Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Abstract

In June 2009, the New York Times published an article about the public fear of geothermal development causing earthquakes. The article highlighted a project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Program bringing power production at The Geysers back up to capacity using Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) technology. The Geysers geothermal field is located two hours north of San Francisco, California, and therefore, the article drew comparisons to a similar geothermal EGS project in Basel, Switzerland believed to cause a magnitude 3.4 earthquake. In order to address public concern and gain acceptance from the general public and policymakers for geothermal energy development, specifically EGS, the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned a group of experts in induced seismicity, geothermal power development and risk assessment to write a revised Induced Seismicity Protocol. The authors met with the domestic and international scientific community, policymakers, and other stakeholders to gain their perspectives and incorporate them into the Protocol. They also incorporated the lessons learned from Basel, Switzerland and other EGS projects around the world to better understand the issues associated with induced seismicity in EGS projects. The Protocol concludes that with proper study and technology development induced seismicity will not only be mitigated, but will become a useful tool for reservoir management. This Protocol is a living guidance document for geothermal developers, public officials, regulators and the general public that provides a set of general guidelines detailing useful steps to evaluate and manage the effects of induced seismicity related to EGS projects. This Protocol puts high importance on safety while allowing geothermal technology to move forward in a cost effective manner. The goal of this Protocol is to help facilitate the successful deployment of EGS projects, thus increasing the availability of clean, renewable and domestic energy in the United States. Project developers should work closely with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance officials of the involved Federal agency(ies) to align information needs and public involvement activities with the NEPA review process. The authors emphasize this Protocol is neither a substitute nor a panacea for regulatory requirements that may be imposed by federal, state or local regulators. I would like to acknowledge everyone who gave their time and expertise at the induced seismicity workshops (see Appendix D) that led to this updated Protocol. Their input was critical to develop an informed and useful document. In addition, I would like to thank the authors of this document, whose ideas and support came together to write a clear and concise Protocol. This document was put out for public comment and reviewed by NEPA, the U.S. Department of Energy and General Counsel. Special thanks to Christy King-Gilmore and Brian Costner for their guidance.

Effect of operating dump truck vibrations on bench stability in deep open pit mines

“…Human anxiety can occur from low-level ground shaking that does not necessarily cause physical damage to the built or natural environment (Majer et al 2014). Although the ground motions can be of low amplitude, if repeated often enough they could impact the health and mental well-being of people.…”

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

“…To determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, one or more of the following questions will need to be considered (Cypser and Davis 1998 Liability for losses caused by potential hazardous events associated with GCS could also be determined based on legal theories other than strict liability, including negligence, nuisance, and trespass (Majer et al 2012).…”

“…The absence of regulations specific to requiring liability for damages caused by induced seismicity associated with CO 2 storage or a case history of associated liability litigation, makes it very difficult to predict liability for seismic events that could potentially be induced by CO 2 storage operations. According to Cypser and Davis (1998), a definitive cause and effect relationship will have to be established between CO 2 storage and an induced seismic event, and between the portion of the seismic event that was determined to have been induced and the damages to the claimant (Wilson et al 2007;Majer et al 2012;JGC Corporation 2013;.…”

“…The local damage was inconsequential. Reportedly, the project was soon abandoned because the company liability for this project in a heavily populated area and a region found to be tectonically unstable was too high (Cypser and Davis 1998;Majer et al 2012;JGC Corporation 2013;NAS 2013;; Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, undated).…”

Forward induced seismic hazard assessment: application to a synthetic seismicity catalogue from hydraulic stimulation modelling

“…This so-called hydraulic fracturing is well known since the fundamental paper of Hubbert and Willis (1957) has been applied widely. However, in the past decades, the accompanying induced seismicity became a problem not only at geothermal reservoirs but also in connection with other types of underground mining activities such as hydrocarbon exploitation, as well as potash and coal mining (Evans et al 2012;Majer et al 2007Majer et al , 2012Grünthal 2013;Suckale 2009Suckale , 2010. In particular, in Europe, the induced events at the geothermal site in Basel (Switzerland) related to fluid stimulation ( 3.2 in 2006; Häring et al 2008;Deichmann and Ernst 2009;Deichmann and Giardini 2009) and in Landau (Germany) due to a shut-in in the production phase ( 2.6 in 2009;Grünthal 2013) were the nucleus of an intense and ongoing discussion since both sites are situated in the suburb of the respective cities.…”