Advertisement

Design and implementation of a traffic light system for deep geothermal well stimulation in Finland

  • Thomas AderEmail author
  • Michael Chendorain
  • Matthew Free
  • Tero Saarno
  • Pekka Heikkinen
  • Peter Eric Malin
  • Peter Leary
  • Grzegorz Kwiatek
  • Georg Dresen
  • Felix Bluemle
  • Tommi Vuorinen
Original Article
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

We describe the design and implementation of a traffic light system (TLS) created for the stimulation phase of a 6.1-km-deep geothermal well in the Helsinki area, Finland. Because of the lack of local seismic data to calibrate the TLS, the TLS thresholds have been proposed on the basis of two parameters: acceptable ground motion levels and probabilities to reach these levels, which were then used to establish TLS magnitudes. A peak ground velocity (PGV) of 1 mm/s associated with a ML ≥ 1 event, or a ML ≥ 1.2 event alone, triggered an Amber alert. A PGV of 7.5 mm/s associated with a ML ≥ 2.1 event triggered a Red alert, where ML was a local “Helsinki” magnitude. Specific thresholds based on PGV and peak ground acceleration were gathered for critical infrastructure sites and related to earthquake magnitudes in a probabilistic way. The implementation of the TLS during the stimulation showed that the selected thresholds were reasonably conservative. Some of the Amber events were reportedly felt or heard, but the public opinion remained very favourable to the project. Measured ground motions were too low to have any impact on the built environment and the stimulation was able to proceed without being impaired by the occurrence of a Red event. Seismic data acquired during the stimulation and lessons learnt are presented and used to revisit the TLS thresholds for potential future stimulations.

Keywords

Geothermal Stimulation Traffic light system Induced seismicity GMPE 

Notes

References

  1. Ader T, Chendorain M, Free M, Saarno T, Heikkinen P, Malin PE, Leary P, Valenzuela S, Kwiatek G, Dresen G, Bluemle F, Vuorinen T (2019) Setting up traffic light system thresholds for geothermal stimulation in Helsinki, Finland. In: 2019 SECED Conference, Greenwich, London, acceptedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachmann CE (2012) Induced seismicity in Rosemanowes, 16 pp, GEISER report D5.3 – Hazard models for specific test areasGoogle Scholar
  3. Bommer JJ, Oates S, Cepeda JM, Lindholm C, Bird J, Torres R, Marroquín G, Rivas J (2006) Control of hazard due to seismicity induced by a hot fractured rock geothermal project. Eng Geol 83(4):287–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bommer JJ (2017) Predicting and monitoring ground motions induced by hydraulic fracturing. OGA-commissioned paperGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosman K, Baig A, Viegas G, Urbancic T (2016) Towards an improved understanding of induced seismicity associated with hydraulic fracturing. First break 34:61–66Google Scholar
  6. Broccardo M, Mignan A, Wiemer S, Stojadinovic B, Giardini D (2017) Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of fluid-induced seismicity. Geophys Res Lett 44:11,357–11,367.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BSI (1993) Evaluation and measurements for vibration in buildings - Part 2: Guide to damage levels due to groundborne vibrations. BS 7385-2, British Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  8. BSI (2008) Guide to evaluation of human response to vibration in buildings - Part 1: Vibration sources other than blasting. BS 6472-1, British Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuenot N, Dorbath C, Dorbath L (2008) Analysis of the Microseismicity induced by fluid injections at the EGS site of soultz-sous-forêts (Alsace, France): implications for the characterization of the geothermal reservoir properties. Pure Appl Geophys 165:797–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diehl T, Kraft T, Kissling E, Wiemer S (2017) The induced earthquake sequence related to the St. Gallen deep geothermal project (Switzerland): fault reactivation and fluid interactions imaged by microseismicity. J Geophys Res Solid Earth,  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014473
  11. Douglas J, Edwards B, Convertito V, Sharma N, Tramelli A, Kraaijpoel D, Cabrera BM, Maercklin N, Troise C (2013) Predicting ground motion from induced earthquakes in geothermal areas. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1875–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellsworth WL (2013) Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 341:1225942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galis M, Ampuero JP, Mai PM, Cappa F (2017) Induced seismicity provides insight into why earthquake ruptures stop. Science Advances 3: eaap7528. Available:  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap7528
  14. GEISER (2013) D5.3 - Hazard models for specific test areas, ReportGoogle Scholar
  15. Giardini D (2009) Geothermal quake risks must be faced. Nature 462:848–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gischig VS, Wiemer S, Alcolea A (2014) Balancing reservoir creation and seismic hazard in enhanced geothermal systems. Geophys J Int 198(3):1585–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grünthal G (2014) Induced seismicity related to geothermal projects versus natural tectonic earthquakes and other types of induced seismic events in Central Europe. Geothermics,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.09.009
  18. Guglielmi Y, Cappa F, Avouac JP, Henry P, Elsworth D (2015) Seismicity triggered by fluid injection–induced aseismic slip. Science 348:1224–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haering MO, Schanz U, Ladner F, Dyer BC (2008) Characterisation of the Basel 1 enhanced geothermal system. Geothermics 37:469–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halldorsson B, Ólafsson S, Snæbjörnsson JT, Sigurdsson SU, Rupakhety R, Sigbjörnsson R (2012) On the effects of induced earthquakes due to fluid injection at Hellisheidi geothermal power plant, Iceland. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallo M, Oprsal I, Eisner L, Ali MY (2014) Prediction of magnitude of the largest potentially induced seismic event. J Seismol 18:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res 84(B5):2348–2350.  https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwiatek G, Martínez-Garzón P, Dresen G, Bohnhoff M, Sone H, Hartline C (2015) Effects of long-term fluid injection on induced seismicity parameters and maximum magnitude in northwestern part of the Geysers geothermal field. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120,  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012362
  24. Kwiatek G, Saarno T, Ader T, Bluemle F, Bohnhoff M, Chendorain M, Dresen G, Heikkinen P, Kukkonen I, Leary P, Leonhardt M, Malin P, Martínez-Garzón P, Passmore K, Passmore P, Valenzuela S, Wollin C (2019) Controlling fluid-induced seismicity during a 6.1-km-deep geothermal stimulation in Finland. Sci Adv 5(5):eaav7224.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav7224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGarr A (2014) Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 119:1008–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JB010597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mignan A, Broccardo M, Wiemer S, Giradini D (2017) Induced seismicity closed-form traffic light system for actuarial decision-making during deep fluid injections. Sci Rep 7:13607.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13585-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mignan A, Karvounis D, Broccardo M, Wiemer S, Giardini D (2019) Including seismic risk mitigation measures into the Levelized cost of electricity in enhanced geothermal systems for optimal siting. Appl Energy 238:831–850 . ISSN 0306–2619,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. RIL 253-2010 (2010) Rakentamisen aiheuttamat tärinät 2010. Helsinki: Suomen Rakennusinsinöörien LiittoGoogle Scholar
  29. Lund B, Malm MM, Mäntyniemi PB, Oinonen KJ, Tiira T et al (2015) Evaluating seismic hazard for the Hanhikivi nuclear power plant site, seismological characteristics of the source areas, attenuation of seismic signal, and probabilistic analysis of seismic hazard. F-Consult Ltd, 258 p Saari J (ed)Google Scholar
  30. Shapiro SA, Dinske C, Langenbruch C (2010) Seismogenic index and magnitude probability of earthquakes induced during reservoir fluid stimulations. Leading Edge 29(3):304–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shapiro SA, Krüger O S, Dinske C (2013) Probability of inducing given-magnitude earthquakes by perturbing finite volumes of rocks. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118,  https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50264
  32. Schultz R (2018) Bridging gaps in induced seismicity hazard forecasting in Alberta, Canada, presentation at the 36th general assembly of the European seismological commission 6 september 2018, Valletta, MaltaGoogle Scholar
  33. Uski M, Tuppurainen A (1996) A new local magnitude scale for the Finnish seismic network. Seism Source Parameters Microearthquakes Large Events 261:23–37Google Scholar
  34. Van der Elst NJ, Page MT, Weiser DA, Goebel THW, Hosseini SM (2016) Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121:4575–4590.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB012818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Westaway R, Younger PL (2014) Quantification of potential macroseismic effects of the induced seismicity that might result from hydraulic fracturing for shale gas exploitation in the UK. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 47(4):333–350.  https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2014-011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiemer S, Kraft T, Trutnevyte E, Roth P (2017) ‘Good practice’ guide for managing induced seismicity in deep geothermal energy projects in Switzerland. In: Proceedings from the 20th EGU General Assembly held 4-13 April, 2018, Vienna, Austria, pp 15021Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Ader
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Chendorain
    • 1
  • Matthew Free
    • 1
  • Tero Saarno
    • 2
  • Pekka Heikkinen
    • 2
  • Peter Eric Malin
    • 3
  • Peter Leary
    • 3
  • Grzegorz Kwiatek
    • 4
    • 5
  • Georg Dresen
    • 4
    • 6
  • Felix Bluemle
    • 7
  • Tommi Vuorinen
    • 8
  1. 1.ArupLondonUK
  2. 2.St1 Deep Heat OyHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Advanced Seismic Instrumentation & ResearchDallasUSA
  4. 4.Helmholtz Centre PotsdamGFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Section 4.2: Geomechanics and RheologyPotsdamGermany
  5. 5.Free University BerlinBerlinGermany
  6. 6.University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  7. 7.fastloc GmbHBerlinGermany
  8. 8.Institute of SeismologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations