Earthquakes induced by subsurface fluid injection pose a significant issue across a range of industries. Debate continues as to the most effective methods to mitigate the resulting seismic hazard. Observations of induced seismicity indicate that the rate of seismicity scales with the injection volume and that events follow the Gutenberg–Richter distribution. These two inferences permit us to populate statistical models of the seismicity and extrapolate them to make forecasts of the expected event magnitudes as injection continues. Here, we describe a shale gas site where this approach was used in real time to make operational decisions during hydraulic fracturing operations.Microseismic observations revealed the intersection between hydraulic fracturing and a pre‐existing fault or fracture network that became seismically active. Although “red light” events, requiring a pause to the injection program, occurred on several occasions, the observed event magnitudes fell within expected levels based on the extrapolated statistical models, and the levels of seismicity remained within acceptable limits as defined by the regulator. To date, induced seismicity has typically been regulated using retroactive traffic light schemes. This study shows that the use of high‐quality microseismic observations to populate statistical models that forecast expected event magnitudes can provide a more effective approach.

Understanding the dominant physical processes that cause fault reactivation due to fluid injection is vital to develop strategies to avoid and mitigate injection-induced seismicity. Injection-induced seismicity is a risk for several industries, including hydraulic fracturing, geothermal stimulation, oilfield waste disposal and carbon capture and storage, with hydraulic fracturing having been associated with some of the highest magnitude induced earthquakes (M > 5). As such, strict regulatory schemes have been implemented globally to limit the felt seismicity associated with operations. In the UK, a very strict "traffic light" system is currently in place. These procedures were employed several times during injection at the PNR-1z well at Preston New Road, Lancashire, UK, from October to December 2018. As injection proceeded, it became apparent to the operator that stages were interacting with a seismogenic planar structure, interpreted as a fault zone, with several M L > 0.5 events occurring. Microseismicity was clustered along this planar structure in a fashion that could not readily be explained through pore pressure diffusion or hydraulic fracture growth. Instead, we investigate the role of static elastic stress transfer created by the tensile opening of hydraulic fractures. We find that the spatial distributions of microseismicity are strongly correlated with areas that receive positive Mohr-Coulomb stress changes from the tensile fracture opening, while areas that receive negative Mohr-Coulomb stress change are quiescent. We conclude that the stressing due to tensile hydraulic fracture opening plays a significant role in controlling the spatiotemporal distribution of induced seismicity.

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) at Preston New Road (PNR), Lancashire, United Kingdom, in August 2019, induced a number of felt earthquakes. The largest event (ML 2.9) occurred on 26 August 2019, approximately three days after HF operations at the site had stopped. Following this, in November 2019, the United Kingdom Government announced a moratorium on HF for shale gas in England. Here we provide an analysis of the microseismic observations made during this case of HF-induced fault activation. More than 55,000 microseismic events were detected during operations using a downhole array, the vast majority measuring less than Mw 0. Event locations revealed the growth of hydraulic fractures and their interaction with several preexisting structures. The spatiotemporal distribution of events suggests that a hydraulic pathway was created between the injection points and a nearby northwest–southeast-striking fault, on which the largest events occurred. The aftershocks of the ML 2.9 event clearly delineate the rupture plane, with their spatial distribution forming a halo of activity around the mainshock rupture area. Across clusters of events, the magnitude distributions are distinctly bimodal, with a lower Gutenberg–Richter b-value for events above Mw 0, suggesting a break in scaling between events associated with hydraulic fracture propagation, and events associated with activation of the fault. This poses a challenge for mitigation strategies that rely on extrapolating microseismicity observed during injection to forecast future behavior. The activated fault was well oriented for failure in the regional stress field, significantly more so than the fault activated during previous operations at PNR in 2018. The differing orientations within the stress field likely explain why this PNR-2 fault produced larger events compared with the 2018 sequence, despite receiving a smaller volume of injected fluid. This indicates that fault orientation and in situ stress conditions play a key role in controlling the severity of seismicity induced by HF.

We investigate the physical processes that generate seismicity during hydraulic fracturing. Fluid processes (increases in pore pressure and poroelastic stress) are often considered to be the primary drivers. However, some recent studies have suggested that elastic stress interactions may significantly contribute to further seismicity. In this work we use a microseismic data set acquired during hydraulic fracturing to calculate elastic stress transfer during a period of fault activation and induced seismicity. We find that elastic stress changes may have weakly promoted initial failure, but at later times stress changes generally acted to inhibit further slip. Sources from within tight clusters are found to be the most significant contributor to the cumulative elastic stress changes. Given the estimated in situ stress field, relatively large increases in pore pressure are required to reach the failure envelope for these faults-on the order of 10 MPa. This threshold is far greater than the reliable cumulative elastic stress changes found in this study, with the vast majority of events receiving no more than 0.1 MPa of positive CFS, further indicating that elastic stress changes were not a significant driver, and that interaction with the pressurized fluid was required to initiate failure. Thus, cumulative stress transfer from small events near the injection well does not appear to play a significant role in the reactivation of nearby faults.