ML20138H937

Forwards Draft in Situ Stress Measurements in Earths Crust in Eastern Us & marked-up Copy of Comments

ML20138H937
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/29/1985
From:	Beratan L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Singh M ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
References
NUDOCS 8512170376
Download: ML20138H937 (124)

Text

-

1 NOV 2 e boS s

Dr. Madan Singh, President Engineers International 98 East Naperville Road Westmont, IL 60559-1595 Dr. Singh:

We have reviewed your draft report "In Situ Stress Measurements in the Earth's Crust in the Eastern United States" and have enclosed a marked-up copy of our comments. The reviews were conducted by pertinent NRC staff members.

We believe that consideration of our comments when you finalize the report would enhance its quality. A copy of the latest findings on northeastern seismicity is enclosed for your perusal.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. Philip at 301-427-4604.

Sincerely, Leon L. Beratan, Chief Earth Sciences Branch Division of Radiation Programs &

Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

1.

Marked-up copy of comments on draft report 2.

Information on northeastern seismicity Distribution /R-2811:

Circ /Chron RMinogue Econti DCS/PDR Dross LBeratan ESB Sbj/Rd KGoller AMurphy JPhilip C512170376 851129 PDR MISC PDR ESB:RES:pf ESB:RES ESB:RES JPhilip f AMurphy LBeratan M /g/85

/ /85 g/A{/85

]

9 4'

1 NUREG/

El-1 12 6 IN SITU STRESS MEASUREMENTS IN THE EARTH'S CRUST IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES i

DRAFT Final Report October 1985 T.A. Rundle, M.M. Singh, and C.H. Baker Engineers international, Inc.

Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

s' t

b NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an -agency of the United States Covernment.

Neither the United States Covern-nent nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this

-report, or represents that-its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Available from CPO Sales Program Division of Technical Infornation and Document Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L'ashington, DC - 20$55 and National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 (i)

~

r 6

I l

s m....

REPORT coCUMENTATioM L *tPC*T Mo-L L8"'***"***""**"*

Pact NUREC/

6 r=...= i s.....

In-Situ Stress Measuremente in the Earth's October. 1985 Crust in the Eastern United States o

r. a a.e.-

Thomas A. Rundle. Madan M. Singh. Charles H. Baker EI-1126 3.e -.

a.-.

se.,,

n..v u a

- Engineers International Inc.

i s, c.~~~o - c.

=

98 Esst Naperville Road ra NRC-04-83-016 Westmont, II. 60559-1595

<=

is: -.

isr, c

Divicion of Research Final October 83-October,85 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 is 4

i sa.am eroa enoe In-situ stress measurements were made in three seismic areas in the Eastern United States, using the hydraulic fracturing technique. The areas covered were (1) Moodus, Connecticut, (ii) the Ramapo fault system, and (iii) the Central Virginia seismic zone. At each location, one borehole was drilled within the seismic zone and the second outside it, so as to compare the results obtained. No geologic interpretation of the data were made during this project.

1 4

31.

In-situ stress, hydraulic fracturing, seismicity, nuclear facility location, earthquake, vibratory ground motion.

i.

,o-o r-4 cosan n re, j

= a.

..~r.

i

, cu.. en...

n......

Unlimited Unclassified i

n.

, ca.. cr...

a. e Unclassified es...suu.ia s....,.....,..

orno. 6ro. ar i in 0...d..

i-s u

<r

,nn C

.e..

t I

i (11)

l o

i l

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

The authors would like to express their sincere appre:iation to i

Dr. Thomas J. Schmitt of the Research Division of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for his guidance and support during the course of this project. He served as the Technical Project Officer through most of the contract, although this responsibility was taken over by Mr. Jacob Phillip towards the end of the project. Contract Adminis-trators for the work included Mrs. Cindy Fleenor, Ms. Sharon Wollett, and Ms. Joyce Fields.

Thanks are also due to Mr. Mark S. Ma who diligently served as Project Engineer during the early stages of the project and Mr. Stephen E. Sharp, who was the Project Geologist and supervised the drilling of the first four holes under trying condi-tions.

The help and suggestions received from the consultants on this project are gratefully acknowledged, including Dr.

Patrick Barosh, Dr. Lynn Glover, Dr. Sheldon Alexander. Dr. Thomas W.

Doe, (as well as the inputs of Drs. John K. Constain and R. Wintsch). The efforts of Mr. Sidney Quarrier of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and of Dr. Nicholas M. Ratcliffe of the U.

S. Geological Survey are also acknowledged.

The authors also thank Mr. Glenn Boyce of the Lawrence Berkley Laboratory for performing the laboratory tests.

Finally sincere appreciation is extended to the various owners of the sites for their excellent cooperation and helpful attitude towards the completion of this project.

These included the managements of Letchworth Developmental Center, West-chester County, Gillette Castle State Park, Goochland State Farm, and Luck Stone Corporation.

AC (iii)

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A 1

a,~..

- +. - -

9 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS fage EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3

1.1 BACKGROUND

3 1.2 OBJECTIVES...

4 1.3 SCOPE.....

5 1.4

SUMMARY

OF FIELD PROGRAM.......

6 1.4.1 Hole Number 4..

8 1.4.2 Hole Number 3............

8 1.4.3 Hole Number 2..

9 1.4.4 Hole Number 1..

9 1.4.5 Hole Number 5............

9 1.4.6 Hole Numbers 6 and 7.........

9 2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING..

10 2.1 M00DUS.-CONNECTICUT SEISMIC ZONE.

10 2.1.1 Location.........

10 2.1.2 Geology.

10 2.1.2.1 Hole Number 3 Geology....

10 2.1.2.2 Hole Number 4 Geology.

10 2.1.3 Seismic History...........

14 2.2 RAMAPO, NEW YORK SEISMIC ZONE.......

14 2.2.1 Location.

14 2.2.2 Geology......

14 2.2.2.1 Hole Number 1 Geology....

16 2.2.2.2 Hole Number 2 Geology....

16 2.2.2.3 Hole Number 5 Geology....

16 2.2.3 Seismic History..

16 2.3 Central Virginia Seismic Zone.

20 2.3.1 Location.

20 2.3.2 Geology.....

20 2.3.2.1 Hole Number 6 Geology....

20 2.3.2.2 Hole Number 7 Geology....

20 2.3.3 Seismic History.

23 3.0 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TECHNIQUE..........

25 3.1 THEORY.........

25 3.2 EQUIPMENT........

27 3.2.1' Downhole Equipment 27 3.2.2 Surface Equipment.

29 3.2.3 Equipment Malfunctions and Problems.

32 3.3 PROCEDURES.................

33 3.4 DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL STRESS MAGNITUDES............

35 3.4.1 Minimum Horizontal Principal Stress.

35 3.4.2 Maximum Horizontal Principal Stress.

37 3.4.3 Vertical Stress..

38 3.5 DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL STRESS ORIENTATION............

39 3.5.1 Procedure.

39 3.5.2 Analysis.

40 TOC (iv)

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

d 3.6 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM.

40 3.6.1 Pu rpose.

40 l-3.6.2 Scope.

40 3.6.3 Test Description.

42 3.6.4 Results.....

44 4.0 TEST RESULTS....

47 4.1 M00DUS, CONNECTICUT...........

47 4.1.1 Hole Numb e r 3............

47 4.1.2 Hole Numbe r 4............

47 4.2 RAMAPO, NEW YORK...

54 4.2.1 Hole Numb e r 1............

54 4.2.2 Hole Number 2............

54 4.2.3 Hole Number 5...........

54 4.3 CENTRAL VIRGINIA.

54 4.3.1 Hole Numbe r 6...........

54 4.3.2 Hole Number 7............

64 5.0 DISCUSSION.........

68

6.0 REFERENCES

73 APPENDICES - Hydraulic Fracturing Test Data..

76 i

t t

l 4

I I

TOC (v)

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

126A r

I t

I l

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1

Seismic Zone Locations..

7 2

Test Hole Locations for Moodus 3eismic Zone.

11 3

Lithologic Log for Test Hole Number 3.....

12 4

Lithologic Log for Test Hole Number 4..

13 5

Test Hole Locations for Ramapo Seismic Zone.

15 6

Lithologic Log, Test Hole Number 1......

17 7

Lithologic Log, Test Hole Number 2......

18 8

Lithologic Log, Test Hole Number 5......

19 9

Test Hole Locations for central Virginia Seismic Zone...

21 10 Lithologic Log, Hole Number 6.........

22 11 Lithologic Log, Hole Number 7....

24 12 Packer Assemblies Used in Hydrofracturing Tests..

28 13 Impression Packer Used for Determination of Fracture Orientation..

30 14 Uphole Hydrofracturing Test Equipment.

31 15a Example of an Initial Pressurization Cycle for a Hydrofracturing Test 36 15b Example of an Initial Pressurization Cycle for a Hydrofracturing Test 36 16 Example of Hydrofracture Orientation Determination From an Impression Packer Tracing..

41 17 Laboratory Specimens for Hydraulic Fracturing Teating..

43 18 Extrapolation of Laboratory Data for Determination of Hydrofracturing Tensile Strength.....

45 19 Calculated Principal Stress Magnitudes and Directions, Hole Number 3...........

50 20 Calculated Principal Stress Magnitudes and Directions Hole Number 4.

53 21 Calculated Principal Stress Magnitudes and Directions Hole Number 1...........

57 22 Calculated Principal Stress Directions and Magnitudes, Hole Number 5...........

60 23 Calculated Principal Stress Directions and Magnitudes Hole Numbe r 6...........

63 24 Calculated Principal Stress Directions and Magnitudes, Hole Number 7...........

67 TOC (vi)

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

I 9

LIST OF TABLES TABLES Pm i

Summary of Lab Results.

44 2

Recorded Hydrofracturing Pressures Hole Number 3..................

48 3

Summary of Hydrofracturing Pressures and Principal Stress Calculations Hole Number 3..

49 4

Recorded Hydrofracturing Pressures Hole Number 4.

51 5

Summary of Hydrofracturing Pressures and Principal Stress Calculations Hole Number 4..

52 6

Recorded Hydrofracturing Pressures Hole Number 1....

55 7

Summary of Hydrofracturing Pressures and Principal Stress Calculations Hole Number 1..

56 8

Recorded Hydrofracturing Pressures Hole Number 5........

58 9

Summary of Hydrofracturing Pressures and Principal Stress Calculations Hole Number 5..

59 10 Recorded Hydrofracturing Pressures Hole Number 6.......

61 11 Summary of Hydrofracturing Pressures and Principal Stress Calculations Hole Number 6..

62 12 Recorded Hydrofracturing Pressures Hole Number 7.................

65 13 Summary of Hydrofracturing Pressures and Principal Stress Calculations Hole Number 7..

66 14

' Comparison of Laboratory and Field Values for Hydrof racturing Tensile Strength.....

69 Toc

('tii)

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

DRAE3i Contract No. NRC-04-83-016 IN-SITU STRESS MEASUREMENTS IN THE EARTH'S CRUST IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES EI Project No. 1126 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The rational design of nuclear facilities and the evaluation of the safety of such existing facilities, require.s that an estimate be provided of the local occurrence and severity of vibratory ground motion (e.g. earthquakes), based on criteria developed by the U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (given in Appendix A of 10CFR100). For the eastern part of the United States this is difficult, because of the scanty data available and generally lower level of seismicity observed.

As a step towards reducing this uncertainty, the in-situ stresses were measured in three (3) locations in the eastern United States, namely the e -Moodus, Connecticut area.

e Ramapo faul.t system, in the New York-New Jersey region Central Virginia seismic zone.

e In each area, two boreholes were drilled up to depths of approximately 1,000 fc to measure the in-situ stresses, using the hydraulic f racturing method.

An attempt was m de to locate one hole in the s

seismic zone and one just outside, at each site.

In one hole (in the Ramapo fault area),

the sides of the hole caved during the measurements, entailing loss of some of the down-hole equipment.

.Hence an extra hole was drilled nearby to get the desired dati..

The g

e results obtained were as follows:

V'

(\\

Min. Horiz. Max. Horiz. Vert.

Stress Stress Stress fl..i,d Area Seismic Zone Depth (o, )

(o,,)

(a ) Direction

'~

Near/Away ft pW1 pW1 psi Moodus Near 931 5,985 12,200 1,100 N48*W 945 5,560 11,770 1,115

^

Moodus Away 422 1,050 1,675 500 N75'W 939 2,605 5,100 1,110 N75'W 1432 5,302 11,580 1,690 N75'W i

ExS 1

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A i

l

r.'.

e Q

')

1 l 1: '.

,, ~

~

Min. Horiz. Max. Horiz. Vert.

Stress Stress Stress Area Seismic Zone Depth (o,_ )

(o,,)

(o _)

Direction Near/Away ft psi psi psi q

/

Ramapo Near 568 920 1,755 630 594 830 1,585 660 N69'E 637 1,050 1,855 700 Ramapo Away 941 1,725 3,215 1,110 951 1,670 3,140 1,125 N72*E 979 2.270 4,170 N d.

'y O 4 Y W S.. @,

b,155

,1

%ud dV..,o;} lM c,.*

ll. j M:

V Central Near 538 930 1,490 635 7

Virginia 831 1,560 2,830 980 N74*W 882 2,480 5,190 1,040 940 2,410 4,230' 1,110 m

Central Away 629 980 1,495 740 Virginia 820 2,605 4,605 970 N74...4 969 4,270 8,370 1,145 997 3,730 7,930 1,175 2

}

To attempt was made to relate these in-situ stress measurements the seismicity of the area or provide a geologic interpretation to since this was beyond the scope of this work.

'\\

j

\\

( (:. t b

G- }l#' '

J ~-

O'OfN'L>

$Ab Y<AS WG f Ql,,./

y v

EXS 2

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

-. ~

i-

]'>

t b

E I

f b

d i

i EI Project No.1126 j

IN-SITU STRESS MEASUREMENTS IN THE EARTH'S i

j CRUST IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES i

7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ' BACKGROUND i

1

' Estimation of the occurrence and severity of vibratory ground motions in the vicinity of nuclear power plants and other facilities l

is significant in the rational design of these nuclear facilities, and also in the evaluation of existing facilities. Currently the U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires for licensing that i

eha A=e bas,is-for vibratory ground motion be determined through i

i correlation of seismicity with tectonic structures or provinces i

(Appendix A,

10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 100). --sucit

- criteria are difficult to apply in the eastern United States.

In

{

4 general, this region has experienced a persistent low level of t

seismicity, with occasional moderate to large earthquakes which

)

affect large areas. Records of such earthquakes date back over two centuries, and examples include C;--

h (Kassachusetts)--in-M55r l

g Gilan N=ty-(VirgintM897~, Charleston' (South CarolinaHir-18867-t and-New-Brunswick @ew Jerseg) bin.1982.-

Despite several investiga-E

}

tions undertaken to date, none-of the earthquakes have been unequiv-ocally. associated with tectonic structures.

Thus instituting the l

l tectonic province approach is handicapped, because of lack of a clear correlation, for computing _ vibratory ground motion.

l

\\-lJ..ASA l

In order to reduce the uncertainty in seismic risk to nuclear I

j

. facilities, a contract was awarded to Engineers International, Inc.

in October 1983, to measure in-situ stresses at three (3) seismically l

active sites in the eastern states.

These were intended to help establish the relationship of seismicity to structure in these areas.

+

It is hoped that the relationship between the stress field, the j

observed structural geology, and the pattern of seismicity may aid in better defining the causative mechanisms of the = earthquakea.

The i

j three (3) regions selected for this investigation were the Moodus i

l area in Connecticut, the Ramapo fault zone in New York, and the Central Virginia seismic zone.

The reasons for chocsing each site were different. The Moodus section of East Haddam, Connecticut, got t

its name from an Indian word for. " place of bad noises", sounds that

[

emansts from microsarthquakes in the area.

Thus, seismic activity has 1 % af concern almost since the region was settled.- Most of the l

earthq aes are of shallow origin (less than 1 km in depth),. hut.

l l

the_se.,have.not..been. correlated. with-the-well-mapped geologic struc-(

l tur.es in..the area.

It is anticipated that in-situ stress measure-ments may help to delineate the type and direction -of faulting that may be generating these earthquakes. The Newark Basin is of triassic i

l age and is flanked the Ramapo fault system. Microearthquakes are gdhbl l

i

- b...

U i

@a C S -

i i

l 1126-1' 3

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A' i

l 1

O known to occur both within and outside the Basin. Again the area is thoroughly mapped, but the relationship' between the faults and the earthquakes are not well understood. The in-situ stress censurements may shed some light on the focal mechanism.

Several hypotheses on the causes of earthquakes have been advanced for the Central Virginia /, s w i I

seismic zone.

Recent profiling,in the area has identified a number

^ * ',

g 6-I of high-angle reverse faults dipping toward the east and probably To intersecting a sub-horizontal detachment at depth.

The hypocenters k (. g ;,;

/

appear to occur alcag the faults, and the fault plane solutions

.v suggest that the reverse faults may be becoming reactivated.

It is p

hoped that the in-situ stress measurements will provida directional and quantitative data that may help in clarifying the situation.

( jA(,

In addition to the stress magnitudes and directions in the three (3) individual seismic areas mentioned above, this project should aid in elucidating the regional stresses in the eastern United States.

It has been suggested that the tectonic stress direction east of the l ',

Appalachians is different from the direction of stress in #cratonic"

' 'sm-North America, west of the Appalachian mountains (Zoback and Zoback, ',

1980).

Thus, there appear to be two~ eastern stress provinces, one i

.g 1

east of the Appalachians, with a maximum horizontal stress (a

,M running nearly northwest-southeast, and the other west of the Appalk-)

7 chians, with c approximately in the northeast-southwest direction. k.#

H Although t) pig is geologic evidence for these two stress provinces, 6 (',3 prior to the award of this contract che,se_ were only two (2) deep of

• 7 s

stress measurements in the Continental Margin stress province (i.e.

I east of the Appalachians, with the NW-SE stress directions). Data in New England were particularly scanty. Much of the geologic evidence ] i, "-

was from offset boreholes, the proper interpretation of which is -

problematic.

There were no in-situ stress measurements, and the w

fault place solutions are difficult to interpret, introducing consid-(

~

erable uncertainty in the conclusions.

W 1.2 OBJECTIVES O

The objectives of this project were clearly defined and quite straightforward.

It was intended to determine the state-of-stress (i.e. both magnitude and direction) in the earth's crust up to depths of 1,000 ft at three (3) locations in the eastern United States: the i

Moodus, Connecticut area, the Ramapo fault system, and the Central Virginia Seismic zone.

It was evident that the only method available to measure stresses.,at_that. depth was hydraulic fracturing > and this method would be used.

A -.. claasly.not--intended that~ Engineers ~Internationair Inc.

(EIb should perform..any. geologic. interpretation -of-the~ data.

No attempc.was to bemade to correlate the in-situ stress measurements with-cha. tectonic. setting or seismic activity at each site.

1126-1 4

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A i

1.3 SCOPE The Scope of k'ork for this project included:

e locating the sites for che stress measure-ments, with the approval of the NRC Project Officer e drilling the holes at the sites, with permis-sion from each site owner logging the detailed lithology at each hole e

e conducting the stress measurements in each hole e leaving each site in a manner acceptable to each owner e -interpreting the-data ohtained preparing a final report for submission to e

NRC.

Although it was specified in the contract that if usable pre-drilled holes could be found at the sites these should be used, a diligent search did not locate any such boreholes.

Only one hole, drilled to 900 f t by the U.

S. Geological Survey (USGS) was found near the Ramapo fault zone.

The USGS agreed to permit stress mea-surement.s in this hole, if EI would drill the hole further to a depth of approximately 1500 f t.

This was agreed to and done.

Hence this became hole No. 1 in the series.

Unfortunately, the rock below 700 ft in this borehole was so fractured, that all the stress measure-ments had to be above that horizon.

Hole No. 4 at the Gillette Castle State Park Site in Connecticut was also drilled to 1500 f t, because some researchers from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University wanted to conduct heat flow measurements at that depth. All the other holes were drilled to a depth of about 1000 ft.

The location and depth of each hole is given below:

Hole No.

Seismic Zone Site Location Depth

?

-L 1

Ramapo Letchworth Village 1496

,\\ p0 g 2

Ran:apo Peekskill 956 1

3 Moodus Moodus 1000 4

Moodus Gillette Castle State Park 1500 h

5 Ramapo Letchworth Village 991 n

)

6 Central Virginia Goochland State Farm 1003 7

Central Virginia Luck Stone Quarry 1004 s

1126-1 1126A 5

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

-m Since there appeared to be scientiffe interest in all the seven (7) boreholes drilled in this project,, either by State officials or University researchers, they were all lef t capped for later use by j

these groups.

The cores froe all these holes was also retained for future examination,~as indicated later in this report.

The location of the three (3)' seismic zones that were investi-gated during this project are shown in Figure 1.

This also indicates the boreholes - that were drilled at each of these sites, and the numbers associated with these holes. At each location an' attempt'vas l

made to drill.one hole as close as possibIe to thown epicancer of the seismic ictivity and the other somewhat outsidegaMe, with the,. [r]'

objective of comparing the resultskred noting any major differences y in magnitude and/or direction.

The help of geologists or seismolo-

,, c gists who had thoroughly investigated each site was sought in locat-ing the drill holes. The persons who helped in this. regard were:

_ N.

p

1) Dr. Nicholas M. Ratcliffe of the h. S. Geological Surv6y, Reston,41rginia, for the Ramapo aren 1

2) Dr.

John K.

Consiain, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Scate University, Blacksburg, Virginia, fbr the Ramapo area s

3) Dr. Patrick J.

Barosh, Boston College, Soston, Massachusetts, for the Moodus area

4) MrISidney Quartier, Department of Environmental

< Protection, Hartford, Connecticut, for the Moodus Area

5) Dr. Lynn Glover IV, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, for,

the Cet: tral Viipinia seismic zone e

6) Dr. Shelton kexa'nder, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, for the Central Virginia seismic zone.

Arrangements were then made for drilling the holes, and permis-sion from the site owners to perform this work on their pecperty was obtained.

The drilling was conducted by> a subcontractor, Longyear Company.

Dr. Thouas t=*. Doe of Lawrence f.arkeley Laboratory of the University of California-Berkeley.. served as'a consultant throughout the project.

j

( (g j 4

')

1.4

SUMMARY

OF FIELD PROGRAM Hole drilling began in November 1983 with hole No.

1 near Letchworth Village, New York. This effort involved the continus' tion of a hole begun by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). All succensive 1126-1 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A 6

t e---e-.

-m-

---er w-

1 I

M000US. CONNECTICUT

~

/ SEISMIC ZONE (No.ES s.4) 14 V

\\ RAMAPO. NEW YORK j

SEISMIC ZONE (HOLES 1.2.5) g CENTRAL VIRGINIA SEISMIC ZONE g

(HOLES 6.7)

)

Figure 1.

Seismic Zone Locations 7

. _.- =,..

.t L

I L

F holes (Nos. 2 through 7) were drilled entirely by Engineers Interna-tional. Inc. and are numbered. in the order in which they were drilled.

All holes were "N" size (3 in. diameter) and cored with a truck aounced drill rig. Specific hole locations and geologic information is supplied in Section 2.0.

/

At the completion of the drilling of hole No. 4. the hydrofrac-turing equipment was mobilized and in situ stress asasurements begun.

Testing proceeded in the reverse order of drilling for holes 1 through 4.

Since testing in hole No. 2 set with limited success, hole No 5. was drilled and in situ stress measurements taken.

As with hole No. 5, holes 6 and 7 had the testing performed immediately af ter completion of drilling in each hole.

Therefore the overall i

order in which the holes were tested is 4-3-2-1-5-6-7.

This is important if one is to understand the progression of testing method-ology during the course of the field testing program.

r 1.4.1 Hole No. 4 During the testing of hole No. 4 a number of mechanical def1-ciencies in the hydrofracturing equipment were discovered and cor-rected.

This is primarily due to the fact that pressures required j

for many tests in this first hole were unexpectedly _high and beyond the -limits for which the equipment was designed to operate. Modifi-cations to the downhole and surface equipment allowed continuation of testing without any further mechanical problems.

Problems did develop during the testing in that it became apparent, through ex==ination of fracture impressions, that many tests were failures due.to the formation of undesirable horizontal fractures instead of the vertical fractures required for horizontal' stress decernination.

As a result. of correlation between observed pressure versus time record and impression packer results, it became possible to discern those tests in which the formation of a vertical fracture was probable and would therefore provide information on hori: ental principal j

stress magnitudes and directions.

This correlation led to the development of a testing methodology which was followed for all che other holes. The methodology was to conduct as many as ten tests in each hole but due to cost and schedule restraints, conduct only five 1

(5) ' impression tests at each test location in which a vertical fracture formation was likely. (except in this hole).

'In all, thirteen (13) hydrofracture tests were conducted in hole No. 4 with nine (9) of these selected for conduct of fracture impression tests.

1.4.2 Hole No. 3

.(

The only mechanical problem that arose during testing in this hola was the inability to pressurize certain test zones to a pressure high enough to induce fracture formation.

Pressures were allowed to reach a maximum safe pressure limit of approximately 6000 psi.

- 1126-1

)

8 c

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A j

j; ys p

s w

y t

...L.-.-,_.,_,_._,,_._

.,__._.._..,,_m

.. ~ _ _.

__,,,m..-

Test zones which did not show evidence of fracturing at this limit af ter two pressure cycles were abandoned, since the risk of I' -

damaging the equipment, and the safety risk to personnel, was too great.

A total of ten (10) tests were conducted in this hole with

- s five (5) being selected for fracture impression.

1.4.3. Hole No. 2 Testing in hole No. 2 was hampered by poor borehole conditions.

Several badly fractured and rubblized zones were apparent below 670 ft.

Therefore, testing was limited to depths less than 650 ft. After L'

the completion of three tests, the downhole packer and transducer assembly (see Sectionf.0) became stuck in the hole. Efforts to free 3

the equipment were 'Gusuccessful.

The equipment was eventually abandoned and left downhole.

Fracture impression tests were elimin-J ated for fear of loosing additional equipment.

Thus, only three tests were conducted at ' shallow depths and none is believed to have yielded meaningful data.

w 1.4.4 Hole No. 1 i {J, g, GQ y,.i

.,g Poor borehole conditions also prevailed in this hole.

Upon returning to this hole for testing it was discovered that the hole was blocked off at a depth of only 200 feet. Thus, the hole required reaming to allow passage of test equipment. As with hole No. 2, the presence of fault zones conducive to the release of wall rock pre-vented testing below 700 f t for fear of loosing equipment. A total of seven (7) hydrofracturing tests were conducted along with five (5) impression tests.

1.4.5 Hole No. 5 2(

As stated previously, limited success in holes 1 and 2 required the drilling and testing of an additional hole in the area in order to obtain more information.

No difficulties were encountered in testing in this hole. However, only five (5) test zones could be located for testing.

Therefore, five (5) hydrofracturing and five (5) impression tests were run in this hole.

i 1.4.6 Hole Nos. 6 and 7 These two holes presented no problems with the drilling or testing. Eight (8) hydrofracturing and five (5) impressions were run in hole No. 6. Seven (7) hydrofracturing tests and five (5) impres-sions were run in hole No. 7.

1126-1 9

ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A f

t

l l

l 4

1 2.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING 2.1 M00DUS, CONNECTICUT SEISMIC ZONE r

]

2.1.1 Location The Moodus Seismic Zone is centered near the confluence of the Salmon and Connecticut Rivers in south-central Connecticut near the town of Moodus.

Tasting in this zone was conducted in two borings (Nos. 3 and 4).

Hole No. 3 was located near the south bank of the Salmon River approximately 5 miles north of the town of Moodus. The second hole (No. 4) was located near the east bank of the Connecticut River in Gillette Castle State Park.

Figure 2 shows each test hole location.

I 2.1.2 Geology The Moodus Seismic Zone is located within the New England Uplands subprovince where a dissected bedrock plateau has created a 1

series of bedrock-controlled ridges with glacially modified valleys.

Intense deformation during repeated episodes of folding and faulting 1

i have lef t a complex petrologic and structural record that is not yet fully understood.

Both hole Nos. 3 and 4 penetrated Silurian / Devonian gneiss of the Hebron formation which occupies a broad, basin-like structure in the test area.

However, borehole No. 4 was located near the Honey Hill pene rated the fault one as well as the und rlying gneis of a

Canterbury formation.

Brief lithologic descriptions of recovered core from hole Nos. 3 and 4 are presented as Figures 3 and 4. De-tailed field logs from both borings are supplied in Appendix D.

i 2.1.2.1 Hole No. 3 Geolony - Core from borehole No. 3 showed the rock j

to be gray biotite gneiss foliated at 10' to 15* from horizontal and included some pegmatite bands up to 2 ft thick.

Zones of granofels and interlayered gneiss and granofels were found between the depths L

of 200 and 500 ft.

Open joints were common within the upper 75 ft of core but occurred below that aepth as clusters of between 2 to 10 joints with intervals of approximately 100 f t between clusters.

I 2.1.2.2 Hole No. 4 Geolony - Borehole No. 4 penetrated 128 ft of unconsolidated materisis that were comprised of sandy and clayey soils that also included some boulders of Hebron formation gneiss.

Below the overburden, the Hebron formation-bedrock was found to be green-banded, gray, biotite gneiss with some zones of schist, mylon-ite, and pegmatite.

At depths of approximately 500 to 600 ft, the gneiss changed to garnet-bearing, biotite-muscovite schist, with some layers of gneiss and minor pegmatite.

This zone is. considered to represent the location of _ thrusting along the Honey Hill fault.

i-1126 EAGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

I 31PROJ 10 I

I

- -, - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ * " ' ~

~

~ ~ ~ '

6 e

\\.

\\

\\

\\

,\\.;$

t q.

2 ff

. :.",.W r - -f.y 5

W~\\ k V

k '\\j/

.,':c.

'f

• e y

. e5 Y.

-- J

. y ~.. :

.,c.a.

, e - -.. y. _* _.r t. L ~.

=

e

,(

^

o

~*

'.~.R _

. _, f

-e d r* : -- &~'c-

[ *%~-~.'RU, y;T l_. 's

.p, Q:}.

l f, y

-e e.

,; ? x >

-t

wl -

xy t t

~~

~

?,k.

~.

' s r

,s I

pe

" f/

i

.t

[

./

4

-,)f. Jr,.,

\\

w f

%.,.. }t, g_=,

N1 p. - i en

<\\

s,

k '..

~

b._

r

?..\\'

W'

• • ' g v~

W,,

fg'. \\

.,. H

- - ' l..

e

• i r

1

-o 0'%. \\ W..r.

N,,,

.l.: 0.

,e...

[,,cJ.,.. ; t a

g

-e;-

r..

• • [M W;)N:~1S1

/ ' uC E

O '-> -

.l =N.4.Q Q r:Q *gg 4 ~*

l

.~-

~*

.v' r,

g T'::-

g ge'. * %.

Y '

• t.* 3.,

Y, 7'

\\.9 r-R(ry.'_.

p

• • 1 %e O.

s.

Q. se s~.

. -% v.

y.

f

'h 2-

t '..

ma =

s h 4.9 h

Y.

k..b

'h

- W+.

p..

ic:-

s..sc; pM. m..

'# m, y.,lsMn -

~

.;~

Q. ~., ;;G k-j.,..g:.n

.i t.

. w;. m N}i. mfg. <p. a. x f..

.-,s.

.se.. x <w.

. 1 v.

~

.g

=

.l c4

.qg ~._.

v kyn.

r...

... c ~ gs.. : h.,.-

c.:

\\

t

\\

Il N

a s

1 4._

A

\\

., 9..g.:. u,w e..ien,.1df,11 3. 1,

.til.

~

gse -

b

>,a,s 8 thish '

.i' 1.

s-Firure 2.

Test Hole Locations #or Moodus Seismic Zone 11

E JJN C O N S OLID ATED

/

i GNEISS

/

/

w

' 8 ) LIGHT GR ANOFELS b

TEST NO (DEPTH) f,* DARK GRANOFELS Y

10 (3 e 8.03

/

7 GNEISS AND GRANOFELS 9 (455.0)

/

/

e (4e2.5)

/ A

/

/

7 (603.0) y GNEISS 5 (653.0)

/

//

4 (759.o)

/

G (777.5)

/

2 (863.0) 3 (93I.0)

I (945.0)

\\

, TOTAL DEPTH 1000 BOREHOLE +3 Moodus,CT SCALE HORIZ '

VERTf

'9 Figure 3.

Lithotor.ic Log, Test Hole No. 3 12 l

i

. = _ _

=

-- ~

N35E S3SWm,yg

. '...UNC O N S O LID ATED RIVER

'*/

f p

/

TEST 'NO (DEPTH)

/GNEIS S

/

3 (422.0) 9 (433.0) 4 477.5)

[

l#s

• * *S CH IS T

%4l

~

POSSIBLE FAULT ZONE

/

1 o (e22.03

/

/

/ GNEISS 5 (939.0)

/

I3 f t 02 3.0)

/

12 (1049.0)

/ /

/

8 (I209.5) r (t 3 20.0)

\\,

7 (! 3 5 B.0) 6 (f424)

/

iI (l432.01

% 7 I (I448.0)

/,TCTAL DEPTH I 500 BOREHOLE +4 Gillette Castle,CT SCALE HORIZ l00 200 3b0 ft VERT F19ura 4 Lithologic Log, Test Hole No. 4 13

i r

Below the schistose zone, the lithology changed to what is considered to be Canterbury gneiss, a gray, quartzo-feldspathic gneiss with i

layers of green amphibolite, pegmatitic pods, and scattered garnet-bearing zones.

Healed fractures were common throughout and we re especially prominent below a depth of 500 f t.

The cores fran holes Nos. 3 and 4 were given to Mr. Sidney Quarrier of the Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey, Connecticut, for future studies.

r 2.1.3 Seismic History c

The Moodus area is well known as a zone of low intensity seis-micity, and is locally famous for the "Moodus noises" that are gener-ated during its numerous microseismic events.

Frequent earthquakes (magnitude O to I; Modified Mercalli, HM) have been reported since the earliest days of written records and the name Moodus is rooted in an Indian name ~ meaning " Place of Noises" (Barosh et al,1983). The area's greatest magnitude event was reported to have occurred in 1791 and had an estimated Cma M 'de of MM-VII.

Since that time, activity N

has been somewhat erratic ~with periods of relative quiescence as well as swarms comprised of hundreds of low intensity events (Barosh et al, 1983).

t

/

)

h1 rea% L 2.2 RAMAPO, NEW YORK SEISMIC ZONE 2.2.1 Location The Ramapo Seismic Zone is situated in the southeastern-corner of New York State approximately 20 miles north of New York City.

Seismic activity is considered to be related to the Ramapo fault system which strikes northeast for nearly 60 miles through this area.

Three boreholes were tested in this area; two holes (No I and No. 5) were located near Mount Ivy, New York and one (hole No. 2) was drilled nearby in the town of Peekskill. - Boring locations are shown l

on Figure 5.

b 2.2.2 Geology i

The Ramapo fault system and associated seismic zone are located in the Hudson Highlands where a scrip of highly deformed Ordovician i

and Cambrian-aged rocks are in fault contact with Triassic sedimen-tary rocks of the Newark Group. Major structural features including the Ramapo fault strike NE-SW along the trend of the Appalachian Mountains.

Lithologies and structures are extremely complex due to-repeated deformation and many features are mantled by thick deposits of glacial sand and gravel.

l 1126 14 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

3IPROJ

I l

V. ! %.g y.. Y. f.,M p hj,. '.3,, )M L

• r-3 1 ~..'td.

s 7,,,

.:;,1.-

.3 y.:.

,,,,M3; r

vu v3 ;..

As 1 NL

,,1 ? (,%'$fi -M ;\\ WW p' d

. 5..;AQsJ4'aOd'Jii!$,qs..

tw..y i.a.

m.V,.,+w a.

y

.,. - 9~

v; s. w,. s

/ -

-.v-

\\.,q,, s. ' :v.

p;+r

. /

a..

s.

-5

,fww-s.;_c

~.

..pru.y 1 m

{s.

. :.m,.,

b..

W*

5 ig'u% U,A,Wr ?

e ~ :..,1..%.

9.Q.

- y\\\\1;Q.- Q_ '.r. -e-A oo 's=. f,=P.q 'v_a.-

,"3.:&'y

'*%;, f

.'s(.

s s

.DC'hy..-3, w..,

%. s. s:t x.',gg..: e -.:.

.,, ym

.m

-u Wawi k ! h d h %[p,7'M M

~Q,;g c

M 5

.z f

(' -

y' I

h bM h

"di:

~ % 'W[

'i

.. ~P - lt 4.!!i.

1

.%+

u 1

\\

'\\

s

- f n

Q '1:.'

s

. i+!;

1 J$

)

//

+-

1

( ;4 w

Y.!

vJj.

N.

+

/

/

N

,.sy,4s.. y..

m;... q a:.

+

-u!'h

\\,%

(Q . 8

• ..M.

~

u% g i").. [., -O.%\\ '-j'..... {c.C:.:-

ki

~;

, g A.

'\\

k

?

, h,

^

! $.,... $p.07.' '^ &x{y l,. -.Y.'..:$\\'\\ N

&,y..

o

e..,..

..,g..-

tu.,

e,,..

...,~ y 1.

v.

,',, a. ;. w.

~Lww s -

m u

b') ? ', '"*

-- ' $' ?.},, l,', ![

,\\

g'$ -.f'T' (K5[

'T i ; <. '?'

,\\ ' %l

)

I3 N-NM-

^...' > l

-5 3

M_

m Ficure 5.

Test Role f.ocations for Ramco Seismic 7.one 13

i 2.2.2.1 Hole No. 1 Geology - Hole No. I penetrated a Triassic-aged sequence of arkose, mudstone, and dolomitic conglomerate that occurs at the northwest edge of the Newark graben.

Slickensided fractures and gypsum-filled gouge zones were abundant effects of local fault movement. Detailed core logs are presented in Appendix D.

A general-ized borehole log is supplied as Figure 6.

2.2.2.2 Hole No. 2 Geology - This boring penetrated highly frac _tured quartz or feldspathic gneiss and schist to a depth of (F659 fch Foliation dip ranged between 60* and 80* from horizontal and frac-K tures were often found to be open or filled with sof t alteration s

materials. A fault zone between the depths of 163 to 169 f t brought i

a thick layer of marble into fault contact with the overlying gneiss.

At the depth of 248 ft, the marble was mixed with amphibolite and s,

gneiss.

The lithology below 250 ft was dominated by quartzo-

'~

feldspathic gneiss with minor layers of amphibolite and schist.

(

Fractures containing alteration materials or iron staining were common throughout the borehole, and were present to the total hole depth of Figure 7 shows the general lithology of hole No. 2.

2.2.2.3 Hole No. 5 Geology - Borehole No. 5 penetrated 96 ft of sand and gravel before encountering gray to pink granite gneiss having variable biotice banding at 40* to 50' dips.

Green epidote alter-ation parallel to foliation was common and open or altered fractures i

are abundant above the depth of 800 ft.

Three aphanitic dikes, up to approximately 25 f t thick and tentatively identified as latite, were encountered between the depths of 550 and 750 ft.

Slickensided fractures with 45* to -90* dips were common throughout the entire borehole length and they appeared both singly or in swarms. Artesian conditions caused water to flow from the borehole casing after the depth of approximately 200 ft was reached.

Figure 8 shows the general lithology of hole No. 5.

?

All the cores from hole Nos.

1, 2 and 5, were sent to D r.

Nicholas M. Ratcliffe at the U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Vir-ginia.

4 2.2.3 Seismic History The Hudson Highland area is seismically active and records of 33 seismic events occurring between 1962 and 1977 indicate that current activity is closely associated with the Ramapo fault system. These Jfh.[

events were of i~ncoh' step 1.0 < ab < 3.3.

Damaging earthquakes (MM- ' 4*

Ju VII) occurred in pJ/ and 1884 and although the foci of_ t_he.s.e_ events

[

h are not determined, some resea Ehers consider them to also be assoc 1-N,r ated with the Ramapo fault system (Aggarwal and Sykes,1978).

g.

J l-4.1 l c.

n 1: :;

r hi k'4 Q

16 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL"'INC.

1126 3IPROJ

}

I

- ), -

a ~.

,_4<_

NI5W SI5E o

i

l,- UNC 0)d EO LID ATE D

.:?

TEST NO (DEPTH)

, ?.**:

J.*r.

IA (447.0)

,.,;. f TR I A S SIC CONGLOMERATE IB (457.0) 2 (4 a 5.0)

,;,e.

ARKOSE 3 (568.0) d, *.*

MUDSTONE

^

4 (s94.0) 5 (637.0) 6 (678.5) f.'.*.

FAULT ZONES A 4..

M '.,s

?, -

. 4.. :

,..c-a.:: :

?.l::

l JTOTAL DEPTH I496 i

l l

BOREHOLE +1 Mt. Ivy, NY SCALE HORIZ h 100 200 3 0 ft VERT Fip.u ra 6.

Lithologic Lo,2, Test Hole No. I 17 i

r

S50E

'c 3 UNgSOLID ATED

~

/

N50W

/GNErSS FRACTURED ZONE MARBLE TEST NO (DEPTH) x

/

I (351.0)

ANEISS, AMPHIBOLITE, SCHIST

//

2 (449.5)

//

3 (5I3.75)

//

/

///////////MOTAL DEPTH 956 BOREHOLE +2 Peekskill, NY SCALE iO0 2

R Figure 7.

Lithotor.ic Loz. Test Hole No. 2 l

18 i

I

i N80E-

/

saow un cows OLID ATED

... /

/

FRACTURED ZONE

/

//

/

EISS

///4

/

LATITE(?) DIKES TEST NO (DEPTH)

/

s cess.o)

/

4 c940.5)

/

s cssi.2)

/

2 cses.s) c978.5)

OTAt. OEPTH 990.9 BOREHOLE +5 Mt. Ivy, NY I

l SCALE h.

100 2O VERT i

rigure P.

Lithologic !.op, Test Hole No. 5 19 1

.-.,7..

.-.,-__,r

_--.c,_,.,

-. _,, _., _,. ~. _,,, _

...,,_.-_.m..,

3 2.3 CENTRAL VIRGINIA SEISMIC ZONE s

.e 2.3.1 Location The Central. Virginia Seismic Zone is located to the west of Richmond and extends easTwa're to the Blue Ridge Mountains.

It is situated in the Goochland Terrain, an extension of the Raleigh Belt, of metamorphic rock in the Piedmont Geologic Province of Virginia.

Two test holes were drilled to investigate this region; hole No. 6 was located within the seismic zone, and hole No. 7 was located outside of the zone.

Hole No. 6 was placed near the James River approximately 2 miles east of Crozier. Virginia as shown on Figure 9.

Hole No. 7 was drilled in an inactive portion of the Luck Stone Company's quarry at the northeast side of Burkeville, Virginia (Figure 9).

2.3.2 Geology The Goochland Terrain is the northern extension of the Raleigh Metamorphic Belt and represents this belt's core in Virginia.

Ic_is comprised of medium-to high-grade metamorphic rocks of(iialcalkalive volcanic origin and has been -affected by Taconic, Acadian, 3

Alleghanian orogenesis (Glover et al,1983),

g3 The principal lithologic units are Scace Farm gneiss, overlain by. Sabot amphibolite and Maidens gneiss, and intruded by the Mont-pelier matanorthosite.

These rocks were subjected to granulite-facies metamorphism during Grenvillian geologic time (Farrar, 1982).

2.3.2.1 Hole No. 6 Geology.

Hole 6 was drilled through the approx-imate axis of an anticlinal structure in the State Farm gneiss. The rock is predominately a moderately-foliated, medium-grained tonalice gneiss (based on Travis,1955). Granodioritic. zones were common, and zones of biotite schist and quartz-plagioclase-biotite schist were also present.

Pegnatic veins of tonalite to granitic composition commonly cut the cored gneiss.

A dike of fine-to medium-grained diabase was found at the depth of approximately 260 ft.

Due to its high angle of incidence to the corehole (65-78* from horizontal) the 95 ft apparent thickness of the dike is much greater than its actual thickness.

Foliated. mafic material within the dike suggest an earlier intrusion along a pre-existing plane of weakness. A generalized lithologic log of hole No. 6 is presented as Figure 10.

~2.3.2.2 Hole No.

7 Geology.

The core recovered from hole No. 7 showed the dominant rock type to be massive, medium-grained tonalite to granodiorite.

Moderately. developed foliation was present,- and some zones graded into a tonalite gneiss-similar to that found in l

l i

1126 20 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

3IPROJ

?~

L W

,v ?

C' f/!f

~

N T...- -.6

9.,..;..t' %. W>.if i i-sn.) i

%: :. ~.

/

1

,~u.v g.~. s.,. -.N. 9.- O....... g

y. '. vs~..-..~.y.~.,,V( UY.

r,:

s 1

.?sc.

• ...*.'.t,,] -[.

... W.l ~g.ai

/

s W

'f y

.L ^l'}dl.. %.:%J R.;. ",~i,$.\\.Q.E.'

~

m s

q 1:

.. ~+. 3./ l

. ~.. i o-t t

i2.yy w y;

./.j. * *n%

y.

o c

l.:

x

,r <..

...~:* y 't (r,,.'t.fg{ *

, f, jg;b..V $

M*

,c 6 hh,,_

/.

8-

.?h. v~ d..,.,t -Q.:d.) A&

N.i i. k u, n v-

~ ;V

~

, /. o'

.' i._Q.}q'q..<;n -'. f 3_,,*a'p-,.. ' ~ ~

M

• O'7

/

',e*..'

Q'"

- %?'

,. P*'""

W n.t,:

?>g, ff ':=",.f 'f-6r. -

.N,,

(}s/

-*-e.=/.O~

,/.

~

n 7,.

, s.

1 r~

'n

/' m

~

M i ig

. /, 7 xW....

j -

W w

4

, p;. -

..v, I

o

.f

. i. -

-s 3-

/ h,'h

. i !,.

m,

/

?

jg nWW/

l

) *, L f,-f,

'l l.;..-. f-r

%j-Qy'.'-'.,h'i.f:-

g.>

.a

> > {.9.. 'Ls N....t. t. I WI I4

,f,

~

-.-: J L p).

'.,ys.

~

, mf.c.;s c c...

~Wu lf-

.whw.g' i

=

rs L

i j

A r.gg 5 /- -Aclf.

-ve

.d ~m p r': y. <

?

.- r m)W.N...)'t & ).A

~

~ Q-A(

. f U

~v:W, g W-- ar, g--v=i9.i ya.

n.

h.$ -

E-

_',.-,- Q s.;'.. n w.}

. c. '* *

. q C,.,,...&g...... y'k.i :. 3 W.

.?'.'i

..>..wp

--gi. h 5 $....

c.. N,g;;' y-7 3

-- M,

1* ~ :....

' :(p 71

- a

. /.

s ari. bj~_

(.,,/,

.NS l 9.")y.: iE k A $ ' i N 3 %g,-. *5..

i

' c;a. 'f o.

@c Figure 4 Test Hole Locations 'or Central Virg!nia Seismic 7one n

i I

N68E j

S 6 8 W --

,,e.

4, 4 8*1 s a i *j GNEISS

• r*

,a, g40 sa DIABASE DIKE a=

1. 9 s**

,8 TEST NO CDEPTH) s*s

>R*

• =

8 (538) 8 7

(597) g]

u,'

• i GNElSS 6

(786.5)

,,a

• r 5

(831) roe no, 4

(849)

1. 8 4 3

(892)

• s l'

2 (91I) s I

(940.5)

,6 a s*,

• e a

' *

• TOTAL DEPTH 1003 BOREHOLE #6 STATE FARM. VA SCALE:

HO3IZ l l

0 loo 200 ft VERT:

'igure 10.

Litholowie Log, Test Hole No. 6 22 i

o l

hole No.

6.

A biotite lineation was also present and this was 7-generally oriented perpendicular to the foliation direction.

Based on a tonalite/ biotite schist contact exposed in the eastern quarry vall, this drilling site appears to be within a pluton that has intruded a host rock of biotite schist. Xenolichs of the host biotite schist are common in the tonalite both near the contact and within the recovered core. Throughout the hole, both the biotite schist and quartz-plagioclase-biotite gneiss were common.

M f7c.

Veins of coarse-grained to pegmas4e tonalice and granite were found to cut the tonalite and biotite schist.

Figure 11 shows the generalized lithology of hole No. 7.

The cores recovered from hole Nos. 6 and 7 were retained by Dr.

I.ynn Glover, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

2.3.3 Seismic Histori Between 1774, and the first half of 1975, approximately 75 earthquakes were experienced within the Central Virginia Seismic Zone (Bollinger, 1975).

Within the period frem July 1977 through June 1982, eight locations in the seismic zone experienced a single

. earthquake and seven others experienced two or more (Wheeler and gem Bollinger, 1984). Of the recorded events, maximum earthquake inten 1 sities were experienced in two events of MM-VI in 1852 and 1929 wit 1I,.

.O#

ost events being of intensity III to IV.

Studies in 1974 indicated ]>~^

that microcarthquake occurrences were relatively infrequent with an

.R, w-observed frequency of one microcarthquake event per eight (8) days

,p Ocilinger, 1975),

/gf ",-

g

\\[.

The earthquake pattern of the Central Virginia Seismic Zone falls in a diffuse cluster in the central Piedmont, and appears to be j

transverse to the regions', geologic structure (Bollinger, 1983).

This clustered habit sugges is that seismicity is being affected by intersecting faults, or stress concentrating conditions in the seismic zone.

1126 23 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

3IPROJ

W m

7

)

P =4 f

e <<~

d

9. 4.,

W w*

b.9 g b b g

4 6 w.1.

.4L

,4.

.4 b w9 TONALITE WITH MINOR GRANODICRITE TEST NO (DEPTH)

• '+* (LOCAL GNEISSIC AND SCHISTOSE ZONES)

.A 4

f4 W q

• Tg*

,6.

we 6 'e '.

7 (629)

[ '.",

6 (796.5) 3,',*[

5 (820)

. +4 m

(878) c *,'

3 (949)

+

2 (969.5) 2,' a ~

I (996.5)

', l w','

TOTAL DEPTH 1004 BOREHOLE #7 BURKEVILLE, VA SCALE:

HO31Z l l

0 100 200 ft VERT l i

Figure 11.

Lithologic Log, Test Hole No. 7 24 L

3.0 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TECHNIQUE 3.1 THEORY The theory and assumptions behind hydraulic fracturing are well documented (Hubbert and Willis, 1957; Fairhurst, 1964; Haimson, 1968; and Bredehoef t, 1976), however a brief discussion is included here for completeness.

The hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracturing method consists of pressurizing a sealed off section of a borehole with hydraulic fluids until failure of the borehole is induced. During pressurization, the initial compressive stresses on the borehole wall decrease and eventually become tensile.

When the in situ tensile (rupture) strength of the rocks is reached a tensile crack forms and propagates in the direction of least resistance (i.e. in a plane perpendicular to the least principal stress for a homogenous, isotropic caterial).

The fracture induced during pressurization will occur, theoret-ically, in a direction normal to the highest induced tensile stress around the borehole.

For a vertical borehole the. fractures at the boreholes are usually vertical even though the vertical stress may be the least principal stress (7oback and Haimson, 1982).

However, horizontal hydraulic fractures sve been reported at depths of <1000 ft (Haimson et al 1976; Rummel, 1982).

Since the equations used to develop hydraulic fracturing are two-dimensional, stress in the plane perpendicular to the borehole, theoretically, has no effect on initiation of hydraulic fractures.

It is probable that the initial fracture orientation is dependent on the relative magnitudes of the principal stress components, the tensile strength and strength anisotropy, combined with the complex interaction of the packers (used to seal off the borehole) and the pressurization fluid which produce a stress distribution in the pressurized section of the borehole wall.

As the induced fractures propagate away from the borehole, however, the fractures may " roll over" into a plane perpen-dicular to the least principal stress.

As an example, in tests conducted in a vertical borehole where the vertical stress is the least principal stress, hydraulic fractures should be initiated in a direction perpendicular to the least horizontal principal stress (vertical fracture) and roll over into the horizontal plane as the induced fractures propagate far away from the borehole.

For a vertical borehole which produces a vertical fracture during pressurization, the horizontal principal stresses can be obtained by making use of the elastic stress concentrations around a circular hole in an infinite plate as determined by Kirsch (1898).

For a vertical hole subjected to an anisotropic horizontal stress field with components o and o, defined as the greatest and least g

h l

1126-3 25 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A i

q-y+

+ -

w g

w

o horizontal principal stresses respectively, the least tangential stress at the borehole wall (c ) is given as :

y 3c h ~ "H (l) a =

As the fluid pressure.

P, in the sealed-off interval is in-creased, a tensile stress of magnitude -P is introduced around the hole.

A tensile crack will form when the borehole pressure (P) equals the resisting tangential strength. T.

Therefore, the critical pressure (P ) at which borehole failure, or breakdown, occurs is 3

given by equation 2.

P

~3#

~#

(

b h

H If the fluid flow race to the sealed-off interval remains constant af ter the initial breakdown pressure has been reached, the pressure should drop to a constant level known as the pumping pres-sure or fracture propagation pressure.

If pumping is stopped, crack extension ceases, and the pressure drops to a value called the shut-in pressure (P ).

At this point, the pressure in the fracture s

is theoretically eq al to the stress normal to the plane of the fracture (equation 3).

P, = ch (3)

If a pore pressure (P is present in the rock formation, the effective stress is reduce 8,) therefore equation 2 can be modified by the addition of the term resulting in the well known relationship:

P =3ch~#H*

~

3 o

or c ~

1. -Pb+T~

(5)

H h

o If the pressures P and P can be determined and the in situ tensile strength (T) ankporepressureP can be obtained then the horizontal stresses can be computed.

However, T is difficult to obtain. The tensile strength can be determined experimentally in the lab, but tensile strength may vary depending on specimen size, test method, and geometry (Zoback and Haimson, 1982).

In addition, much uncertainty is involved in the extrapolation of data obtained from laboratory sized samples to field conditions.

Bredehoeft et al (1976) prope a method to eliminate these inherent problems. They proposed that. if the borehole was repressur-ized af ter breakdown the critical pressure required to reopen the fracture (Pb ) would be given by 2

1126-3 26 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

I126A

P

=3c

~#

(

h H

o Which corresponds to borehole breakdown without the resistance due to T.

Solving equation 6 for oH g ves o =3c

-P

+ Po (7) g h

Equation 7 represents the fracture reopening method of inter-preting hydraulic fracturing tests.

This method is widely used and has yielded consistent results (Zoback and Haimson, 1982).

The fundamental assumptions behind the theory of hydrofracturing 4

are that the rock is linear elastic, homogeneous, isotropic and that the borehole is parallel to one of the principal stress direc-tions.

All four assumptions are imposed to utilize the Kirsch equation. The first three are material property assumptions, whereas the forth is imposed to define a two-dimensional problem, with two principal stresses acting in a plane perpendicular to the borehole.

In addition to the aforementioned basic assumptions, several uncertainties affect the p roper interpretation of hydrofracturing data.

These include the presence of natural fractures, fluid pene-tration into the surrounding formation, fracture breakout around seals (leakoff), and poorly defined breakdown, shut-in, and fracture reopening pressures.

These and other factors affecting the results presented in this report are discussed further in subsequent sections.

3.2 EQUIPMENT The equipment used in hydrofracturing tests for this project fall into two general categories; downhole and surface equipment.

3.2.1 Downhole Ecuipment The basic equipment used in any hydrofracturing tests consists of inflatable rubber elements (packers) used to isolate a section of the borehole for pressurization.

The packer assembly (Figure 12) used in these tests consists of two, 48-in. long, 2 5/8-in. diameter packers, rigidly connected so as to isolate a 2-f t interval of the borehole.

The packer assembly has two separate hydraulic circuits, one for inflation of the packers and the other for fluid flow to the test interval. The packer assembly is suspended in the borehole by 1.6-in.

0.D.,

1.0-in. I.D. pipe with Hydril connections (Hydr 11 is a manufacturer of oilfield tubing).

These connections provide a leakproof seal with minimal make-up torque. This high pressure pipe 1

1126-3 27 1126A ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

,e 0

1 l

I

=.

y f 3 ft TEST IONG "g

e

<?

l I

v p

A 4

l l

"LJ w<k 77z STRA00LE PACKER wie STR A00LE PaCRER wlTM' 00wmMOLE TRANSOUC8RS DOwnnoLg YR ANSOUCER ASStuSLY As GSED su n0Let 148. ear AS USs0 kN MOLES 3.3.44 (P ACKERS SMOwe smFLATEGI Figure 12.

Packer Assemblies used in Hydrofracturing Tests 28

also serves as the conduit through which the fracture interval is pressurized. One 3/8-in. 0.D. high pressure hose is strapped to the i

Hydril tubing as the packer is lowered to provide a means of pressur-izing the packers (Figure 12).

For tests in hole Nos. 2, 3, and 4 a downhole transducer assem-bly (Figure 12) was utilized.

This assembly provided downhole readings of the packer and interval (zone) pressures through an electrical cable, leading to the surface, which was also scrapped to the Hydril tubing.

At the completion of hydrofracturing tests, the orientation of the induced fractures at the borehole wall are determined by utilizing an impression packer.

The impression packer, consists of a 3-ft long, 2 1/8-in. diameter packer pitted with an impression sleeve.

The impression sleeve is covered with a layer of semi-cured rubber which, when pressurized, conforms to the borehole wall. Upon depres-surizacion, the rubber will retain an imprint of the features present on the borehole wall which can then be examined on the surface.

Orientation of the impression packer with respect to north is obtained by the addition of a single-shot survey cool attached between the packer and the Hydril tubing (Figure 13).

This survey tool was obtained from an oil field service company and contains a magnetic compass and a single shoc. camera. After a pre-set time, the camera takes a picture of an internal compass.

From the survey picture, the orientation of a known point, or scribe, on the tool is determined along with hole inclination and direction.

If the scribe is directly referenced to the impression sleeve and corrections made for magnetic declination, the absolute orienta-tion with respect to true north, of a reference mark on the impres-sion can be determined.

From this reference, the orientation of the hydraulic fractures at the borehole wall can be determined.

3.2.2 Surface Equipment Surface equipment included a truck-mounted Longyear Model 44 drill rig, two air-driven pumps, a hydraulic accumulator, valve manifold and instrumentation to measure and record packer pressures, test interval (zone) pressures, and flow rates. A schematic of the hydrofracturing system is shown in Figure 14.

The air driven pumps can develop pressures in the range of 0 to 6500 psi.

One pump supplies flow through a turbine flovmeter to the test zone, while the second supplies pressure to the packe rs.

The accumulator is incorporated to reduce pressure pulses produced by the pump serving the test zone.

j Pressures in the test zone and the packers are measured by 1

internally regulated, high-output, strain gage type pressure trans-I 1126-3 29 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A i

l

I e

a av0 RILL Tutine emptAfsom meeg m

• e.

}

-40m*u A4mETIC $P ACER

-CAuGAANOUSimG i

g sCRiss - ALlame wif a tuAVEY CAMGR A'S INTERmAk 3Cpigt

-mo n-wa ens T:C:PAcen imenession pACiism f eCnise f T iurnession soseve f

7 efeat e Amos <

k aupasssion avseen

( 3 ft inTERV AL )

/

I i

Figure 13.

Impression Packer used for Determination of Fracture Orientation 30 t

e WATER IN COMP. AIR IN p r

4 AIR-DRIVEN HIGH PRESSUPE PUMPS ACCUMULATOR l g3 TO PACKERS SYPASS g

N FLOWMETER '

I l

CONVERTOR L____

Q ___

VALVES e

l O

l 0"AU TO ZONE a

l 1

l l

JUNCTION SOX I

NOTE: ONE. THREE CHANNEL RECORDER ZONE PRESSURE &

USED FOR TESTS IN HOLE NO. 5.687 W

TO TRANSDUCERS FLOW R ATE 3 l 2h [ ~ -

l ll 1 l

ZONE PRESSURE &

J P ACKER PRESSURE POWER SUPPLY TWO, TWO-CH ANNEL RECORDERS Figure 14 Uphole HydrOfracturing Test Equipment 31

l ducers.

These transducers are designed and calibrated to have an output of one (1) volt per 1000 psi with an excitation voltage between 12 and 30 volts DC.

Flow rates to the test zone are measured by a turbine flowmeter whose pulse output is fed to a pulse race converter. The convertor r

output is 10 volts DC with a compatible flovmeter specified maximum flow rate throughput.

Therefore, a 1.0 GPM flowmeter would have an associated output from the converter of 10 volts at 1.0 GPM flow rate.

r Voltage outputs from the pressure transducers and flowmeter rate converter are fed to a time base strip chart recorder (Figure 14).

For tests in which the pressure transducers are located at the F

surface (hole Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7), the zone pressure transducer was located at the wellhead (Figure 12) to eliminate measurement of l

dynamic friction loss in the small hose leading from the pump to the vellhead. With the transducer at the wellhead, down-hole pressures measured at the surface must be corrected for the hydrostatic pres-l sure head and the pressure drop due to pipe friction in the Hydril tubing.

The friction loss to the flow in the Hydril tubing is approximately 0.4 psi per 100 f t at 2.0 GPM (Ingersoll Rand, 1981).

In most cases, flow rates were less than 1.0 GPM and pressure lesses are less than 4 psi and are assumed negligible.

i 3.2.3 Ecuipment Malfunctions and Problems As stated in Section 1.4, some deficiencies in the hydraulic fracturing system required correction.

This problem became evident during testing in hole No. 4 when observed test pressures indicated that the packers used to isolate the test zone had failed. Failure l

occurred in the steel mandrel which connects the two packers together.

l Eigh test pressures in the zone between the packers apply an axial (censile) load on the mandrel as the packers are forced apart.

Typically this mandrel and associated couplings are designed under the assumption that the mandrel supports the entire axial load i

applied by the test zone pressure (no frictica between packer and borehole). Based on the observed failure this

.s not an unreasonable assumption. New mandrels and couplings were inctalled and no further i

problems were noted. Modification to the data. recording system were l

j made prior to testing in hole No. 5.

Testing in holes 1 through 4 utilized reservoir type, two-channci strip chart recorders.

Since i

three (3) channels of data ware recorded, two, two-channel recorders

[

of this type were necessary.

Also, the pens on these types of recorders typically plug up and cease to operate under field condi-tions. Tests in Holes 5, 6 and 7 utilized a single, three-channel r

strip chart recorder with disposable pens. This modification marked a drastic improvement in data collection.

g

.i 1126-3 32 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

L 1126A I

l i

l

Another mechanical problem arose during the first series of tests conducted in hole No.

4.

Pressure records showed that the downhole testrumentation assembly or the ports through the mandrel, which allow fluid to enter the test zone, were plugging with debris which entered during the lowering of the system downhole. To prevent this from affecting future tests, a procedure was enacted to clear the ports by flushing clean water down the Hydril tubing prior to inflation of the packers and the beginning of a test.

If plugging was suspect during a test, a check was made by either deflating the packers and pumping to the zone or deflating the packers while pressure was on the zone (in place of venting pressure on the surface at the end of a cycle).

In either case, if pressure was retained in the Hydril tubing af ter packer deflation then plugging was evident.

No other significant problems with the hydrofracturing equipment arose.

3.3 FROCEDCRES An attempt was made to utilize a consistent procedure in con-ducting all tests.

Important steps in the test procedure are as follows:

e Test intervals were determined from examination of the core.

An ideal test interval was one that was totally free of discontinuities.

Test depths were measured to the center of the 2-ft test interval.

e The entire length of high pressure hose which connects the packer to the pump is purged of air by water flushing. The packer system is also voided of air and then connected to the hose.

The hydrofracturing tool was tested for leaks.

e e The packer assembly was lowered downhole to the deepest predetermined test depth using premeasured lengths of Hydril tubing.

Lowering of the system was done by the drill rig.

Upon reaching the cast depth, the tubing was flushed e

with water to clear debris, After flushing, the packers are set by inflating to e

approximately 1000 psi (surface pressure).

The Hydril tubing was then topped off with water and e

connected to the pump.

I 1126-3 33 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A i

o

,-m.

e

-m

,--,.,.m.

,,,--.9

,,,,,y

3 l

e Once connected and voided ' of air, the test zone was pressurized by addition of wafer at a constant flow rate through the Hydril tubing. Packer pressure is raised simultaneously by pumping to the packers. A

/

positive differential pressure of approximately 500 psi was maintained (if possible) to prevent leaks past the packers.

In some cases, when high pres-r sures were required to induce fracturing, the packers could not be pressurized at a rate equal to the rate at which the zone pressure was rising.

f.n those cases the flow rate to the zone was decreased og halted momentarily to allow the packers to

'" catch-up".

Pressurization continued until shortiy after a peak

' ~

e was reached (breakdown).

At3that time the control valve was shut off (shut-in) and the pressure response monitored -for approximately 3 minutes or

'T until the trer.d of the pressure decay curve was apparent.

e Pressure in the test zone was then. vented and alleved to equalize for at least 3' minutes or until no flowback from the zone was notri.

d s

Pressure in the packers was reduced back.co approxi-e aately '1000 psi (higher in cases-where packer pressuri::ation race was a problem).

o Pressurization, shut-in and venting Yeycles were rapeated 3 times using the'same flow rate as'usud f.n s

the first cycle.

Flow rates averaged 0.25 GPM foi tests in hole No. 4 and 0.40 GPM in all other tests.

This procedure change was made in an attempt to increase the likelihood of inducing a vertical fracture.

Afterthesebepressurizatiorcyclesaslo,vflowrate.

e

~

(<0.1 GPM) cycle F4F run., - The purpose Cf this Cycle was the assumption. that under such low flow rates the pressure will reach a maximum steady value equal to the shut-in pressure (P,; Doe et al,1982).

Upon complqtion of the slow cycle, a fast (a I cpm) e flow rate f cycle was run.

The intention of this cy le is to pressurize the test zona quickly such that fluid does not have time to infiltrate the fracture prior to reach'ng the pressare required for the fracture to reopen (P

).

In addition it pro-i 1126-3 34 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL;INC.

1126A n

,a

vides a check on the breakdown pressure shown in the first cycle.

If the pressure does not exceed the breakdown pressure even with higher flow rates then breakdown is assured.

Af ter completing the number of cycles deemed neces-e sary to obtain the required hydrofracturing pressure data (usually 6), the test interval and packers were vented.

The assembly was then hoisted to the next test depth and the above steps repeated.

3.4 DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL STRESS MAGNITUDES Of the 53 tests conducted in the 7 boreholes, 18 were considered successful and are assumed to provide meaningful data on the princi-pal horizontal stress magnitudes and directions. Tests were accepted i

or rejected based on analysis of fracture patterns obtained from impressions.

Due to schedule and cost constraints not all fracture intervals were examined with an impression.

Impression test inter-vals were therefore selected after analysis of pressure records.

Test intervals where horizontal fracturing was evident typically had pressure records which gave values of the shut-in pressure close to the estimated overburden (vertical) stress and therefore provided a basis for selection of the test intervals for impression tests.

Tests that were accepted for determination of horizontal stresses generally show well defined vertical fractures with minimal amount of inclined fractures branching from the vertical fractures.

Magnitudes of the horizontal principal stresses are calculated using the equations given in Section 3.1 for those tests deemed acceptable based on results of impressions.

3.4.1 Minimum Horizontal Principal Stress The minimum horizontal principal stress (c ) is obtained directly h

f rom the shut-in pressure (P ) taking into account the hydrostatic pressure head (P ) if pressures were measured on the surface.

h h = P, + Ph c

The shut-in pressure (P is determined from the pressure versus time curves and assumed equal) to the inflection point on the portion of the curve immediately after cessation of pumping (shut-in),

according to Grenseth, 1982. Figure 15 a and b show two (2) examples of how P, is determined from a pressure versus time record.

The shut-in pressure determined from each of the cycles conducted during a hydrofracturing test is then scrutinized to exclude any obvious irregularities such as drastic decreases in P during later 8

pressure cycles. A slight decrease in P, is expected as the fracture 1126-3 35 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

I126A

I PRESSURE. p si 0.6-3000 OW WE

{ 0.5 --2500

/

I N

PACKER 4"

0.4 --2000 PRESSURE

/

g

-VENT d 0.3 --1500 i

r 1

SHUT-IN OF ZONE 0.2 --1000

\\#

/

P, O. I --500 ZCNE g

VENT PRESSURE

\\

/

,\\

00 2

4 6

8 to 12 TNE. mm s

k Figure 15a. Example of an I itial Pressurization Cycle for.t Hydrofracturing Test 1,

PRESSURE. psi 0.6--3000 p

0.5~2500 d

j\\h) yp J 0.4 -2000 7

e g 0.3+I500

/

\\

i a

i

/

P w

s 0.2 --1000,

%g

\\

\\

\\

0.1 ~500.

g

)

0 O 2

4-3' 6 8

10 TIME. min

<1 t.

Figure 15b. Example of a Repressurization Cycle for a Hydrofracturing Test t

/

36 i

i 3

\\

4

),. _.

-~

.--.--,v v

0-o

)

13 propagates away from the borehole, however, a sharp decrease may indicate fracture reorientation due to the presence of natural joints or fracture " roll over" as the result of the vertical stress being the least principal stress.

Generally, the stable. shut-in pressure reached af ter repeated pressurization cycles was used for calculation of c as recommended by Zoback and Hickman, 1982.

Very slow flow h

rate cycles also gave an indication of P, however it is interpreted in a different manner and was generally u* sed as a check on the values determined from other cycles.

Shut-in pressure for a very slow flow rate cycle is assumed equal to the pumping pressure or pressure just prior to shut-in.

Again, judgement must be used when interpreting any test pressure cycle.

It should be noted that various other techniques have been proposed for analysis of shut-in curves, (see McLennan and Roegiers, 1982).

These methods involve mathematical manipulation

'o f shut-in curves in order to graphically define a single point considered to be equal to P,

Application of these methods did not prove to provide significanEly different values than the method mentioned previously and therefore were not used.

The hydrostatic pressure (P ) is computed by use of the pressure h

gradient for water of 0.433 psi per foot of depth. This term is only applicable to tests in which the pressures were measured on the surface.

3.4.2 Maximum Horizontal Principal Stress From section 3.1, the equation utilized for calculation of the maximum horizontal principal stress (c H

c =3a

-P

- Po (7) g y

y or o =3e - (Ph+P)-P, h

(7a) g h

Where c is the minimum horizontal principal stress determined fron h

P,,

P is the fracture reopening pressure and P, is the pore pres-Equation 7 is modified to equation 7a by the addition of the sure.

term P. f r use when pressures are measured on the surface.

h Breakdown pressures (Pb ) are n t required for determination of g

however, they can be used along with the fracture reopening a$e,ssurestodeterminetheapparenthydrofracturingtensilestrength p

obtained by combining equations 4 and 6 from Section 3.1 resulting in equation 8.

'T=P

-P (8) 1 1126-3 37 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A

.i The value of T determined by equation 8 can then be compared with laboratory derived hydrofracturing tensile strength data obtained by testing of cores from the test zones.

A complete discussion of the laboratory testing program conducted for this project is included in Section 3.6.

As with the value of P,, and hence c, the value of P is h

determined directly from the pressure versus time records obtained for each test. P is taken to be the point on the repressurization curve where the slope deviates from linearity under constant flow rates (Zoback and Haimson, 1982)'

Figure 15 b shows an example of how P is determined from a particular cycle. Again, some judgement is necessary on the part of the investigator in analysis of pressure records.

The pore pressure (P ) term is calculated under the common assumption that the pore pressure is equal to the static pressure head of water in the borehole.

Therefo re, P is calculated by multiplying the pressure gradient for water (.433 psi /f t) by the test depth minus the depth to the observed static water level in the borehole.

3.4.3 Vertical Stress The vertical stress is assumed to be a principal stress and equal to the pressure of the overburden.

D a

c =

(9) y 144 where e = vertical stress in pounds per square inch y

D = test depth in feet a = average specific. weight of the overburden rock in pounds per cubic foot

= 170 lb/ft' for hole Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7

= 160 lb/fc8 for hole No.1 Vertier.1 stress can also be estimated from the shut-in pressure obtained during a test in which a horizontal fracture was created.

Again, shut-in pressure (P )~ must be corrected by the addition of the term. P r tests in ich the pressures were measured on the surf ace.h, 1126-3 38 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

o?

~

1 3.5 DETERMINATION OF ~ PRINCIPAL STRESS ORIENTATION Analysis of pressure-time curves provides most of the informa-tion necessary to evaluate the in situ stress tensor.

Additional information on the orientation of the induced rupture plane, relative to the borehole axis, is required to determine the orientation of the in situ stresses. As described previously, this is accomplished by means of an oriented impression packer.

3.5.1 Procedure The following operating procedure was used to carry out the fracture impression tests.

e The impression test assembly (Figure 13) was assembled and an impression sleeve mounted to the packer by means of two steel bands.

e The impression sleeve is marked at the top by means of a small cut aligned with the orientation scribe on the survey equipment.

The ends of the impression sleeve are then built-up e

slightly with duct tape to prevent contact of the impression with the borehole wall while running into, or out of, the hole.

e The assembly is lowered downhole, suspended by the Hydril tubing, and positioned such that the center of the impression sleeve is located at the center of the test interval.

Once in position, the impression packer was pressur-e ized to 2000 psi for approximately 45 minutes.

Lower pressures were used in cases where the test interval breakdown pressure (P ) approached 2000 b

psi.

In no casa did the impression test pressu re exceed breakdown pressures observed for that inter-val.

After waiting the 45 minutes, with the set time of e

the survey cameras internal timer taken into consid-eration, the packer was deflated and pulled to the surface.

o Upon reaching the surface, the survey camera film disk was developed and read, a fresh disk loaded and the timer set for the next survey.

The impression i

sleeve was then examined to be~ sure that the cut mark was still aligned with the survey tool scribe.

t 1126-3 39 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

~1126A

l The impression sleeve was then removed and a new sleeve mounted and aligned.

The assembly was then ready for the next test.

e Upon removal, the impression sleeve was inspected for hydrofractures.

Observed features were high-lighted by the application of white paint to the fracture traces. Observed features were documented by tracing to a clear plastic film which was wrapped around the sleeve.

Tracings are photographically reduced for inclusion in this report (Appendices A and B).

3.5.2 Analysis Fracture impression tracings which show vertical fracture features were analyzed to determine the azimuth of the fracture plane.

According to hydrofracturing theory, the fractures produced during a hydrofracturing test will initiate and propagate in a direction perpendicular to the least compressive stress ( parallel to e).

Therefore, the orientation of the fracture plane is assumed gequal to the orientation of the maximum horizontal principal stress.

An example of the method used to determine the orientation of the fractures observed from impression tests is shown in Figure 16, 3.6 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 3.6.1 Purpos e The purpose of the laboratory testing program was to provide

' data on the tensile (rupture) strength of hydrofracture test inter-vals through testing of related rock cores.

3.6.2 - Scope The laboratory testing was performed by personnel at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

Tensile strengths were determined by the indirect (splic cylinder or Brazilian) method and by simulated hydraulic fracturing tests performed on the NQ (1.875-in. diameter) rock cores recovered from hydraulic fracturing test intervals. Core from borehole Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were tested. Core from borehole No. I was a conglomerate and was considered unsuitable for laboratory testing. Core from boreholes 6 and 7 were not tested due to cost and schedule constraints. The lack of these data is not expected to effect data analysis as laboratory cata are only being used as an aid in test interpretation.

Laborator; data aid in test interpretation by providing values which can be compared to the apparent tensile strength (T) determined from a hydrofracturing test by equation 8

(Section 3.4.2).

The difficulty in direct 1126-3 40 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

e HCLE NO. 5 TEST NO. I b

977 f t f

I i

1.

Mean fracture planes @ & @ are S 57 E !

Il visually determined (if applicable)

I g

g or calculated by taking a number of l

measurements from the edge of the l

l g

tracing.

i l

l 2.

Let the distance from A to B equal 360*.

1 1

@ and l

3.

Measure distance C to C to @.

b k

4.

Compute angular distance as follows:

l I

Degrees Right or l[l l

X C1

=

.1 B clockwise fros to @.

l l

C I

0 Degrees Left or I

X C2

=

l

~

1 l

AB counterclockwise f

4l from C to @.

l S.

Overall orientation of =ean fracture i

l lane is the average orientation of l

& @ referenced to north, I l t,j Example:

l a

1

/

@ = N25 E 1

@ = S27*W S27' W N27'E

=

I N26*E Ave

=

ij i

l l

I l

1 l

fll I

1 I )i i

Figure 16.

- Example of Hydrofracture 900 f t l

l l

Orientation Determination From C@

an Impre sion Packer Tracing.

A B

41

'.*'.t.,

I-1 application of laboratory tensile strengths to stress determination is the extropolation of. laboratory values to field conditions to t

account for sample size effects.

Testing of cores from hole No. 5 did attempt to quantify the size effect by conducting simulated 3

hydraulic fracturing tests with two different borehole sizes.

Hydrofracturing tests. from the holes listed above, which produced i

vertical fractures had their respective core intervals tested in the

}.

laboratory. In addition to these, some test intervals which produced, j

or were assumed to produce, horizontal fractures were also subject to l

laboratory testing.

3.6.3' Test Description Indirect tensile strength tests were performed as per ASTM D 3967 (1983).- Since this test is standardized, no further discussion is warranted.

Simulated hydraulic fracturing tests are performed on core

, samples prepared so as to have a length-to-diameter ratio of 2:1.

4 Samples were then prepared for testing by the drilling of a central-ized hole 'through the axis of the core to a depth of 1.5-in.

Role diameter was 0.25 in. for all tests except cores from hole No. 5 which utilized 0.25-and 0.50-in. holes. The opening of the hole was then fitted with a piece of high pressure tubing through which the.

hole could be pressurized.

Figure -17 shows samples that have been prepared for a test.

Once prepared, the samples are placed in an. uniaxial compression machine whose upper platen accepts - the tubing protruding from the test samples thus providing a means for pressurization.

An axial load equivalent to the calculated vertical stress (equation 9) is then applied to the sample.

The borehole is ' then pressurized at a constant flow rate with water until failure occurs.

i 3.6.4 Results l

Results of the laboratory testing are given in Appendix C.

A sumisry of the results is presented in Table 1.

It should be noted that in many cases, quite a bit of scatter occurs in the data suggesting that the material ~ properties of the-test interval can change drastically from point to point. One observation that can be 'made from analysis of the lab test data is the apparent decrease in laboratory hydrofracture tensile strengths with increas-ing borehole diameter. A plot of the results of laboratory hydrofrac-turing test results ' performed on samples from hole No. 5 along with j

l published data (Haimson, 1968) is shown in Figure 18.

Using the l

published data to create a family 'of curves and projecting this curve l

with the hole No. 5 data to a borehole diameter of '3 in. gives a censile strength of 1100 psi. This corresponds to a value of approx-4 4

1126-3 42 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A i

)

.I i

.)s b

.4

, i >T.Ui7

)

s y, s

D i

n 1

~

l i

-c

. f,.

.., 9,s

j'..,g2 t

~

l l

-~

l

\\

t

,.)

~

~

[1 I

Figure 17.

Laboratory Soecimens for Hydraulic Fracturing Testing 43

= -.

TABLE I

SUMMARY

OF 1.AB TEST RESUI.TS Origin of Sample Ave. Hydrofracturing Ave. Brazilian Tensile Tensile Strength

• Field Test Test Depth S trength i Std. Dev.

1 Std. Dev.

Hole No.

No.

ft psi Psi 2

1 351 1880 1 370 2315 2 1115 2

449.5 2306 2 254 2785 2 506 3

2469 2 430 3230 2 482 3

9 455 1547 2 233 2410 2 590 7

603 1627 2 77 2400 t 1088 4

758 1856 2 33 1753 2 215 6

777.5 1826 1 56 NA 2

863 1757 2 87 2723 2 518

+3 931 1595 2 185 2705 2 106

+1 945 1366 2 312 2523 1 263 4

+3 422 2358 2 372 3925 2 260 1

9 443 2010 1 532 NA

+5 939 1970 1 363 3325 2 300 in 1

1049 2354 2 1 3190 2 112 2

2E

+11 1432 2345 1 325 3112 2 783

$)

fk

.25 in borehole

.50 in borehole m

1 JD 5

5 833 1617 2 170 2478 1 18 1572 2 45 00

+4 940.5 711 2 457 745 NA JE

+3 951.2 1446 1 262 2180 255

)

fj

+1 978.5 1447 1 268

!!93 1 893 NA 3D 4

y 2E

)>

H

[5 j

gg Vertical fractures only 3>

NA Not available, no vertical fractures created during testa j

I~

Tests which produced vertical fractures in the field

+

5E

~C)

~

1126 TA ll26A i

..-..m I

24 OlAIMSON)

HOLE NO. 5 DATA AT DEPTH 834 -

7a "O

88 M

I

\\

G

\\

5 O

V x

\\

N ta g

n

=2

@ 12 N

O N

__a___

g

,7,,._ _ _

_m z

Q E

\\

s I

2 NQHANSON) s a

<r I

I 6

U!A"3" I

i 1

i l

I 1

I I

I I

I O

f/4 i/2 1

2 3

4 8

I/8 8OREHOLE DIAMETER (LOG-inches)

Figure 18.

Extrapolation of Laboratory Data for Determination of Ilydrofracturing Tensile Strength. (Comparison data are from llaimson, 1968)

imately 44 percent of the lab value for a borehole diameter of 0.25 in.

This value compares favorably with data obtained for granite presented by Ratigan (1982).

Therefore it is felt that a value of 44 percent of the laboratory strength determined by hydraulic fracturing of a 2-in. diameter core with a 0.25-in. borehole would be appropriate for comparison with the apparent tensile strength obtained in the field. This, of course, assumes that the data from hole No. 5 can be applied to all other holes of similar rock type (excluding hole No. 1).

1126-3 46 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A i

S.

d.

4.0 TEST RESULTS 1

Results of hydraulic fracturing tests conducted for this project

. were determined by analysis of the original pressure versus time records.

Reduced copies of the records, along with copies of the fracture impressions (if available), are given in Appendices A and B.

Appendix A contains the pressure and flow rate versus time data and impression test results for tests which are considered to provide meaningful data on in situ stresses. Appendix B contains test data for all other tests.

The reader is cautioned that the values for the principal stress magnitudes and directions are the result of the analysis of data by Engineers International Inc. staff and are what they believe to be the "best" estimate of the local stress censor.

4.1.M00DUS, CONNECTICUT 4.1.1 Hole No. 3 Hole No. 3 was drilled to a depth of 1000 ft in the heart of the Moodus seismic zone. A total of ten (10) hydraulic fracturing tests were conducted at depths between 945 and 388 ft.

Of these ten (10) tests, two were considered acceptable for estimation of the local in situ stress state. The values of Pb,Pb, and P,2deter-1 mined from each test cycle along with the values of P.

and P, used in calculation of stresses are given in Table 2.

The corresponding l

values of the principal sgresses, directions, stress ratios and shear stress components are given in Table 3.

Also included in Table 3 is i

the value of the tensile strength of the borehole implied by the results of the field tests.

A graphical representation of the calculated values of principal stress magnitudes and directions are 1

shown in Figure 19.

4.1.2 Hole No. 4 i

Hole No. 4 was drilled to a depth of 1500 ft, approximately eight (8) miles to the south of hole No. 3.

A total of 13 hydraulic fracturing tests were conducted at depths ranging from 1448 to 422 ft.

Of the 13 tests, three (3) were considered acceptable for estination of the local in-situ stress state. Data are presented in the same manner as for hole No. 3 in Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 20.

i i

1126-4 47 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

_-- _ __ _~ - _._._ __....... -.

._m

..-._..m

...___a

~~r I

i 4

i TABLE 2 j

RECORDED HYD80 FRACTURING PRES $URES Hole No 3 l

.I P 7 P

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P

Test Depth P

P 2 P 3

1. 4 P 5 P,6 b,

s a

s s

a a

e s

b bg b

b b

2 2

2 1

No.

ft.

pst poi ps pel ps pal

. psi psi psi psi pst

' psi psi pst d

j 1

945 5550 5000 4700 4500 -

4500 4500 5500 5650 5600 (4950) 5500 5560 3

931 6200 5500 5200 5350 6000 6000 6100 5450 5985 f

4 758

>6575*

s~

08 6

777.5

>6200*-

I i

Breakdown Pressure P - Fracture Reopening Pressure Used in Calculations NGTE:

P b 2 P

- Fracture Reopening Pressure in s - Shuc-in Pressure Used in Calculations E

P 3

the 1-th Cycles

.a

- No Apparent Breakdown at Pressures 1

Indicated P

- Shut-in Pressure in the 1-th Cycle:

4 e

i e All Pressures are Measured Downhole i

l s

1 O

..,_n,----,

,,--,,-.rn,-,,.n-.,,---v.

-n--

_.. _ _ _ _ _..-.. _ _. _.. _ _...~._._. _ m

_.m

~ -.... - _.

._4.~.

.__.__m TA bt.E 3

.1 SutetARY OF NYDROFR.ACTURING PRESSURES AND PRINCIPAL STRESS CALCULAT10NS Hole No. 3 r

Test Depth P,

. P P

P, o

o o

o o gh "M

'M T

q g

g g

g g

8 V

teld Direction 2

2.

a cy No.

fc.

pst pai pst pst pst psi pst pst psi pst I

945 NA 480 4500 5560 1815 5560 11.770 N47*W 3105 5330 2.12

'10.56 1050 3

931 NA 405 5350 5985 1800 5985 12.200 N50*W 3110 5550 2.04 11.09 850 b*

L t

I I

MEAN VALUES M48*W Scandard Deviation 21.5*

H

-Mydrostatic Pressure "h.

H. #V. - Least Horizontal. Largest Horizontal.

W E:

P and Vertical Stress Respectively.

o - Fore Pressure NA - Not Appitcable. Pressure Measured Downhole b2 - Fracture Reopening Pressure

1. s - Shes-in Pressure T

- Implied Hydrofracture II*I4 Tensile Strength bs,~ b2

3 6

1 i

z om 5

1 r o 8*=

3.

c_

Q

~

f l

l

~

n I

i t

O O

z

=

o.

o_

a n

-o w

i, e

5 e

D 0= 0 4

r 5

a u

4 e +

w

-a T

=

4 i

o

1. A e o

u o

~2

~

3 o o

uz

-eo ec -

Q.o 4

_L mu

=c m

o%

J O

u w 4*.

~

W

'A u C

c.

H

-e 1J g

Ma c.

4

- a U 3 4

ez

- w o

t u v o

c. >

c o

cn n

~

t 2

e 4

r w

L H

m w

oIw

>3 i

Dw oo _ _ _, _

o i

l I

i I

o o

o o

o o

E O

Q 4

11'Hid30 50 i

m.__

...m.__

i

-j i

l W

TAR 1E 4 i

rec 0ROED HYDR 0 FRACTURING PRESSURES 4

Hale No. 4 i

i l

Test Depth P,

P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 Ph'

'b I I

PI I2 P,3 P,4 P,5 P,6 P,7 P,

y y

b s

s h

Na.

fc.

I pel pet psi pat psk pel psi psi pst psi psi psi psi pst 3

422 2l00 1000 1275 1225 -

1300 1300 3200 1150 1050 1050 1050 1100 1050

]'

5 939 2975 2250 2350 2350 -

.2700 2345 2300 2550 2600 2600 2625 2650 2605

• I 1432 5650 5000 5000 5300 5500 5350 5150 5050 5700 5900 6100 5900 5900 I

u

)

i

)

]

NOTE:

P

- Breakdown Pressure P - Fracture Reopening Pressure Used in Calculations l

b g

7 1

y b - Fracture Reopening Pressure in a - Shut-in Frassure Used in Calculations 1

P P

2 the 1-th Cycles f

P

- Shut-in Pressure in the 1-th Eycles 3

e All Pressures are Measured

}

Downhole i

i 4.

4 l

i A

1 a

I,,.

~..

_m.

._..-._..m.

s J

e 4

i i

TARLE 5

SUMMARY

OF MYDR0 FRACTURING PRESSURES AND PRINCIPAL STRESS CALC"ul.ATIONS

{

Note No. 4 i

Test Depth P,

P P

r

~#

T b

V h

M H

H h H

V M

H Direction 2

2 c

h V

1 No.

ft.

pst pst est pst pst est est pst est pst

]

3 422 NA 175 1300 1050 500 1050.

I,675 NW QuaJ.

310 585 1.60 3.35 800 5

939 NA 400 2345 2605 III0 2605

-5,100 N87*W 1245 1995 1.%

4.59 660 II 1432 NA

- 610 5350 5820 1690 5820 11.580 N64*W 2880 4945 1.98 6.86 300 vi da

.I

't MEAN VALUES N75'W II i

Standard Deviation til' M E:

PH - Hydrostatic Pressure h#ti. #V. - Least Horizontal. Largest Horizontal, and Vertical Stress Respectively.

P

~

I*** I'***"I*

NA - Not Applicable. Pressure Measured b - Fracture Reopening Pressure

- Staat-in Pressure T

- Implied Hydrofracture field

]

Tensile Strength (Pb t,' I ' )

b f

e j

r r

r-

~.

i i

i z

3 t

Z o

Q c

Eo w v_

o N

=

E

_____4.________

a

+

3 i

i i

OO z

0,-

O m

Go w

C5 me a

e 3

000

-u e

i 4 e +

-c

e 4

ma O

2 O

-.5e o

uz

~cm x-m o x=

mu n.

mo ow e

w o

m" a g

C

- u C

c5 Q aOm 4

a s am w w o

w v O

e O

c n

O o

n v

H w

w 3

O ec w

I A

4 Od P

,a e

o C

4 O

a f

f I

o O

O O

O O

o o

n in 11 *Hid30 53

• i.

4 4.2 RAMAPO, NEW YORK 4.2.1 Hole No. 1 Borehole No. I was drilled to a depth of approximately 1496 f t near the Ramapo seismic zone.

A total of seven (7) tests were l

conducted at depths ranging from 678 to 447 ft.

Operational difficul-ties prevented testing below 700 f t.

Of the savin (7) tests 7threT-l

,\\ ' g '

(No'risidured acWeptable for estimation of the local in-situ

~

~

Vi

)

stress state.

It should be noted that only two (2) tests actually

' N(\\

had evidence of'vTrtica'175~cturing "but ~

~ aiditional. test an was

") evaluated-basedLon _the _ assumption that a vertical fracture wa's crM This assumption is based on the observed test results and tTe~ possibility that the nature of the rock fabric masked the verti-cal fracture from the impression.

The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7, and Figure 21.

4.2.2 Hole No. 2

. Hole No. 2 was drilled to a depth of 956 ft approximately 12 miles northeast of hole No. 1.

Poor borehole conditions allowed the conduct of only three (3) tests in this hole at depths ranging from 514 to 351 ft.

Due to the relatively shallow depth of tests and the fact that impressions of the test intervals could not be made, none of the tests in hole No. 2 are considered meaningful.

4.2.3 Hole No. 5 Hole No. 5 was drilled to a depth of 991 ft at a location approximately one mile north of hole No. 1.

It should be emphasized however, that the rock types are completely different (see Section 2.2).

A total of five (5) tests were conducted at depths ranging frem 979 to 833 f t.

Of these five (5) tests, three (3) are consid-ered acceptable for estimation of the local in-situ stress state.

Results of the tests are given in Tables 8 and 9, and Figure 22.

I 4.3 CENTRAL VIRGINIA 4.3.1 Hole No. 6 Borehole No. 6 was drilled to a total depth of 1003 f t within the central Virginia seismic zone.

A total of eight (8) hydraulic fracturing tests were conducted at depths between 940 and $38 f t.

Of these eight (8) tests, a total of four (4) were considered acceptable for estimation of the local in-situ stress state. Results are given in Tables 10 and 11, and Figure 23.

I 1126-4 54 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A l

l

i I

I i

l l

l l

TABLE 6 RECORDED KYDROFRACTURINC PRESSURES Hale No.

1 Test Depth P,

P 2 P 3 F 4 P 5 P, 6 P I

'b Pi P2 b

b b

b2 P,3 P,4 P,5 P,6 P,7 P,

y 2

s s

No.

ft.

ps ps pst pst pst psi psi psi psi pst psi psi psi psi t 3 568 1750 525 500 550 525 775 725 675 650 550 675 4

594 1225 400 400 400 500 400 850 750 1200 1000 850 575 575 5

637 1475 800 800 750 750 750 750 950 900 850 850 775 900 775 vi vs NGTE:

P

~

IhJd"* P'***"'*

F

- Fracture R4 opening Pressure Used in Calculations b g by P

- Fracture Reapeatna Pressure in

~

"I" I'***"'" U**

I"

• I'"I*EI""'

a 2

the 1-th Cycle:

P

- Shut-ta Pressure la the 1-th Cycle:

All Pressures are MeasureJ on e

the Surface t Vertical Fracture As=umed

. - -. ~. -...... -. -.. -. _

.. ~ _. -. -. - _ -.

.. - -... ~.. - - -. -

_ _ - ~ ~... - - - - - _

. ~,. ~

. -. -- - - - ~ -.

. ~..

i i

t 6

.i TASLE 7 SmetARY OF HYDROFRACTURINC PRESSURES AND PSINCIPAI. STRESS CALCULATIONS Note No. 1 Test Depth P,

P, P

M N Sh b

s W

h "M

M V

M H

field 2

Direction 2

2 o

o g

g No.

ft.

psi psi psi psi pst psi psi psi pai pst t3 568 245 235 525 675 630 920 1755 420 560 1.91 2.78 1225 4

594 255 250 400 575 660 830 5545 N69*E 375 460 1.91 2.40 825 1

637 275 270 750 775 700 1050 4855 (N45*E) 400 575 1.77 2.65 725 vi l

I I

i MEAN VALUES N69*E

{

Standard Deviation

'N

- Hydrostatic Pressure h, #H. #V, - Least Horizontal. Largest Horizontal.

and Vertical Stress Respectively.

F 1

0 - Fore Pressure I

t - Vertical Fracture Assumed l

P i

b - Fracture Reopentog Pressure I

l

() - Not Used la Calculation s - Shuc-la Pressure l

T

- Implied Hydrofracture gg,g4 Tensile Strength I'b,"

b g

2 g

.. J i-6 e

9"

?

.-4

6 i

i w

Q

+

w o o

• w e-5 4

G Q

Z t

i 1

i i

O O

~

Z O

9 N

Owz e

E 5

4

o OOO "u

e v

4 e+

2:

c:

?

-a zJ O

y.

O

=o c

uz

-ey ec -

mo x=

aw a.

mo n%

e w

D r"~5 W

c.

C 7S e

c.

-m oa ea

-w 0

4 s". >

U 0

O m9 4

N v

<t w

2 m

4 en O

~~,"#

A

=

t:

gw

>a O

O D

l l

l O

o o

O o

o D

<a n

• )'Hid30 57

TABLE 8 RECOkDED HYDROFRACTUa!NC PRESSURES e

llota No. 5 Test Depth r

P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P -7 Pi F2 t3 P'

I5 P,6 P,7 P,

b yb s

s s

s s

pk pk psf psi psi psf psi psi psi pst pst pst pst pst No.

ft.

8 978.5 2300 1800 1800 1750 -

1825 1800 1900 1850 1800 1625 1850 1850 3

958.2 1675 1050 1050 1050 -

1050 1050 1250 1250 1275 1275 1850 1300 1260 4

940.5

'740 1850 1850 1050 -

1250 1150 1450 1350 1260 1325 1090 1350 1320 on os i

DCTE-P

- BreaLJown Pressure P

- Fracture Reopening Pressure Used in Calculations bg b2 P

- Fracture Reopening Pressure in s - Shut-la Pressure Used in Calculations 1

P h 2 the 1-ch Cycle:

I P

- Shut-in Pressure in the 1-th Cycle:

e All Pressures are Measured on the Surface O

O

.-m._..

____.m

.....,__._________.m___m

__._.._m..

_._-_m~ ~.-

h i

i TABLE 9

+

SUtetARY Of NYDROFRACTURINC PRES $URES AND PRINCIPAI. STRESS CALCULATintes 4

b le h. 5 1

1 Test Depth P,

P.

P P,

o, o

k M

M "X

Eh "N

~'V

'M

'E Tgg,gg-Direction 2

2 o

o 4

Wo.

fr.

est est pst pst pst pst est est est pst 1

978.5 420 420 1800

1. 850 1955 2270 4170 N57*E 950 1505 1.84 3.61 400 i

3 951.2 410 4'O 8050 1260 II25 1670 3540

1. 87*E 735 1005 1.88 2.79 625 4

940.5 405 405 1150 4320 1940 1725 3215 N71*E 745 1050 1.86 2.89 590 4

u I

a i

1 NEA.1 VALUES N72*E a

.StanJard Deviacloa 182*

}

I i

NOTE:

P o

u - MyJrostatic Pressure h, oti. aV. - Least Nortzental. Largest Horizontal.

and Vertical Stress Respectively, i

P*

- Fore Pressure

+

4 Fb2 - Fracture Reapening Pressure s

j

- Shut-in Pressure

}

7 Imp!!ed NyJtofracture j

gg,ya Tensile Strength

+

3 b g,"

b2 l

t 1

i 1

4 1

i' r-w---

y--.

e y.

m.r..

-m

7ye,

i e.

l 6

i i

. La w

4 o

D N

.i r o o D 2

w e

_----__$______4 xg

+

z i

i l

i 6

i O

8

-o G

owc:

5 e

c = =

c OOO O

sj i

4 e +

w

-c oe 3

me o

e 1z4 o -

0 O

-eo oc -

mo x=

1 mw mo e

e%

G7 w

<n u.c i

W to w e

C.

- t p

O g,

- m u:

ea

- w o

e uu o

a. >

~

d O

n N

N 8

4 w

A g

i i

9 4

ea 1

w r.,

t h

4 4

c i

me Od g____)_,____.___------------'

O_

i I

I i

0 o

o

)

o o

o j

Q Q

O_

4 IJ'Hid30 60 4

b I

--n,

.. ~.,, - - - - -. - -..*

4 n.

n

.,-..--,-,-..,e,

t

+

TABLE 10 RECORDED MYDSOFBACTUSIMO PRESSURES Hole No. 6

1. I P2 P,3 P,4 P,5 P,6 P,7 P,

I I

'b b,'

3 P 4 P 5 P

P,k pak ps !'

pak pak

. psi psi psi psi poi psi psi psi Test Depth P

P 2 b

s s

g pa yet No.

ft.

2000 940.4 3225 1000 1000 2200 2200 2450 2400 2250 2000 2000 -

3 882 4000 1750 1500 8250 8350 1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 2250 2225 2400 2t00 1200 m

5 831 2200 1200 1500 8400 -

1550 1500 1100 1200 1200 1200 1250 1200 700 950 450 750 725 700 700 675 W

8 533 1375-850 850 NOTE:

P

- BreakJovn Pressure b - Fracture Reopening Pressure Used in Calculations P

y s - S ut-in Pressure Used in Calculations P

- Fracture Reopeatng Pressure in g

2 the 1-th Cycle:

I P

- Shut-in Pressure in the 1-th Cycle:

All Pressures are HeasureJ on

.e the Surface

.~.w

,.a,.-

... ~- - -,...

=n_...

. ~,. _.

u-

.- n -..

~. -

• E

,s y

9 e

6, 5-s

."s' 1

9m

-w

+

e M

N N

e o e m n N

a

= ce

.,\\

1

' 2%

N 1

m o e e es

~

m. e.

e.

es.

c.

O.be 4

M w N ce N 4

- e ne >

o-zw c e o

i a

48 a.

o.

e.

u o.

ce ea O

O 8

i ee on e 1

p-O A

,, me*#

se f

a e

e e y

a M

e e.

g a t

J

% n ce w w, E

e o, w a

4 0

= n o-k N e

.?

=* U

&=

ww ou yw -

W i

8, Eb u7 08 e

+

o e e g

C,J 5'>

.v

~

H

- e < *=*

m e N ae e

r g,

O

,a i

.9 h,

h m

D e.

tas u

em3 3

0 y

3 3 3 e

e e

,,-.a

.o..n,.

e. n.

=-

... o

= = =., -

O

~

e n

g v

m, j

y"

~-,

s.

e s

R R R g.-

-+

wu 3

~_..

N@

O W m re m r

4 t

-s..,.

2., 2, R,

w

, w a

o.

i O

,8

~ _

g a

=

p-t w

~

+

i R

o o e.,

3 4

O

=

1 x;

,Uo

=

i e

s 8 8. ~8 y

n 2, m:

-e i

t

,o, a

e.

~ -

1 w

w N

o

.n.

.a

~*

,c d

W O

e es

.c pP 3,

a

=

,o a

1

~.,

a

..;; i y

g

=

e, ce

)

r h

3 wh 8

1. % M gC go Ud

/3 i'

p;

,3

}' ' a

" t* *

=

/

A - ;;

=

p

u.,*,

3 m

i

^f 4

0 t

8' 4

e

.U

[' '

[j

- S 4-r 3

1 r.

[

,6 a,

v,

. s.. s,

,B,

b

' e y.

• H ne

)'

l?

b 5

~W m3 4

b b

n

'/

W i

G l

3

-4 r e, e a

's%

1 t _ p./

M Nw

,,+

1. n a

s e

fs w>

j

.^

~

62,

.e 2.v

,3 f

t Q.

oJ'[,

+

e r-.

__:.a,f.

s

=---

N 8

W N

OI 4

T 7

E 4i N/

C 5

+

t R

I I

I l

l g 1 l

I I

i l

l g

I l

,l D

g I

g I

I I

l

+

+

i W

I 00 N

0 O

I 6

TI i

C E

ll iD sn i

h 3

O 0

io t

~

c er i

D dna 0

s6 0

e 0

I d.

I uo 4

t N ine gl a o Ml l

lep sr so S

ef S

rt h ER

)

S t C

p T

I l

e S

T aD A

A p

A T

i s cu S

ns 0

O i r l

re 0

i 0

,T I

PV i

I O (L 2

1 A

2 e

e r

I u

\\

\\

I g

I l

g i

l g

I F

A 1

1 g

I

\\

i I

\\

1 1

l g

I l

O i

1 0

0 0

0 5

0 5

7 0

I

iEg C

i 4

A

){

l i]

- j

'. 9

?

t o,

I r

i 1

4.3.2 Hole No. 7 Borehole No. 7 was drilled to a depth of 1004 f t approx 1:nately 40 miles southwest of hole No. 6, outside of the central Virginia seismic zone.

A total of seven (7) tests were conducted at depths ranging from 997 to 629 f t.

Of these seven (7) tests, four (4) were considered acceptable for estimation of the local in-situ stress state. Results are given in Tables 12 and 13, and Figure 24 i

t i

b 1126-4 64 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

,f.

e

+

-,4

-.~

.u e.

4 TALLS 12 RECORDED HYDROFRACTURINO PRESSURES Hale No. 7 i

Test Depth P

P2 P 3 Pb4 P

P 0 I

'b

's

's

's s'

b b

b b

a s

s a

psf psf paf

' ps.7

. psi psi psi psi psi psi psi

. pst No.

ft.

ps ps I

9 96.5 3950 2400 1950 1950 1950 2400 3300 2500 2350 2000 1850 2000 3300 j

2 96d.5 4700 4000 36 50 3550 1600 3600 4000 4150 4150 4050 3850 4400 3850 5

820 3875 2500 2500 2650 1300 2400 2250 850 2250 2250 en 7

629 1675 900 925 900 900 905 800 750 750 700 600 650 710 s.n i

k I

NCTE-P

- BreaLJown Pressure P

- Fracture Reopening Pressure Used in Calculations j

i b2 P

- Fracture Reopening Pressure in s - Shut-in Pressure Used in Calculations b2 the 1-th Cycle:

P,

- Shut-in Pressure in the 1-th Cycle:

All Pressures are Heasured on e

the Surface 4

e TABLE 13 SUtttARY OF HYDROFRACTURING PRESSURES AND PRINCIPAL STRESS CALCULATIONS Hole No. 7 Test Depth P

P, h

8 V

h H

H

~

E

~#.

T field P

P g

2 H h H

V H

H Direction 2

2 o

oy No.

ft.

psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi pst psi 1

1 996.5 4 30 4 30 2400 3300 1875 3730 7930 N79'E 2t00 3375 2.13 6.75 1550 2

968.5 420 420 3600 3850 1845 4270 8370 I

1. 6 I

1100 L

N67*E 5

820 355 355 2500 2250 970 2605 4605 1000 1815 1.77 4.75 675

,gg.g 7

629 270 270 905~

710 740' 980 1495 255 375 1.53 2.02 770 N64*E i

]

MEAN VALUES M74*E c5 Standard Deviation e

ster NOTE.

PH - Hydrostatic Pressure

1. h, H. #V, - Least Horizontal. Largest Horizontal, and Vertical Stress Respectively.

8 - Form Pressure Pb2 - Fracture Reepening Pressure s - Shut-in Pressure 4

T gg,yg - Implied Hydrofracture Tenstle Strength IEbg,' Ib2 i

i s

p. #

s..

~. -..

STRESS, psi DIRECTION O

3000 6000 9000 N

45 E

j i

i i

i i

I 8

\\

A-O g

h N 74 E I NI g

.-g 500

{

• ~ O DIRECTION gg I

\\

l

\\

l

\\

g i

a e

+i

\\

\\

I I

=

\\

f 750

{

t t

I o

l

\\

^

i+

l

\\

s

\\

\\

I

• I

^

\\

l+

1000 g

g t

g G (LITHOSTATIC) g y

Y I

I I

I k

I i

i i

I l l Figure 24.

Principal Stress Magnitudes and Directions Versus Depth for llole No. 7.

t %:r L T

T

. e i

5.0 DISCUSSICN Data obtained from hydraulic fracturing tests may be af fected by several uncertainties which may significantly impact the inferred magnitudes and orientations of the in-situ stresses. The purpose of this section is to discuss some of the most significant uncertain-ties, relative to the tests conducted under this program.

Fracture reopening pressures were used to define the maximum horizontal stress through equations described by Bredehof t et al, (1976). This method assumes that the difference between the initial breakdown pressure (P ) and the fracture reopening pressure (P ) is equal to the in-situ tensile strength of the borehole segment tested.

Values of the laboratory derived hydrofracturing tensile strengths, corrected for the effect of borehole size, are presented along with the tensile strength value implied by field tests in Table 14 In general, values for the laboratory tensile strength are higher than the implied field tensile strength. The most significant differences occur in hole No. 5, tests 1, 5 and 11.

For these tests the maximum difference amounts to a little over 1000 psi for test No. 11.

If one were to perform the analysis using the first breakdown method, the values for a w uld be lowered by approximately 1000 psi.

This H

amounts to less than 10 percent difference between the two values of C

Similarly, if the first breakdown analysis were applied to all H.

tests for which laboratory tensile strengths are available, the change in the calculated value of o would only be equal to the n

difference between the lab and field values of the hydrofracture tensile strength.

If one considers the values of the laboratory tensile strength given in Table 14 to be valid, then the difference amounts to only a few hundred psi or less in most cases.

One test that would probably benefit most from lab test data, would be hole No. 6, test No. 3.

The value of the tensile strength implied by hydrofracturing field test is 2500 psi. More than likely chis value is too high and the value of o for this test is over-g estimated.

If one were to use a conservatiTe value of 1100 psi for the tensile strength, the value of o f r this test would become 3790 H

psi which, incidently, is 'a better fit with other data from this hole. However this is not to say that the fracture reopening pres-sures are low and maximum horizontal scrass generally overestimated.

Laboratory specimens cannot encompass the entire test interval.

Therefore, minor defects which may initiate failure in the borehole

,~

wall may not be present in the core and thus the core will exhibit higher tensile strength than implied from field tests.

In general, the values for the fracture reopening pressures given in Section 4.0 are thought to be accurate and therefore the fracture reopening method has been chosen as the preferred method for data analysis.

I 1126-5 68 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A e

4

~

i I

i i

TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF LABORATORY AND FIELD VALUES FOR e

HYDR 0 FRACTURING TENSILE STRENGTH f

T T

l g

g Ave. Laboratory Field Tensile

[

Depth Tensile Strength

• Strength Hole No.

Test No.

ft psi psi j

1 3

568 NA 675 4

594 NA 575 5

637 NA 775 3

1 945 1110 1050 3

931 1190 850 i

4 3

422 1727 800 5

939 1463 660 11 1432 1369 300 5

1 978.5 525 400 3

951.2 959 6 25 4

940.5 327 590 6

1 940.4 NA 1025 3

882 NA 2500 5

831 NA 700 E

8 538 NA 525 7

1 996.5 NA 1550 2

968.5 NA 1100 5

820 NA 675 7

629 NA 770 Values corrected for borehole size (see Section 3.6)

NA Not available I

P

?

r I

j 1126 TA 69 t

1126A ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

l i

i

u i

Calculation of the maximum horizontal principal stress (a ) is g

three times as sensitive to errors in determination of the shut-in l

pressure (P ) as it is to errors in the fractures reopening pressure (P3 ).

Henc,e, proper interpretation of shut-in curves is essential 2

if accurate estimates of the in situ stress are to be made.

The determination of shut-in pressures for this project utilized the inflection point method described by Cronseth and Kry (1982). This p

method has been evaluated under laboratory conditions and seems to provide acceptable results.

~

A significant factor which may affect shut-in curve behavior and f

thus the determination of in-situ stress, is fracture inclination or fracture reorientation.

Results in all boreholes indicate that the minimum principal stress is vertical.

The possibility of fracture reorientation or " roll over" introduces the uncertainty that shut-in i

pressures are indicative of vertical stress or is a measure of vertical and horizontal stress components. Fracture roll over can be f

detected by a sharp decrease in the shut-in pressure with pressure cycling (Zoback and Polland, 1978) and therefore, can be accounted for in data analysis.

Impressions taken in each borehole show that hydraulic fracturing produced either clear vertical fracturas, horizontal (foliation plane) fractures or vertical fractures with various degrees of branching into an inclined or near-horizontal plane.

In cases where vertical fractures did occur, the shut-in pressures were always greater than the calculated vertical stress.

l It is therefore reasonable to assume that the fractures did not l

reorient themselves into horizontal plane and shut-in pressures I

determined for these testa provides a measure of the minimum horizon-tal stress.

The assumption that the vertical stress is equal to the pressure of the overburden appears to be reasonable because of the lack of significant topographical relief near the test sites.

This assump-tion.is also supported by tests which produced horizontal fractures.

f For example, hole No.

7, test No.

3, conducted at 949 ft, has a calculated overburden pressure of 1120 psi.

The average downhole L

shut-in pressure was determined to be 1110 psi, a difference of only 10 psi.

Another uncertainty is the effect of the geometry of the induced fractures. All tests had at least a small amount of fracture inclina-f tion or inclined branches stenuning from the vertical.

Again, this may be the result of the vertical stress being the least principal stress.

The cause of such fracture geometry and its effect on shut-in, breakdown, and fracture reopening pressures determined from t

such tests is unknown.

Further uncertainty arises from the application of the pore pressure term in calculation of the maximum horizontal principal i

1126-5 70 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A r

stress.

The principle of effective stress assumes that the pore pressure in the rock reduces the.deviatoric stress.

This principle has been verified by many investigators, however, the validity of effective stresses in crystalline rocks is unclear (Rummel, 1982).

Although it is assumed that the pore pressure at the test interval is equal to the pressure generated by the column of water from the test interval to the static water level in the borehole, the actual pore pressure is unknown.

If pore pressures are not as high as assumed, the effect would be to increase the maximum horizontal stress by an equivalent amount.

The limiting case would be to assume zero pere pressure resulting in an increase in the magnitude of c by the H

corresponding value of P given in the tables in faction 4.0.

This would amount to a maximum of 650 psi for a 1500 ft deep borehole.

The orientations of the horizontal principal stresses determined by the impression packer tests are likely to be more accurate than the stress magnitudes.

In addition, magnitudes of c are probably more reliable than e.

This is the result of c eing measured g

h directly, independent of elastic theory and other assumptions of homogeneity and effective stress (pore pressure).

The only real 4

uncertainties involving the orientation of c are e e ec s of H

human judgement and borehole inclinaciou.

Human judgement is involved in the alignment of imp ression packer scribe marks with the scribe of the survey tool and also in the interpretation of results.

It is felt that an overall error actributable to human factors is plus or minus 10 degrees. Borehole inclination has been shown, analytically, to affect the determination of the horizontal stress direction inferred by the orientation of fractures at the borehole wall (Richardson, 1982).

The error in degrees-has been shown to be equal to the drift of the borehole in degrees from vertical for boreholes in the plane of intermediate and maximum principal stress (Richardson, 1982).

The maximum deviation for the holes in which surveys were run (impression tests) is as follows:

Maximum Hole Hole No.

Deviation From Vertical i

1 5'

3 3'

4 12' 5

2*

6 4h*

7 2'

The maximum error due to borehole inclination would be 212 degrees for stress orientations in hole No. 4.

The total estimated error for the orientation of horizontal stress is the estimated human error of 10 degrees plus the hole deviation in degrees frca vertical.

t 1126-5 71 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1126A

,'.s.

This project has provided what we feel is, a "best" estimate of the state of stress at three locations in the eastern United States through the careful planning and execution of hydraulic fracturing tests and a consistent method of testing and data analysis.

The reader is again cautioned that the values are merely engineering estimates not absolute values.

i

(({-5 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

~

72 f

-4 r,

v.

,y.

~

s'

6.0 REFERENCES

Aggarval, Y. P. and L. R. Sykes (1978) " Earthquakes, Faults, and Nuclear Powerplants in Southern New York and Norrhe rn New Jersey," Science, v. 200, pp 425-429.

American Society for Testing and Materials. (1983) Annual Book of Standards, v. 04.08, Soil and Rock; Building Stone.

Barosh, P. J., D. London, and J. deBoer (1983) " Structural Geology of the Moodus Seismic Area, South-Central Connecticut" in Guidebook for Fieldtrips in Connecticut and South-Central Massachusetts:

Conn. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Survey Guidebook 5, Joester, R. and S. Quarrier eds. (New England Intercoll. Geol. Conf., 74th Ann.

Meg. Univ. Conn..) pp 419-452.

Bollinger, G. A. (1975) "A Microearthquake Survey of the Central Virginia Seismic Zone," Earthquake Notes v.

46, No.

1-2, pp 3-13.

Bollinger, G. A. (1983) Seismicity Patterns and Terrain-Mosaics in the Southeastern United States (abs.) Earthquake Notes, v.

54, p 83.

Bredehoeft, J. D., R. G. Wolff, W. S. Keys, and E. Shutter (1976),

" Hydraulic Fracturing to Determine the Regional In Situ Stress Field in the Piceance Basin, Colorado," Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87, pp. 250-258.

Doe, T. W. (1982), " Determination of the State of Stress at the Stripa Mine, Sweden," Proceedings of the Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, Open-File Report 82-1075 U. S.

Geological Survey, Washingten D.

C., pp. 305-332.

Fairhurst, C. (1964) " Measurement of In Situ Rock Stresses with Particular Reference to Hydraulic Fracturing," Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology, v. 2, pp. 129-147.

Farrar, S. S. (1982) "The Goochland Granulite Terrain;" Remobilized Grenville Basement in the Eastern Virginia Piedmont," Geological Society of Ameries, Special Paper 194, pp. 215-227

. Glover, L. III, J. A. Speer, G. S. Russell, and S. S. Farrar (1983)

Ages of Regional Metamorphism and Ductile Deformation in the Central and Southern Appalachians, Lithos, v. 16, pp. 223-245.

i Gronseth, J. M. (1982), " Determination of the Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure from Hydraulic Fracturing Data and Its Reliability as a Measure of the Minimum Principal Stress," Proceedings of the i

23rd Symposium on Rock Mechanics,

Berkeley, California, pp. 183-189.

Ref.

1126A 73 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

"\\... '..

REFERENCES (continued)

Gronseth, J. M. and P. R. Kry (1982), " Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure and Its Relationship to the Minimum In Situ Stress," Proceedings of the Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, i

Open-File Report 82-1075 U.

S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.

C., pp. 147-167.

Haimson, B. C. (1968) Hydraulic Fracturing in Porous and Nonporous Rock and Its Potential for Determining In Situ Stresses at Great

Depth, Ph.D.

thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 235.

Haimson, B. C.

T. W. Doe, S. R. Erbsteesser, and G. T. Goh (1976),

" Site. Characterization for Tunnels Housing Energy Storage Units," Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Rock Mechanics,

).

Snowbird, Utah, pp. 4B-41, 48-49.

Hubbert, M.

K., and Willis (1957). " Mechanics.of Hydraulic Fracturing," Transitions of AIME v. 210, pp. 153-166.

Ingersoll-Rand, (1981), " Cameron Hydraulic Data," Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cameron Pump Division, New York, New York.

Kirsch, G. (1898), " Die Theorie der Elastizitat und die Bedurforisse der Festigkeitslehre,"

Zeitschrift des Vereines Duetscher Ingenieure, v. 42, p. 707.

i McLennan, J. D. and J. C. Roegiers (1982), "Do Instantaneous Shut-in Pressures Accurately Represent the Minimum Principal Stress,"

Proceedings of the Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, Open-File Reporr 82-1075, U. S. Geological Survey, i

Washington, D.

C., pp. 181-208.

Ratigan, J. L. (1982), "A Statistical Fracture Mechanics 4

^i Determination of the Apparent Tensile Strength in Hydraulic Fracture," Proceedings of the Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, Open-File Report 82-1075, U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.

C., pp. 444-463.

Richardson, R. M. (1982), " Hydraulic Fracture in Arbitrarily Oriented i

Boreholes: An Analytic Approach," Proceedings of the Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements. Open-File Report 82-1075, U.

S.

Geological Survey, Washington, D..C.,

pp.

l 167-175.

Rummel, F., J. Baumgartner, and H. J. Alheid (1982), " Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements along the Eastern Boundary of the SW-German Block," Proceedings of the Workshop on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress Measurements, Open-File Report 82-1075, U. S.

Geological Survey, Washington, D.

C., pp. 1-35.

Ref.

74 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

I126A

l i

REFERE"CES (continued)

Travis, R. B. (1955) " Classification of Rocks," Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, v. 50, No. 1.

Wheeler, R. L. and G. A. Bollinger (1975) " Seismicity and Suspect Terranes in the Southeastern United States," Geology, v.12, pp.

323-326.

Zoback, M. D. and B. C. Haimson (1982b), " Status of the Hydraulic Fracturing Method for In Situ Stress Measurements," Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on Rock Mechanics, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, California, pp. 143-156.

Zeback, M.

D., D. Moos, L. Mastin, and R. N. Anderson (1984),

" Wellbore Breakouts and In Situ Stress," Journal of Geophysical Research. (in press).

Zoback, M. D. and D. D. Pollard (1978), " Hydraulic Fracture Propagation and Interpretation of Pressure-Time Records for In Situ Stress Determinations," Proceedings of the 19th U.

S.

Symposium on Rock Mechanics, State Line, Nevada, pp. 14-23.

Zeback, M. D. and M. Zoback (1980), " State of Stress In the Continental United States," Journal of Geophysical Research, v.

85, pp. 6113-6156.

l l

Ref.

75 ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL,INC.

1126A

NUREG WES-238-066 Northeastern U.S. Seismic Network Bulletin No. 35 of S e.ismicity of the Northeastern United states APRIL 01 - JUNE 30, 1984 Compiled and Edited by John E. Foley Chuck Doll Fil Filipkowski Greg Lorsbach Weston Observatory Department of Geology and Geophysics Boston College Coordinator Paul W. Pomeroy, United States Geological Survey August 1985 MEMBERS Weston Observatory of Boston College Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University Woodward-Clyde Consultants Pennsylvania State University Delaware Geological Survey Maine Geological Survey State University of New York Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Geological Survey National Science Foundation New York State Energy and Resources Development Authority New York State Science Service

3

. t 2

ABSTRACT This report is the thirty fifth quarterly bulletin of seismicity in the northeastern United States for the period April June, 1984.

Included are geographic maps of the network stations and seismicity during the quarter, and of the cumulative seismicity for the thirty five quarters.

Also included are tables of station locations, epicenters, and all event data for the quarter.

An appendix describes the velocity models appropriate for the northeastern United States.

l

f Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Partial or full support from various agencies for the operation of the Northeastern Seismic Network (NEUSSN) is -

gratefully acknowledged. Agencies providing support to members of NEUSSN include the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Office of Reactor Safety Research; the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Earthquake Studies; the National Science Foundation.

Geophysics Program; the New York State Energy and Resources Development Authority; and the New York State Science Service.

Data from stations operated by Weston Geophysical

Research, Inc., and Woodward-Clyde Consultants are routinely provided to NEUSSN when available.

Epicentral and station data for some of the events in Canada near the U.S.

border are provided by the Earth Physics Branch, Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

In addition to the above operational support, equipment has been provided by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Dept. of Defense and by the Office of Environmental Geology of the U.S. Geological Survey.

--v-

i C

)

Page 3 4

i INTRODUCTION Station operations and seismicity results for the quarter' are summarized in three figures and four tables (the formats of the tables are described in the section EXPLANATION OF-TABLES).

Figure 1 is a geographic map of NEUSSN stations which were operational during the reporting period; Figures 2 and 3 are maps of seismicity for the reporting period and for the cumula-tive period from October 1975, respectively.

Table 1 is a location list of operating stations; Table 2 is a chronological list of epicenters during the reporting period; Table 3 lists station arrival times, distances, azimuths, amplitudes, and periods for the events of Table 2; Table 4 lists foreshocks, aftershocks, and microearthquakes occurring during the reporting period.

9

.~v.,

-,-a g,

n,n-, -

=.

O Page 4 SEISMICITY During the period April-June

1984, a

total of 16 earthquakes were detected and located in the northeastern United States.

In addition 30 earthquakes are included which had epicenters in Canada, 20 of these events were within 100 kilometers of the U.S. border. Table 4 includes 69 aftershocks and microearthquakes.

The magnitudes of the 46 earthquakes in Table 2 range from 0.7 to 4.1. - The magnitudes of the events in Table 4 range from i

-1.3 to 2.4.

1 f

i t

4 f

Page 5 EXPLANATION OF TABLES Table 1: List of operating Seismic Stations

~

1.

Station code 2.

Station latitude, degrees north 3.

Station longitude, degrees west 4.

Station elevation, meters 5.

Geographic location 6.

Network operator Table 2: Epicenter List 1.

ORIGIN: Origin time in hours, minutes and seconds 2.

LAT N: North latitude in degrees and minutes 3.

LONG W: West longitude in degrees and minutes 4.

DEPTH: Event depth in kilometers 5.

MN: Nuttli Lg magnitude with amplitude divided by period 6.

MC: Coda duration magnitude WES: 2.23 Log (FMP)+0.12 Log (Dist)-2.36 LDO: 2.21 Log (FMP)-1.7 7.

ML: Local magnitude WES: Calculated from Wood-Anderson seismograms (Ebel 1982)

EPB: Richter Lg magnitude 8.

CAPS Largest azimuthal separation, in degrees, between stations 9.

RMS: Root mean square error of time residual in seconds 10.

ERH: Standard error of epicenter in kilometers l

i

?

~

~

Page 6 11.

ERZ: Standard error of event depth in kilometers 12.

Q: Solution quality of hypocenter A: Excellent B: Good C: Fair D: Poor 13.

NS: Number of stations recording event 14.

NP: Number of phase arrivals used in epicenter location Table 3: Event data list 1.

STN: Station code 2.

DIST: Epicentral distance in kilometers 3.

AZM: Azimuthal angle between epicenter to station measured from north in degrees 4.

Description of onset of phase arrival I: Impulsive E: Emergent 5.

R: Phase WES and LDO i

P: First P arrival S: First S arrival EPB P: Pg p: Pn S: Sg s: Sn 6.

M: First motion direction of phase arrival U: Up or compression D: Down or dilitation 7.

K: Weight of arrival 0: Full weight 1: 3/4 weight 2: 1/2 weight 3: 1/4 weight 4: No weight 8.

HRMN: Hour and minute of phase arrival 1 -

Page 7 j

9.

SEC: Second of phase arrival 10.

TCAL: Calculated travel time in seconds 11.

RES: Residual of station arrival 12.

WT: Weight of phase used in hypocentral solution 13.

AMX: Peak-to-peak ground motion, in millimicrons, of the maximum envelope amplitude of vertical-component signal, corrected for system response.

14.

PRX: Period in seconds of the signal from which amplitude was measured.

15.

XMAG: Nuttli magnitude recorded at station 16.

FMP: Code duration in seconds at station 17.

FMAG: Coda magnitude recorded at station Table 4: Foreshocks, After shocks, and Microcarthquakes 1.

Event date, arrival time (UTC), magnitude, recording station and geographic region nearest REFERENCE Ebel J.E. (1982)..

States Earthq% measurements for northeastern United uIkes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 72, 1367-1378.

~

N N

y N

N N

o o,

0 8

6 4

0 8

4 4

4 4

4 3

N I-

. f,I K

~

y o

4

\\

w l

y

• 6 6 /y V

W 1

8 f,%./

/

6

.k W

s 0

q

,pA 7

(.

W

'7)J 2

. + "

7 1

W

.Np

?..

b 4

7

=

,}

y y.

6 1

f.

7 7,

,g),..

-M E

i l

k

~

8 7

j.

fi l

~

Q N..n

~

~~

',~

~

/

,a*

,tlA" yCl p 8. yg a _ S kg~

i

%$, gm

~!

82 W 80 W 78 W 76 W 74 W 72 W 70 W 68 W 66 W 64 W l

I l

l 1

/

/

48 N h

F 5

s f

q 46 N p

n

}

~

E i

J f

, f

~

R; b'

[-

k )

s;a

[

_g t

/[

I 5

R N

y j

44 N e

j i

a m

g

=

?

P E

'6 42 N l

M i

• 5sMf5.9 o 45Ms4.9 -

40 N

_,g a 3fMs3.9 2fMs2.9 a

.li Msl 9 -

38 N

\\1 7/'

1

i Z

Z Z

Z Z

Z 0

0 0

0 0

0 D

D N

O (D

v v

v v

v (O

\\

\\

\\

5 2

N m

c) c)

c) c)

O o

v LD T

(9 N

1 O

/

vi vi vi VL vt o

I E

E E

Z 1

2 l

a o

VI VI VI VI 3

~

O N

w" e

o

'o a

4 o

o O

o o

a o

o

+ o o.*

S of I

1 a

o 2

8 O

_m a

I g,

g

• \\

'A J no vk a a

<,k, -

8 2

s o

o O

e

~

G s

o '.B r

o p **

08

,2 g

o g.,y-o N

c,.

o

~

w..

R*y

~.

a o..

o a

o 2

g o

3 o

o o

u m.M esa

%o. 6L

~

v o t*

E4Mk

.l gji.: Y;.

' jag C

o o

w.o.

y 4

=

2 8 E9 g

O o

'I f

o m

o o

s o

a y

og o[o' o

=

a 1

N f

do

(

2 U

l f

C 9

T s

FIGURE 3.

Earthquske Epicenters during the period OCTOBER 1975 - JUNE 1984

i o

1 TABLE 1 LIST OF OPERATING SEISMIC STATIONS BY STATE APRIL 01 - JUNE 30 1984 STATIONS USED POR LOCATIONS IN THIS BULLETIN STA LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION LOCATION OPERATOR ID degrees degrees meters CANADA A10 47.2460N 70.1930W 45 EPB A16 47.4680N 70.0100W 22 EPB A20 47.7060N 69.6900W 45 EPB A54 47.4570N 70.4130W 384 EPB A56 47.5500N 70.3270W 414 EPB A60 47.6920N 70.0930W 358 EPB A61 47.6937N 70.0912W 358 EPB A64 47.8270N 69.8910W 137 EPB BUO 43.3617N 79.7450W 88 BURLINGTON, ON EPB a

CKO 45.9944N 77.4500W 191 EPB CW1 45.0733N 74.7050W 55 GLEN DONALD, ON EPB CW2 45.1717N 74.4872W 55 GLEN DONALD, ON EPB CW3 45.1925N 74.6122W 67 GLEN DONALD, ON EPB DLA 42.8583N 81.5733W 227 DELAWARE, ON EPB 4

EBN 47.5400N 68.2410W 1,89 EDMUNDSTON, NB EPB EF0 43.0917N, 79.3117W 168 EFFINGHAM, ON EPB ELF 43.1933N 81.3150W 320 ELGINFIELD, ON EPB FHO 45.4550N 76.2170W 72 FITZROY HARDOUR, ON EPB GAC 45.7033N 75.4783W 62 GLEN ALMOND, PQ EPB i

GGN 45.1170N 66.8220W 30 EPB GNT 46.3630N 72.3720W 10 GENTILLY, PQ EPB GRQ 46.6067N 75.8600W 290 EPB GSQ 48.9142N 67.1106W 398 GROSSES-ROCHES, PQ EPB HAL 44.6333N 63.6000W 56 HALIFAX, NS EPB JAQ 53.8022N 75.7211W 366 EPB KLN 46.843 N 66.372 W 411 MCKENDRICK LAKE, NB EPB LDN 43.0400N 81.1830W 246 SANS3 AWE, ON EPB LDQ 53.8060N 77.4280W 198 EPB UtQ 47.5484N 70.3267W 419 LA MALBAIE, ?Q EPB LPQ 47.3408N 70.0094W 126 LA POCATIERE, PQ EPB LTQ 53.7020N 76.0850W 152 LA GRANDE 3. PQ EPB MNQ 50.5300N 68.7700W 564 MANICOUGAN, PQ EPB MNT 45.5025N 73.6231W 112 MONTREAL, PQ EPB OTT 45.3939N 75.7158W 77 OTTOWA, PQ EPB POC 47.3600N 70.0400W 61 LA POCATIERE, PQ EPB QCQ 46.7800N 71.2800W QUEBEC, PQ EPB SBQ 45.3783N 71.9264W 256 SHERBROOK, PQ EPB SCH 54.8167n 66.7833W 540 SCHEFFERVILLE, PQ EPB SIC 50.1900N 66.7400W 283-SEPT-ISLES, PQ EPB SUD 46.4660N 80.9660W 267 SUDBURY. ON EPB TRQ 46.2222N 74.5555W 853 EPB UNB 45.9500N 66.6333W 56 FREDERICTON, NB EPB c

TABLE 1 (Continued) 1 Page 1-2 VDQ 48.2300N 77.9717W 305 EPB WBO 45.0003N 75.2750W 85 EPB CONNECTICUT BCT 41.4933N 73.3839W 69 BROOKFIELD, CT WES ECT 41.8346N 73.4113W 342 ELLSWORTH, CT WES HDM 41.4857N 72.5232W 24 HADDAM, CT WES MD1 41.5529N 72.4667W 113 MOODUS (COMSTOCK BRIDGE), CT WES MD2 41.5314N 72.4337W 61 M00DUS (PICKEREL LAKE), CT WES MD3 41.5066N 72.4715W 152 M00DUS (CAVE HILL), CT WES MD4 41.5023N 72.5121W 106 M00DUS (HADDAM NECK), CT WES MD5 41.4551N 72.4950W - 101 M00DUS (SHAILERVILLE), CT WES NSC 41.4807N 71.8516W 110 N STONINGTON, CT WES UCT 41.8317N 72.2505W 149 STORRS, CT WES DELEWARE BBD 39.3416N 75.6767W 18 BLACKBIRD, DE DGS GTD 38.7414N 75.4144W 15 GEORGETOWN, DE DGS NED 39.7042N 75.7032W 46 NEWARK, DE DGS MAINE ACM 47.0817N 69.0233W 240 ALLAGASH, ME WES BPM 44.6317N 68.7893N 80 BUCKSPORT, ME WES CBM 46.9325N 68.1208E 250 CARIBOU, ME WES EMM 44.7392N 67.4894W 20 EAST MACHIAS, ME WES HKM 44.6564N 69.6408W 79 HINCKLEY, ME WES HNME 46.1599N 67.9867W 209 HOULTON, ME WES JKM 45.6555N 70.2426W 378 JACKMAN, ME WES MIM 45.2436N 69.0403W 140 MILO, ME WES PQ0 44.9863N 67.4674W 219 COOPER HILL, ME WES PQ1 44.9035N 67.3271W 93 EAST RIDGE, ME WES TRM 44.2597N 70.2551W 113 TURNER, ME WES MASSACHUSETTS COD 41.6856N 70.1350W

-85 CAPE COD, MA MIT DUX 42.0686N 70.7678W 27 DUXBURY, MA MIT FLR 41.7167N 71.1215W 52 FALL RIVER, MA WES GLO 42.6403N 70.7272W 15 GLOUCESTER, MA MIT HRV 42.5064N 71.5583W 180 HARVARD, MA MIT LNX 42.3389N 73.2724W 345 LENOX, MA WES NMA 41.2950N 70.0260W -100 NANTUCKET, MA MIT QUA 42.4566N 72.3738W 201 QUABBIN, MA WES WES 42.3847N 71.3221W 60 WESTON, MA WES Wnt 42.6106N 71.4906W 87 WESTFORD, MA MIT w

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Page 1-3 NEW HAMPSHIRE BNH 44.5906N 71.2564W 472 BERLIN, NH WES DNH 43.1225N 70.8948W 24 DURHAM, NH MIT HNH 43.7053N 72.2856W 180 HANOVER, NH WES ONH 43.2792N 71.5055W 280 OAKHILL, NH MIT PNH 43.0942N 72.1358W 659 PITCHER MTN, NH MIT WNH 43.8683N 71.3997W 220 WHITEFACE MTN, NH MIT NEW JERSEY ABMC 40.686 N 75.054 W 170 FRANKLIN, NJ WCC CLMC 40.655 N 75.184 W 103 ALPHA, NY WCC DENJ 40.9693N 74.4642W 298 DENVILLE, NJ WCC GPD 41.0177N 74.4608W 360 GREEN POND, NJ LDO FHMC 40.751 N 75.040 W 256 FRANKLIN, NJ WCC HRMC 40.723 N 75.089 W 295 HARMONY, NJ WCC LVNJ 40.8095N 74.7515W 201 LONG VALLEY, NJ LDO MONJ 40.8083N 74.2308W 98 MONTCLAIR, NJ WCC PDMC 40.756 N 75.117 V 232 HARMONY, NJ WCC PEMC 40.758 N 75.076 W 305 HARMONY, NJ WCC PENC 40.725 N 75.155 W 220 HARMONY, NJ WCC PMMC 40.641 N 75.123 W 152 P0HATCONG, NJ WCC PQN 41.0073N 74.0858W 229 PAHAQUARRY, NJ LDO PRIN 40.3668N 74.7178W 110 PRINCETON, NJ LDO RAMA 41.0952N 74.2140W 247 RAMAPO, NJ LDO NEW YORK ABRN 42.9963N 76.4853W 224 AUBURN, NY WCC ALX 44.3225N 75.9280W 122 ALEXANDER BAY, NY LDO AMNH 40.7808N 73.9738W 0

MANHATTAN NY LDO ANNS 41.3080N 73.9132W 42 ANNSVILLE, NY WCC BERL 42.6913N 73.3913W 549 BERLIN, NY WCC BGR 44.8288N 74.3742W 329 BANGOR, NY LDO BING 42.0757N 75.9767W 408 BINGHAMPTON, NY LDO BIPS 41.2678N 73.9473W 24 BUCHANAN, NY WCC CAME 43.0488N 73.2967W 287 CAMBRIDGE, NY WCC CAZE 42.9313N 75.9200W 301 CAZENOVIA, NY WCC CHAU 44.1375N 76.1742W 102 CHAUMONT, NY WCC CLAR 41.1887N 74.0037W 76 CLARKSTOWN, NY WCC COSP 41.4407N 73.9282W 128 COLD SPRING, NY WCC CROG 43.9050N 75.4125W 244 CROGHAN, NY LDO CTR 43.8741N 74.4600W 585 CASTLE ROCK, NY LDO DWN 42.8255N 78.7672W DOWNHOLE, NY LDO ELNV 41.5000N 74.4398W 323 ELLENVILLE, NY WCC CARN 41.3603N 73.9240W 207 GARRISON, NY WCC

,. ~

. ' '/,

/

s y

jy (Continued). k fl TABLE 1 Page 1-4 GERM 49 1570N

'73.8113W 88 GERMANTOWN, NY WCC GILB 42.4230N 74.4527W 335 GILBOA, NY

,WCC GLOV 43.0895N 74.3320W 292 GLOVERSVILLF., NY WCC HAVE 41.2255N 73.1113W 268s HAVERSTRAW, NY WCC LCNA 43.6442N 75.9260W 396 LACONA NY

( WCC LDhi 40.9319N 73.s681W 30 LLOYDS NECK, NY NSBU LILH'~I2. 9213N

' T7.'6172W '122 LIMA, NY WCC MASH ' 41.041IN L?.2933W 3

MASHOMACK, NY

-.LDO m

MEDY 43.1818N.~ 70.3903W 186 MEDINA NY LDO MSNY 44.9983N I "74.b~6"20W 55 MASSENA NY

,LDO p

ONTR 43.2738N 77s3067W 84 ONTARIO, NY WCC OSNY *41.2117N 73.f283W 122 OSSINING, h7 WCC OSWG 43.5;?0N 76.4 } 62W 84 OSWEGO, NY WCC PAL 9 41.0042N 73.9091W 91 PALISADES, NY LDO PHEL 42.9542N

- 77.0950W 188 PHELPS, NY WCC Ph7 44.8341N 73.5550W 177 PLATTSBURG, NY LD0 PTN 44.57D'i

74. 9928F., 238 POTSDAM, NY LDO PUTN 41.3818N 73.d28.' A 270 PUTNAM VALLEY, NY WCC QLhT 41.3092N 74.0375Vs 238 QUEENSBORO LAKE, NY WCC RLSP 41.1453N

?.3.9107W 61 ROCKLAND LAKE, NY WCC ROTD 42 9620N 74.0472W 283 ROTTERDAM, NY WCC SAh7 43.1738N, / 78.8703W 172 PAMBORN, NY LDO SONY 43.1922N. 76.964 N 122 SODUS NY.

WCC

' SPhi 41.89,93N

74.0040W 122 STONY POINT, NY WCC STWA 42.9620N

'73.6773W 103 STILLWATER NY WCC s

y SUFF 41.l?83N' 74.1092W 152 SUFFERN, NY WCC TBR 41.1417N 74.2222W.261 TABLE ROCK, NY LDO UWL 4?.8378N 74.5433W 561 UTOWANA LAKE, NY LDO WEST ' 43.1635N 75.4800W 167 WESTMORELAND, NY WCC WMh7

'43.3560N 76.0313W 158 WEST MONROE, NY WCC WND' 42.3375N 74.1SJ5W 602 WINDHAM, NY LDO WNY 44.3910N 73,6S3W 598 WILMINGTON, NY LLO WPNY 41.8030N 73.9707W 76 WEST PARK, NY LDO WTVE 42.9460N 75.3272W 426 WATERVILLE, NY WCC PENNSYLVANIA y

r.

+

BVR 40.7000N 80.3333W 0

BEAVER, PA PSU ERI 42.1333N 79.9333W 0

ERIE, PA,

PSU MVL 39.9993N r.76,0506W 0

,MILLERSVILLE, PA MSC PHI 40.11HN "75.'1333W 0

ABINGTON, PA PSU SCP 40.7950N 77.8650W 352 / STATE COLLEGE, PA PSU VERMONT e

BVT 43.3488N 72.5853W 300 BALTIMORE, VT WS 3

DVT 44.9620N 72.1709 C '370 DERBY, VT NES

,p s ' '

• l '

y s

\\

s N

j g

f j

\\

q

~.

r s

.)

\\

\\.

I TABLE 1 (Continued)

Page 1-5 FLET 44.7228N 72.9517W 366 FLETCHER, VT LDO BVT 44.3623N 73.0650W 344 HINESBURG, VT LDO IVT 43.5221N 73.0533W 295 IRA, VT WES MDV 43.9991N 73.1811W 134 MIDDLEBURY, VY LDO OPERATOR CODE DGS - DELEWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Kenneth Woodruff (302) 738-2833 EPB - EARTH PHYSICS BRANCH DEPT.0F ENERGY, MINES.AND RESOURCES, CANADA Dr. Robert Wetailler (613) 995-5548 LDO - LAMONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Ellyn Schlesinger-Miller (914) 359-2900 x374 MIT - MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Jay Pulli (617) 253-6299 MSC - MILLERSVILLE STATE COLLEGE Dr. Charkes K. Scharnberger (717) 872-3295 NYGS-NEW YORK GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gary Nottis (518) 474-5817 PSU - PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Shelton Alexander (814) 865-2622 SBU - STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK Dr. Robert Liebermann (516) 246-6090 Dr. Donald Weidner (516) 246-8387 WES - WESTON OBSERVATORY, BOSTON COLLEGE Dr. John E.Ebel (617) 899-0950 Jack Foley (617) 899-0950 WCC - WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, WAYNE, NJ Mark Houlday (201) 785-0700 p

e-

-+

s y-,

TADLE 2 E P 1 C l2 NTE R LIST NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES AND ADJACENT REGIONS APR2L JUNE 1984 ORIGIN LAT N LONC V DEPTH MN MC ML CAP RMS ERH ERI Q NS NP Hr Mn SEC Deg Dog km Dog sac km km 84APR05 NY, ROTTERDAM

• LD0 1806 32 24 42-53.30 74-9 70 ' 3.98 2.1 188 0.31 1.58 1.6tD 8 13 84APR05 VT, NEAR IRA

• VES 2235 59.02 43-31.43 73 6.99 20.20 1.2 338 0.15 0.0 0.0 B 2 4

84APR08 PG.

35 KM N TROM CLIN ALMOND

• EPE 1902 32.

46- 0.60 75-25.20 18.0 2.5 0.6 0.0 2.0 5

8 84APRI1 PQ 50 KM NV TROM CROSSES-ROCHES

• EPE 1907 42.

49-18 OC 67 31.20 18.0 3.8 1.1 0.0 1.0 27 40 84APR12 N!.

35 KM SE TROM EDMUNDSTON

• EP!

!!54 06 47-13.80 67-58.20 18.0 2.4 1.0 0.0 2.0 5

8 84APR13 NY, CO3CNOV

• LDO 0338 14 13 43-57.75 74-16.97 5.34 2.1 95 0.07 0 61 1.63B 7

9 84APR13 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICX L

• EFE 1535 51.

47- 0 00 64-36.00 5.0 3.1 0.7 0.0 2.0 to 15 84APR19 PA, MARTICVILLE

• LD3 04:4 55.12 40 7.89 76-2.22 7.50 2.9 265 0.19 5.88 1.61D 4

6' 54APR2' ON, 70 KM E FROM ELDEE

• EPE 0053 28 46-24.60 78 12.00 l'L'.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 1.0 3 5 84APR23 PA, MART!CV!LLE

• LDO 0136 2 07 19-56.79 76-19.38 4.28 4.1 157 0.39 1.90 2.20 to 10 84APR23 FA, MARTICVILLE

• LDO 0246

.50 39 56.79 76-19.38 10.00 2.5 347 0.16 1.61 1.61C 3

4 84APR24 NB, 25 KM NV TROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPE 2049 43 47 0.00 66-36 00 5.0 2.6 0.7 0.1 1.0 5

9 1

84APR27 PO, 45 KM E FROM HAUTERIVE

/

eEPB 1338 38.

49 12.60 67-47.40 18".0 1.9 0.1 0.0 1.0 3 6

^

84 MAYO 7 PG, SC KM NV FROM CRAND-REMOUS sEPB 1100 C9 46 47.40 76-28.80 18.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.0 4 6 4

0 s

4

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Page 2-7 ORIGIN LAT N LONC V DEPTH MN MC ML CAP RMS ERH ERZ O NS NP Hr Mn SEC Deg Deg km Deg sec km km 84 MAYO 7 PQ, 50 KM NE FROM LA MALBA1E

• EPE 1912 11.

47 49.20 69 44.40 24.0 2.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 9 18 84 MAYO 7 PC, 50 KM NE FROM LA MALBA!E eEPB 1948 29 47 49.20 69 45.00 24.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 6 11 84MAY09 PG.

35 KM E FROM CLEN ALMOND

• EPB 0321 18 45 45.00 75 1.20 18.0 1.7 0.4 00 1.0 4 8 84MAY10 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPE 0810 05.

47- 0.00 66 36.00 5.0 2.0 2.1 0.2 1.0 3 6 84MAY10 PA, HATFIELD

• LDO 1014 52 32 40 19.33 75 17.88 7.46 2.2 124 0.21 0.49 1.61C 13 22 84MAY10 PC, 15 KM E FROM LA MALBA!E

• EPE 1608 06.

47-31 20 70- 7.20 18.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 1 0 8 15 84MAY11 N3, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPE 1544 10.

47 0.00 66-36.00 5.0 2.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 4

8 84MAY13 NJ, MT HOPE

• LDO 0318 27.59 40-55.16 74 32.39 5.63 2.1 155 0.09 0.51 0.29B 7 11 84MAY17 PA, MARTICVILLE

'LDO 1015 22.51 39 56.7 76 19.38 10.00 2.3 307 2.02 1.61 1.17D 2

3 84MAY18 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPE 1915 05.

47- 0.00 66-36.00 5.0 2.4 0.8 0.0 1.0 4

7 84MAY!8 PQ, 40 KM E FROM CLEN ALMOND

• EPE 2351 46-45 44.40 74-58 20 23.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 6.0 5

7 84MAY2' NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPE 1942 40.

47- 0.00 66-36.00 50 2.7 0.9 0.0 1.0 7 11 84MAY23 ON, 60 KM NE FROM SUDBURY

• EPE 1112 34.

46-48.00 80-19.80 18.0 3.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 9 13 84MAY24 PQ, 70 KM SV FROM LA POCATIERE

• EPB 1454 47.

47- 0.00 70-42.00 21.0 2.8 0.5 0.0 2.0 12 19 84JUN01 NY, NE OF UTICA

• LDO 2128 10.02 43-!!.43 75 10.21 4.07 2.5 107 0.19 0.58 1.61C 8 16 84JUN02 PO, 40 KM SE FROM MONT.TREMBLANT

• EPE 0725 51.

45 56.40 74 15.00 20.0 2.3 0.1 0.0 2.0 6 11

O 6

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Page 2-3 ORIGIN LAT #

LONC V DEPTH MN MC ML CAP RMS ERE ER2 0 NS NP HrMn SEC Deg Deg km Dog sec km km 84 JUNO 3 NJ, KINNELON

• LDO 0704 33 86 41

.38 74 24.64 0.20 1.3 168 0.05 0.29 1 61C 5 10 84JUN04 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L eEPB 1251 17.

47 0.00 46 36.00 5.0 2.6 0.8 0.0 2.0 4

7 84JUN05 CN, 40 KM E FROM VILLIAMSBURG

• EPB 2129 06.

45 7.80 74 48.60 14.0 2.2 0.7 0.0 3.0 11 18 84JUN06 NY, 7 KM V 0F MAHOPAC

'VES 0101 19.85 41-21.17 73 49 80 7.20 0.7 118 0 29 1.2 1.7 B 8 10 84JUNC4 NJ, NEAR MORRISTOVN

• LDO 1744 32 24 40 46.64 74-29.03 7.00 1.7 124 0.12 0.37 1.61C 13 23 84JUN07 PQ.

45 KM N FROM CLEN ALMOND

• EPB 0933 54, 46 6.60 75-26 40 17.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 1.0 7 10 84JUN08 ME, 45 KM SSE OF PORTLAND EVES 0647 34.87 43-13.90 70 12.35 10.87 2.5 2.2 253 0.33 1.9 1.5 C 8 15 44JUN09 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPB 0045 40.

47 0.00 64-36.00 50 1.8 1.4 0.0 1.0 4

7 84JUN14 MA, NEAR OUABBIN

• VES 2056 34.29 42 35.24 72 23.84 10.47 2.7 2.4 84 0.37 0.8 1.4 C 21 32 84JUN16 NH, N OF KEENE

• VES 1820 59 90 43-1.42 72-23.12 14.47 2.4 2.3 102 0.70 2.2 3.5 D 10 18 84JUN18 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPE 0256 15.

47- 0.00 46-36 00 5.0 1.6 1.4 0.1 1.0 3

5 84JUN20 PO, 50 KM NV FROM CRAND-REMOUS

• EPB 0021 28.

46 58.80 76 10.20 18.0 2.9 0.8 0.0 1.0 7 13 84JUN22 PC, 100 KM NE FROM MONT.TREMBLANT

• EPB 0202 51.

46 58.80 73 50.40 18.0 2.8 0.8 0.0 1.0 7 13 84JUN28 PQ, 45 KM S FROM CRAND-REMOUS

• EPB 0308 49.

46 13.80 75 40.80 0.0 3 1 0.4 0.0 3.0 10 17 84JUN28 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L eEPB 1659 48 47 0.00 66 36.00 5.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 3.0 3 5 84JUN30 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L

• EPB 1734 57.

47- 0.00 66 36.00 5.0 1.9 1.1 0.0 3.0 3

6

s r'

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Page 2-4 ORIGIN LAT N LONG V DEPTH MN MC ML CAP RMS ERH ERZ Q NS NP Hr Mn SEC Dag Deg km Deg sec km.

km

• SOURCE EPB - Earth Physics Branch, Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources Canada LDO - Lamont-Deherty Geologica! Observatory of Columbia University WES Veston Observatory - Boston College I

I i

l I

i i

e s

TADLE 3 EARTHQUAKE DATA LIST NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES AND ADJACENT RECIONS APRIL - JUNE 1984 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAC km deg see sec see see 8405 NY, ROTTERDAM ROTD 16.5 158 P 1 1806 35.10 2.84

.02 1.99 S 3 1806 37.40 4.97

.19

.66 STVA 40 3 78 P 1 1806 38.20 6.39

.43 1.99 5 3 1806 46.20 11.18 2.78

.00 CAME 72.6 75 P 1 1806 43.80 11.22

.34 1 93 5 3 1806 52.30 19.64

.42

.64 CERM 86.2 140 P 3 1806 48.00 13.23 2.53

.00 SKT 119.2 0

P 1 1806 50.40 18.16

.00 1.01 5 3 18 7 4.50 31 78

.48

.34 VPMY 121.6 172 P 3 1806 50.60 18.52

.16

.32 MDV 146.7 32 P 3 1806 54.60 22.26 10 12 i

5 3 18 7 12.90 38.95 1.70

.00 CROC 151.6 319 5 3 18 7 14.30 40.23 1.83

.00 84APR05 VT' NEAR 1RA IVT 5.1 92 EP O 2236 2.30 3.36 -0.13 1.10 ES 0 2236 5.20 5.98 0.11 1.11 BVT 47.2 114 EP O 2236 7.50 8.24 0.20 0.88 25 1.2 ES 0 2236 13 60 14.66 -0.17 0.90 l

84APR08 PO, 35 KM N FROM GLEN ALMOND CAC 35 188 P O 19 2 38.05 6.02 0.03 1.70 0.2 1 1*

5 0 19 2 43.25 10.68 0.57 1.70 CTT 73 199 P O 19 2 43.10 11.77 -0.67 1.70 5 0 19 2 52.60 20.66

-0.06 1 70 MNT 151 112 5 3 19 3 16.90 42.31 2.59 0.10 0.0 2.5 EEO 290 285 P 1 19 3 11.15 40.70 -1.55 0.40 0.1 2.5 S 1 19 3 44.50 71.31 1.19 0.40 VDG 314 323 S 1 19 3 50.85 76.32 2.53 0.40 0.1 2.5 VEC 322 227 P 4 19 3 18.70 44.55 2.15 0.00 0.1 S 4 19 3.50.00 0.00 84APR11 PO, 50 KM NV FROM CROSSES-ROCHES CSG 54 146 P O 19 7 51.13 8.93 0.20 2.20 0.2 3.9 5 1 19 7 57.30 15.65 -0.35 0.60 HTQ 65 259 P O 19 7 53.89 10.48 1.41 2.20 0.1 3.6 S 1 19 8 2.30 18.51 1.79 0.60 SIC 112 30 P O 19 7 59.60 17.85 -0.25 2.20 EEN 212 195 P O 19 8 14.93 34.05 -1.12 2.20 0.1 3.8 5 1 19 8 38.90 59.30 -2.40 0.60 LMO 285 228 P O 19 8 23.00 40.01 0.99 2.20 LPQ 286 221 P 0 19 8 23.53 40.29 1.24 2.20 0.3 4.1 5 4 19 8 59.80 80.08 _2.28 0.00 Continued

,,.w w

wr a

-em

+-

>y

-m--

s s

TABLE 3-(Continued)

Page 3-2 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAG FMP FMAC km deg see see see see KLN 287 162 C 4 19 8 31.60 46.19 3.41 0.00 0.2 3.7 N O 19 8 22.70 40.47 0.23 2.20 N 3 19 8 53.10 70.76 0.34 0.10 G 3 19 9 1.00 80.31

-1.31 0.10 UNB 379 170 P 4 19 8 31.00 51.37 -2.37 0.00 0.4 3.9 S 1 19 9 31.00 105.8 3.19 0.60 QCQ 397 226 P 4 19 8 42.00 63.63 -3.63 0.00 0.4 3.9 5 4 19 9 32.00 110.8 -0.83 0.00 LMN 435 151 P O 19 8 40.39 58.52 -0.13 2.20 0.3 3.7 5 3 19 9 43.00 121.7 -0.74 0.10 GCN 468 173 P O 19 8 45.05 62.58 0.47 2.20 0.3 3.8 C 4 19 9 53.00 131 1

-0.12 0.00 N 3 19 9 32.00 109.3 0.66 0.10 SBG 549 219 P 3 19 8 57.13 72.17 2.96 0.10 HAL 599 149 P 4 19 9 1.10 78.20 0.90 0.00 0.3 3.6 N 1 19 9 59.60 136.8 0.79 0.60 G 1 1910 25.60 167.4 -3.76 0.60 SCH 6 1 /.-

4 P 1 19 9 2.80 80.37 0.43 0.60 0.4 4.0 C 4 1910 34.00 172.2 _0.23 0.00 N 1 1910 6.50 140.6 3.89 0.60 MNT 626 230 P 1 19 9 4 65 81.47 1.18 0.6C 0 1 3 9 CBM 627 131 P 1 19 9 4.00 81.66 0.34 0.60 0.4 3.4 S 1 1910 36.00 175.3 -1.31 0.60 TRG 629 240 P O 19 9 3.88 E1.98 _0.10 2.20 0.3 4.1 CEO 692 247 P 0 19 ' 10.62 89.53

-0 91 2.20 0.3 4.2 CEK 698 90 P 1 19 9 12 30 90.39

-0.09 0.60 C 1 1910 57 00 195.3

-0 29 0.60 N 1 1910 22.00 158.1 1.90 0.60 JAG 752 314 P 4 19 9 20.20 97.63 0.57 0.00 0.2 3.9 S 3 1910 34.00 170.7 1.28 0.10 VDG 778 265 P 0 19 9 20.74 100.0 -1.31 2.20 0.3 4.1 N 3 1910 36.50 174.9 -0.44 0.10 C 3 1911 18.10 217.5 -1.39 0.10 EEO 912 255 P 0 19 9 37.44 116.4

-0 96 2.20 0.5 4.1 G 4 1911 54 00 255.0 -3.02 0.00 N 3 1911 3.60 203.5 _1.87 0.10 KAO 1086 277 P 3 19 9 58.00 137 7 -1.66 0.10 0.5 3.7 N 1 1911 40.50 240.6 -2.06 0 40 C 4 1912 44.50 303.9 -1.39 0.00 CTO 1406 279 P 4 1910 42.50 176.7 3.83 0 00 0.6 3.7 N 1 1912 51.10 308 6 0.48 0.60 G 1 1914 16.50 393.5 1.05 0.60 FRB 1612 358 P 4 1911 3.00 201 7 -0.74 0.00 0.6 3.4 N 4 1913 39.00 352.4 4.63 0.00 C 4 1915 10.00 451.1 -3.11 0.00

~

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Pago 3-4 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAG km deg see see see see 8419 PA, MARTICVILLE MVL 29.1 244 P 1 455

.00 4.90

.02 1.57 NED 55.1 149 P 2 455 3.80 8.83

.15 1.05 S 3 455 10.30 15.45

.27

.52 BBD 92.6 160 P 2 455 10.00 14.49

.39

.86 PRIN 115.0 76 P 4 455 22.15 17.87 9.16 0.00 5 4 455 39.38 31.27 12.99 0.00 LVNJ 132 3 55 P 4 455 25.60 20.49 9.99 0.00 CPDZ 165.6 53 P 4 455 30.48 25.52 9.84 0.00 5 4 454 55.14 44.66 15.36 0.00 SCF 171.3 29o P 2 455 25.50 26.38 4.00

.00 S 3 455 43.30 46.16 2.01

.00 RAM ~ 18e 5 55 P 4 455 33.93 28.89 9.92 0.00 S 4 455 0.61 50.56 14 93 0.00 TSR 189.9 53 P 4 455 34.14 29.07 9.95 0.00 LDNY 234.6 67 P 4 455 41.06 34.58 11.36 0.00 S 4 455 12.85 60.51 17.21 0.00 64AFR22 CN, 70 KM E FROM ELDEE EEO 71 29; P 0 0053 39.85 11.75 0.10 1.40 0.1 1.9 5 0 0053 48.40 20.51

-0.11 1.40 VDQ 203 5

P O 0053 58.50 30.29 0.21 1.40 0.2 2.2 S 1 0054 19.20 53.02 -1.82 0.40 CAC 225 109 S 1 0054 30.10 63.12 -1.02 0.40 0.3 1.7 8423 PA, MARTICVILLE S 4 136 15.30 16.80 -3.57 0.00 BED 86.7 140 F

136 16.20 13.80

.33 1.64 PRIN 144.2 71 P

136 24.66 22.47 12 1.23 CTD 155 1 149 P

136 26.70 24.13

.50 1.09 SCP 161.1 306 P

136 27.00 25.03

.10 1.00 S 4 136 47.00 43.80 1 13 0.00 LVNJ 164 1 54 P

136 28.22 25.48

.67

.96 CPD2 197.5 52 P

136 33.29 30.35

.87

.45 CNV 213 8 206 P 4 137

.00 32.36 34.43 0.00 PAL 235 6 60 P

136 38.42 35.05 1.30

.01 NA 249.6 210 P 4 137

.00 36.79 38.86 0:00 LDNY 265.3 65 P 4 136 43.66 38.72 2.87 0.00 S 4 137 14.96 67.76 5.13 0.00 VPMY 285 9 43 P

136 44.41 41.26 1.08

.00 DHN 356.1 335 P 2 136 52.93 49.93

.93

.00 MEDY 398.7 335 P 2 136 57.80 55.19

.54

.00 MASH 410.0 55 P 4 136 54.76 56.58 -3.89 0.00 S 4 136 02.66 99.01 1.58 0.00 BLA 468.3 230 P 4 137

.00 63.78 65.85 0.00 VNY 534 2 22 P 4 137

.00 71.92 73.9* 0.00 PKNC 606 2 225 P 4 137

.00 80.81 82.88 0.00 SMTN 718.8 237 P 4 137

.00 94.71 96.78 0.00

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 3-5 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAG FMP FMAC' km deg see see see sec 8423 PA, MARTICVILLE PRIN 150.6 54 P 2 246 23.81 23.27

.04 1.00 S 4 246 40.71 40.72

.52 0.00 CPDZ 215.2 41 P 2 246 32 17 31.97

.30 1.00 S 2 244 56.39 55.95

.06 1.00 VPNY 308.6 36 P 3 246 45.07 43.50 1.07

.00 84APR24 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 2049 47.45 4.37 0.08 2.40 0 1 1.9a 5 0 2049 50.30 7.35 -0.05 2.40 EBN 135 293 P O 2050 5.90 21.94 0.96 2.40 0.1 2,8 S 3 2050 22.50 37.95 1.55 0.10 LMM 188 132 P 1 2050 13.50 30.23 0.27 0.60 0.2 2.3 S 3 2050 35.80 52.95 -0.15 0.10 GGN 210 185 P 3 2050 16.50 32.86 0.64 0.10 0.1 2.7 S 3 2050 42.20 59.08 0.12 0.10 LPG 261 280 P 4 2050 24.80 39.07 2.73 0.00 0 2 2 5 S 1 2050 56.50 73.45 0.05 0.60 2

84APR27 PC, 45 KM E FROM HAUTERIVE HTG 44 266 P 0 1338 46.25 8.21 0.04 1.10 0.1

.9*

S 0 1338 51 85 13.88 -0.03 1.10 GSC 60 125 P 0 1338 49.00 10.87 0.13 1 to 0.2 1.9 5 0 133P 56.25 18.35 -0.10 1.10 MN3 164 335 P O 1339 5.00 27.02 -0.02 1.10 0.0 1.9 5 1 1339 24 60 46.59 0.01 0.30 84 MAYO 7 PC, 50 KM NV FROM CRAND-REMOUS CRO 52 113 P O 11 0 18.75 9.27 0.48 1.00 0.1 1.7 5 0 11 0 24.60 15.80 -0.20 1.00 GAC 144 147 S 1 11 0 49.90 40.98 -0.08 1.00 0.2 1.7 VDG 195 325 5 0 11 1 0.80 51.87 -0.07 1.00 0.1 1.8 EEC 159 266 P O 11 0 39.95 30.30 -0.35 1.00 0 1 2.3 5 0 11 1 1.90 52.64 0.26 1.00 84 MAYO 7 PO.

50 KM NE FROM LA MALBAIE A64 11 273 P O 1912 15.42 4.33 0.09 1.00 S 0 1912 18.46 7.51 -0.05 1.00 A20 13 163 P 0 1912 15.68 4.49 0.19 1.00 S 1 1912 18.81 7.80 0.01 1.00 A61 30 242 P O 1912 17 22 1.00 S 0 1912 21.86 10.82 0.04 1.00 A16 44 207 P O 1912 19.22 8.13 0.09 1.00

{

S 0 1912 25.03 14.11 -0.08 1.00 i

LMQ 53 235 P O 1912 20.30 9.48 -0.18 1.00 0,1 2.6 S 0 1912 27.30 16.46 -0.16 1.00 LPG 57 201 P 0 1912 21.28 10.23 0.05 1.00 0.2 2.1 S 0 1912 28.50 17.60 -0.10 1.00 AS4 65 231 P 0 1912 22.04 11.16 -0.12 1 00 S C 1912 30.46 19.39 0.07 1 00 Continued i

TABLE'3 (Continuod)

Page 3-6 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAG FMP FMAC km deg see see see sec A10 72 208 P 1 1912 23.54 12.33 0.21 1.00 S 3 1912 32.56 21.41 0.15 1.00 EBN 120 109 P 0 1912 30.96 19 93 0.03 1.00 0.1 2.1 S 0 1912 45.30 34.45 -0.15 1.00 84 MAYO 7 PO, 50 KM NE FROM LA MALEAIE A44 10 274 P 0 1948 33.46 4.39 0.07 1.00 S 0 1948 36.44 7.49 -0.05 1.00 A20 14 160 P O 1948 33.73 4.61 0.12 1.00 S 1 1948 36.82 7.88 -0.06 1.00 A61 29 241 P O 1948 35.26 6.27 -0.01 1.00 S 0 1948 39.89 10.78 0.11 1.00 A16 44 206 P O 194E 37.29 8.22 0.07 1.00 S 0 1948 43 09 14.14 -0.05 1.00 LMG 53 235 P O 1948 38.30 9.53

-0.23 1.00 0.1 2.1 S 0 1948 45.40 16.43 -0.03 1.00 AS4 64 231 S 1 1948 48.49 19.37 0.12 1.00 84 MAYO 9 PO, 35 KM E FROM CLEN ALMOND GAC 36 262 P 0 0321 24.30 6.02 0.28 1.00 0.2 1 3a S 0 0321 28.90 10 80 0.10 1.00 TKO 64 35 P 0 0321 28.30 10.25 0.05 1.00 0.1 1.7 5 0 0321 36.10 18.12 0.02 1.00 VEO 86 193 P O 0321 31.55 13.68 -0.13 1.00 0.1 1.7 S 0 0321 41.90 24.11

-0.21 1.00 GRO 115 326 P O 0321 3d.95 18.33 0.62 1.00 0.1 1.8 5 0 0321 49.50 32.15 0.65 1.00 84MAY10 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 0810 9.89 4.37 0 52 1.00 0.0

.6*

S 0 0810 12 65 7.36 0.29 1.00 EEN 135 293 P O 0810 28.60 21.94 1.66 1.00 0.1 2.0 S 1 0810 46 60 37.95 3.65 1.00 GON 210 185 P

0010 40.30 32.86 2.44 1.00 0 1 2.0 S

0811 4.40 57.15 2.25 1.00 8410 PA, HATFIELD CLMC 38 7 16 P 3 1014 58.18 6.34

. 48

.63 S 3 1015 2.75 11.09

..67 28 ABMC 45.4 27 P 3 1014 59.45 7 ~. 3 6

. 23

.63 HRMC 47 9 21 P 3 1014 59.80 7.74

.26

.63 5 3 1015 4.84 13.55 -1.03

.00 PRIN 49 4 84 P 1 1015 0.23 7.97

.06 1.90 S 1 1015 6.31 13.95

.04 1.90 PDMC 50.6 17 P 3 1015 0.20 8.15

.27

.63 S 3 1015 6.31 14.26

.28

.63 FHMC 52.4 24 P 3 1015 0.80 8.42

.06

.63 LVNJ 71.2 40 P 1 1015 3.60 11.25

.03 1.86 S 2 1015 12.00 19.69

.01 1.24 NED 77 0 207 P 2 1015 3.90 12.14

.56 1.03 5 4 1015'12.90 21.24

.67 0.00 Continued 4

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 37 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAG FMP FMAC km deg see see see sec PON 78.2 13 P 1 1015 4.67 12.32

.03 1.80 S 2 1015 13.76 21.56

. 12 1.20 MVL 95.1 249 P 1 1015 7.60 14.87

.41 1.53 S 2 1015 18.20 26.02

.15 1.02 DENJ 100.4 44 P 2 1015 8.09 15.66 11

.95 S 3 1015 20.11 27.40

.38

.47 GFDZ 104.7 42 P 2 1015 8.76 16.31

.13

.88 S 2 1015 21.24 28.54

.37

.88 TER 128 5 44 P 3 1015 12.49 19.92

.25

.25 84MAY10 PQ, 15 KM E FROM LA MALBAIE A16 11 126 P 0 16 8 9.71 3.49 0.22 1.00 S 1 16 8 11.79 5.94 -0.15 1.00 LMO 16 280 P O 16 8 10.00 4.01

-0 01 1.00 S 0 16 8 12.90 6.86 0.04 1.00 A61 19 7

P O 16 8 10.45 4.41 0.04 1 00 5 0 16 8 13.50 7.53

-0.03 1.00 LPG 22 157 P O 16 9 11 17 4.95 0.22 1.00 0.1 1.2' A54 23 251 P O 16 8 10.82 4.88

-0.06 1.00 5 0 16 8 14.25 8.36

-0.11 1 00 A64 38 27 P O 16 8 12.86 6.93

-0.07 1.00 S 0 16 8 17.85 11.93 -0.08 1.00 A20 38 58 P O 16 8 13.22 6.99 0.23 1.00 S 0 16 8 18 20 12.03 0.17 1.00 EEN 142 92 P 1 16 8 29.37 23.46

-0.09 1.00 0.1 2.0 S 0 l e.

8 46.23 40.47 -0.24 1.00 1

84MAY11 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 1546 13.88 4.36

-0.48 1.00 0 0 1 2*

S 0 1546 16.85 7.35 -0.50 1.00 EBN 135 293 P 3 1546 31 80 21.93 -0.13 1.00 0.1 2.3 S 1 1546 47.90 37.94 0.04 1.00 LMF!

188 132 P 1 1546 40.80 30.23 0.57 1.00 0.2 2.0 S 1 1547 0.29 52.55

-2.26 1.00 f

CCF!

210 185 P 1 1546 44 85 34.15 0.70 1.00 0.1 2 1 S 1 1547 8.40 57.15 1.25 1.00 8413 NJ, MT HOPE DENJ 8.2 50 P

318 29.25 1.67

.01 1.26 S 1 318 30.43 2.92

.08

.95 GFDZ 12.8 31 P

318,29.97 2.33 05 1.26 5

318 31.69 4.08

.02 1.26 LVNJ 21.5 236 P 2 318 31.10 3.72

.21

.43 MONJ 28.7 115 P 2 318 33.08 4.89

.60

.00 5 2 318 36.25 8.56 10

.63 RAMZ 34.6 54 P

318 33.45 5.83

.03 1.26 S

318 37.67 10.20

.12 1.26 TBR 36.3 47 P

318 33.80 6. 0.9

.12 1.26 HAVE 50.0 45 S 3 318 42.20 14 28

.33

.20

e e

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 3-8 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAC km deg sec see see sec 8417 PA, MARTICVILLE PON 7 142 P 3 1015 24.51 1.62

.38 1.00 S 3 1015 28.07 2.84 2.72 1.00 CPDZ 52.8 89 P 4 1015 27.33 8.50

-3.68 0.00 S 3 1015 35.23 14.88

-2.16 1.00 TBR 74 2 78 S 4 1015 41.93 20.51

-1.09 0.00 RAMZ 74 9 82 S 4 1015 41.80 20.70

-1.41 0.00 PRIN 78.3 156 5 4 1016 19.93 21.61 24.19 0.00 84MAY18 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 1915 9.28 4.36 -0.08 1.00 0.0 1.5*

S 0 1915 12.09 7.35 -0.26 1.00 EBN 135 293 S 1 1915 44.00 37.95 1.05 1.00 0.1 2.7 LMN 168 132 P 1 1915 35.80 30.23 0.57 1.00 0 1 1.9 S 3 1915 57.80 52.56 0.24 1.00 GCN 210 185 P 1 1915 39 20 32.86 1.34 1.00 0.1 2 5 S 3 1916 3.30 57.15 1 15 1.00 E4MAY1E PG, 4C KM E FROM CLEN ALMCND CAC 40 264 P O 2351 53.20 7.81

_0.61 0.00 0.5 1.3*

S 3 2351 59.50 13.28 0.22 0.00 TRG 63 31 P O 2351 57.25 11.18 0.07 0.00 0.1 1 8 OTT 70 237 P 1 2351 58.50 1 2.,2 6 0.24 0.00 S 1 2352 7.00 0.00 VEO 96 196 P O 2352 0.72 14.70 0.02 0 00 0.1 2.0 CRO 118 325 P O 2352 5.95 19.87 0.08 0.00 0.0 2.1 84MAY22 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L ELN 25 133 P O 1442 43.90 4.36 -0.46 1.00 0.1 1.2*

S 0 1442 46.55 7.35 0.80 1.00 UNE 117 181 P 3 1443 1.00 18.86 2.14 1.00 0.3 2.6 S 1 1443 13 20 32.75 0.45 1.00 EEN 135 293 P 0 1443 3.20 21.94 1.26 1.00 0.1 2.9 5 4 1443 19.10 37.95 1.15 0.00 LMM 18e 122 P 0 1443 9.25 30.22 -0.97 1.00 0.2 2.3 S 4 1443 34.00 52.56 1.44 0.00 CCN 210 185 P 1 1443 14.65 34.15 0.50 1.00 0.1 3.1 S 1 1443 39.00 59.07 0.07 1.00 CSG 215 350 P 1 1443 14.00 33.44 0.56 1.00 0.1 2.4 S 4 1443 41.00 60.43 0.57 0.00 HT3 278 332 5 4 1443.56.50 77.91

_1.41 0.00 0.1 2.7 LMO 289 284 P 3 1443 25 00 46.56 -1.56 1.00 0.2 2.7 S 1 1444 0.50 80.86 -0.36 1.00 i

i t

L i

i TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 3-9 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL-RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAG km deg see see sec see 84MAY23 CN, 60 KM NE FROM SUDBURY SUD 61 233 P O 1112 43.70 10 57 -0.87 1.00 0.2 2.7 5 0 1112 50.00 18.14 -2.14 1.00 EEO 98 100 P O 1112 50.25 16.34 -0.09 1.00 0.1 3.4 S 1 1113 2.50 28.17 0.33 1.00 VDQ 239 47 C 0 1113 11.56 38.92 -1.36 1.00 0.1 3.3 N 1 1113 7.50 35.05 -1.55 1.00 S 0 1113 39.68 67.38

-1.70 1.00 KAO 336 332 P 1 1113 22.50 46.88 1.62 1.00 0.3 3.0 S 4 1114 4.00 94.51

-4.51 0.00 l._

.ORO 343 92 P 3 1113 23.90 47.73 2.17 1.00 0.7 3.1 C 4 1114 8.70 96.43 -1.73 0.00 t

N 4 1114 0.70 83.11 3.59 0.00 VEO 345 153 P 1 1113 23.69 47.97 1.72 1.00 0.1 3.0 S 4 1114 1.80 83.53 4.27 0.00 OTT 390 112 S 4 1114 20.80 109.5

-2.74 0.00 0.5 2.8 CAC 394 106 C 3 1113 35.60 63.84

-2.24 1.00 0.5 2.6 N 4 1113 31.60 53.91 3.69 0.00 5 4 1114 22.00 110.7 -2.66 0.00 TRG 446 96 P 3 1113 36.90 60.63 2.27 1.00 0.4 3.4 l

C 4 1114 36.90 125.9 -2.99 0.00 N 4 1114 22.50 105.6 2.89 0.00

' GTO

$92 306 P 1 1113 54 00 78.08 1.92 1.00 0.4 2.6 N 4 1114 50.00 136.1

-0.06 0.00 C 4 1115 15.00 166.1--5.08 0.00 A

MNO 947 60 P 4 1114 40.00 121.4 4.61 0.00 0.5 3.2 C 4 1116 59.00 265.5 -0.49 0.00 N4 1116 14.00 211.6 8.37 0.00 84MAY24 PG.

70 KM SW FROM LA POCATIERE A10 48 54 P 0 1454 56.01 8.78 0.23 0.00 S

1455 2.34 14.97 0.37 0.00 QCG 3C 241 P

1454 54.70 9.10 -1.40 0.00 0.1 2.2*

S 1455 3.80 15.55 1.25 0.00 LPQ 65 54 P O'1454 58.82 11.63 0.19 0.00 0.1 2.4 S 1 1455 7.00 19.76 0.24 0.00 LMG 68 25 P 0 1454 59.20 11.82 0.38 0.00 5

1455 7.70 20.26 0.44 0.00 A16 74 45 P O 1454 59.82 0.00 5

1455 8.99 0.00 A20 110 44 P O 1955 4.84 18.43 -0.59 0.00 5 4 1455 18.19 31.74 -0.55 0.00 A64 111 33 P O 1455 4.79 18.58 -0.79 0.00 S 3 1455 18.39 31.99 -0.60 0.00 GNT 146 242 P 3 1455 10.50 24.14 _0.64 0.00 0.0 2.8 5 4 1455 29.45 41.66 0.79-0.00 EBN 194 74 P 1 1455 17.35 29.51 0.84 0.00 0.0 2.7 5 4 1455 40 10 51.11 1.99 0.00 SEO 20? 208 P 1 1455 17.70 30.49 0.21 0 00 0.1 3.0 S 1 1455 40.00 52-98 0.02 0.00 Centinued

L e

TABLE 3 (Continuod)

Pago 3-10 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAC km deg see see see see i

TRO 308 255 P 1 1455 30.70 43.27 0.43 0.00 0.1 2.8

+

5 4 1456 4.70 75.27 2.43 0.00 GCN 366 123 P O 1455 37.05 50.59 -0.54 0.00 S 4 1456 15.00 87.85 0.15 0.00 CRO 396 266 P 4 1455 51 10 54.02 10.08 0.00 0.2 3.1 S 4 1456 23.00 94.03 1.97 0.00 8401 NY, NE OF UTICA VEST 25.3 264 P

2128 13.88 4.08

.22 2.16 S 2 2128 17.27 7.14

.11 1.08 VTVE 30.0 206 P 3 2128 15.06 4.80

.24

.54 5 3 2128 19.21 8.40

.79

.00 CAZE 67 4 245 P 2 2128 20.73 10.46

.25 1.08 S 3 2128 29.36 18.31 1.04

.00 CLOV 68 9 99 P 2 2128 20 70 10.69

.01 1.08 i

S 3 2128 28 89 19.71

.16

.54 VMNY 72 1 285 P 1 2128 21 30 11 17 11 1.62 i

I S 3 2128 29.92 19.55 35

.54 LONA 79 2 310 P 3 2128 22 35 12.25

.08 54 I

S 2 2128 31.70 21.44 24 1.08 CRCO 81.E 347 P 1 2128 22.47 12.64

. 19 1.62 S 3 2128 31.88 22.12

.26

.54 CTR-9: 2 37 P 2 2128 24.92 14.67

.23 1.06 5 3 2128 35 75 25.67

.06

.53 1

GILE 103.4 145 P 4 2128 26.40 15.92

.46 0.00 AERN 106 9 259 P 4 1128 27.38 16.75 61 0.00 l

CNT 110.6 43 P 4 2128 27.24 17.00

.22 0.00 5 4 2128 40.25 29.75

.48 0.00 i

CSF 112 9 40 P 4 2128 27.50 17.36 12 0.00 S 4 2128 40.66 30.38

.26 0.00 SKT 117 3 43 P 4,2128 28.12 18.02

.08 0.00 S 4 2128 41 77 31.53

.22 0.00 STVA 123 9 101 P 4 2128 29.69 19.02 65 0.00 S 4 212e 44.05 33.28

.75 0 00 t

CHAU 132.7 323 P 4 2128 30.72 20.35 35 0.00 ALX 139 2 335 P 4 2128 32 08 21.43

.63 0.00 S 4 2128 48.47 37.50 95 0.00 SONY 145 4 271 P 4 2129

.00 22.28 32.30 0.00 i

S 4 2128 50.46 38.99 1.45 0.00 i

PTtt 154 4 5

P 4 2128 33.68 23.64

.02 0.00 S 4 2128 52 12 41.37

.73 0.00 CERM 159.9 135 P 4 2128 30.72 24.46

-3 76 C.00 I

LILH 201 0 262 P 4 2129

.00 30.69 40.71 0 00 5 4 2129

.00 53 71 63.73 0.00 i

i i

s i

t

-t l

1 I

L e

TABLE 3 (Continuad)

Page 3-11 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAC km deg see see see sec 84JUN02 PQ.

40 KM SE FROM MONT-TREMBLANT TRO 39 323 P O 0725 58.30 7 19 0.11 1.00 0.2 1.6*

S 0 0726 3.48 12.45 0.03 1.00 MNT 69 135 P 1 0126 2.80 11.64 0.16 1.00 S 1 0726 11.00 20.18 -0.18 1.00 CAC 99 255 P O 0726 7.50 16.35 0.15 1.00 0.2 1.9 S

0726 19.30 28.36 -0.06 1.00 OTT 130 243 S 1 0726 27.70 36.74 -0.04 1.00 0.1 2 4 VBC 132 218 P 0 0726 12.60 21.55 0.05 1.00 0.1 2.6 S 1 0726 28.45 37.39 0.06 1.00 GRG 145 301 P 1 0726 14.40 23.58 -0.18 1.00 0.0 2.4 S 3 0726 31.88 40.93

-0 05 1.00 8403 NJ, KINNELON CFD 4.4 287 P 1 704 34.60

.73

.01 1.50 S 3 704 35 10 1 28

_.04 50 DENJ 6.3 226 P

704 34 91 1.05

.00 2 00 S 2 704 35.67 1.84

.03 1.00 RAMA 20 2 58 P 1 704 37 30 3 38

.06 1.50 S 3 704 39.70 5.91

.08

.50 THE 21.8 46 P 1 704 37 50 3.65

.01 1.50 S 3 704 40.20 6.39

.05

.50 HAVE 35 5 44 P 3 704 39.80 5.93

.01

.50 S 3 704 43.99 10.38

.25

.50 44JUN04 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLM 25 135 P O 1251 21.32 4 36 -0.04 1.00 0.1 1.5*

S 0 1251 23.97 7.35 -0.38 1.00 EBM 135 293 P O 1251 40 75 21.94 1.81 1.00 0.3 2.6 S 1 1251 56.15 37.95 1.20 1.00 LMN 188 132 P 1 1251 47.63 30.62 0.01 1.00 0.1 2.3 S 1 1252 9 50 52.95 -0.45 1.00 GCN 210 185 P 4 1251 52.80 34.15 1.65 0.00 0 1 2.9 5 1 1252 16.40 59.08 0.32 1.00 84JUN05 CN, 40 KM E FROM VILLIAMSBURG MS 15 195 P 0 2129 9 89 3.25 0.64 1.00 S 0 2129 12.28 5.63 0.65 1.00 VBO 39 249 P O 2129 13.00 6.68 0.32 1 00 0.1 1.6*

S 0 2129 17.75 11.58 0.17 1.00 PT11 63 192 P O 2129 16.62 10.42 0.20 1.00 S 0 2129 24.13 18.08 0.05 1.00 GTT 77 293 5 1 2129 28.00 21.88 0.12 1.00 0.1 2 1

.C AC 83 321 S

2129 29.20 23.47 -0.27 1.00 0.2 1.6 PNY 104 108 P 0 2129 22.88 17.00 -0.12 1.00 S 0 2129 35.72 29.53 0.19 1.00 TRO 124 9

P O 2129 26.10 20 08 0.02 1.00 0.1 2.5 S 1 2129 41.18 34.85 0.33 1.00 ALX 126 225 P 0 2129 26.27 20 40 -0.13 1.05 CTR 142 168 P 1 2129 28.29 23.03 0.74 1.00 Continued 1

I

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 3-12 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAC km deg see see see sec S 1 2129 45.24 39.98 -0.74 1.00 CR 144 200 P 1 2129 28.61 23.32

-0.71 1.00 CRO 184 334 P 3 2129 36 10 26.52 1.58 1.00 0.1 2.4 S 1 2129 56.10 51.59 _1.49 1.00 84JUN06 NY, 7 XM V OF MAHOPAC PUTN 3.2 2 EP 3 1 1 20.23 1.32 -0.95 0.08 ES 0 1 1 22.08 2.36 -0.13 1.25 CARN 7.9 276 EP O 1 1 21.57 1.79 -0.08 1.23 ES 4 1 1 24.36 3.19 1.32 0.00 COSP 12,7 320 EP 1 1 1 21.76 2.45 -0.54 0.81 ES 0 1 1 24.58 4.37 0.36 1 15 OSNY 15.7 179 ES 0 1 1 24.77 5 14 -0.22 1 18 OLNY 18.0 254 EP 0 1 1 23.36 3.25 0.26 1.15 ES 4 1 1 27.32 5.78 1.68 0.00 CLAR 23 3 219 EP O 1 1 24.08 4.08 0.15 1.15 ES 4 1 1 28 61 7.26 1.50 0 00 BCT 32.9 62 EP 4 1 1 26.90 5.61 1.43 0 00 13 0 7 ES 0 1 1 30 20 9 99 0.34 1.07 HAVE (1 e 103 EP 4 1 1 24.66 10.34 -5,53 0.00 ECT 63 9 33 EP 4 1 1 32.30 10.68 1.72 0.00 ES 0 1 1 38.70 19.01

-0.25 0.93 8406 NJ, NEAR MORRISTOVN DENJ 21.1 4

P 1744 36.42 3.68

.10 1.58 S 1 1744 39.18 6.44 10 1.19 MONJ 21.6 80 P 3 1744 36.69 3.76 09

.40 S 3 1744 38.84 6.58

.58

.00 LVNJ 22 8 280 P

1744 36.72 3.94

.06 1.58 S 1 1744 39.74 6.89

.00 1.19 CPD2 26.8 4

P 1 1744 37.35 4.55

. 04 1.19 S

1744 40.75 7.96

.06 1.58 RAM 2 42 9 33 P 1 1744 39.74 6.99

.09 1 19 S 2 1744 45.16 12.23 08

.79 TER 46.1 28 P 2 1744 40.22 7.46

.08

.79 5 2 1744 45.88 13.05

. 02

.79 FHMC 46.9 267 P 2 1744 40.69 7.59

.26

.79 S 2 1744 46.04 13.28

.09

.79 ABMC 49.1 259 S 2 1744 46.80 13.84 11

.79 PRIN 49.7 204 P 2 1744 40.66 8.00

.18

.79 S 2 1744 46.75 14.00

.09

.79 SUFF 52 3

1745 41.3 8.4

.0

.7 PON 56.7 297 P 1 1744 42.14 9.06

.24 1.19 5 4 1744 49.02 15.85

.32 0.00 NAVE 59.5 31 P

1744 42.35 9.49

.02 1.58 S 2 1744 49.68 16.61

.23

.79 CARN 80.0 35 P 1 1744 45.69 12.58

.27 1.08 S 3 1744 55.03 22.01 17

.37 i

i

O TABLE 3 (Conttnued)

Page 3-13 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAG FMP FMAC km deg see see sec sec 84JUN07 PQ, 45 KM N FROM CLEN ALMOND CAC 46 184 P 0 0934 2.03 7.81 0.22 1.00 0.2 1.7*

S 0 0934 7.20 13.59 -0.39 1 00 GRQ 64 330 P O 0934 4.80 10.44 0.16 1.00 0.0 2.7 S 0 0934 12.22 18.50 -0.28 1.00 TRO 69 80 P O 0934 5.60 11.49 0.11 1.00 0.1 2.9 S 1 0934 14.00 19.99 0.01 1.00 OTT 83 195 P 0 0934 7.84 13.59 0.25 1.00 0.1 3.0 S 4 0934 20.00 23.64 2.36 0.00 VBO 124 174 P 0 0934 14.25 20.19 0.06 1.00 0.1 2.9 5 4 0934 28.10 35.09 -0.99 0.00 MNT 157 115 S 1 0934 37.10 43.27 -0.17 1.00 0.1 3.0 CNT 238 82 P 4 0934 31.30 34.68 2.62 0.00 0.2 3.2 S 4 0934 59.20 66.84

-1.64 0.00 SBG 285 105 S 4 0935 11 30 80.00 2.70 0.00 0.2 2.8 EEC 286 283 P 3 0934 34.60 40.54 0.06 1.00 0.1 3.0 5 4 0935 11.90 80.19 -2.29 0.00 84JUN08 ME, 45 KM SSE OF PORTLAND DNH 57.3 258 EP O 647 44.30 9.68 -0.25 1.70 ES 0 647 52.40 17.24 0.30 1.68 ONH 105.6 273 EP 1 647 52.50 17.06 0.54 0.86 ES 0 647 67.00 30.36 0.21 1.27 VNH 119.6 306 EP 0 647 54.60 19.18 0.24 1 15 ES 0 647 69.80 34.14 0.28 1.15 VFM 125.6 237 EP O 647 55.00 20.09 0.03 1.11 ES 1 647 71.30 35.77 0.65 0.67 VES 131 1 224 EP 0 647 55.70 20.93 _C.11 1.06 8

15 2.3 ES 0 647 72.40 37.26 0.25 1.05 PNH 157.6 264 EP 0 447 60.40 24.95

-0 44 0.78 ES 9 647 80.60 44.41

-0.50 0.75 ENH 173.0 331 EP 0 647 62.90 26.86 0.45 0,65 47 2 1 ES 0 647 84.00 47.81 0.04 0.69 HNH 176 3 287 EP 4 647 64.00 27.26 1.23 0.00 56 2.2 ES 4 647 86.70 48.52 2.17 0.00 QUA 197.2 244 EP 4 647 65.90 29.84 1.16 0.00 10 10 2.7 ES 0 647 87.40 53.12 -0.44 0.45 84JUN09 NB, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 0045 43.40 4.36 0.96 1.00 0.1

.7*

S 0 0045 46.01 7.35 -1.34 1.00 EEN 135 293 P 1 0046 3.00 21.94 1.06 1.00 0.1 1.8 5 1 0046 20.60 37.95 2.65 1.00 LMN 188 132 P 1 0046 9.80 30.22 -0.42 1.00 0.2 1.6 5 3 0046 31.30 52.95 _1.65 1.00

~

CCN 210 185 S 3 0046 38.20 59.07 -0.87 1.00 0.1 2.1 r

.e TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 3-14 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES WT AMX PRX XMAG FMP TMAC km deg see see see see 84JUN14 MA, NEAR OUABBIN QUA 14 7 172 EP O 2056 36.90 3.00 -0.43 2.01 105 2.3 FNH 60.2 21 EP 4 2056 44.30 10.15

-1 16 0.00 ES 4 2056 51.10 18.06

-3.07 0.00 VFM 74.5 88 EP O 2056 46.60 12.36 -0.06 1.55 ES 4 2056 55.00 22.00 -1.31 0.00 LNX 77.0 249 EP O 2056 47.20 12.75 0.10 1.53 UCT 84.9 172 EP O 2056 48.50 13.93 0.26 1.44 22 10 2.7 90 2.4 ES 0 2056 59.00 24.79 -0.13 1.46 EVT 86.0 350 EP O 2056 48.80 14.10 0.35 1.42 120 2.6 VES 91.2 104 EP O 2056 49.20 14.90 0 00 1.40 ONH 105.9 43 EP O 2056 52.10 17.13 -0.43 1.23 ES 4 2056 64.70 30.49 -2.ud 0.00 M01 115 1 183 EF 1 2056 53.40 18.52 0.58 0.82 ES 1 2056 66.70 32.96 -0.58 0.82 IVT 116.8 333 EF 4 2056 54.80 18.78 1.68 0.00 ES 0 2056 67.50 33.43 0.31 1.16 MC; 117.6 182 EF 1 2056 53.80 18.91 0.58 0.80 85 2.4 ES 0 2056 67.50 33.65

-0.48 1 11 ECT 111.3 225 EP O 2056 53.60 19.02 0.24 1.15 21 10 2.8 ES 0 2056 68.00 33.85 -0.24 1 15 MD3 120.3 183 EP 1 2356 54.20 19.32 0.58 0.79 ES 0 2056 68.30 34.38 -0.40 1.11 HDM 122.8 185 EF 0 2056 54.20 19.70 0.21 1 12 95 2.5 ES 0 2056 69.30 35.06 -0.05 1.12 MD5 124.0 184 EP O 2056 55.00 20.18 0.51 1.04 ES 0 2056 70.50 35.93 0.26 1.08 NSC 131.0 160 EF 4 2056 57.40 20.93 2.16 0.00 ES 3 2056 72.40 37.26 0.82 0.19 DNE 136.4 64 EP 1 2056 56.60 21.75 0.55 0.70 ES 1 2056 72.40 38.72 -0.61 0.67 CLO 137 2 88 EP 1 2056 56.80 21.88 0.63 0.67 ES 0 2056 72.90 38.94 -0.34 0.98 DUX 146 2 113 EP 4 2056 58.50 23.25 0.96 0.00 BCT 151.2 217 EP O 2056 58.50 24.01 0.19 0.87 ES 1 2056 76.50 42.74 -0.55 0.61 VPNY 156.5 236 IPD4 2056 60.30 24.80 1.19 0.00 ES 0 2056 78.40 44.15 -0.06 0.83 VNH 163 8 30 EP O 2056 60.60 25.76 0.25 0.75 ES 4 2056 79.00 45.86

-1.67 0.00 MDV 169 2 338 EP 3 2056 61.70 26.44 0.95 0.09 ES 2 2056 80.80 47.06 -0.59 0.32 84JUN16 NH, N OF KEENE EVT 39.6 336 EP O 1821 7.20 6.92 0.33 1.60 ES 0 1821 11 70 12.32 -0.60 1.58 i

QUA 43.0 179 EP 0 1821 10.60 10.46 0.21 1.42 ES 0 1821 18.40 18 61

-0.17 1.42 HNH 76 2 6 EP O 1821 13.50 12.45 0.51 1.31 13.10 2.4 75 2.2 ES 0 1821 21.70 22.17 -1.50 1.01 Continued v

~

s TABLE 3 (Continuod)

Page 3-15 STN DIST A2M RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAG TMP FMAC km deg sec sec sec sec IVT 77.5 316 EP 0 1821 13.80 12.66 1.20 1.14 90 2 4 ES 0 1821 22.20 22.53 -0.32 1.31 LNX 105.2 224 EP O 1821 17.60 16.87 0.78 1.04 EE O 1821 29.30 30.04 -0.72 1.06 VES 112.4 129 EP O 1821 18.80 17.94 0.95 0.99 ES 0 1821 31 10 31.94 -0.76 1.01 MD2 166.1 181 EP O 1821 26.10 25.62 0.56 0.63

~

ES 0 1821 45.30 45.61

-0.24 0.64 HDM 171.2 184 EP 0 1821 26.70 26.26 0.55 0.59 ES 0 1821 45.70 46.74 -0.93 0.57 BNH 196 4 28 ES 0 1821 53.60 0.00 0.41 DVT 216.1 5 EP 4 1821 35.50 31.79 3.75 0.00 70 2.4 3

ES 0 1821 56.50 56.59 -0.10 0.26 84JUN18 NE, 25 KM NV TROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 0256 18.61 4.36 -0.75 1.00 0.0

.9*

S 0 0256 21.20 7.35

-1 15 1.00 ESN 135 293 P 1 0256 37.95 21.94 1.01 1.00 0.1 1.6 S 1 0256 55.20 37.95 2.25 1.00 CCN 210 18' S 3 0257 13.00 59.07 -1.07 1.00 84JUN2C PQ, 50 KM NV FROM CRAND_REMOUS GRQ 48 151 P O 0021 36.83 8.26 0.57 1.00 0.1 1.8*

S 1 0021 43.30 14.35 0.95 1.00 CKO 148 222 P O 0021 50.50 23 98 -1.48 1.00 0.1 3.0 S 0 0022 8.78 41.65 -0.87 1.00 TRO 150 124 P O 0021 51.90 24.31

-0.41 1.00 0.0 3.2 S 0 0022 10 00 42.23 -0.23 1.00 CAC 152 159 P O 0021 52.75 24.65 0.10 1.00 0.3 S 1 0022 10.30 42.14 0.16 1.00 VDC 194 316 P 0 0021 57.38 29.32 0.06 1.00 0.1 2.7 S 0 002% 18.80 51.21

-0.41 1.00 EEO 225 261 P O 0022 0.60 33 09 0.49 1.00 0.1 3.1 S 0 0022 28.20 57.82 2.38 1.00 VBO 231 162 P 1 0022 1.50 33.76 -0.26 1.00 0.0 2.4 S 4 0022 32.50 64.88 -0.38 0.00 CNT 299 102 5 4 0022 58.00 83.77 6.23 0.00 0.2 2.8 84JUN22 PQ. 100 KM NE FROM MONT_TREMBLANT TRO 101 213 P

02 3 6.60 16.16 -0.56 1.00 0.0 2.7 S

02 3 18 40 28.34 -0.94 1.00 CNT 132 121 P

02 3 12.10 21.12 -0.02 1.00 0.1 2.6 S

02 3 27.70 36.95 -0.25 1.00 GRQ 160 256 P

02 3 15.60 24.74 -0.14 1.00 0 2 3.1 S

02 3 34 80 43.52 0.28 1.00 MKT 166 174 P

02 3 15.80 25.46 -0.66 1.00 0.1 2.8 S

02 3 35.50 44.75 -0.26 1.00 CAC 190 222 P

02 3 19.90 28.43 0.47 1.00 0.1 2.8 5

02 3 42.50 49.93 1.57 1.00 SBO 232 140 S 4 02 3 53.00 64.77 -2.77 0.00 0.1 2.6 VBO 247 207 P 3 02 3 28.50 35.36 2.14 1.00 0.1 2.8 i

Continued l

s TABLE 3 (Continued)

Page 3-16 STN DIST AZM RMK HRMN SEC TCAL RES VT AMX PRX XMAC FMP FMAG km deg see see sec see S

02 3 59.30 68.97 -0.67 1.00 VDO 340 296 5

02 4 25.20 95.08

-0.88 1.00 0.1 2.5 EEO 401 266 S 4 02 4 44.00 112.1 0.86 0.00 0.2 2.8 i

84JUN28 PQ, 45 KM S FROM CRAND-REMOUS GRQ 44 342 P

03 8 56.97 7.46 0.51 1.00 0.1 2.3*

S 03 9 2.30 12.65 0.65 1.00 CAC 61 165 P

03 8 59.75 10.25 0.50 1.00 0.2 S

03 9 6.70 17.51 0.19 1.00 TRO 87 90 P

03 9 3.55 14.41 0.14 1.00 0.1 2.8 5

03 9 13.70 24.71

-0.01 1.00 OTT 93 182 P

03 9 4.82 15.48 0.34 1.00 0.1 2.9 S

03 9 15.90 26.59 0.31 1.00 CK O 139 260 P

03 9 11.95 22.90 0.05 1.00 0.1 3.5 5 3 03 9 28.40 39.47 -0.07 1.00 VSO 141 167 P

03 9 12.00 23.10

-0 10 1.00 0.1 3 0 S 3 03 9 28.50 39.83 -0.33 1.00 MNT 179 116 5 3 03 9 38.70 50.66

-0.96 1.00 0.1 3.3 GNT 255 8e P

03 9 28.40 39,12 0.28 1.00 0.1 3 1 S 4 03 9 59.00 67.98 2 02 0.00 EEO 265 281 P

03 9 29.00 40.29 -0.29 1.00 0.1 3.1 S 3 0310 3.30 74.56 -0.26 1.00 VDC 282 323 P 4 03 9 33.70 42.38 2.32 0.00 0.1 2.9 5 3 0310 7.50 79.36 -0.86 1.00 SEQ 307 107 S 4 0310 11.50 86.40

-3.90 0.00 0.1 3.1 VEO 325 222 S 4 0310 11.00 82.80 -0.80 0.00 0.1 94J"N21 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L K;N 25 135 P O 1659 52.10 4.36

-0.26 1.00 0.0

.6*

5 0 1659 54.83 7.35 -0.52 1.00 EEN 135 293 P 1 1660 11.00 21.94 1.06 1 00 0.0 1.9 S 1 1660 27.40 37.95 1.45 1.00 GCN 210 185 P 4 1660 23.70 34.15 1.55 0.00 0.1 2.0 S 3 1660 48.20 59.08 1 12 1.00 l

8 4 JUN 3 0 NE, 25 KM NV FROM MCKENDRICK L KLN 25 135 P O 1735 1.47 4.37 0.10 1.00 E O 1735 4.40 7.36 0.04 1.00 EBN 135 293 P 1 1735 19.88 21.94 0.94 1.00 0.1 1.9 S 1 1735 36.50 37.95 1.55 1.00 GCN 210 18!

P 3 1735 31.95 32.86 2.09 1.00 0.1 1.8 5 1 1735 56.50 59.08 0.42 1 00 g -

-r-

s TABLE 4 FORESHOCKS, AFTERSHOCKS, AND MICR0 EARTHQUAKES DATE ARRIVAL-TIME MAG STA

~

02 APR 234441.

1.3 CSR 14 APR 184323.

0.5 LPQ3 19 APR 054413.

0.2 LMQ 21 APR 090419.

0.2 LMQ 22 APR 062502.

0.3 LMQ4 24 APR 060241.

2.0 MVL 24 AP3 165630.

-0.5 MVL 24 APR 171145.

2.2 MVL 25 APR 070701.

-0.3 MVL 25 APR 085213.

-0.2 MVL 25 APR 143514.

-0.5 MVL 25 APR 212615.

-0.5 MVL 26 APR 142301.

-0.5 MVL 26 APR 215949.

0.3 MVL5 27 APR 064921.

-1,3 EMM 28 APR 205312.

1.6 MVL 30 APR 151959.

0.5 LPQ

~

01 MAY 080758.

0.2 LMQ 03 MAY 113405.

0.0 LMQ 06 MAY 164113.

0.6 LMQ 21 MAY 172735.

1.1 CSR 22 MAY 061459.

0.5 LMQ 24 MAY 110129.

0.1 LMQ 02 JUN 012410.

1.0 MDV6 i

02 JUN 091951.

1.0 MDV 09 JUN 000711.

2.4 CSR 10 JUN 122748.

0.4 LMQ

-16 JUN 033506.

1.3 MDV 18 JUN 232342.

1.1 MDV 22 JUN 080514.

1.6 MDV 22 JUN 081204.

2.1 MDV 22 JUN 120346.

1.4 MDV 22 JUN 211428.

1.6 MDV 22 JUN 212308.

1.2 MDV 22 JUN 213800.

1.5 MDV 23 JUN 022607.

1.3 LMQ 23 JUN 030712.

1.8 MDV 23 JUN 031332.

1.3 MDV 23 JUN 053152.

1.0 MDV i

23 JUN 053235.

1.5 MDV 23 JUN 060913.

1.5 MDV i

23 JUN 132344.

0.3 LMQ 23 JUN 233554.

2.1 MDV 23 JUN 233651.

1.7 MDV 24 JUN 000054.

1.8 MDV 25 JUN 025517.

1.4 MDV l

4

a 6

TABLE 4 (Continued)

PAGE 4-2 25 JUN 032628.

1.6 MDV 25 JUN 034010.

1.1 MDV 25 JUN 042707.

1.6 MDV 25 JUN 042917.

1.7 MDV 25 JUN 045112.

1.5 MDV 25 JUN 050623.

1.0 MDV 25 JUN 050808.

1.3 MDV 25 JUN 051140.

2.2 MDV 25 JUN

101314, 1.3 MDV' 26 JUN 005542.

1.6 MDV 26 JUN 011458.

2.1 MDV 26 JUN 030357.

1.1 MDV 26 JUN 030510.

1.1 MDV 26 JUN 030532.

2.2 MDV 26 JUN 041211.

1.8 MDV 26 JUN 074423.

1.7 MDV 26 JUN 080241.

1.1 MDV 26 JUN 082013.

1.1 MDV 26 JUN 093155.

1.6 MDV 1

27 JUN 003953.

1.4 MDV 29 JUN 085703.

1.4 MDV 29 JUN 230506.

0.2 CSR 30 JUN 211340.

1.1 MDV a

i Closest Station Location 1.

CSR COLD SPRING RIVER, NY 2.

LPQ LA POCATIERE, PQ 3.

LMQ LA MALBAIE, PQ 4.

MVL MILLERSVILLE, PA 5.

EMM EAST MACHIAS, ME 6.

MDV MIDDLEBURY, VT

'i r

O

'l

...,---,7-e

,_r

APPENDIX VELOCITY MODELS USED FOR EPICENTER LOCATIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 4

VEL To DEPTH REGION km/sec sec km 2

Northern New York and 6.1 0.0 0.0 Adirondacks (LDO) 6.6 0.5 4.0 8.1 6.3 35.0 Attica. New York (LDO) 4.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 6.0 1.4 6.0 Blue Men. Lake, New York (LDO) 5.9 0.0 0.0 Southeastern NY and 5.98 0.0 0.0 northern New Jersey (LDO) 6.62 1.0 7.0 8.1 6.5 35.0 New England (WES) 5.31 0.0 0.0 6.06 0.16 0.88 6.59 1.78 13.09 8.10 6.72 34.60

=*

DISTRIBUTION No.

Recipient 30 Dr. Andy Murphy, Chief Site Safety Research Branch, Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 30 Dr. Paul W. Pomeroy, Coordinator NEUSSN 5

Dr. M. Nafi Toksoz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory 5

Dr. Shelton S. Alexander, Pennsylvania State University 5

Mr. Ken Woodruff, Delaware Geological Survey 5

Earth Physics Branch, Canada 1

Consolidated Edison of New York 1

File N

Weston Observatory, Boston College

.