IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/wireae/v8y2019i2ne324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing the risks of induced seismicity in subsurface energy operations

Author

Listed:
  • Richard T.J. Porter
  • Alberto Striolo
  • Haroun Mahgerefteh
  • Joanna Faure Walker

Abstract

Shale gas could help address the insatiable global demand for energy. However, in addition to risks of environmental pollution, the risk of induced seismicity during the hydraulic fracturing process is often considered as the major showstopper in the public acceptability of shale gas as an alternative source of fossil fuel. Other types of subsurface energy development have also demonstrated similar induced seismicity risks. This article presents an interdisciplinary review of notable cases of suspected induced seismicity relating to subsurface energy operations, covering operations for hydraulic fracturing, wastewater injection, conventional gas extraction, enhanced geothermal systems and water impoundment. Possible causal mechanisms of induced seismicity are described and illustrated, then methods to mitigate induced seismicity, encompassing regulations, including so‐called traffic light systems, monitoring and assessment, and numerical modeling approaches for predicting the occurrence of induced seismicity are outlined. Issues relating to public perception of energy technologies in regards to induced seismicity potential are also discussed. This article is categorized under: Photovoltaics > Climate and Environment Fossil Fuels > Climate and Environment Energy Infrastructure > Economics and Policy Energy and Development > Systems and Infrastructure

Suggested Citation

  • Richard T.J. Porter & Alberto Striolo & Haroun Mahgerefteh & Joanna Faure Walker, 2019. "Addressing the risks of induced seismicity in subsurface energy operations," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:wireae:v:8:y:2019:i:2:n:e324
    DOI: 10.1002/wene.324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.324
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wene.324?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    2. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    3. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    4. McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    5. Domenico Giardini, 2009. "Geothermal quake risks must be faced," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7275), pages 848-849, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    2. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Charles Vlek, 2018. "Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1455-1473, July.
    5. Steve Westlake & Conor H. D. John & Emily Cox, 2023. "Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 149-158, February.
    6. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    7. Wang, Gaosheng & Song, Xianzhi & Shi, Yu & Yang, Ruiyue & Yulong, Feixue & Zheng, Rui & Li, Jiacheng, 2021. "Heat extraction analysis of a novel multilateral-well coaxial closed-loop geothermal system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 974-986.
    8. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Yang, Ruiyue & Hong, Chunyang & Liu, Wei & Wu, Xiaoguang & Wang, Tianyu & Huang, Zhongwei, 2021. "Non-contaminating cryogenic fluid access to high-temperature resources: Liquid nitrogen fracturing in a lab-scale Enhanced Geothermal System," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1), pages 125-138.
    10. Soni, Vikram & Darzi, Alireza & McPhee, Hannah & Saber, Sepehr & Zargartalebi, Mohammad & Riordon, Jason & Ozden, Adnan & Holmes, Michael & Zatonski, Vlad & Toews, Matthew & Sinton, David, 2023. "Performance analysis of phase change slurries for closed-loop geothermal system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    11. Samin, Maleaha Y. & Faramarzi, Asaad & Jefferson, Ian & Harireche, Ouahid, 2019. "A hybrid optimisation approach to improve long-term performance of enhanced geothermal system (EGS) reservoirs," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 379-389.
    12. Yuxiang Cheng & Yanjun Zhang, 2020. "Experimental Study of Fracture Propagation: The Application in Energy Mining," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-31, March.
    13. Arnaud Mignan & Marco Broccardo & Ziqi Wang, 2021. "Comprehensive Survey of Seismic Hazard at Geothermal Sites by a Meta-Analysis of the Underground Feedback Activation Parameter a fb," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    15. Ruef, Franziska & Ejderyan, Olivier, 2021. "Rowing, steering or anchoring? Public values for geothermal energy governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Kaniyal, Ashok A. & Nathan, Graham J. & Pincus, Jonathan J., 2012. "The potential role of data-centres in enabling investment in geothermal energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 458-466.
    18. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2018. "Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1311-1325.
    19. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    20. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:wireae:v:8:y:2019:i:2:n:e324. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=2041-8396 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.