Steps Toward a “Best Practices” Protocol - Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies - page 131

TABLE 6.1 Criteria to Determine if Injection May Cause Seismicity

NO
APPARENT
RISK

Texas
City,
Texas

Denver
RMA,
Colorado

CLEAR
RISK

Tracy,
Quebec Ques tion

Background Seismicity

1a Are large earthquakes ( M ≥ 5.5)

known in the region (within several
hundred km)?

NO YES NO YES YES

1b Are earthquakes known near the

injection site (within 20 km)

NO YES NO YES NO?

1c Is rate of activity near the injection

site (within 20 km) high?

NO YES NO NO NO

Local Geology

2a Are faults mapped within 20 km of

the site?

NO YES YES YES NO?

2b If so, are these faults known to be

active?

NO YES NO NO NO

2c Is the site near (within several

hundred km of) tectonically active
features?

NO YES NO? YES YES

State of Stress

3 Do stress measurements in the region

suggest rock is close to failure?

NO YES NO NO? YES a

Injection Practices

4a Are (proposed) injection practices

sufficient for failure?

NO YES NO? YES YES a

4b If injection has been ongoing at the

site, is injection correlated with the
occurrence of earthquakes?

NO YES NO N.A. N.A.

4c Are nearby injection wells associated

with earthquakes?

NO YES NO N.A. N.A.

TOTAL “YES” ANSWERS 0 10 1 5 4

a Assumes stress measurements completed prior to survey.
NOTE: RMA, Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
SOURCE: Davis and Frohlich (1993).