2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10950-019-09901-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of monitoring guidelines to induced seismicity in Italy

Abstract: Public concern about anthropogenic seismicity in Italy first arose in the aftermath of the deadly M ≈ 6 earthquakes that hit the Emilia-Romagna region (northern Italy) in May 2012. As these events occurred in a (tectonically active) region of oil and gas production and storage, the question was raised, whether stress perturbations due to underground industrial activities could have induced or triggered the shocks. Following expert recommendations, in 2014, the Italian Oil & Gas Safety Authority (DGS-UNMIG, Min… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5 c: when fluid injection is operated with injection rate up to 1800 m 3 /day the average daily seismic moments of events occurred above and below the given threshold remain constant to values of about 3 × 10 9 N m/day and about 2 × 10 8 N m/day, respectively; conversely, the average daily seismic moment of events occurred above and below the given threshold follows an exponential growth if injection rates greater or equal than 1900 m 3 /day are applied. We can argue that the 2016–2018 fluid-induced microseismicity is mainly activated after acidification operations and for injection rates above 1900 m 3 /day, but never exceeding the magnitude threshold of M = 1.5 that triggers the level of attention of the four-level traffic light system introduced in the Italian guidelines 58 , 59 . When acid treatment is not executed, injection rates of about 2000 m 3 /day do not affect significantly the earthquake production; this is in agreement with rate–state simulations recently provided by Hager et al 50 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…5 c: when fluid injection is operated with injection rate up to 1800 m 3 /day the average daily seismic moments of events occurred above and below the given threshold remain constant to values of about 3 × 10 9 N m/day and about 2 × 10 8 N m/day, respectively; conversely, the average daily seismic moment of events occurred above and below the given threshold follows an exponential growth if injection rates greater or equal than 1900 m 3 /day are applied. We can argue that the 2016–2018 fluid-induced microseismicity is mainly activated after acidification operations and for injection rates above 1900 m 3 /day, but never exceeding the magnitude threshold of M = 1.5 that triggers the level of attention of the four-level traffic light system introduced in the Italian guidelines 58 , 59 . When acid treatment is not executed, injection rates of about 2000 m 3 /day do not affect significantly the earthquake production; this is in agreement with rate–state simulations recently provided by Hager et al 50 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Notice that no case of anthropogenically-induced seismicity has been documented so far in the study area (Braun et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…A TLS consists of decision variables (e.g., peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, earthquake magnitude and other parameters) and thresholds (Mignan et al, 2017). When the earthquake magnitude or ground shaking exceed the threshold, the alert levels will be automatically activated and relevant actions must be taken (e.g., stopping operations, reducing injection rate or volume) (Braun et al, 2020).…”
Section: Working Mechanisms and Application Casesmentioning
confidence: 99%