Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$62.00



View/Hide Left Panel

Executive Summary

Earthquakes attributable to human activities are called induced seismic events or induced earthquakes. In the past several years induced seismic events related to energy development projects have drawn heightened public attention. Although only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities at hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels that are noticeable to the public, seismic events caused by or likely related to energy development have been measured and felt in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Anticipating public concern about the potential for energy development projects to induce seismicity, the U.S. Congress directed the U.S. Department of Energy to request that the National Research Council examine the scale, scope, and consequences of seismicity induced during fluid injection and withdrawal activities related to geothermal energy development, oil and gas development including shale gas recovery, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The study was also to identify gaps in knowledge and research needed to advance the understanding of induced seismicity; identify gaps in induced seismic hazard assessment methodologies and the research to close those gaps; and assess options for steps toward best practices with regard to energy development and induced seismicity potential.

Three major findings emerged from the study:

1. The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.

2. Injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into the subsurface does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been documented over the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation.

3. CCS, due to the large net volumes of injected fluids, may have potential for inducing larger seismic events.

Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection or withdrawal is caused in most cases by change in pore fluid pressure and/or change in stress in the subsurface in the presence of faults with specific properties and orientations and a critical state of stress in the rocks. The factor that appears to have the most direct consequence in regard to induced seismicity is the net fluid balance (total balance of fluid introduced into or removed from the subsurface), although additional factors may influence the way fluids affect the subsurface. While the general mechanisms that create induced seismic events are well understood, we



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Executive Summary Earthquakes attributable to human activities are called induced seismic events or i ­nduced earthquakes. In the past several years induced seismic events related to energy development projects have drawn heightened public attention. Although only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities at hundreds of thousands of energy develop- ment sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels that are noticeable to the public, seismic events caused by or likely related to energy development have been mea- sured and felt in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, N ­ ebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. Anticipating public concern about the potential for energy development projects to induce seismicity, the U.S. Congress directed the U.S. Department of Energy to request that the National Research Council examine the scale, scope, and consequences of seis­ micity induced during fluid injection and withdrawal activities related to geothermal energy development, oil and gas development including shale gas recovery, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The study was also to identify gaps in knowledge and research needed to advance the understanding of induced seismicity; identify gaps in induced seismic hazard assessment methodologies and the research to close those gaps; and assess options for steps toward best practices with regard to energy development and induced seismicity potential. Three major findings emerged from the study: 1. The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events. 2. Injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into the sub- surface does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been documented over the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation. 3. CCS, due to the large net volumes of injected fluids, may have potential for induc- ing larger seismic events. Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection or withdrawal is caused in most cases by change in pore fluid pressure and/or change in stress in the subsurface in the presence of faults with specific properties and orientations and a critical state of stress in the rocks. The factor that appears to have the most direct consequence in regard to induced seismic- ity is the net fluid balance (total balance of fluid introduced into or removed from the subsurface), although additional factors may influence the way fluids affect the subsurface. While the general mechanisms that create induced seismic events are well understood, we 1

OCR for page 1
INDUCED SEISMICITY POTENTIAL IN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES are currently unable to accurately predict the magnitude or occurrence of such events due to the lack of comprehensive data on complex natural rock systems and the lack of validated predictive models. Energy technology projects that are designed to maintain a balance between the amount of fluid being injected and withdrawn, such as most oil and gas development projects, appear to produce fewer seismic events than projects that do not maintain fluid balance. Hydraulic fracturing in a well for shale gas development, which involves injection of fluids to fracture the shale and release the gas up the well, has been confirmed as the cause for small felt seismic events at one location in the world. Wastewater disposal from oil and gas production, including shale gas recovery, typically involves injection at relatively low pressures into large porous aquifers that are specifically targeted to accommodate large volumes of fluid. The majority of wastewater disposal wells do not pose a hazard for induced seismicity, though there have been induced seismic events with a very limited number of wells. The long-term effects of a significant increase in the number of wastewater disposal wells for induced seismicity are unknown. Projects that inject or extract large net volumes of fluids over long periods of time such as CCS may have potential for larger induced seismic events, though insufficient information exists to understand this potential because no large-scale CCS projects are yet in operation. Continued research is needed on the potential for induced seismicity in large-scale CCS projects. Induced seismicity in geothermal projects appears to be related to both net fluid bal- ance considerations and temperature changes produced in the subsurface. Different forms of geothermal resource development appear to have differing potential for producing felt seismic events. High-pressure hydraulic fracturing undertaken in some geothermal projects has caused seismic events that are large enough to be felt. Temperature changes associated with geothermal development of hydrothermal resources have also induced felt seismicity. Governmental response to induced seismic events has been undertaken by a number of federal and state agencies in a variety of ways. However, with the potential for increased numbers of induced seismic events due to expanding energy development, government agencies and research institutions may not have sufficient resources to address unexpected events. Forward-looking interagency cooperation to address potential induced seismicity is warranted. Methodologies can be developed for quantitative, probabilistic hazard assessments of induced seismicity risk. Such assessments should be undertaken before operations begin in areas with a known history of felt seismicity and updated in response to observed, poten- tially induced seismicity. Practices that consider induced seismicity both before and during the actual operation of an energy project can be employed in the development of a “best practices” protocol specific to each energy technology and site location. 2

OCR for page 1
Executive Summary Although induced seismic events have not resulted in loss of life or major damage in the United States, their effects have been felt locally, and they raise some concern about addi­ tional seismic activity and its consequences in areas where energy development is ­ ngoing o or planned. Further research is required to better understand and address the potential risks associated with induced seismicity. 3

OCR for page 1