Geothermal energy is a viable alternative to gas for the heating of buildings, industrial areas and greenhouses, and can thus play an important role in making the transition to sustainable energy in the Netherlands. Heat is currently produced from the Dutch subsurface through circulation of water between two wells in deep (1.5–3 km) geothermal formations with temperature of up to ∼100 °C. As the number of these so-called doublets is expected to increase significantly over the next decades, and targeted depths and temperatures increase, it is important to assess potential show-stoppers related to geothermal operations. One of these potential hazards is the possibility of the occurrence of felt seismic events, which could potentially damage infrastructure and housing, and affect public support. Such events have been observed in several geothermal systems in other countries. Here we review the occurrence (or the lack) of felt seismic events in geothermal systems worldwide and identify key factors influencing the occurrence and magnitude of these events. Based on this review, we project the findings for seismicity in geothermal systems to typical geothermal formations and future geothermal developments in the Netherlands. The case study review shows that doublets that circulate fluids through relatively shallow, porous, sedimentary aquifers far from the crystalline basement are unlikely to generate felt seismic events. On the other hand, stimulations or circulations in or near competent, fractured, basement rocks and production and reinjection operations in high-temperature geothermal fields are more prone to induce felt events, occasionally with magnitudes of M > 5.0. Many of these operations are situated in tectonically active areas, and stress and temperature changes may be large. The presence of large, optimally oriented and critically stressed faults increases the potential for induced seismicity. The insights from the case study review suggest that the potential for the occurrence of M > 2.0 seismicity for geothermal operations in several of the sandstone target formations in the Netherlands is low, especially if faults can be avoided. The potential for induced seismicity may be moderate for operations in faulted carbonate rocks. Induced seismicity always remains a complex and site-specific process with large unknowns, and can never be excluded entirely. However, assessing the potential for inducing felt seismic events can be improved by considering the relevant (site-specific) geological and operational key factors discussed in this article.

The Groningen field is the largest onshore gas field in Europe. The gas-bearing section comprises aeolian and fluvial Rotliegend sandstones of Permian age and fluvial sandstones of Carboniferous age. Continuous production since 1963 has led to induced seismicity starting in the early 1990s.Faults at reservoir level play a major role in the seismicity in the Groningen field. Fault slip is expected when shear traction is sufficient to overcome frictional resistance on the fault surface. Clear insights into which faults and fault segments are most susceptible to seismicity could be used to optimise production and minimise the seismic risk. To gain these insights, a detailed and realistic fault model is required as input to both statistical analyses on seismicity and deterministic geomechanical modelling of seismogenic behaviour along fault planes. Geometrical seismic attributes and, subsequently, fault planes were extracted from a reprocessed and depth-imaged 3D seismic volume. This resulted in a detailed visualisation of the faults at reservoir level, with extension into the deeper strata below the reservoir in many cases. They represent fault planes with realistic dimensions and shapes. The fault map based on seismic attributes suggests the presence of faults that have not been included in studies on Groningen seismicity before. The improved fault definition correlates with recent earthquake hypocentres. We conclude that a detailed fault model of the Groningen field can be created using 3D seismic attributes and that detailed 3D fault planes can be extracted from these attributes. The results can be used as input to statistical and geomechanical analyses on seismicity.

The Groningen field is the largest onshore gas field in Europe. Continuous production since 1963 has led to induced seismicity starting in the early 1990s. Production measures aimed at lowering the level of seismicity have been implemented since 2014. In this paper we start from an empirical relationship between the cumulative number of seismic events and cumulative gas production. We show that a better way to analyse the data is to relate the ratio of activity rate over production rate versus the cumulative production, such that the model parameters and their uncertainty can be determined. This also allows us to make predictions including the confidence intervals.Using this model, we first performed regression analysis based on the larger seismic catalogue which includes all recorded events with a magnitude of 1.3 and larger, because we consider this value to be the magnitude of completeness since 1995. We have also performed regression analysis based on a smaller seismic catalogue consisting of all events with a magnitude of 1.5 and larger. This was done in order to be able to compare our forecast with forecasts performed by others. Our prediction for 2016, based on the seismic catalogue of all events with a magnitude of M ≥ 1.5 (using only the events recorded before 2016), was 16 ± 8 events. By the end of 2016, 13 such events had been recorded.We discuss a number of factors which may influence the predictive power of the derived relationship and which require further study. For instance, we consider the delay between production and earthquakes which increases with decreasing reservoir pressure. In addition, the effect of seasonal fluctuation in Groningen production should be considered. Future work can be done to include these effects in the empirical model. We also investigated the challenges related to the applicability of the analysis to sub-regions of the Groningen field.

Due to their potential as a petroleum or geothermal system, the Dinantian carbonates of the Netherlands have recently attracted renewed interest because of the identified presence of excellent reservoir properties. This notion contrasts with the general assumption that these carbonates are tight. Therefore, in order to give the current knowledge state, this paper re-examines the sparse publicly available well and seismic data and literature to assess the distribution and reservoir properties of the Dinantian carbonates.Dinantian carbonate deposition occurred throughout the study area (southern onshore and offshore of the Netherlands and northern Belgium), which is situated on the northern margin of the London-Brabant Massif, progressively onlapping the latter structure. This study confirms the presence of three carbonate facies types in the study area: a Tournaisian low-gradient carbonate ramp system, succeeded by a succession in which the carbonate ramp system evolved to a rimmed shelf setting. Subsidence of the northern margin of the London-Brabant Massif resulted in a landward shift of the shallow-marine facies belts, while the formation of normal faults resulted in a 'staircase'-shaped shallow-water platform-slope-basin profile, associated with large-scale resedimentation processes. After deposition, the limestone deposits were frequently exhumed and reburied. A first period of regional exhumation occurred at the end of the Dinantian, which seems to be associated with porosity-enhancing meteoric karstification, possibly limited to the palaeo-shelf edge. The most intense alterations seem to be present as a deep leached horizon below the Cretaceous unconformity at the top of the Dinantian sequences. In addition, clear evidence for hydrothermal fluid migration is found locally, enhancing reservoir properties at some places while occluding porosity at others. The timing of these phases of hydrothermal fluid circulation is poorly understood.Whereas in the United Kingdom hydrocarbons have been produced from karstified Dinantian carbonates, this petroleum play has received little attention in the Netherlands. This paper shows that, also for the Netherlands, a karstic reservoir probably existed before the start of hydrocarbon generation from the onlapping basal Namurian shales. The hydrocarbon prospectivity of these sediments, however, is primarily controlled by the presence of both a karst-related reservoir and migration routes from a decent-quality source rock. Two geothermal projects producing from this reservoir in the southern onshore Netherlands have shown the potential of the Dinantian carbonates for ultra-deep geothermal projects. To conclude, the findings presented herein are relevant for studies of the hydrocarbon prospectivity and studies of the geothermal potential of Dinantian carbonates in the Dutch on-and offshore.

The northern Dutch offshore is an area that has seen less hydrocarbon exploration activity than other areas of The Netherlands. Acquisition of a new regional 3D seismic dataset allowed further testing and re-evaluation of established geological concepts in this area. It is recognized that the presence and movement of Upper Permian Zechstein evaporites had a major impact on depositional patterns in Mesozoic sediments, structural development and hydrocarbon migration. As such, this study looks specifically at the role of salt tectonics in tectonosedimentary development. To assess this salt tectonic evolution within its structural context, a restoration of the Step Graben and Dutch Central Graben was performed. It follows that depositional patterns are closely linked to the nature of salt structure movement and the timing of regional tectonism. For example, during Late Triassic rifting, salt pillows developed and sedimentation focused away from salt structures into depocentres along regional fault trends. Restoration results show that this interplay between salt movement and tectonism is needed to accommodate the sedimentation patterns associated with the formation of the Step Graben and Central Graben during the Triassic and Jurassic, and later during Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic inversion tectonics.