release within the Coso Geothermal Field, California
J. Ole Kavena, Stephen H. Hickman
a and Nicholas C. Davatzes
b
aUSGS Earthquake Science Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025
bEarth and Environmental Science, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
okaven@usgs.gov
Keywords: Microseismicity, Coso, relocation, moment release.
ABSTRACT
We relocate 16 years of seismicity in the Coso Geothermal Field (CGF) using differential travel times and simultaneously invert for
seismic velocities to improve our knowledge of the subsurface geologic and hydrologic structure. We expand on our previous results by
doubling the number of relocated events from April 1996 through May 2012 using a new field-wide 3-D velocity model. Relocated micro-
seismicity sharpens in many portions of the active geothermal reservoir, likely defining large-scale fault zones and fluid pressure
compartment boundaries. However, a significant fraction of seismicity remains diffuse and does not cluster into sharply defined structures,
suggesting that permeability is maintained within the reservoir through distributed brittle failure. The seismic velocity structure reveals
heterogeneous distributions of compressional (Vp) and shear (Vs) wave speed, with Vs generally higher in the Main Field and East Flank
and Vp remaining relatively uniform across the CGF, but with significant local variations. The Vp/Vs ratio appears to outline the two main
producing compartments of the reservoir at depths below mean ground level of approximately 1 to 2.5 km, with a ridge of relatively high
Vp/Vs separating the Main Field from the East Flank. Detailed analyses of spatial and temporal variations in earthquake relocations and
cumulative seismic moment release in the East Flank reveal three regions with persistently high rates of seismic activity. Two of these
regions exhibit sharp, stationary boundaries at the margins of the East Flank that likely represent barriers to fluid flow and advective heat
transport. However, seismicity and moment release in a third region at the northern end of the East Flank spread over time to form an
elongated NE to SW structure, roughly parallel both to an elongated cluster of seismicity at the southern end of the East Flank and to
regional fault traces mapped at the surface. Our results indicate that high-precision relocations of micro-seismicity and simultaneous
velocity inversions in conjunction with mapping of seismic moment release can provide useful insights into subsurface structural features
and hydrologic compartmentalization within the Coso Geothermal Field.
1. INTRODUCTION
Geothermal reservoirs derive their capacity for fluid and heat transport in large part from faults and fractures. Micro-seismicity generated
on such faults and fractures can be used to identify larger fault structures as well as fractures that provide access to hot rock and the fluid
storage and recharge capacity necessary to have a sustainable geothermal resource. Additionally, inversion for seismic velocities using
micro-seismicity permits imaging of regions subject to the combined effects of variations in fracture density, liquid/steam content,
lithology and other factors.
The Coso Geothermal Field (CGF), located east of the Sierra Nevada batholith, is situated in a tectonically active region that features
strike-slip and normal faults as well as numerous magmatic intrusions evident at the surface such as rhyolite domes (Duffield et al., 1980;
Manley and Bacon, 2000). Two groups of major faults can be distinguished at the surface based on their orientation and style of faulting
(Fig. 1): northwest trending faults with dextral strike-slip that form prominent lineaments with uncertain ages (Duffield et al., 1980; Unruh
and Hauksson, 2006; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006) and north to northeast trending normal faults that dip both west and east and may have
been active in the Quaternary (Hulen, 1978; Unruh and Hauksson, 2006; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006). These faults appear to divide the
reservoir into two distinct hydrologic compartments: the Main Field and the East Flank (Fig.1), as shown by analysis of temperature logs
(Kaven et al., 2011) and by clustered microseismicity (see below). These two compartments constitute the primary, productive geothermal
resource within the CGF.
Seismicity within the CGF occurs both tectonically and as a consequence of injection and production within the field (Monastero et al.,
2005). The seismicity is recorded by the Navy Geothermal Program Office (GPO) using a combination of down-hole and surface
seismometers. Initial locations by the GPO generally reveal diffuse clouds of seismicity that occur predominantly in the Main Field and the
East Flank (see Kaven et al., 2013). These “clouds” do not clearly coincide with the mapped fault traces at the surface. Subsurface imaging
of fault structure from reflection seismic (Monastero et al., 2005) or magnetotelluric imaging (Newman et al., 2008) lacks sufficient
resolution; thus, the relationship of these earthquake locations to reservoir-scale fault structure at depth remains poorly constrained.
Several studies have used data recorded by the GPO and the regional Southern California Seismic Network to analyze earthquakes within
and adjacent to the CGF, improve hypocentral locations, and invert for the velocity structure of the greater Coso area (e.g. Lees, 1998; Wu
and Lees, 1999; Hauksson and Unruh, 2007; Seher et al., 2011). Other studies have focused on improving hypocentral locations and
obtaining moment tensors for microseismicity associated with individual hydraulic fracturing events (Foulger et al. 2008; Julian et al.,
2010). In a regional study of subsurface variations in compressional (Vp) and shear (Vs) velocities from July 1993 to June 1995, Wu and
Lees (1999) found low Vp/Vs ratios in the Main Field at geothermal production depths. They suggested that this anomaly might represent a
hot, fluid-depleted zone. The goal of our investigation is to better constrain the subsurface geometry of faults that may act as either
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
conduits or barriers to fluid migration and to define the nature and extent of hydrologic compartmentalization within the CGF. We also
seek evidence for the relative roles of discrete fault zones versus diffuse fracture networks in controlling heat and fluid transport within the
reservoir. We build on results from Kaven et al. (2011, 2012, 2013) with a more extensive analysis of the seismic data recorded by the
GPO to improve absolute and relative earthquake locations, develop a newly refined velocity structure, and calculate seismic moment for
events within the CGF.
Figure 1: Topographic map of Coso Geothermal Field (CGF), showing Navy GPO seismic network stations, geothermal injection
and production well head locations, and regional fault traces mapped by Jayko (2009). The approximate boundaries of the
two main producing reservoir compartments (the Main Field and East Flank) are shown as black polygons.
2. DATA & METHODS
We used seismic data recorded on a triggered event basis by Navy GPO from April 1996 to May 2012 at 20 permanent stations and 30
temporarily deployed stations. Most stations are three-component borehole geophones (Litton 10-11, 4.5 Hz geophones, with a few surface
stations (L22 three-component short-period seismometers). While the geophones remained identical throughout the time span of interest,
the digitizers were changed in February of 2002 from Nanometrics RD1 to Nanometrics HDR24 instruments.
As described in more detail by Kaven et al. (2013), we began our analysis by revising the Navy GPO catalog using GPO network data to
determine absolute locations and origin times for events within and adjacent to the CGF. The full GPO catalog from April 1996 to May
2012 consists of over 140,000 events, including regional events and teleseismic events. However, the GPO catalog for the region
immediately adjacent to the geothermal reservoir contains more than 80,000 events. Owing to changes in database access protocols, Navy
GPO phase picks were available only from April 1996 through October 2009; thus, phases for more recent events had to be picked
manually. In total we inspected waveforms and picked P- and S-wave arrival times for approximately 25,800 triggered events recorded by
the GPO network from November 2009 through May 2012. We located over 60% of these triggered events, resulting in roughly the same
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
number of located events per month as are contained in the prior Navy GPO picked catalog. Combining these manually picked events with
our event locations using GPO phase picks, we obtained absolute locations for a total of 83,790 events within the CGF over from April
1996 to May 2012. To ensure that hypocentral parameters (absolute locations and origin times) are of comparable quality throughout the
period of interest (see Kissling et al., 1994), we used a consistent and reliable one-dimensional velocity model derived from bootstrapping
velocity inversions to locate all events. We tracked travel-time RMS horizontal and vertical errors, and assigned quality grades in our
absolute (single-event) locations. We found that all measures of the hypocentral parameter quality remained constant throughout the time
span considered, with quality of event locations skewed toward higher grades (A,B, which correspond to low RMS, low location errors and
small azimuthal gaps) in the years that we manually picked.
As in prior studies (Kaven et al., 2012, 2013), we obtained finer-scale images of subsurface structure and hydrologic compartmentalization
by employing high-precision relative relocation techniques. We used the revised event catalog and phase picks to derive differential travel
times for events with a minimum of 12 phase picks and offset at most 3 km from one another to relatively relocate 31,600 events and
simultaneously invert for the three-dimensional P- and S-wave velocity structure. We utilized the code tomoDD to carry out this relocation
and simultaneous velocity inversion, starting with the one-dimensional P- and S-wave velocity model from previous work (Zhang and
Thurber, 2003; Kaven et al., 2012). Although Kaven et al. (2013) used both differential travel time and waveform cross-correlation
relocation techniques for selected areas of the CGF, in the present study only differential travel times were used. Roughly 80% of all events
were retained during this relocation; rejected events did not have sufficiently similar events nearby (as determined by location offsets or
small RMS differential travel times) in sequentially more stringent relocation iteration and convergence criteria.
We calculated seismic moment (M0) and moment magnitude (Mw) using Navy GPO recordings for the newest recording epoch starting in
February 2002. We use nominal instrument responses for the geophones and HDR24 digitizers to simulate the instrument response,
integrate the velocity traces to displacement, and then integrate the first pulse following either the P- or S-wave arrival (Boatwright, 1980).
Seismic moment is calculated from the pulse using:
M0 = 4prv3r udtò (1)
following Prejean and Ellsworth (2002). We use the P- and S-wave velocity near the average source depth in the reservoir for seismic
velocity. We take the L1-norm of all stations per event to calculate event M0 and event Mw. using the relationship developed in Eaton
(1992).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Event locations
Both absolute locations and relative relocations demonstrate that seismicity in the CGF is concentrated in the two major compartments, the
Main Field to the southwest and the East Flank to the northeast (Figs. 1, 2). Nearly all seismicity recorded within the CGF is located within
these two compartments, which are separated by a region nearly void of any seismicity through the time period covered by the revised
catalog. This lack of seismicity between the two major compartments likely indicates that both compartments are confined and fluid and
heat exchange between the two compartments may be limited. Further evidence for the separation of the two compartments is provided by
temperature data from the CGF (Fig. 4), which indicates substantially lower temperatures between these two main compartments than
within them (Kaven et al., 2011).
The results of our differential travel time relocations for the entire field over the time period April 1996 to May 2012 highlight the
refinement in hypocentral parameters made possible by the relative relocation technique (Fig. 2). Initial locations are significantly more
diffuse (Fig.2a). The relocation utilizing P- and S-wave differential travel times from phase picks significantly sharpens the distribution of
earthquakes throughout the reservoir, resulting in more distinct clustering (Fig.2b). Seismicity in the Main Field is shallower when
compared to the East Flank (Fig. 2c). Despite significant improvement in relative location precision and structural delineation when
utilizing this more comprehensive data set (compare Fig. 2b with results in Kaven et al., 2011, 2012), major through-going features remain
evasive when viewing all seismicity, even in cross-section. This indicates that a large amount of seismicity occurs on pervasive, small-
scale faults and fractures that are distributed throughout the two main CGF reservoir compartments.
Relocated seismicity in the East Flank (Fig. 3) shows this diffuse seismicity in more detail and indicates that most seismicity occurs at
depths of active injection and production (Fig. 3b). Sharp boundaries that persist over time are visible along some edges of the East Flank
compartment, especially to the south, southeast and east, past which little seismicity is observed. However, seismicity along the northern
and western edges of the East Flank is much more diffuse, and exhibits temporal migration to the northwest, especially starting around
2008. This migration presumably reflects changes in injection or production in this portion of the field. Although the migration of
microseismicity within the East Flank over time (Fig. 3) offers important clues to the geometry and extent of fluid pressure pathways and
barriers, major structural features, such as through-going faults, are still not clearly delineated in this close-up view of the East Flank.
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
Figure 2: Earthquake locations within the Coso Geothermal Field as derived in this study over the time period April 1996 through
May 2012. a) Single-event (absolute) locations obtained from hypoinverse locations of ~32,000 events. These events were
chosen from the complete revised catalog of over 140,000 events by selecting events with a minimum of 12 phase picks (see
text). b) Relative (double-difference) relocation results for the events shown in Fig. 2a, using only events with low RMS
residuals during the inversion c) Vertical cross-section of relocated seismicity in Fig. 2b, looking to the northwest (viewing
direction shown as arrow in Fig. 2b). Depths indicated are relative to mean sea level, which is 1 km below average ground
elevation. No vertical exaggeration.
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
Figure 3: a) Relocated seismicity in the East Flank of the CGF, color-coded by date of occurrence (oldest events in dark green,
youngest events in yellow). Also shown are locations of well pads for injection and production wells along with horizontal
projections of these wells. Portions of wells that are in hydraulic communication with the reservoir (either through an
open-hole interval or slotted-liners) are indicated by thicker lines. The approximate boundary of the East Flank
compartment is shown as a black polygon. b) Vertical cross-section of relocated seismicity and wells shown in Fig. 3a,
looking to the southwest (viewing direction shown as arrow in Fig. 3a). Depths indicated are relative to mean sea level and
there is no vertical exaggeration.
3.2 Velocity Structure
To ensure that the three-dimensional velocity structure obtained during simultaneous inversion for relative hypocentral parameters and
velocity structure is robust, we enforced a minimum ray-path crossing criteria appropriate to the grid spacing used in our model. We find
that ray path coverage, indicated by the derivative weighted sum (DWS) of ray lengths for both P- and S-waves passing through each grid
point are sufficient at most depths in the Main Field and the East Flank to allow for an inversion grid with a 200m horizontal and 500m
vertical point spacing (Fig. 4, first and third columns). Although not shown here, we also find that large-scale features, particularly in Vs,
are resolved similarly when using a larger horizontal grid spacing of 400m in the inversion and enforcing the same ray-crossing conditions.
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
Figure 4: Velocity model of the CGF as obtained from simultaneous earthquake relocations and field wide 3D velocity inversion.
Depths of each image (relative to sea level) are indicated along the right-hand margin. First column: summed P-wave path
lengths (DWS) at inversion grid points. DWS, or derivative weighted sum refers to the sampling density at each grid points
and serves as an approximation of model resolution (Zhang and Thurber, 2007). Second column: Vp. Third column:
weighted, summed S-wave path lengths at inversion grid points. Fourth column: Vs. Fifth column: Vp/Vs ratio. Results for
Vp, Vs and Vp/Vs are not shown (white spaces) in regions of low P- or S-wave ray coverage (i.e., DWS<50).
P-wave velocity (Fig.3, second column) at all depths is highly heterogeneous, but with relatively high velocities in the region between the
Main Field and East Flank at depths relative to sea level (RSL) of less than 0.5 km (Fig.3, second column). However, at greater depths
(≥1.0 km RSL), relatively high P-wave velocities are found throughout the East Flank and to the northwest of the Main Field. The S-wave
velocity inversion indicates relatively high velocities within these two reservoir compartments (Fig. 3, fourth column), at least where
sufficient ray coverage exists above a depth of 1 km RSL. Julian et al. (2008) suggested that regions of high Vs within the shallow Main
Field may reflect decreases in fluid pressure relative to those in adjacent portions of the field. This is consistent with our observation that
relatively high Vs within the Main Field and East Flank coincides in plan view and in depth with seismicity associated with ongoing
geothermal production (e.g., Fig. 3b).
In the CGF, the ratio of P- and S-wave speeds (Vp/Vs) reflects both small-scale heterogeneity of Vp and large-scale variations in Vs
(Fig.4). The Vp/Vs ratio is commonly used to infer sub-surface variations in rock and fluid properties, with Vp/Vs being most sensitive to
changes in temperature, effective stress (normal stress minus pore pressure), porosity/pore geometry (including fractures), and fluid
saturation state (e.g., Wu and Lees, 1999). In low porosity crystalline rock, such as the granitic rocks comprising the CGF, decreases in
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
Vp/Vs ratio are generally attributed to increases in temperature or decreases in porosity, water saturation or fluid pressure (O'Connell and
Budiansky, 1974; Chatterjee et al., 1985).
Figure 5: Comparison of Vs, Vp/Vs, and temperature (T) at a depth below sea level of 0.5 km. The first two panels are from Figure
4 (row 3) whereas the third panel is a smoothed interpolation of borehole temperature logs, normalized to the maximum
temperature recorded (after Kaven et al., 2011). Note the positive correlation between relatively high Vs, low Vp/Vs and
temperature in the Main Field and East Flank compartments.
Both the East Flank and the Main Field exhibit relatively low Vp/Vs at depths of 0 to 1 km RSL (Figs. 4 and 5), which coincides with the
densest clusters of seismicity (c.f. Fig. 2b). Seismicity associated with geothermal production is present in both these portions of the CGF
at comparable depths of 0 to 2 km RSL (Fig. 2c). Thus, we postulate that these localized decreases in Vp/Vs may result from relatively
low water saturation or fluid pressure due to ongoing geothermal production or may result from naturally elevated temperatures within the
main field and east flank. Although it is difficult to differentiate between the effects of fluid saturation (or pressure) and temperature, high
Vs in the East Flank relative to the Main Field (where temperatures are higher; Fig. 5) suggests that Vp/Vs in the CGF may be more
influenced by saturation state than by temperature. Also note the increased Vp/Vs between the East Flank and Main Field at intermediate
depths (0 to 1 km RSL). This region of high Vp/Vs is also relatively aseismic (Fig. 2), suggesting that the effects of geothermal production
on fracture porosity and/or saturation state in the region between the Main Field and East Flank may be minimal.
3.3 Seismic Moment
Seismic moments (M0) were calculated as described above for events in the revised CGF catalog, covering February 2002 through May
2012. We find that moment magnitude (Mw) scales approximately linearly with the duration magnitude (Md) calculated by the Navy GPO
prior to 2009, although they start to diverge for Mw greater than about 2. We currently are using the nominal seismometer and digitizer
responses in our Mw calculations and have only calibrated our results to a few events that are also in the Southern California Seismic
Network (SCSN) catalog. Thus, all results should be considered preliminary pending additional calibration.
We sum the moment of all events with Mw>0.5 for a particular year in 100 m squares in the East Flank (Fig. 6) to highlight regions in
which the relatively largest seismic moment release occurs. We choose Mw>0.5 to ensure that we include seismicity above the field-wide
magnitude of completeness determined by Kaven et al. (2013), thereby reducing systematic errors in moment release comparisons between
years. The resulting pattern of cumulative seismic moment reveals several regions of high cumulative moment release within the East
Flank compartment. A region of large moment release is in the southern East Flank, exhibiting a southwest to northeast trend that is most
prominent from 2004 to 2007 and again in 2009. In the central region of the East Flank a region of high cumulative seismic moment
release is prevalent in all years, but in more detail, with varying magnitude and location. Finally, starting in 2009 the northern part of the
East Flank experiences the highest cumulative seismic moment release, also trending southwest to northeast.
The consistent southwest to northeast trend of the southern and northern regions of high cumulative seismic moment release in the East
Flank likely indicate larger-scale fault and fracture zones that respond to changes in injection and production. These fault and fractures
zones are probably pre-existing features that aid in transport of fluid and heat, facilitating the growth of seismicity beyond the previous
margins of the East Flank (especially along its northern margin, see Fig 3) but may also serve as boundaries to fluid flow across them.
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
Figure 6: Cumulative seismic moment per year in 100 m squares within the East Flank for the years shown. Horizontal projections
of injection and production wells are shown in blue and red, respectively. Grey polygon indicates the approximate
boundary of the East Flank compartment.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Careful relocation of 16 years of seismic data from the Coso Geothermal Field (CGF) provides a significantly improved catalog of absolute
and relative earthquake locations. These results produce a significant sharpening of previously more diffuse clouds of seismicity, revealing
distinct fluid pressure compartments and persistent boundaries along some sides of the productive geothermal reservoir. A significant
portion of the seismicity, however, remains diffuse even after relocation. This suggests that seismicity throughout the reservoir on
pervasive small-scale faults and fractures plays a critical role in creating and maintaining the permeability needed for viable energy
production within the CGF.
Simultaneous seismic velocity inversions and earthquake relocations in the CGF reveal heterogeneous distributions of Vp, while Vs
appears to be relatively uniform and high within the two main reservoir compartments: the Main Field and East Flank. The ratio of Vp and
Vs, Vp/Vs, is relatively low within the Main Field and East Flank, but relatively high in an elongated region separating these two
compartments. Although it is difficult to differentiate between the effects of temperature and fluid saturation (or pressure) on Vp/Vs, the
relatively low Vp/Vs observed in the two main compartments – especially in the East Flank, where Vs is higher but temperatures are lower
than in the Main Field –may reflect variations in fluid saturation state due to ongoing geothermal production.
Yearly comparisons of cumulative moment release in the East Flank compartment reveal regions of high moment release that border the
East Flank to the south and north and one that is in its interior. These regions exhibit temporal and spatial variations in moment release rate
that may correspond to changes in geothermal injection and production, as reflected for example by migration of microseismicity beyond
the East Flank’s previous northern boundary. The general northeast to southwest trend of the two regions of high moment release at the
East Flank boundaries agrees well with the regional structural fabric, suggesting that these regions may represent large-scale active faults
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
or fracture zones. These fault and fracture zones likely aid in transporting fluid and heat to the producing regions of the reservoir and in
promoting reservoir growth, while also likely serving as boundaries to fluid and heat flow across them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the Navy GPO and Terra-Gen for permission to use their seismic data. This work was funded by the USGS Mendenhall Post-
Doctoral Fellowship program and the DOE Geothermal Technologies Program under Interagency Agreement DEEE0001501, with
additional support provided by the USGS Energy Resources and Earthquake Hazards Programs. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is
for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
REFERENCES
Boatwright, (1980), “A spectral theory for circular seismic sources: Simple estimates of source dimension, dynamic stress drop, and
radiated seismic energy”, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 70, 1–28.
Chatterjee, S.N., Pitt, A.M., and Iyer, H.M. (1985), "Vp/Vs ratios in the Yellowstone National Park Region, Wyoming”, Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 26, 213-230.
Davatzes, N. C. and Hickman, S. H.. (2006), "Stress and faulting in the Coso geothermal field: update and recent results from the East
Flank and Coso Wash”, Proceedings 31st Workshop on geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 30 – February 1. 2006, SGP-TR-179, 12p.
Duffield, W. A., Bacon, C. R., and Dalrymple, G. B. (1980), "Late Cenozoic volcanism, geochronology and structure of the Coso Range,
Inyo County, California”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 85, 2381-2404.
Eaton, J. (1992), “Determination of amplitude and duration magnitudes and residuals from short-period seismograms in Northern
California”, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 82, 533–579.
Foulger, G.R., Julian, B.R. and Monastero, F. C. (2008), “Seismic monitoring of EGS tests at the Coso Geothermal area, California, using
accurate MEQ locations and full moment tensors”, Proceedings 33rd Workshop on geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, January 28 – 30, 2008, SGP-TR-179, 8p.
Hauksson, E. and Unruh, J. (2007), "Regional tectonics of the Coso geothermal area along the intracontinental plate boundary in central
eastern California: Three-dimensional Vp and Vp/Vs models, spatio-temporal seismicity patterns, and seismogenic deformation”,
Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, B06309.
Hulen, J. B. (1978), "Geology and alteration of the Coso geothermal area, Inyo County, California”, U.S. Dept. of Energy: Geothermal
Energy.
Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R. and Monastero, F. C. (2008), “Time-dependent seismic tomography and its application to the Coso Geothermal
Area, 1996-2006”, Proceedings 33rd Workshop on geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 28 – 30, 2008, SGP-TR-185, 4p.
Julian, B.R., G.R. Foulger, F.C. Monastero and S. Bjornstad (2010), “Imaging Hydraulic Fractures in a Geothermal Reservoir”, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 37, L07305, 10.1029/2009GL040933
Kaven, J.O., Hickman, S.H. and Davatzes, N.C. (2011), ”Micro-Seismicity, Fault Structure, and Hydrologic Compartmentalization Within
the Coso Geothermal Field, California”, Proceedings 36rd Workshop on geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California, January 31 – February 2, 2011, SGP-TR-191, 8p
Kaven , J.O., Hickman, S.H. and Davatzes, N.C. (2012), ”Mapping of Fluid Compartments with Micro-Seismicity and Seismic Velocities
Within the Coso Geothermal Field, California”, Proceedings 37rd Workshop on geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, January 30 – February 1, 2012, SGP-TR-194, 8p
Kaven J. O. , J.O., Hickman, S.H. and Davatzes, N.C. (2013), ”Micro-seismicity within the Coso Geothermal Field, California, from 1996
to 2012”, Proceedings 38rd Workshop on geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 11
– 13, 2011, SGP-TR-198, 8p
Jayko, A. S. (2009), “Surficial Geologic Map of the Darwin Hills 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Inyo County, California”, U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Map 3040, scale 1: 100,000. 38
Kissling, E., Ellsworth, W.L., Eberhart-Phillips, D. and Kradolfer, U. (1994), “Initial reference models in local earthquake tomography”,
Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, no. B10, 19635-19646
Lees, J. M. (1998), "Multiplet Analyses at Coso Geothermal”, Bulletin of the Seism. Soc. America, 88, no.5, 1127-1143.
Manley, C.R. and Bacon, C.R. (2000), “Rhyolite thermobarometry and the shallowing of the magma reservoir, Coso volcanic field,
California”, Journal of Petrology, 41, p. 149-174.
Monastero, F.C., Katzenstein, A.M., Miller, S.J., Unruh, J.R., Adams, M.C. and Richards-Dinger, K. (2005), “The Coso geothermal field:
A nascent metamorphic core complex”. GSA Bull., 177(11/12), 1534-1553.
Kaven, Hickman and Davatzes
10
Newman, G.A., Gasperikova, E., Hoversten, G.M., and Wannamaker, P.E. (2008), “Three-dimensional magnetotelluric characterization
of the Coso geothermal field”, Geothermics, 37, p. 369-399.
Prejean, S.G. and Ellsworth, W.L. (2001), “Observations of Earthquake Source Parameters at 2km Depth in the Long Valley Caldera,
Eastern California”, Bull. of the Seism. Soc. of Am., 91, 2, 165-177
O'Connell, R.J., and Budiansky, B. (1974), "Seismic velocities in dry and saturated cracked solids”, Journal of Geophysical Research,
79, no. 35 5412-5426.
Schaff, D.P., Bokelmann, G.H.R., Beroza, G.C., Waldhauser, F., and Ellsworth, W.L. (2002) “High resolution image of the Calaveras
Fault seismicity”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, no.B9, 2186, doi 10.1029/2001JB000633.
Schaff, D.P., Bokelmann, G.H.R., Ellsworth, W.L., Zanzerkia, E., Waldhauser, F., and Beroza, G.C. (2004), "Optimizing correlation
techniques for improved earthquake location”, Bulletin of the Seism. Soc. America, 94, no.2, 705-7021.
Seher, T., Zhang, H. Fehler, M., Yu, H., Soukhovitskaya, V., Commer, M. and Newman, G. (2011), “Temporal Velocity Variation
beneath the Coso Geothermal Field Observed using Seismic Double Difference Tomography of Compressional and Shear Wave
Arrival Times”, GRC Transactions, 90, p. 1743-1747.