We implement a Coulomb rate-and-state approach to explore the nonlinear relation between stressing rate and seismicity rate in the Groningen gas field. Coulomb stress rates are calculated, taking into account the 3-D structural complexity of the field and including the poroelastic effect of the differential compaction due to fault offsets. The spatiotemporal evolution of the Groningen seismicity must be attributed to a combination of both (i) spatial variability in the induced stressing rate history and (ii) spatial heterogeneities in the rate-and-state model parameters. Focusing on two subareas of the Groningen field where the observed event rates are very contrasted even though the modeled seismicity rates are of similar magnitudes, we show that the rate-and-state model parameters are spatially heterogeneous. For these two subareas, the very low background seismicity rate of the Groningen gas field can explain the long delay in the seismicity response relative to the onset of reservoir depletion. The characteristic periods of stress perturbations, due to gas production fluctuations, are much shorter than the inferred intrinsic time delay of the earthquake nucleation process. In this regime the modeled seismicity rate is in phase with the stress changes. However, since the start of production and for two subareas of our analysis, the Groningen fault system is unsteady and it is gradually becoming more sensitive to the stressing rate.

No abstract

Abstract. Reliable prediction of the induced subsidence resulting from gas production is important for a near sea level country like the Netherlands. Without the protection of dunes, dikes and pumping, large parts of the country would be flooded. The predicted sea-level rise from global warming increases the challenge to design proper mitigation measures. Water management problems from gas production induced subsidence can be prevented if measures to counter its adverse effects are taken timely. This requires reliable subsidence predictions, which is a major challenge. Since the 1960's a number of large, multi-decade gas production projects were started in the Netherlands. Extensive, well-documented subsidence prediction and monitoring technologies were applied. Nevertheless predicted subsidence at the end of the Groningen field production period (for the centre of Until 1991, when the first event was registered, production induced seismicity was not observed nor expected for the Groningen field. Thereafter the number of observed events rose from 5 to 10 per year during the 1990's to well over a hundred in 2013. The anticipated maximum likely magnitude rose from an initial value of less than 3.0 to a value of 3.3 in 1993 and then to 3.9 in 2006. The strongest tremor to date occurred near the village of Huizinge in August 2012. It had a magnitude of 3.6, caused significant damage and triggered the regulator into an independent investigation. Late 2012 it became clear that significantly larger magnitudes cannot be excluded and that values up to magnitude 5.0 cannot be ruled out. As a consequence the regulator advised early 2013 to lower Groningen gas production by as much and as fast as realistically possible. Before taking such a decision, the Minister of Economic Affairs requested further studies. The results became available early 2014 and led to the government decision to lower gas production in the earthquake prone central area of the field by 80 % for the next three years. In addition further investigations and a program to strengthen houses and infrastructure were started.Important lessons have been learned from the studies carried out to date. It is now realised that uncertainties in predicted subsidence and seismicity are much larger than previously recognised. Compaction, subsidence and seismicity are strongly interlinked and relate in a non-linear way to production and pressure drop. The latest studies by the operator suggest that seismic hazard in Groningen is largely determined by tremors with magnitudes between 4.5 and 5.0 even at an annual probability of occurrence of less than 1 %. And that subsidence in 2080 in the centre of the bowl could be anywhere between 50 and 70 cm. Initial evaluations by the regulator indicate similar numbers and suggest that the present seismic risk is comparable to Dutch flooding risks.Different models and parameters can be used to describe the subsidence and seismicity observed so far. The choice of compaction and seismicity models and their parameters has a large impac...

No abstract

Shaking and damage in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands, resulting from production-induced seismicity has caused increased public anxiety. Since 2014, production offtake has been reduced stepwise by over 50% in an attempt to minimise production-induced seismicity. The earthquake catalogue, combined with comprehensive data of the changes in production offtake, shows a clear response of seismic activity following the production measures taken. Associated temporal variations in the proportionality between smaller-and larger-magnitude events (the b-value of the Gutenberg-Richter relation) are observed. Since production measures were imposed, the b-value has tended to increase, thus lowering the probability of a larger-magnitude event. The analysis also shows increases in activity rate and b-value prior to larger-magnitude events. Subsequently, the probability of a larger-magnitude event seems to be decreasing prior to the events occurring. This implies that for short-term earthquake prediction of hydrocarbon-production-induced seismicity, these types of analysis could be misleading. However, regional analysis is necessary to explain the observations in terms of rupture initiation. At present, each event felt still draws the interest of both public and press. As some clustering of events in both time and space is still observed, managing both the seismicity and the public perception provides a continuing challenge.