Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
rock caused induced earthquakes (three M 5.0 to M 5.5 earthquakes 4 ), the largest of which
caused an estimated $500,000 in damages in 1967 (Nicholson and Wesson, 1990) (Box 1.2).
More recent public attention to the potential correlation between seismic events and
energy technology development began with several felt seismic events: in Basel, Switzer-
land, in 2006; at The Geysers, California, in 2008; and near the Dallas-Fort Worth airport
in 2008. During the course of this study, several additional seismic events with potential
correlation to energy development have occurred in different parts of the United States and
in several other nations (see later in this chapter and in Chapters 2 and 3 for details of some
of these events). The potential for induced seismic events has also been highlighted in the
context of ongoing public discussion of shale gas development through hydraulic fractur-
ing operations. Although none of these recent events resulted in loss of life or significant
structural damage, their effects were felt by local residents, some of whom also experienced
minor property damage. Particularly in areas where tectonic (natural) seismic activity is
uncommon or historically nonexistent and energy development is ongoing, these seismic
events, though small in scale, can be disturbing for the public and can raise concern about
further seismic activity and its consequences.
This report addresses induced seismicity that may be related specifically to certain kinds
of energy development that involve fluid injection or withdrawal. The study arose through
a request made in 2010 by Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, chair of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, to Department of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu (Ap-
pendix D). The senator asked the secretary to engage the National Research Council to
examine the scale, scope, and consequences of seismicity induced by energy technologies
and specifically associated with four energy technologies: geothermal energy, shale gas, 5
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The study's state-
ment of task is presented in Box 1.3.
The aim of this report is to provide an understanding of the nature and scale of induced
seismicity related to energy technologies and to suggest guidance as to how best to proceed
with safe development of these technologies in terms of any potential induced seismicity
risks. The report begins with an examination of the types and potential causes or mecha-
nisms for induced seismicity (Chapter 2), reviews the four energy technologies that are the
subject of the study and the ways they may induce seismic activity (Chapter 3), and dis-
cusses government roles and responsibilities related to underground injection and induced
seismicity (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 considers the hazard and risk for induced seismicity and
identifies some paths for understanding and managing induced seismicity, with steps toward
4 The initial reports of the magnitudes of the events at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal did not have details about
the magnitude scale being used. Subsequent detailed analysis of seismograms (Herrmann et al., 1981) indicated that the
magnitudes of the largest earthquakes were actually M 4.5 to M 4.8, slightly smaller than the initially reported magnitudes.
See Box 1.2 for details.
5 When the committee uses the term “shale gas,” it is referring to dry gas, gas, and some liquids.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search