2011
DOI: 10.1007/s10950-011-9260-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probability of earthquake occurrence and magnitude estimation in the post shut-in phase of geothermal projects

Abstract: Induced seismicity in geothermal projects is observed to continue after shut-in of the fluid injection. Recent experiments show that the largest events tend to occur after the termination of injection. We use a probabilistic approach based on Omori's law and the Gutenberg-Richter magnitude frequency distribution to demonstrate that the probability of exceeding a certain maximum magnitude still increases after shut-in. This increase is governed by the exponent of Omori's law q and the Gutenberg-Richter b-value.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Presumably, this problem is not specific to the data we considered here because in several other projects the biggest event occurred after shut‐in [ Baisch et al , ; Asanuma et al , ]. Focusing on shut‐in and the events that follow, Barth et al [] showed theoretically and also confirmed with the analysis of the data from Soultz‐sous‐Forêts 2000 that probability of exceeding a certain magnitude can be higher after shut‐in than it would have been for ongoing injection. Segall and Lu [] proposed a descriptive model that includes complete poroelastic coupling—changes in pore pressure induce stresses, and changes in mean normal stress induce changes in pore pressure—and concluded that an abrupt shut‐in can produce sharp increase in the seismicity rate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Presumably, this problem is not specific to the data we considered here because in several other projects the biggest event occurred after shut‐in [ Baisch et al , ; Asanuma et al , ]. Focusing on shut‐in and the events that follow, Barth et al [] showed theoretically and also confirmed with the analysis of the data from Soultz‐sous‐Forêts 2000 that probability of exceeding a certain magnitude can be higher after shut‐in than it would have been for ongoing injection. Segall and Lu [] proposed a descriptive model that includes complete poroelastic coupling—changes in pore pressure induce stresses, and changes in mean normal stress induce changes in pore pressure—and concluded that an abrupt shut‐in can produce sharp increase in the seismicity rate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further experience is required to assess the capabilities of an initially estimated "seismogenic index" to forecast induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs and to use it as a key parameter. The addition of the modified Omori's type law to the model for the period following the injection (see section 0) allows for the prediction of the seismicity during shutin [179]. Hence, this additional feature, together with the a priori Gutenberg-Richter distribution, combines a pressure diffusion model with a statistical seismicity approach.…”
Section: Hybrid Forecasting Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Majur and Baria (2007) point out that there is a growing public perception of seismic hazards that may be associated with geothermal operations. Barth et al (2013) point to the biased "decision threshold due to some ambiguity on hazard and risk estimates" that drive this issue, and Evans et al (2009) point out the obvious, namely that the uncertainty introduced by this issue poses a severe challenge for developers and financiers, especially given the paucity of real field data to validate or refute the condition. Barth et al (2013) point to the biased "decision threshold due to some ambiguity on hazard and risk estimates" that drive this issue, and Evans et al (2009) point out the obvious, namely that the uncertainty introduced by this issue poses a severe challenge for developers and financiers, especially given the paucity of real field data to validate or refute the condition.…”
Section: Project Riskmentioning
confidence: 99%