Abstract Induced seismicity poses a potential threat to the viability of many energy-related projects involving injection or extraction of fluids. Important advances have been made in terms of protocols to manage induced seismicity in such projects, including guidelines for seismic monitoring and communications prior to operations and following the occurrence of seismic events. However, for such protocols to guarantee successful management of induced seismicity it may be necessary to include additional elements, that have not been explicitly addressed, in the mitigation strategy. These elements, identified from case histories in which induced earthquakes have led to interruption or suspension of operations, can be broadly grouped into two categories: quantification of the seismic risk due to induced earthquakes and effective and balanced risk-based regulation. While clear and effective communication of the risk to the public is often highlighted as a key factor, this requires that the risk is first correctly quantified, and secondly that the regulatory body takes at least partial responsibility for explaining the risk and providing assurance that it is acceptably low. Such action by the regulatory authority would be premised on the basis of the operator demonstrating compliance with risk-based targets, as is done in the nuclear industry. Potential pitfalls in the quantification of the physical risk from induced earthquakes include exaggeration of the impact of small-magnitude events, overly conservative values of the upper bound magnitudes, modelling choices that lead to biased estimates of the hazard due to induced seismicity relative to that from natural earthquakes, and the use of inappropriate risk metrics.
Julian J. Bommer (Tue,) studied this question.