Induced seismicity associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Majer, Ernest L.; Baria, Roy; Stark, Mitch; Oates, S.; Bommer, Julian J.; Smith, Bill; Asanuma, Hiroshi

doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2007.03.003

Cited by 636 publications

(405 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

360

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Europe, locations include the Lower Rhine Graben site in Soultz-sous-Forêts, France (Evans et al, 2005), the Upper Rhine Graben site in Basel, Switzerland (Häring et al, 2008), Icelandic geothermal test sites , Latera (Italy) and Groß Schönebeck in the North German Basin (Kwiatek et al, 2010). Non-European sites investigated include Berlin, El Salvador (Bommer et al, 2006;Kwiatek et al, 2014), The Geysers in California, USA (Oppenheimer, 1986;Majer et al, 2007), Cooper Basin (Asanuma et al, 2005;Baisch et al, 2006) and Paralana (Hasting et al, 2011;Albaric et al, 2014), both in Australia and Bouillante in Guadeloupe (Sanjuan et al, 2010;Calcagno et al, 2012). Two reference sites were included, where seismicity was induced by other than geothermal causes.…”

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many efforts have been made to anticipate the size and rate of occurrence of earthquakes. In the structural geological approach, the maximum magnitude is inferred from the largest potentially active fault in the geothermal reservoir (e.g., Majer et al, 2007). Assigning a maximum earthquake magnitude to a given fault is based on empirical relations between magnitude and fault parameters such as length, width and displacement, as discussed by Wyss (1979) and Wells and Coppersmith (1994).…”

Section: Maximum Observed and Expected Seismic Magnitudementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this overview we report results of analysing induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs in various tectonic settings within the framework of the European Geothermal Engineering Integrating Mitigation of Induced Seismicity in Reservoirs (GEISER) project. In the reconnaissance phase of a field, the subsurface fault mapping, in situ stress and the seismic network are of primary interest in order to help assess the geothermal resource. The hypocentres of the observed seismic events (seismic cloud) are dependent on the design of the installed network, the used velocity model and the applied location technique. During the stimulation phase, the attention is turned to reservoir hydraulics (e.g., fluid pressure, injection volume) and its relation to larger magnitude seismic events, their source characteristics and occurrence in space and time. A change in isotropic components of the full waveform moment tensor is observed for events close to the injection well (tensile character) as compared to events further away from the injection well (shear character). Tensile events coincide with high Gutenberg-Richter -values and low Brune stress drop values. The stress regime in the reservoir controls the direction of the fracture growth at depth, as indicated by the extent of the seismic cloud detected. Stress magnitudes are important in multiple stimulation of wells, where little or no seismicity is observed until the previous maximum stress level is exceeded (Kaiser Effect). Prior to drilling, obtaining a 3D -wave ( ) and -wave velocity ( ) model down to reservoir depth is recommended. In the stimulation phase, we recommend to monitor and to locate seismicity with high precision (decametre) in real-time and to perform local 4D tomography for velocity ratio ( / ). During exploitation, one should use observed and model induced seismicity to forward estimate seismic hazard so that field operators are in a position to adjust well hydraulics (rate and volume of the fluid injected) when induced events start to occur far away from the boundary of the seismic cloud.

show abstract

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maximum Observed and Expected Seismic Magnitudementioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Newberry, USA). In an EGS the permeability of a geothermal 5 reservoir is enhanced using hydraulic stimulation, which purposely induces 6 micro-earthquakes but because of existing (tectonic) may also trigger larger 7 shocks [1]. As discussed by Gardini [2], during the Deep Heat Mining (Basel,8 Switzerland) project a mainshock of magnitude M L 3.4 was triggered along 9 with thousands of smaller earthquakes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic network design to detect felt ground motions from induced seismicity

Douglas

2013

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To cite this version:John Douglas. Seismic network design to detect felt ground motions from induced seismicity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, 2013, 48, pp.193-197 AbstractHuman activities, such as fluid injection as part of the stimulation of an enhanced geothermal system (EGS) for heat and power production, can cause damaging earthquake ground motions. A difficulty in quickly settling or rejecting insurance claims to the policy of the operator of the EGS is the lack of ground truth on the observed shaking at sites of reported damage.To overcome this problem a local seismic network could be installed prior to injection to constrain the ground-motion field at points of potential damage.Since the installation and maintenance of seismometers is costly there is an incentive to keep the number of instruments to a minimum. In this short communication, ground-motion fields are simulated and receiver operating characteristic analysis conducted to guide decisions on the number of sensors required to obtain a certain confidence in the rate of false alarms and missed detections. For densities of 10-20 instruments per km 2 the ability to estimate potentially-damaging ground motions is reasonable but associated with a significant chance of missed detections and false alarms. If an EGS operatorEmail address: j.douglas@brgm.fr (John Douglas) October 19, 2012 or regulatory authority does not want to accept such chances then network densities of 50-100 instruments per km 2 are required and even in this case the exceedance/non-exceedance of a certain ground-motion threshold cannot be completely constrained. Preprint submitted to Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

show abstract

“…Majer et al, 2007), but not all geological formations are prone to these events. Induced seismic events, which could be felt at the surface, have been reported from hard rock environments.…”

Section: General Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In EGS current projects (Soultz, France; Cooper Basin, Australia) the microseismic event distribution serves for the determination of the target area for new wells. More recently, microseismic monitoring has become important to detect and to control larger seismic events, which might occur during stimulation in seismically active areas (Bommer et al, 2005;Majer et al, 2007).…”

Section: General Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%