1887

Abstract

Summary

We propose a method to identify repeating events and apply it to microseismic data recorded during and after the stimulation of the geothermal reservoir at Basel-1, Switzerland. Our method is based on a combination of the measured waveform similarity between event pairs and an estimate of the source radii. In our case study, at least 15% of the microseismic events can be grouped into repeating earthquake sequences. We then analyse the spatial and temporal characteristics of the repeating events and find that they differ significantly from the behaviour of the entire microseismic dataset. Repeating events are a common feature during the stimulation phase and at small distances from the injection source (<250–300m), but they are clearly under-represented after the shut-in and at larger distances. The distance interval, where the behaviour of seismicity changes abruptly, correlates with the occurrence of the largest induced events (here Mw > 2.0). The observations suggest that the repeating earthquakes define a subset of seismicity which is particularly sensitive to pore pressure changes and is less affected by earthquake interaction. Therefore, the analysis of injection-induced events may provide a tool to identify the dominant triggering mechanism of seismicity and to detect possible changes of the triggering mechanism (e.g. pore pressure versus stress transfer).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20142161
2014-09-28
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Catalli, F., Meier, M. and Wiemer, S.
    [2013] The role of Coulomb stress changes for injection-induced seismicity: The Basel enhanced geothermal system. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40(72–77), doi:10.1029/2012GL054147.
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054147 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, K., Bürgmann, R. and Nadeau, R.
    [2013] Do earthquakes talk to each other? Triggering and interaction of repeating sequences in Parkfield. J. Geophys. Res., 118, doi:10.129/2012/JB009486.
    https://doi.org/10.129/2012/JB009486 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dinske, C., Shapiro, S. and Häring, M.
    [2010] Interpretation of microseismicity induced by timpe-dependent injection pressure. SEG Expanded Abstracts, 29, 2125–2129, doi:10.1190/1.3513264.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3513264 [Google Scholar]
  4. Eshelby, J.
    [1957] The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc. R. Soc. London, Series A, 24, 376–396.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Goertz-Allmann, B., Goertz, A. and Wiemer, S.
    [2011] Stress drop variations of induced earthquakes at the Basel geothermal site. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38(L09308), doi:10.1029/2011GL047498.
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047498 [Google Scholar]
  6. Nadeau, R. and Johnson, L.
    [1998] Seismological studies at Parkfield VI: Moment release rates and estimates of source parameters for small repeating earthquakes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 88(3), 790–814.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Sammis, C., Nadeau, R. and Johnson, L.
    [1999] How strong is an asperity?J. Geophys. Res., 104, 10609–10619.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20142161
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20142161
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error