Analysis reveals soil moisture and wetlands influence ground movements in underground gas storage, suggesting environmental factors are significant.
Underground gas storage (UGS) facilities may cause ground displacements as a result of the cavern convergence or regular gas injection (alternate ground uplift and subsidence). The occurrence and scale of displacements are strongly dependent on the storage time and cavern capacity. At an early stage of facility operation, displacements can be difficult to detect in the presence of wetlands. The main objective of this study was to describe the global and local relationships between vertical ground displacements observed over a small and relatively new Kosakowo UGS facility (Poland) from 2014 to 2024 (dependent variable) and selected topographic, hydrological, and mining factors (independent variables). The dependent variable was determined through SBAS-InSAR analysis of Sentinel-1 SAR data, while the independent variables were developed using passive Sentinel-2 imagery and open geospatial data. The global relationships between variables were described using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Generalized Linear Regression (GLR) models, while the Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) model was utilized to analyze local relations. The results obtained indicate that ground displacements were characterized by seasonal fluctuations between 4 mm and 10 mm. The factors that had, both globally and locally, the strongest influence were soil moisture, vegetation water content, and the flora condition, indicating that the environmental hydrogeology had the greatest impact on the phenomenon under study. None of the considered models identified underground gas storage as a significant contributing factor to the observed ground displacements. The results confirm that the presence of wetlands can be a significant obstacle to an accurate description of the impact of gas storage on the ground movements, especially in UGS areas at an early stage of operation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buczyńska et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: