Comment on “The Maximum Possible and the Maximum Expected Earthquake Magnitude for Production‐Induced Earthquakes at the Gas Field in Groningen, The Netherlands” by Gert Zöller and Matthias Holschneider

Abstract

Article Commentary| February 06, 2018 Comment on “The Maximum Possible and the Maximum Expected Earthquake Magnitude for Production‐Induced Earthquakes at the Gas Field in Groningen, The Netherlands” by Gert Zöller and Matthias Holschneider Mathias Raschke Mathias Raschke aStolze‐Schrey‐Straße1, 65195 Wiesbaden, Germany, mathiasraschke@t-online.de Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Mathias Raschke aStolze‐Schrey‐Straße1, 65195 Wiesbaden, Germany, mathiasraschke@t-online.de Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 06 Feb 2018 Online Issn: 1943-3573 Print Issn: 0037-1106 © Seismological Society of America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2018) 108 (2): 1025–1028. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170100 Article history First Online: 06 Feb 2018 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Mathias Raschke; Comment on “The Maximum Possible and the Maximum Expected Earthquake Magnitude for Production‐Induced Earthquakes at the Gas Field in Groningen, The Netherlands” by Gert Zöller and Matthias Holschneider. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2018;; 108 (2): 1025–1028. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170100 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search Abstract Zöller and Holschneider (2016) focused on distribution of the earthquake maximum magnitude of the gas field in Groningen, The Netherlands, and applied the predictive distribution. They incorrectly used the term Bayesian posterior probability density function because it is a term of the Bayesian parameter inference and not for the predictive distribution of a random variable. As explained here, the approach of the predictive distribution can be applied on Bayesian and frequentist inference. However, it is not a useful and stable approach. The original intention of the approach was a model test and not an actual prediction. The authors did not use the approach consequently because they did not consider the uncertainty of all parameters. Besides, the distribution of the maximum magnitude does not include more information than the magnitude frequency function (Gutenberg–Richter relation). Additionally, the state‐of‐the‐art of mathematical statistics includes more methods for the upper bound magnitude (maximum possible earthquake magnitude), than considered by Zöller and Holschneider (2016). Uncertainty quantification is possible for these estimators, in contrast to the statement of the authors. At the end of their analysis, they used the 90% percentile (confidence level) as point estimation for the upper bound magnitude. The selection of 90% is debatable. The most recent point estimation of Beirlant et al. (2017) for the upper bound leads to a distribution of the maximum earthquake magnitude which is very different from the results of Zöller and Holschneider (2016). You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.