June 25, 2026

expert reaction to earthquake in Venezuela

Scientists comment on a 7.5 magnitude earthquake in Venezuela. 

Professor Domniki Asimaki, Chair in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Imperial College London, said:

“Landslides are likely to have been an issue in the epicentral area to the west of Caracas. Videos of landslides are emerging in the news, but I have no details at this point. Similarly with the vulnerable structures, landslides that were not triggered during the first event, may have come much closer to failure and catastrophically triggered by the M7.5 main shock. The USGS Pager analysis is the best that we have, noting that it is only a first order estimation. This is the current Pager Landslide map for the larger (M=7.5) of the two earthquakes: The USGS analysis is that the estimated population exposure for landslides is in the range of 1,000 to 10,000 and for liquefaction it is in the top of the range of 10,000-100,000 people.”

Dr Christian Malaga Chuquitaype, Reader in Structural Dynamics and Seismic Engineering at Imperial College London, said:

“The images coming out of Venezuela are hard to watch. Buildings pancaked. Entire blocks flattened. Widespread damage. Unfortunately, the engineering explanation is not surprising to those of us who work in this field.

“Most of what collapsed appears to be what we call non-ductile concrete buildings; that is, buildings where structural elements like columns and beams simply don’t have enough steel, or the steel they have is not properly distributed, to absorb seismic energy without shattering. They tend to explode when they fail. And they are among the building types most likely to kill people during earthquakes. We keep seeing these images: Mexico, Turkey, the Philippines, and now Venezuela is, tragically, the latest entry in a long and familiar list.

“One thing that makes this event even more destructive is its double tap: a M7.2 followed 39 seconds later by a M7.5 (current USGS figures). A structure weakened by the first hit would have had no time to recover before the second blow. The casualty numbers are likely to rise in the hours ahead, and the structural, social, economic, environmental implications will last for months and years. 

“The proximity of these events to densely populated areas make the situation all the more concerning. And the parallel with other Latin American cities is also deeply concerning. Cities like Lima in Peru, or those in Ecuador and Colombia. It is frustrating to see so many non-ductile concrete buildings still standing un-retrofitted across the region. The science and the tools have been available for decades. What we are witnessing in Venezuela is not a warning about something unknown. It is a reminder about something we already know and have the means to address. What we lack is money, policy, and urgency.

“My thoughts are with the victims of this terrible event.”

Ziggy Lubkowski, Associate Director and Arup’s seismic expert, said:

What do we know so far about the geology/science behind the earthquake?

“This earthquake occurred along the boundary between the Caribbean and South American tectonic plates, which run past Venezuela’s northern coast. These plates are moving relative to each other, building up strain that is periodically released as earthquakes.

“Early indications suggest this was a large, shallow strike‑slip event – meaning the plates moved horizontally past each other. Shallow earthquakes typically produce stronger shaking at the surface.

“Initial assessments indicate very strong shaking in parts of northern Venezuela, at levels capable of causing significant structural damage. While the scientific analysis is still evolving, the scale of shaking and the proximity to urban areas mean the impacts are likely to be severe.”

What causes two large earthquakes so soon after each other – a ‘doublet’?

“In some cases, what appears to be two separate earthquakes can actually be part of a single, complex rupture process. A large rupture doesn’t always propagate smoothly along a fault – it can occur in stages or pulses.

“In this case, two large releases of energy occurred within seconds. For people on the ground, that would likely have felt like one prolonged period of intense shaking, and this matches initial reports.

“This is important because prolonged or repeated shaking can significantly increase damage. Structures that are weakened by an initial shaking may be less able to withstand repeated shaking. While this kind of “doublet” behaviour is rare, it is a recognised feature of large earthquake events.”

What do we know about other impacts such as liquefaction and landslides?

“Earthquakes don’t just cause damage through shaking alone. They can also trigger a range of secondary hazards, which often contribute significantly to overall impact.

“Where there are loose, water‑saturated soils – common in coastal and low‑lying areas – ground shaking can cause liquefaction, where the soil temporarily behaves like a liquid. This can lead to buildings tilting or collapsing and infrastructure such as roads and pipelines failing.

“Similarly, strong shaking can trigger landslides, particularly in hilly or unstable terrain. These can damage buildings, block transport routes, and complicate rescue efforts.

“At this stage, it is likely that both liquefaction and landsliding have occurred in affected regions, but the full extent will only become clear as ground assessments are carried out. In practice, this is why seismic design considers not just the structure but the ground it sits on – something Arup routinely account for in projects in earthquake‑prone regions.”

Was this earthquake possible to predict?

“No – earthquakes cannot currently be predicted in terms of their exact timing, location and magnitude.

“What we can do is understand where earthquakes are likely to occur, based on tectonic setting, and design our infrastructure accordingly. This is a key part of earthquake engineering: accepting that these events will happen and ensuring that buildings and systems are resilient when they do.

“Global experience shows that the impact of earthquakes is not determined by magnitude alone, but by how well prepared the built environment is to withstand the shaking. Across the industry, including Arup’s own work on major infrastructure and buildings in seismic regions, the focus is on designing for these known risks – ensuring structures can withstand shaking and continue to function where it matters most.”

What response is being taken, and is it adequate?

“In the immediate aftermath of a major earthquake, the priority is search and rescue, medical response, and ensuring safety from further hazards such as aftershocks or unstable structures.

“At this stage, it is too early to assess the adequacy of the response. In many earthquake scenarios, it can take days or weeks to fully understand the scale of the damage and the resources required.

“What is clear is that response efforts are always more challenging where infrastructure has been heavily affected – particularly transport, communications, and utilities. This is why resilience is so important: not just to prevent collapse, but to enable rapid and effective response and recovery.”

What should people expect next?

“Aftershocks are expected following an earthquake of this size and can continue for weeks or months. The first aftershocks have already been reported. Although they are typically smaller, they can still cause further damage, particularly to buildings that have already been weakened.

“Damage assessments will take time. Early models provide a broad indication of potential impacts, but the full picture – both in terms of humanitarian consequences and economic losses – will only emerge over the coming weeks. This is why modern seismic engineering increasingly focuses on keeping critical infrastructure operational – an approach reflected in projects globally where hospitals, transport and utilities are designed to remain functional after major events.

Any other important scientific context?

“One of the key lessons from earthquakes globally is that hazard does not equal disaster. The same magnitude event can have very different outcomes depending on factors such as building standards, ground conditions, and population exposure.

“Earthquake engineering has made significant progress over recent decades, particularly in improving how buildings perform under shaking. However, events like this demonstrate that risk remains, especially where there is a combination of strong shaking, vulnerable structures, and dense urban populations.

“Ultimately, the focus is not just on preventing damage entirely – which may not be possible – but on reducing loss of life and ensuring that critical infrastructure continues to function during and after the event.”

Dr Stephen Hicks, Research Fellow and Lecturer in Environmental Seismology, University College London (UCL), said:

“Today’s magnitude 7.5 earthquake offshore Venezuela was preceded approximately 37 seconds earlier by a magnitude 7.2 foreshock, forming an unusual and complex earthquake sequence.

“Earthquakes of similar size that occur close together in both space and time are known as “earthquake doublets”. They have been documented in many parts of the world, but remain relatively uncommon.

“Research over the past few decades has shown that large earthquakes are often more complex than a single fault suddenly breaking. Instead, rupture can cascade across multiple fault segments or patches of a fault, with one rupture triggering another in rapid succession. Earthquake doublets represent one particularly clear example of this broader process, in which stress changes caused by one rupture can help trigger another nearby earthquake.

“Preliminary analyses suggest that today’s rupture propagated eastwards from its point of initiation towards Caracas. This is similar to the rupture direction inferred for the destructive 1967 Caracas earthquake.

“The direction in which a fault ruptures can have an important influence on the distribution of shaking. When an earthquake rupture propagates towards a populated area, seismic energy can become concentrated in that direction, producing stronger ground motions than would otherwise occur. This was the case of Caracas, which was in the “crosshairs” of the eastward earthquake rupture, and shaking may also have been amplified by the deep sedimentary deposits that underlie parts of the Caracas Valley.

“Taken together, these factors suggest that Caracas may have experienced particularly intense shaking during this event. While it is still too early to fully assess the consequences, the earthquake certainly had the potential to have caused significant damage, and detailed impact assessments are now underway.

“My thoughts are with all those affected by this earthquake and the emergency responders working in the impacted areas.”

Prof Joanna Faure Walker, Professor of Earthquake Geology and Disaster Risk Reduction, University College London (UCL), said:

“The two earthquakes occurred on east-west orientated faults with “right lateral” movement, which means if you were to stand on one side of the fault looking at it, the other side moved to the right in the earthquake. In Venezuela, the Caribbean plate is moving eastwards relative to the South American plates which causes such strike slip earthquakes. This strike-slip style of motion is what is seen on the San Andreas Fault in the United States and North Anatolian Fault in Turkey.

“Why were there two earthquakes? When a fault moves in an earthquake on one fault, this changes the stress on surrounding faults or further along the fault that ruptures in the case of partial rupture. This means that if surrounding faults are already near to failure, the stress transfer from another earthquake can bring the next fault or section of fault to failure, causing another earthquake.

“Earthquakes are not possible to predict, but in Venezuela because we know there is a plate margin we do know such earthquakes are possible and forecasting models can give indications of the likelihood and possible magnitudes. “

Prof Ilan Kelman, Professor of Disasters and Health, Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction (IRDR), University College London (UCL), said:

“Caracas is well-known to be in a seismic zone, with examples of previous major earthquakes in 1812 and 1967. The country’s recent decades of difficult politics have meant that governance, such as for building codes and disaster preparedness, have suffered, leading to this disaster. The priority now is rescuing trapped people, treating the injured, supporting the survivors, and hopefully rebuilding to avoid creating the next disaster.”

Prof Dan Faulkner, Lecturer in Rock Mechanics, University of Liverpool, said:

“These earthquakes occurred on faults that were known and have produced large earthquakes in the past (e.g., 1812 Caracas Earthquake, 1900 Venezuela Earthquake, both of which were estimated to have been a similar size to the current ones).

“The South American tectonic plate in the south is moving westwards against the Caribbean tectonic plate to the north at ~20 mm/year – almost the rate at which your fingernails grow. We would expect large earthquakes to occur in these areas where tectonic plates meet and move past each other. This is a transcurrent plate boundary where earthquakes will occur at relatively shallow depth, meaning the intensity of shaking felt at the surface will be greater. 

“The closely spaced (~40 seconds apart) earthquakes could be considered an ‘earthquake doublet’ or, because the earlier earthquake was smaller, it can be viewed as a foreshock. The second earthquake at M7.5 released almost 3 times as much energy as first M7.2 earthquake. The first will certainly have contributed towards the second occurring. 

“The first earthquake would have produced slip over a ~60 km length of the fault, which would have transferred stress onto an adjacent part of the fault then then ruptured ~180 km length of the fault, likely towards the east were shaking heavily affected the capital, Caracas.

“We know regionally where large events are likely to happen – typically close to tectonic plate boundaries – but the accurate timing and location are still impossible to predict.”

Dr Karen Lythgoe, NERC Independent Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh, said:

“The seismic data shows that the earthquake or earthquakes were very scientifically complex. Initial reports are of one Mw7.2 followed by a Mw7.5 within a minute (38 seconds to be precise). But it takes about 30 seconds for a Mw7.2 to rupture, so it is possible that this is a single bigger event (of about Mw7.6-7.7) instead of two smaller ones. The seismic waves are all overlapping each other, so it will take seismologists some time to disentangle this scientifically.

“Complex ruptures like this happen because of variations of stress within rocks at shallow depths. When stress is released on one area in an earthquake, this changes the stress in other areas, and where the stress increases, other earthquakes can be triggered.

“The earthquakes occurred on a vertical fault, and the ground to the north moved to the east compared to the ground on the south. The fault is the boundary between the Caribbean and South American plates.

“Either way (a single big complex event or two smaller ones), the shaking was very large since the earthquakes happened at shallow depths, probably rupturing to the surface and so we can expect a lot of damage. The USGS is predicting over 10,000 fatalities and this is within the norm for such a big event close to populated areas. Shaking reports are of “violent” shaking and with heavy damage. In Caracas shaking is listed as “very strong” with moderate/heavy damage. The earthquake started in the west and ruptured to the east, towards Caracas (but likely stopping just before it), so this explains why the shaking is so large in Caracas (the seismic waves all bundle up in the direction of the earthquake rupture).

“Earthquakes can’t be predicted since they are essentially random. But scientists do forecast earthquakes. The fault that the earthquakes occurred on was known about and mapped, so the region was certainly known to have a high seismic hazard. “

Professor Bruce D. Malamud, Director, Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience, Durham University, said:

“These earthquakes occurred in a region of known seismic hazard. Northern Venezuela lies within a complex plate-boundary zone between the Caribbean and South American plates, with major active fault systems capable of producing large earthquakes. So, although the timing of this event could not have been predicted, the occurrence of damaging earthquakes in this broad region is not unexpected from a geological perspective.

“The reports of two large earthquakes occurring very close together are scientifically important, but they should not be interpreted as evidence that the second earthquake was predictable. When a smaller earthquake is followed by a larger one in the same sequence, the first event may be described retrospectively as a foreshock. That label can only be applied after the larger event has happened. In other cases, two similar large earthquakes close in time and space may be described as an earthquake doublet. At this early stage, the precise interpretation will depend on revised locations, depths, magnitudes and fault-rupture analysis.

“Earthquakes cannot currently be predicted in the sense most people mean: specifying the time, place and magnitude of a future earthquake. What scientists can do is identify regions with elevated long-term earthquake hazard, and from this estimate probabilities, improve building codes, support preparedness, and rapidly assess likely impacts after an earthquake has occurred.

“Following these earthquakes, the main immediate risks are not only from the shaking itself, but from damaged buildings, aftershocks, landslides on steep slopes, possible liquefaction in susceptible water-saturated sediments, disruption to hospitals, roads and utilities, and the difficulty of search and rescue in unstable structures. The priority now is life safety: search and rescue, medical care, shelter, clear public communication, assessment of damaged buildings, and avoiding re-entry into unsafe structures.

“It is too early to make a confident judgment from outside the country on whether the response is adequate. That will depend on access to affected areas, the condition of critical infrastructure, the availability of trained search-and-rescue teams, medical capacity, and whether clear advice is reaching people at risk from aftershocks, unstable buildings, landslides and other secondary hazards.”

Dr Richard Luckett, Seismologist at the British Geological Survey, said:

“Although Venezuela gets a lot of earthquakes, events of this scale are less common.  In the last 100 years there have only been seven earthquakes recorded over magnitude 6, including a 6.6 magnitude event which occurred in 1967 and led to fatalities in Caracas.

“An earthquake of magnitude 7.5 in a heavily populated area is always going to be devastating to some degree – we do not know enough to comment on buildings or infrastructure although the fact the earthquakes were recorded at shallow depths will have contributed to the severity of the damage. “

Prof Bill McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, University College London (UCL), said:

“Northern Venezuela, including the capital Caracas, is no strangers to earthquakes, and there have been five Magnitude 7+ quakes in the region in the last 100 years. The last to cause fatalities and high levels of damage in Caracas was in 1967, but that quake was far smaller than yesterday’s double whammy. There is a saying amongst seismologists and earthquake engineers – ‘earthquakes don’t kill people – buildings kill people’, and this is the reality in virtually every major quake, especially in majority world countries. Once again, in Venezuela, it looks as if high-rise buildings and apartment blocks have not been constructed well enough to survive the shaking of a quake of this size, and many have ‘pancaked’ – floor after floor collapsing on top of one another, leaving no spaces between, and little chance of survival. It would be no surprise at all to see a final death toll well into the thousands.”

Professor Mark Allen, Professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Durham University, said:

“The two earthquakes which struck Venezuela on 24/6/26 were unusual for being so close together in time at this scale: a Magnitude 7.2 event was followed only 39 seconds later by a Magnitude 7.5 event. But, it is likely that the first earthquake ruptured one fault segment and transferred stress on to another fault which failed in turn, causing the second earthquake. The events seem to have taken place on the tectonic plate boundary between South America and the Caribbean. The plates are moving past each other, laterally, in this region – similar to the San Andreas Fault in California. The epicentres appear to be ~100 miles west of Caracas; whatever the casualties, earthquakes nearer would have been more destructive. There is a risk of further earthquakes (aftershocks) in the Caracas region: the Venezuelan capital is in an earthquake-prone area, and local faults may have been loaded by the 24/6/26 events.”

Declared interests

Professor Domniki Asimaki: “I have no conflict of interest.“

Dr Christian Malaga Chuquitaype: “No conflicts of interest “

Ziggy Lubkowski: “Declaration of interests:

• I am a committee member of SECED, the UK society       of earthquakes and dynamics. I am also the UK national delegate to       the IAEE international association of earthquake engineering

• I am on the BSi 525/8 committee for Eurocode 8       which deals with seismic design of buildings and infrastructure

• I am on PIANC working group 225 for the seismic       design of ports”

Dr Stephen Hicks: “No interests to declare”

Joanna Faure Walker: “No conflicts of interest”

Prof Ilan Kelman: “No interests to declare.”

Prof Dan Faulkner: “I have no industry links relating to any of the opinions above.

I was Head of Department from 2018-2023, and President of the Tectonophysics section of the American Geophysical Union (2022-2024) the largest global grouping of Earth and space scientists, that supports 130,000 enthusiasts worldwide.”

Dr Karen Lythgoe: “No conflicts of interests.”

Professor Bruce D. Malamud: “I have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.”

Dr Richard Luckett: “We receive funding from our Customer Group for the UK National Monitoring Network and have done projects for many different customers and research for various bodies over the years.”

Prof Bill McGuire: “no DOIs”

Professor Mark Allen: “no DOIs”