Focal Mechanism Determination and Stress Inversion for Induced Seismicity Related to Shale Gas Hydraulic Fracturing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuyang Tan ◽  
Jun Hu ◽  
Zhengguang Zhao ◽  
Lei Li
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Focal Mechanism ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Stress Inversion

scholarly journals Modeling of fault reactivation and induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 31-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonny Rutqvist ◽  
Antonio P. Rinaldi ◽  
Frédéric Cappa ◽  
George J. Moridis
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Fault Reactivation ◽  
Gas Reservoirs ◽  
Shale Gas Reservoirs

Stress inversion for Hydraulic Fracturing Induced Seismicity

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuntao Liang* ◽  
Yangyang Yu ◽  
Xuben Wang ◽  
Cheng Yin ◽  
Furong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Stress Inversion

scholarly journals Real‐Time Imaging, Forecasting, and Management of Human‐Induced Seismicity at Preston New Road, Lancashire, England

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huw Clarke ◽  
James P. Verdon ◽  
Tom Kettlety ◽  
Alan F. Baird ◽  
J‐Michael Kendall
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Statistical Models ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Red Light ◽  
Fracture Network ◽  
Fluid Injection ◽  
Traffic Light ◽  
Subsurface Fluid

ABSTRACTEarthquakes 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.

scholarly journals Fracking bad language – hydraulic fracturing and earthquake risks

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-327
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Roberts ◽  
Clare E. Bond ◽  
Zoe K. Shipton
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Earthquake Risk ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
Public Events ◽  
Risk Magnitude ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a borehole stimulation technique used to enhance permeability in geological resource management, including the extraction of shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing can induce seismicity. The potential to induce seismicity is a topic of widespread interest and public concern, particularly in the UK where seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing has halted shale gas operations and triggered moratoria. Prior to 2018, there seemed to be a disconnect between the conclusions of expert groups about the risk of adverse impacts from hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity and the reported level of public concern about hydraulic fracturing induced seismicity. Furthermore, a range of terminology was used to describe the induced seismicity (including tremors, earthquakes, seismic events, and micro-earthquakes) which could indicate the level of perceived risk. Using the UK as a case study, we examine the conclusions of expert-led public-facing reports on the risk (likelihood and impact) of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing for shale gas published between 2012 and 2018 and the terminology used in these reports. We compare these to results from studies conducted in the same time period that explored views of the UK public on hydraulic fracturing and seismicity. Furthermore, we surveyed participants at professional and public events on shale gas held throughout 2014 asking the same question that was used in a series of surveys of the UK public in the period 2012–2016, i.e. “do you associate shale gas with earthquakes?”. We asked our participants to provide the reasoning for the answer they gave. By examining the rationale provided for their answers, we find that an apparent polarisation of views amongst experts was actually the result of different interpretations of the language used to describe seismicity. Responses are confounded by the ambiguity of the language around earthquake risk, magnitude, and scale. We find that different terms are used in the survey responses to describe earthquakes, often in an attempt to express the risk (magnitude, shaking, and potential for adverse impact) presented by the earthquake, but that these terms are poorly defined and ambiguous and do not translate into everyday language usage. Such “bad language” around fracking has led to challenges in understanding, perceiving, and communicating risks around hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity. We call for multi-method approaches to understand the perceived risks around geoenergy resources and suggest that developing and adopting a shared language framework to describe earthquakes would alleviate miscommunication and misperceptions. Our findings are relevant to any applications that present – or are perceived to present – the risk of induced seismicity. More broadly, our work is relevant to any topics of public interest where language ambiguities muddle risk communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document