4.7 Article

Estimating basin thickness using a high-density passive-source geophone array

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 402, Issue -, Pages 120-126

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.10.035

Keywords

seismology; Bighorn Basin; Powder River Basin; basin thickness

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-0323309, EAR-0323311, EAR-0733069]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [EAR-0843657, EAR-1157150, EAR-0844202]
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [0843657] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2010 an array of 834 single-component geophones was deployed across the Bighorn Mountain Range in northern Wyoming as part of the Bighorn Arch Seismic Experiment (BASE). The goal of this deployment was to test the capabilities of these instruments as recorders of passive-source observations in addition to active-source observations for which they are typically used. The results are quite promising, having recorded 47 regional and teleseismic earthquakes over a two-week deployment. These events ranged from magnitude 4.1 to 7.0 (m(b)) and occurred at distances up to 10 degrees . Because these instruments were deployed at ca. 1000 m spacing we were able to resolve the geometries of two major basins from the residuals of several well-recorded teleseisms. The residuals of these arrivals, converted to basinal thickness, show a distinct westward thickening in the Bighorn Basin that agrees with industry-derived basement depth information. Our estimates of thickness in the Powder River Basin do not match industry estimates in certain areas, likely due to localized high-velocity features that are not included in our models. Thus, with a few cautions, it is clear that high-density single-component passive arrays can provide valuable constraints on basinal geometries, and could be especially useful where basinal geometry is poorly known. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available