Autonomous Decision-Making Against Induced Seismicity in Deep Fluid Injections

Mignan, Arnaud; Broccardo, Marco; Wiemer, Stefan; Giardini, Domenico

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99670-7_46

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…McGarr has shown that this relationship is consistent with the data from a compilation of injections. However, a number of researchers (Gischig et al, 2014;van der Elst et al, 2016;Mignan et al, 2019b) have pointed out that outliers exist (e.g., Pohang, South Korea - Grigoli et al, 2018, andKim et al, 2018;St. Gallen, Switzerland -Diehl et al, 2017) and that the Mc-Garr limit is best explained as a purely statistical relationship based on simple extreme-value-theory principles (Embrechts, 2013).…”

Section: Upper Bound For the Gutenberg-richter Distribution Vs Maximum Observed Magnitude Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced seismicity risk analysis of the hydraulic stimulation of a geothermal well on Geldinganes, Iceland

Broccardo

Mignan

Grigoli³

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The rapid increase in energy demand in the city of Reykjavik has posed the need for an additional supply of deep geothermal energy. The deep-hydraulic (re-)stimulation of well RV-43 on the peninsula of Geldinganes (north of Reykjavik) is an essential component of the plan implemented by Reykjavik Energy to meet this energy target. Hydraulic stimulation is often associated with fluid-induced seismicity, most of which is not felt on the surface but which, in rare cases, can be a nuisance to the population and even damage the nearby building stock. This study presents a first-of-its-kind pre-drilling probabilistic induced seismic hazard and risk analysis for the site of interest. Specifically, we provide probabilistic estimates of peak ground acceleration, European microseismicity intensity, probability of light damage (damage risk), and individual risk. The results of the risk assessment indicate that the individual risk within a radius of 2 km around the injection point is below 0.1 micromorts, and damage risk is below 10−2, for the total duration of the project. However, these results are affected by several orders of magnitude of variability due to the deep uncertainties present at all levels of the analysis, indicating a critical need in updating this risk assessment with in situ data collected during the stimulation. Therefore, it is important to stress that this a priori study represents a baseline model and starting point to be updated and refined after the start of the project.

show abstract

Section: Upper Bound For the Gutenberg-richter Distribution Vs Maximum Observed Magnitude Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced seismicity risk analysis of the hydraulic stimulation of a geothermal well on Geldinganes, Iceland

Broccardo

Mignan

Grigoli³

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…many uncertainties associated with the process of inducing seismicity and the needs of regulators, insurance and the public (Mignan et al, 2019a;2019b). Both hazard and risk approaches follow standards proposed, among others, by the Swiss Seismological Service (SED, 2017) and related references (Broccardo et al 2017a, Mignan et al, 20152019a;b), which are based on a combination of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) and the PEER-PBEE framework (Cornell, 1968;Cornell, Krawinkler, 2000).…”

Section: Probabilistic Fluid-induced Seismic Hazard Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adding an additional concern, deep geothermal projects in Europe-and the Geldinganes stimulation is no exception-are often located close to consumers, thus in densely urbanized areas with historical and hence vulnerable buildings and infrastructures. In these contexts, the problem of assessing and managing induced seismicity is especially important (Mignan et al, 2015;2019a;2019b). It is also a well-known fact that societal acceptance of https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-331 Preprint.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the large body of research conducted over the past decades by numerous research groups, the physical, chemical and hydro-mechanical mechanisms governing induced seismicity are far from being fully understood, posing clear limits to the risk assessment and management strategies (Yeck et al, 2017;Trutnevyete and Wiemer, 2017;Mignan et al, 2019a;2019b). The limitations to forecast induced seismicity are, on the one hand, the non-uniqueness on the physical framework for modelling, and on the other hand, even more important, the large uncertainties on the boundary conditions needed for forecasting (e.g., where are faults, what are their sizes and stressing state, what is the permeability distribution of the reservoir, etc.).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Induced seismicity risk analysis of the hydraulic stimulation of a geothermal well on Geldinganes, Iceland

Broccardo¹,

Mignan²,

Grigoli³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The rapid increase in energy demand in the city of Reykjavik has posed the need for an additional supply of hot water from deep geothermal energy. The deep hydraulic (re-)stimulation of well RV-43 on the peninsula of Geldinganes (north of Reykjavik) is an essential component of the plan implemented by Reykjavik Energy to meet this energy target. Hydraulic stimulation is often associated with fluid-induced seismicity, most of which is not felt on the surface, but which, in rare cases, can cause nuisance to the population and even damage to the nearby building stock. This study presents a first of its kind pre-drilling probabilistic induced-seismic hazard and risk analysis for the site of interest. Specifically, we provide probabilistic estimates of peak ground acceleration, European microseismicity intensity, probability of light damage (damage risk), and individual risk. The results of the risk assessment indicate that the individual risk within a radius of 2 km around the injection point is below 0.1 micromorts, and damage risk is below 10−2, for the total duration of the project. However, these results are affected by several orders of magnitude of variability due to the deep uncertainties present at all levels of the analysis, indicating a critical need in updating this a-priory risk assessment with in-situ data collected during the stimulation.

show abstract

“…The Seismogenic Index is a simple yet robust model that relies on a linear relationship between volume rate and seismicity rate, and has proven its reliability in numerous induced seismicity sequences (Mignan et al, 2017(Mignan et al, , 2021Shapiro et al, 2010). Recent work showed that its parameters can be updated in near real time during stimulations (Broccardo et al, 2017(Broccardo et al, , 2019Mignan et al, 2019). The Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence model relies on several empirical observations, from the Gutenberg-Richter power law, to Omori's law for aftershock decay.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudo‐Prospective Forecasting of Induced and Natural Seismicity in the Hengill Geothermal Field

Ritz,

Mizrahi,

Clasen Repollés

et al. 2024

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hengill geothermal field, located in southwest Iceland, is host to the Hellisheiði power plant, with its 40+ production wells and 17 reinjection wells. Located in a tectonically active area, the field experiences both natural and induced seismicity linked to the power plant operations. To better manage the risk posed by this seismicity, the development of robust and informative forecasting models is paramount. In this study, we compare the forecasting performance of a model developed for fluid‐induced seismicity (the Seismogenic Index model) and a class of well‐established statistical models (Epidemic‐Type Aftershock Sequence). The pseudo‐prospective experiment is set up with 14 months of initial calibration and daily forecasts for a year. In the timeframe of this experiment, a dense broadband network was in place in Hengill, allowing us to rely on a high quality relocated seismic catalog. The seismicity in the geothermal field is characterized by four main clusters, associated with the two reinjection areas, one production area, and an area with surface geothermal manifestations but where no operations are taking place. We show that the models are generally well suited to forecast induced seismicity, despite some limitations, and that a hybrid ETAS model accounting for fluid forcing has some potential in complex regions with natural and fluid‐induced seismicity.

show abstract

Autonomous Decision-Making Against Induced Seismicity in Deep Fluid Injections

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Induced seismicity risk analysis of the hydraulic stimulation of a geothermal well on Geldinganes, Iceland

Induced seismicity risk analysis of the hydraulic stimulation of a geothermal well on Geldinganes, Iceland

Induced seismicity risk analysis of the hydraulic stimulation of a geothermal well on Geldinganes, Iceland

Pseudo‐Prospective Forecasting of Induced and Natural Seismicity in the Hengill Geothermal Field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About