Induced seismicity
Template:Short description Template:Earthquakes
Induced seismicity is typically earthquakes and tremors that are caused by human activity that alters the stresses and strains on Earth's crust. Most induced seismicity is of a low magnitude. A few sites regularly have larger quakes, such as The Geysers geothermal plant in California which averaged two M4 events and 15 M3 events every year from 2004 to 2009.<ref name="andersonsprings_2009">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The Human-Induced Earthquake Database (HiQuake) documents all reported cases of induced seismicity proposed on scientific grounds and is the most complete compilation of its kind.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.7 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of wastewater by the oil industry. A huge number of seismic events in oil and gas extraction states like Oklahoma is caused by increasing the volume of wastewater injection that is generated as part of the extraction process.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> "Earthquake rates have recently increased markedly in multiple areas of the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), especially since 2010, and scientific studies have linked the majority of this increased activity to wastewater injection in deep disposal wells."<ref name="usgs_2015" /><ref name="Ellsworth_2013">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="USGS_2016_forecast">Template:Cite report</ref>Template:Rp<ref name="Geology_2013">Template:Cite journalvia EBSCO</ref>
Induced seismicity can also be caused by the injection of carbon dioxide as the storage step of carbon capture and storage, which aims to sequester carbon dioxide captured from fossil fuel production or other sources in Earth's crust as a means of climate change mitigation. This effect has been observed in Oklahoma and Saskatchewan.<ref name=":0">Template:Cite journal</ref> Though safe practices and existing technologies can be utilized to reduce the risk of induced seismicity due to injection of carbon dioxide, the risk is still significant if the storage is large in scale. The consequences of the induced seismicity could disrupt pre-existing faults in the Earth's crust as well as compromise the seal integrity of the storage locations.<ref name=":1">Template:Cite journal</ref>
The seismic hazard from induced seismicity can be assessed using similar techniques as for natural seismicity, although accounting for non-stationary seismicity.<ref name="gupta_risk">Gupta, Abhineet, and Jack W. Baker. "A Framework for Time-Varying Induced Seismicity Risk Assessment, with Application in Oklahoma". Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17, no. 8 (August 2019): 4475–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00620-5. </ref><ref name="Bourne 2015 1721–1738">Template:Cite journal</ref> It appears that earthquake shaking from induced earthquakes may be similar to that observed in natural tectonic earthquakes,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> or may have higher shaking at shorter distances.<ref name="gupta_gm">Gupta, Abhineet, Jack W. Baker, and William L. Ellsworth. "Assessing Ground‐Motion Amplitudes and Attenuation for Small‐to‐Moderate Induced and Tectonic Earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States". Seismological Research Letters 88, no. 5 (June 28, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160199. </ref> This means that ground-motion models derived from recordings of natural earthquakes, which are often more numerous in strong-motion databases<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> than data from induced earthquakes, may be used with minor adjustments. Subsequently, a risk assessment can be performed, taking into account the increased seismic hazard and the vulnerability of the exposed elements at risk (e.g. local population and the building stock).<ref name="gupta_risk" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Finally, the risk can, theoretically at least, be mitigated, either through reductions to the hazard<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> or a reduction to the exposure or the vulnerability.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
CausesEdit
There are many ways in which induced seismicity has been seen to occur. In the 2010s, some energy technologies that inject or extract fluid from the Earth, such as oil and gas extraction and geothermal energy development, have been found or suspected to cause seismic events. Some energy technologies also produce wastes that may be managed through disposal or storage by injection deep into the ground. For example, waste water from oil and gas production and carbon dioxide from a variety of industrial processes may be managed through underground injection.Template:Citation needed
Artificial lakesEdit
Template:More citations needed section
The column of water in a large and deep artificial lake alters in-situ stress along an existing fault or fracture. In these reservoirs, the weight of the water column can significantly change the stress on an underlying fault or fracture by increasing the total stress through direct loading, or decreasing the effective stress through the increased pore water pressure. This significant change in stress can lead to sudden movement along the fault or fracture, resulting in an earthquake.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to other forms of induced seismicity. Though understanding of reservoir-induced seismic activity is very limited, it has been noted that seismicity appears to occur on dams with heights larger than Template:Convert. The extra water pressure created by large reservoirs is the most accepted explanation for the seismic activity.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> When the reservoirs are filled or drained, induced seismicity can occur immediately or with a small time lag.
The first case of reservoir-induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria's Oued Fodda Dam.
The 6.3 magnitude 1967 Koynanagar earthquake occurred in Maharashtra, India with its epicenter, fore- and aftershocks all located near or under the Koyna Dam reservoir.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 180 people died and 1,500 were left injured. The effects of the earthquake were felt Template:Convert away in Bombay with tremors and power outages.
During the beginnings of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recorded during its initial fill. After a landslide almost filled the reservoir in 1963, causing a massive flooding and around 2,000 deaths, it was drained and consequently seismic activity was almost non-existent.
On August 1, 1975, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at Oroville, California, was attributed to seismicity from a large earth-fill dam and reservoir recently constructed and filled.
The filling of the Katse Dam in Lesotho, and the Nurek Dam in Tajikistan is an example.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In Zambia, Kariba Lake may have provoked similar effects.
The 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000 deaths, is another possible example. An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of the Zipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Chinese earthquake may have been man-made, say scientists, Telegraph, February 3, 2009</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
Some experts worry that the Three Gorges Dam in China may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of earthquakes.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
MiningEdit
Mining affects the stress state of the surrounding rock mass, often causing observable deformation and seismic activity. A small portion of mining-induced events are associated with damage to mine workings and pose a risk to mine workers.<ref name=":2">Template:Cite book</ref> These events are known as rock bursts in hard rock mining, or as bumps in underground coal mining. A mine's propensity to burst or bump depends primarily on depth, mining method, extraction sequence and geometry, and the material properties of the surrounding rock. Many underground hardrock mines operate seismic monitoring networks in order to manage bursting risks, and guide mining practices.<ref>Template:Cite conference</ref>
Seismic networks have recorded a variety of mining-related seismic sources including:
- Shear slip events (similar to tectonic earthquakes) which are thought to have been triggered by mining activity. Notable examples include the 1980 Bełchatów earthquake<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> and the 2014 Orkney earthquake.
- Implosional events associated with mine collapses. The 2007 Crandall Canyon mine collapse and the Solvay Mine Collapse<ref>Template:Cite conference</ref> are examples of these.
- Explosions associated with routine mining practices, such as drilling and blasting, and unintended explosions such as the Sago mine Disaster.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Explosions are generally not considered "induced" events since they are caused entirely by chemical payloads. Most earthquake monitoring agencies take careful measures to identify explosions<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref> and exclude them from earthquake catalogs.
- Fracture formation near the surface of excavations, which are usually small magnitude events only detected by dense in-mine networks.<ref name=":2" />
- Slope failures, the largest example being the Bingham Canyon Landslide.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Waste disposal wellsEdit
Injecting liquids into waste disposal wells, most commonly in disposing of produced water from oil and natural gas wells, has been known to cause earthquakes. This high-saline water is usually pumped into salt water disposal (SWD) wells. The resulting increase in subsurface pore pressure can trigger movement along faults, resulting in earthquakes.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref>
One of the first known examples was from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, northeast of Denver. In 1961, waste water was injected into deep strata, and this was later found to have caused a series of earthquakes.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
The 2011 Oklahoma earthquake near Prague, of magnitude 5.8,<ref>U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma – Magnitude 5.8.</ref> occurred after 20 years of injecting waste water into porous deep formations at increasing pressures and saturation.<ref name=NYT032813>Template:Cite news</ref> On September 3, 2016, an even stronger earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 occurred near Pawnee, Oklahoma, followed by nine aftershocks between magnitudes 2.6 and 3.6 within Template:Frac hours. Tremors were felt as far away as Memphis, Tennessee, and Gilbert, Arizona. Mary Fallin, the Oklahoma governor, declared a local emergency and shutdown orders for local disposal wells were ordered by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.<ref>Record tying Oklahoma earthquake felt as far away as Arizona, Associated Press, Ken Miller, September 3, 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2016.</ref><ref>USGS calls for shut down of wells, governor declares emergency in wake of 5.6 quake in Oklahoma, Enid News & Eagle, Sally Asher & Violet Hassler, September 3, 2016. Retrieved 4 September 2016.</ref> Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.5 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of waste water by the oil industry.<ref name="usgs_2015">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Prior to April 2015 however, the Oklahoma Geological Survey's position was that the quake was most likely due to natural causes and was not triggered by waste injection.<ref>Template:Cite report</ref> This was one of many earthquakes which have affected the Oklahoma region.
Since 2009, earthquakes have become hundreds of times more common in Oklahoma with magnitude 3 events increasing from 1 or 2 per year to 1 or 2 per day.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> On April 21, 2015, the Oklahoma Geological Survey released a statement reversing its stance on induced earthquakes in Oklahoma: "The OGS considers it very likely that the majority of recent earthquakes, particularly those in central and north-central Oklahoma, are triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal wells."<ref>Template:Cite report</ref>
Hydrocarbon extraction and storageEdit
Large-scale fossil fuel extraction can generate earthquakes.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Induced seismicity can be also related to underground gas storage operations. The 2013 September–October seismic sequence occurred 21 km off the coast of the Valencia Gulf (Spain) is probably the best known case of induced seismicity related to Underground Gas Storage operations (the Castor Project). In September 2013, after the injection operations started, the Spanish seismic network recorded a sudden increase of seismicity. More than 1,000 events with magnitudes (Template:M) between 0.7 and 4.3 (the largest earthquake ever associated with gas storage operations) and located close the injection platform were recorded in about 40 days.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Due to the significant population concern the Spanish Government halted the operations. By the end of 2014, the Spanish government definitively terminated the concession of the UGS plant. Since January 2015 about 20 people who took part in the transaction and approval of the Castor Project were indicted.Template:Citation needed
Groundwater extractionEdit
The changes in crustal stress patterns caused by the large scale extraction of groundwater has been shown to trigger earthquakes, as in the case of the 2011 Lorca earthquake.<ref name="González">Template:Cite journal</ref>
Geothermal energyEdit
Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technology that does not require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to be associated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure to enhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Hot dry rock (HDR) EGS actively creates geothermal resources through hydraulic stimulation. Depending on the rock properties, and on injection pressures and fluid volume, the reservoir rock may respond with tensile failure, as is common in the oil and gas industry, or with shear failure of the rock's existing joint set, as is thought to be the main mechanism of reservoir growth in EGS efforts.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
HDR and EGS systems are currently being developed and tested in Soultz-sous-Forêts (France), Desert Peak and the Geysers (U.S.), Landau (Germany), and Paralana and Cooper Basin (Australia). Induced seismicity events at the Geysers geothermal field in California has been strongly correlated with injection data.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The test site at Basel, Switzerland, has been shut down due to induced seismic events. In November 2017 a Mw 5.5 struck the city of Pohang (South Korea) injuring several people and causing extensive damage. The proximity of the seismic sequence to an EGS site, where stimulation operations had taken place only a few months before the earthquake, raised the possibility that this earthquake had been anthropogenic. According to two different studies it seems plausible that the Pohang earthquake was induced by EGS operations.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
| Site | Maximum Magnitude |
|---|---|
| Pohang, South Korea | 5.5 |
| The Geysers, United States | 4.6 |
| Cooper Basin, Australia | 3.7 |
| Basel, Switzerland | 3.4 |
| Rosemanowes Quarry, United Kingdom | 3.1 |
| Soultz-sous-Forêts, France | 2.9 |
Researchers at MIT believe that seismicity associated with hydraulic stimulation can be mitigated and controlled through predictive siting and other techniques. With appropriate management, the number and magnitude of induced seismic events can be decreased, significantly reducing the probability of a damaging seismic event.<ref>Template:Harvnb</ref>
Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. A seismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the cancellation of the project in December 2009.Template:Citation needed
Hydraulic fracturingEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique in which high-pressure fluid is injected into low-permeability reservoir rocks in order to induce fractures to increase hydrocarbon production.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> This process is generally associated with seismic events that are too small to be felt at the surface (with moment magnitudes ranging from −3 to 1), although larger magnitude events are not excluded.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> For example, several cases of larger magnitude events (M > 4) have been recorded in Canada in the unconventional resources of Alberta and British Columbia.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Carbon capture and storageEdit
Risk analysisEdit
Operation of technologies involving long-term geologic storage of waste fluids have been shown to induce seismic activity in nearby areas, and correlation of periods of seismic dormancy with minima in injection volumes and pressures has even been demonstrated for fracking wastewater injection in Youngstown, Ohio.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Of particular concern to the viability of carbon dioxide storage from coal-fired power plants and similar endeavors is that the scale of intended CCS projects is much larger in both injection rate and total injection volume than any current or past operation that has already been shown to induce seismicity.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> As such, extensive modeling must be done of future injection sites in order to assess the risk potential of CCS operations, particularly in relation to the effect of long-term carbon dioxide storage on shale caprock integrity, as the potential for fluid leaks to the surface might be quite high for moderate earthquakes.<ref name=":1" /> However, the potential of CCS to induce large earthquakes and CO2 leakage remains a controversial issue.,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
MonitoringEdit
Since geological sequestration of carbon dioxide has the potential to induce seismicity, researchers have developed methods to monitor and model the risk of injection-induced seismicity in order to manage better the risks associated with this phenomenon. Monitoring can be conducted with measurements from an instrument such as a geophone to measure the movement of the ground. Generally a network of instruments is used around the site of injection, although many current carbon dioxide injection sites use no monitoring devices. Modelling is an important technique for assessing the potential for induced seismicity and two primary models are used: Physical and numerical. A physical model uses measurements from the early stages of a project to forecast how the project will behave once more carbon dioxide is injected. A numerical model, on the other hand, uses numerical methods to simulate the physics of what is happening within the reservoir. Both modelling and monitoring are useful tools whereby to quantify, understand better and mitigate the risks associated with injection-induced seismicity.<ref name=":0" />
Failure mechanisms due to fluid injectionEdit
To assess induced seismicity risks associated with carbon storage, one must understand the mechanisms behind rock failure. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria describe shear failure on a fault plane.<ref>Template:Cite journalTemplate:Dead link</ref> Most generally, failure will happen on existing faults due to several mechanisms: an increase in shear stress, a decrease in normal stress or a pore pressure increase.<ref name=":0" /> The injection of supercritical Template:CO2 will change the stresses in the reservoir as it expands, causing potential failure on nearby faults. Injection of fluids also increases the pore pressures in the reservoir, triggering slip on existing rock weakness planes. The latter is the most common cause of induced seismicity due to fluid injection.<ref name=":0" />
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria state that
<math>\tau_c =\tau_0 +\mu(\sigma_n -P)</math>
with <math>\tau_c </math> the critical shear stress leading to failure on a fault, <math>\tau_0 </math> the cohesive strength along the fault, <math>\sigma_n</math> the normal stress, <math>\mu</math> the friction coefficient on the fault plane and <math>P</math> the pore pressure within the fault.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Riffault, J., Dempsey, D., Archer, R., Kelkar, S. and Karra, S. (2011), Understanding Poroelastic Stressing and Induced Seismicity with a Stochastic/Deterministic Model: an Application to an EGS Stimulation at Paralana, South Australia, 2011. 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University.</ref> When <math>\tau_c </math> is attained, shear failure occurs and an earthquake can be felt. This process can be represented graphically on a Mohr's circle.<ref name=":0" />
Comparison of risks due to CCS versus other injection methodsEdit
While there is risk of induced seismicity associated with carbon capture and storage underground on a large scale, it is currently a much less serious risk than other injection types. Wastewater injection, hydraulic fracturing, and secondary recovery after oil extraction have all contributed significantly more to induced seismic events than carbon capture and storage in the last several years.<ref>NRC – National Research Council (2013). Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy
Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. {{#invoke:doi|main}}.</ref> There have actually not been any major seismic events associated with carbon injection at this point, whereas there have been recorded seismic occurrences caused by the other injection methods. One such example is massively increased induced seismicity in Oklahoma, USA caused by injection of huge volumes of wastewater into the Arbuckle Group sedimentary rock.<ref>"FAQs." Earthquakes in Oklahoma. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. https://earthquakes.ok.gov/faqs/ Template:Webarchive .</ref>
Electromagnetic pulsesEdit
It has been shown that high-energy electromagnetic pulses can trigger the release of energy stored by tectonic movements by increasing the rate of local earthquakes, within 2–6 days after the emission by the EMP generators. The energy released is approximately six orders of magnitude larger than the EM pulses energy.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The release of tectonic stress by these relatively small triggered earthquakes equals to 1-17% of the stress released by a strong earthquake in the area.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> It has been proposed that strong EM impacts could control seismicity as during the periods of the experiments and long time after, the seismicity dynamics were a lot more regular than usual.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Risk analysisEdit
Risk factorsEdit
Risk is defined as the probability of being impacted from an event in the future. Seismic risk is generally estimated by combining the seismic hazard with the exposure and vulnerability at a site or over a region.<ref name="gupta_risk" /> The hazard from earthquakes depends on the proximity to potential earthquake sources, and the rates of occurrence of different magnitude earthquakes for those sources, and the propagation of seismic waves from the sources to the site of interest. Hazard is then represented in terms of the probability of exceeding some level of ground shaking at a site. Earthquake hazards can include ground shaking, liquefaction, surface fault displacement, landslides, tsunamis, and uplift/subsidence for very large events (ML > 6.0). Because induced seismic events, in general, are smaller than ML 5.0 with short durations, the primary concern is ground shaking.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Ground shakingEdit
Ground shaking can result in both structural and nonstructural damage<ref name="Toward performance-driven seismic">Template:Cite journal</ref> to buildings and other structures. It is commonly accepted that structural damage to modern engineered structures happens only in earthquakes larger than ML 5.0. In seismology and earthquake engineering, ground shaking can be measured as peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA) or spectral acceleration (SA) at a building's period of excitation. In regions of historical seismicity where buildings are engineered to withstand seismic forces, moderate structural damage is possible, and very strong shaking can be perceived when PGA is greater than 18-34% of g (the acceleration of gravity).<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> In rare cases, nonstructural damage<ref name="Toward performance-driven seismic"/> has been reported in earthquakes as small as ML 3.0. For critical facilities like dams and nuclear plants, the acceptable levels of ground shaking is lower than that for buildings.<ref name="ASCE">American Society of Civil Engineers, ed. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017. </ref>
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysisEdit
Extended reading – An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is a probabilistic framework that accounts for probabilities in earthquake occurrence and the probabilities in ground motion propagation. Using the framework, the probability of exceeding a certain level of ground shaking at a site can be quantified, taking into account all the possible earthquakes (both natural and induced).<ref name=":9">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Stanford.edu">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> PSHA methodology is used to determine seismic loads for building codes in both the United States and Canada, and increasingly in other parts of the world, as well as protecting dams and nuclear plants from the damage of seismic events.<ref name="ASCE" /><ref name=":9" /><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Calculating Seismic RiskEdit
Earthquake source characterizationEdit
Understanding the geological background on the site is a prerequisite for seismic hazard estimation. Formations of the rocks, subsurface structures, locations of faults, state of stresses and other parameters that contribute to possible seismic events are considered. Records of past earthquakes of the site are also taken into account.<ref name="Stanford.edu" />
Recurrence patternEdit
The magnitudes of earthquakes occurring at a source generally follow the Gutenberg-Richter relation that states that the number of earthquakes decrease exponentially with increase in magnitude, as shown below,
<math>\log N(\geq M)=a-bM</math>
where <math>M</math> is the magnitude of seismic events, <math>N</math> is the number of events with magnitudes bigger than <math>M</math>, <math>a</math> is the rate parameter and <math>b</math> is the slope. <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> vary for different sources. In the case of natural earthquakes, historical seismicity is used to determine these parameters. Using this relationship, the number and probability of earthquakes exceeding a certain magnitude can be predicted following the assumptions that earthquakes follow a Poisson process.<ref>Baker, Jack W. "An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA),” 2015. https://web.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/Publications/Baker_(2015)_Intro_to_PSHA.pdf. </ref><ref name=":9" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> However, the goal of this analysis is to determine the possibility of future earthquakes. For induced seismicity in contrast to natural seismicity, the earthquake rates change over time as a result of changes in human activity, and hence are quantified as non-stationary processes with varying seismicity rates over time.<ref>Gupta, Abhineet, and Jack W. Baker. "Estimating Spatially Varying Event Rates with a Change Point Using Bayesian Statistics: Application to Induced Seismicity". Structural Safety 65 (March 2017): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.11.002. </ref>
Ground motionsEdit
At a given site, the ground motion describes the seismic waves that would have been observed at that site with a seismometer. In order to simplify the representation of an entire seismogram, PGV (peak ground velocity), PGA (peak ground acceleration), spectral acceleration (SA) at different period, earthquake duration, arias intensity (IA) are some of the parameters that are used to represent ground shaking. Ground motion propagation from the source to a site for an earthquake of a given magnitude is estimated using ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) that have been developed based on historical records.<ref>Goulet, Christine A., Tadahiro Kishida, Timothy D. Ancheta, Chris H. Cramer, Robert B. Darragh, Walter J. Silva, Youssef M. A. Hashash, et al. "PEER NGA-East Database". University of California, Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 2014. </ref> Since historical records are scarce for induced seismicity, researchers have provided modifications to GMPEs for natural earthquakes in order to apply them to indced earthquakes.<ref name="gupta_gm" /><ref>Atkinson, Gail M., and David M. Boore. "Modifications to Existing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Light of New Data". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101, no. 3 (June 1, 2011): 1121–35. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100270. </ref>
Seismic hazardEdit
The PSHA framework uses the distributions of earthquake magnitudes and ground motion propagation to estimate the seismic hazard – the probability of exceeding a certain level of ground shaking (PGA, PGV, SA, IA, etc.) in the future.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Depending on the complexity of the probability distributions, either numerical methods or simulations (such as, Monte Carlo method) may be used to estimate seismic hazard.<ref name=":9" /><ref name="Bourne 2015 1721–1738" /> In the case of induced seismicity, the seismic hazard is not constant, but varies with time due to changes in the underlying seismicity rates.<ref name="gupta_risk" />
Exposure and vulnerabilityEdit
In order to estimate seismic risk, the hazard is combined with the exposure and vulnerability at a site or in a region. For example, if an earthquake occurs where there are no humans or structures, there would be no human impacts despite any level of seismic hazard. Exposure is defined as the set of entities (such as, buildings and people) that exist at a given site or a region. Vulnerability is defined as the potential of impact to those entities, for example, structural or non-structural damage to a building, and loss of well-being and life for people. Vulnerability can also be represented probabilistically using vulnerability or fragility functions.<ref>Krawinkler, H., J. D. Osteraas, B. M. McDonald, and J. P. Hunt. "Development of Damage Fragility Functions for URM Chimneys and Parapets". In 15th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_4622.pdf. </ref><ref>Holmes, William, Roger Borcherdt, David Brookshire, Richard Eisner, Robert Olson, Michael O’Rourke, Henry Lagorio, Robert Reitherman, and Robert Whitman. "Hazus-MR4 Technical Manual – Earthquake Model". Hazus-MR4 Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 14, 2014. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1716-25045-6422/hazus_mr4_earthquake_tech_manual.pdf</ref> A vulnerability or fragility function specifies the probability of impact at different levels of ground shaking. In regions like Oklahoma without a lot of historical natural seismicity, structures are not engineered to withstand seismic forces, and as a result are more vulnerable even at low levels of ground shaking, as compared to structures in tectonic regions like California and Japan.
Seismic riskEdit
Seismic risk is defined as the probability of exceeding a certain level of impact in the future. For example, it may estimate the exceedance probability of moderate or more damage to a building in the future. Seismic hazard is combined with the exposure and vulnerability to estimate seismic risk. While numerical methods may be used to estimate risk at one site, simulation-based methods are better suited to estimate seismic risk for a region with a portfolio of entities, in order to correctly account for the correlations in ground shaking, and impacts. In the case of induced seismicity, the seismic risk varies over time due to changes in the seismic hazard.<ref name="gupta_risk" />
Risk MitigationEdit
Induced seismicity can cause damage to infrastructure and has been documented to damage buildings in Oklahoma.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> It can also lead to brine and Template:CO2 leakages.<ref name=":6">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
It is easier to predict and mitigate seismicity caused by explosions. Common mitigation strategies include constraining the amount of dynamite used in one single explosion and the locations of the explosions. For injection-related induced seismicity, however, it is still difficult to predict when and where induced seismic events will occur, as well as the magnitudes. Since induced seismic events related to fluid injection are unpredictable, it has garnered more attention from the public. Induced seismicity is only part of the chain reaction from industrial activities that worry the public. Impressions toward induced seismicity are very different between different groups of people.<ref name=":5">Template:Cite news</ref> The public tends to feel more negatively towards earthquakes caused by human activities than natural earthquakes.<ref name=":19">Template:Cite journal</ref> Two major parts of public concern are related to the damages to infrastructure and the well-being of humans.<ref name=":5" /> Most induced seismic events are below M 2 and are not able to cause any physical damage. Nevertheless, when the seismic events are felt and cause damages or injuries, questions arise from the public whether it is appropriate to conduct oil and gas operations in those areas. Public perceptions may vary based on the population and tolerance of local people. For example, in the seismically active Geysers geothermal area in Northern California, which is a rural area with a relatively small population, the local population tolerates earthquakes up to M 4.5.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Actions have been taken by regulators, industry and researchers. On October 6, 2015, people from industry, government, academia, and the public gathered together to discuss how effective it was to implement a traffic light system or protocol in Canada to help manage risks from induced seismicity.<ref name=":4">Template:Cite journal</ref>
Risk assessment and tolerance for induced seismicity, however, is subjective and shaped by different factors like politics, economics, and understanding from the public.<ref name=":10">Template:Cite journal</ref> Policymakers have to often balance the interests of industry with the interests of the population. In these situations, seismic risk estimation serves as a critical tool for quantifying future risk, and can be used to regulate earthquake-inducing activities until the seismic risk reaches a maximum acceptable level to the population.<ref name="gupta_risk" />
Traffic Light SystemEdit
One of the methods suggested to mitigate seismic risk is a Traffic Light System (TLS), also referred to as Traffic Light Protocol (TLP), which is a calibrated control system that provides continuous and real-time monitoring and management of ground shaking of induced seismicity for specific sites. TLS was first implemented in 2005 in an enhanced geothermal plant in Central America. For oil and gas operations, the most widely implemented one is modified by the system used in the UK. Normally there are two types of TLS – the first one sets different thresholds, usually earthquake local magnitudes (ML) or ground motions from small to large. If the induced seismicity reaches the smaller thresholds, modifications of the operations are implemented by the operators and the regulators are informed. If the induced seismicity reaches the larger thresholds, operations are shut down immediately. The second type of traffic light system sets only one threshold. If this threshold is reached, the operations are halted. This is also called a "stop light system". Thresholds for the traffic light system vary between and within countries, depending on the area.
However, the traffic light system is not able to account for future changes in seismicity. It may take time for changes in human activities to mitigate the seismic activity, and it has been observed that some of the largest induced earthquakes have occurred after stopping fluid injection.<ref>Rubinstein, Justin L., and Alireza Babaie Mahani. "Myths and Facts on Wastewater Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhanced Oil Recovery, and Induced Seismicity". Seismological Research Letters, June 10, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150067. </ref>
| CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
Country | Location | Major Operation | TSL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | Basel | Enhanced Geothermal System | Operate as planned: PGV < 0.5 mm/s, ML < 2.3, no felt report
Inform regulators; no increase in injection rate: PGV ≤ 2.0 mm/s, ML ≥ 2.3, few felt report Reduce injection rate: PGV ≤ 5.0 mm/s, ML ≤ 2.9, many felt reports Suspend pumping; bleeding wells: PGV > 5.0 mm/s, ML > 2.9, generally felt | |
| U.K. | Nation-wide | Hydraulic Fracturing of Shale Gas | Operate as planned: ML < 0
Operate with caution; lower the injection rates; increase monitoring: 0 ≤ ML ≤ 0.5 Suspend operation: ML > 0.5 | |
| U.S.A | Colorado | Hydraulic Fracturing; Wastewater Disposal | Modify the operation: felt at the surface
Suspend operation: ML ≥ 4.5 | |
| U.S.A | Oklahoma | Wastewater Disposal; Hydraulic Fracturing | Escalate review of operators' mitigation procedures : ML ≥ 2.5, ≥ 3.0
Suspend the operation : ML ≥ 3.5 | |
| U.S.A | Ohio | Wastewater Disposal; Hydraulic Fracturing | Operate as planned: ML < 1.5
Inform the regulator: ML ≥ 1.5 Modify the operation plan: 2.0 ≤ ML ≤ 2.4 Halt the operations temporarily: ML ≥ 2.5 Suspend the operations: ML ≥ 3.0 | |
| Canada | Fox Creek Area, Alberta | Hydraulic Fracturing | Operate as planned: ML < 2.0
Inform the regulator; implement mitigation plans: 2.0 ≤ ML ≤ 4.0 within 5 km of an injection well Inform the regulator; suspend the operations: ML ≥ 4.0 within 5 km of an injection well | |
| Canada | Red Deer Area, Alberta | Hydraulic Fracturing | Operate as planned: ML < 1.0
Inform the regulator; implement mitigation plans: 1.0 ≤ ML ≤ 3.0 within 5 km of an injection well Inform the regulator; suspend the operations: ML ≥ 3.0 within 5 km of an injection well | |
| Canada | British Columbia | Hydraulic Fracturing | Suspend the operations: ML ≥ 4.0 or a ground motion felt on the surface within 3 km of the drilling pad |
Nuclear explosionsEdit
Nuclear explosions can cause seismic activity, but according to USGS, the resulting seismic activity is less energetic than the original nuclear blast, and generally does not produce large aftershocks. Nuclear explosions may instead release the elastic strain energy that was stored in the rock, strengthening the initial blast shockwave.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Template:See also
U.S. National Research Council reportEdit
A 2013 report from the U.S. National Research Council examined the potential for energy technologies—including shale gas recovery, carbon capture and storage, geothermal energy production, and conventional oil and gas development—to cause earthquakes.<ref>U.S. National Research Council Report, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13355/induced-seismicity-potential-in-energy-technologies</ref> The report found that only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities among the hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public. However, although scientists understand the general mechanisms that induce seismic events, they are unable to accurately predict the magnitude or occurrence of these earthquakes due to insufficient information about the natural rock systems and a lack of validated predictive models at specific energy development sites.<ref name="dels.nas.edu">[1], Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies</ref>
The report noted that hydraulic fracturing has a low risk for inducing earthquakes that can be felt by people, but underground injection of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing and other energy technologies has a higher risk of causing such earthquakes. In addition, carbon capture and storage—a technology for storing excess carbon dioxide underground—may have the potential for inducing seismic events, because significant volumes of fluids are injected underground over long periods of time.<ref name="dels.nas.edu" />
List of induced seismic eventsEdit
TableEdit
| Date | Cause | Details | Template:M | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1951 | Underground nuclear test | Operation Buster–Jangle was a series of seven (six atmospheric, one cratering) nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States in late 1951 at the Nevada Test Site. This was the first underground nuclear weapons test ever conducted. | Unknown | |
| 1952 | Wastewater injection wells | Results of ongoing multi-year research on induced earthquakes by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published in 2015 suggested that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma, such as the 1952 magnitude 5.7 El Reno earthquake may have been induced by deep injection of waste water by the oil industry. "Earthquake rates have recently increased markedly in multiple areas of the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), especially since 2010, and scientific studies have linked the majority of this increased activity to wastewater injection in deep disposal wells."<ref>Hough, Susan E.; Page, Morgan (October 20, 2015). "A Century of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma?". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved November 8, 2015. "Several lines of evidence further suggest that most of the significant earthquakes in Oklahoma during the 20th century may also have been induced by oil production activities. Deep injection of waste water, now recognized to potentially induce earthquakes, in fact began in the state in the 1930s."</ref> | 5.7 | |
| 1967 December 11 | Artificial lake | The 1967 Koynanagar earthquake occurred near Koynanagar town in Maharashtra, India on 11 December local time. The magnitude 6.6 shock hit with a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe). It occurred near the site of Koyna dam, raising questions about induced seismicity, and claimed at least 177 lives and injured over 2,200. | 6.6 | |
| 1971 November 6 | Underground nuclear test | Occurred on Amchitka island, Alaska, by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. The experiment, part of the Operation Grommet nuclear test series, tested the warhead design for the LIM-49 Spartan anti-ballistic missile. With an explosive yield of almost 5-megatons TNT equivalent, the test was the largest underground explosion ever detonated. The campaigning environmental organization Greenpeace grew out of efforts to oppose the test. | 7.1 Template:M <ref name=SIPRI /> | |
| 1973 | Geothermal power plant | Studies have shown that injecting water into The Geysers field produces earthquakes from magnitude 0.5 to 3.0, although a 4.6 occurred in 1973 and magnitude four events increased thereafter.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
4.6 |
| 2006 October 9 | Underground nuclear test | 2006 North Korean nuclear test | 4.3 Template:M <ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
| 2009 May 25 | Underground nuclear test | 2009 North Korean nuclear test | 4.7 Template:M <ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
| 2011 November 5 | Wastewater injection wells | 2011 Oklahoma earthquake | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
| 2013 February 12 | Underground nuclear test | 2013 North Korean nuclear test | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
| 2016 January 6 | Underground nuclear test | January 2016 North Korean nuclear test | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
| 2016 September 9 | Underground nuclear test | September 2016 North Korean nuclear test | 5.3<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> | |
| 2017 September 3 | Underground nuclear test | 2017 North Korean nuclear test | 6.3<ref name="www.dw.com" /> |
ReferencesEdit
Further readingEdit
External linksEdit
- The Human-Induced Earthquake Database
- Map of reservoir-induced earthquakes at International Rivers
- WEBINAR: Yes, Humans Really Are Causing Earthquakes – IRIS Consortium
- One-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes – United States Geological Survey, 2016 (with maps)
- Induced Earthquakes – United States Geological Survey website