# Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands - **Authors:** David Dempsey; Jenny Suckale (ORCID 0000-0002-9787-8180) - **Journal:** Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 44(15), pp. 7773-7782 (2017) - **Publisher:** American Geophysical Union (AGU) - **DOI (version of record):** [https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl073878](https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl073878) - **This page:** https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/ - **Open PDF:** [https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/dempsey2017-physics-forecasting-induced.pdf](https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/dempsey2017-physics-forecasting-induced.pdf) (Accepted manuscript (peer-reviewed, author's version)) - **Full text (Markdown):** [https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/fulltext.md](https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/fulltext.md) - **Notice:** An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Published 2017 American Geophysical Union. Version of record: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl073878 - **Also in:** UC Research Repository, https://hdl.handle.net/10092/105824 - **Explainer:** all explainers on this site are AI-generated. - **BibTeX:** https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/citation.bib - **Topics:** Induced seismicity & faults - **Keywords:** Induced seismicity; Seismology; Bayesian probability; Geology; Extraction (chemistry); Poisson distribution ## In brief We developed a physics-based model of the earthquakes caused by gas extraction at Groningen, calibrated it on about 600 recorded events, and forecast earthquakes from 2017 to 2024. Under each of three extraction rates, the largest event had a 5% chance of exceeding magnitude 4.0. - Our model represents the 325 largest faults in the Groningen reservoir and the stress changes caused by falling gas pressure. - Calibration on about 600 earthquakes recorded from 1991 to February 2017 suggests that the reservoir was not critically stressed before production began. - For February 2017 to 2024, the largest earthquake had a 5% chance of exceeding magnitude 4.0 under extraction rates of 21, 27, and 33 billion cubic metres a year. - Forecast rates at 33 billion cubic metres a year were about 50% higher than at 21, yet the magnitude with a 10% chance of exceedance moved from 3.82 to 3.89. - These 10% exceedance magnitudes were 0.3 to 0.4 magnitude units lower than those of a statistical forecast for the same period (Zöller and Holschneider, 2016). ## The problem Gas extraction from the Groningen field, in the northeast of the Netherlands, has caused earthquakes since 1991. These earthquakes put local communities at risk. The field is the largest in western Europe, and production began in 1963. In August 2012, a magnitude 3.6 earthquake near Huizinge raised public concern. Between 1991 and February 2017, about 600 events larger than magnitude 1 were recorded. The gas is of strategic importance to the country. Decisions about future extraction rates therefore need forecasts of how many earthquakes each rate will cause, and how large the largest is likely to be. Our goal in this study was to produce such forecasts. ## What we did More than 2000 billion cubic metres of gas have been produced, enough to fill a cube about 12.6 km on each side, and reservoir pressure has fallen by about 22 MPa, roughly 220 times atmospheric pressure. A fall in fluid pressure increases the effective normal stress on faults. On its own, this would make faults more stable. However, we assume that the reservoir rock also contracts as it loses pressure (Segall and Fitzgerald, 1998). The contraction reduces the horizontal stress and raises the shear stress on faults. A fault slips if that rise exceeds the gain in its strength. Our model includes the 325 largest faults in the reservoir, those longer than 2 km. Each fault is represented as a line on a map of the reservoir, which is treated as a single flat layer about 3 km deep. Pressure changes along each fault come from the operator's calibrated reservoir simulation. A single factor, the stress path coefficient, converts pressure change into horizontal stress change. Four more parameters describe fault friction and the tectonic stress before production. The first part of the model computes the earthquake rate for the whole field, assuming that parts of faults already at the point of failure produce earthquakes in proportion to any further increase in stress. The second part generates synthetic earthquake catalogues. It gives each fault a random pattern of stress, then simulates where ruptures start, how far they spread, and their magnitudes. We calibrated the five parameters against the earthquake times using Markov chain Monte Carlo, a method that finds the range of parameter values consistent with the observed earthquakes. The calibration treats the modelled rate as the rate of a random (Poisson) process. This allows for chance variation in the yearly counts. We then forecast February 2017 to the end of 2024 for three extraction scenarios supplied by the operator: 21, 27, and 33 billion cubic metres a year. ## What we found The calibration suggests that the reservoir was not critically stressed before production. Its faults were more than one typical earthquake stress drop, about 1 MPa, from failure. Had they been closer, we would expect earthquakes to have begun before 1991. However, the best-fitting stress path coefficient is higher than the typically reported range of 0.5 to 0.8 (Chan and Zoback, 2002). We suggest that it compensates for physics missing from the model, such as stresses that depend on pressure changes elsewhere in the reservoir. In our forecasts, higher extraction rates produced more earthquakes and a small increase in the size of the largest. The 33 billion cubic metre scenario gave the most felt events (above magnitude 2.5), with a rate about 50% higher than the 21 billion scenario. However, all three scenarios gave a 5% chance, or 1 in 20, that the largest event exceeds magnitude 4.0. The magnitude with a 10% chance of being exceeded was 3.82, 3.87, and 3.89 for the three scenarios. These values span 0.07 magnitude units. This is partly because each forecast covers a range of possible largest magnitudes, and the shifts between scenarios are small against that range. The power-law distribution of earthquake sizes also contributes. Under it, a 50% increase in the number of earthquakes adds little to the size of the largest.
A statistical forecast for the same period (Zöller and Holschneider, 2016) gave 4.14, 4.26, and 4.31 for the same three scenarios. Our values are 0.3 to 0.4 magnitude units lower. The difference could arise from the way each model triggers earthquakes, or from their different calibration and forecast periods. Earthquakes at Groningen start at a shallow depth of about 3 km, and buildings in the region were built when it had few earthquakes. We expect an earthquake of magnitude 4 there to pose a greater hazard than one of similar size elsewhere in the world. ## Limitations The forecasts do not give the time or place of any particular earthquake. The model's largest possible event is magnitude 6.4, a rupture of the longest modelled fault, and none this large occurred in more than a million simulated earthquakes. However, the model cannot represent ruptures that extend into the basement rock below the reservoir or jump between faults. It also gives no indication whether the basement is critically stressed. The answer would affect the maximum size of earthquakes. We accepted the operator's modelled reservoir pressures as correct. Any error in them would shift our parameter estimates. The model does not reproduce short-term spikes, such as 59 recorded events in 2011 against a modelled rate of about 40 a year. Finally, the count for early 2017, extrapolated to a full year, would exceed the 2016 total. More observations are needed to tell whether the rate is stabilising, as our model suggests, or starting a sustained rise. ## Glossary An **induced earthquake** is one caused by human activity, here the extraction of gas. **Magnitude** is a logarithmic measure of earthquake size. **Effective normal stress** is the stress pressing the two sides of a fault together, reduced by the pressure of fluid in the rock. A **critically stressed** reservoir is one whose faults are already within about one earthquake stress drop of slipping. **Stress drop** is the fall in shear stress on a fault when it slips in an earthquake. The **stress path coefficient** is the ratio of the change in horizontal stress to the change in reservoir pressure. An **earthquake catalogue** is a list of recorded earthquakes with their times, locations, and magnitudes. **Markov chain Monte Carlo** is a sampling method that finds the range of parameter values consistent with the data. A **Poisson process** is a model of events that occur at random, at a given average rate. The **10% exceedance magnitude** is the magnitude that the largest earthquake in the forecast period has a 10% chance of exceeding. A **power-law distribution** of earthquake sizes means that each unit increase in magnitude makes earthquakes rarer by a fixed factor. ## Abstract Earthquakes induced by natural gas extraction from the Groningen reservoir, the Netherlands, put local communities at risk. Responsible operation of a reservoir whose gas reserves are of strategic importance to the country requires understanding of the link between extraction and earthquakes. We synthesize observations and a model for Groningen seismicity to produce forecasts for felt seismicity (M > 2.5) in the period February 2017 to 2024. Our model accounts for poroelastic earthquake triggering and rupture on the 325 largest reservoir faults, using an ensemble approach to model unknown heterogeneity and replicate earthquake statistics. We calculate probability distributions for key model parameters using a Bayesian method that incorporates the earthquake observations with a nonhomogeneous Poisson process. Our analysis indicates that the Groningen reservoir was not critically stressed prior to the start of production. Epistemic uncertainty and aleatoric uncertainty are incorporated into forecasts for three different future extraction scenarios. The largest expected earthquake was similar for all scenarios, with a 5% likelihood of exceeding M 4.0. ## Cite Dempsey, David, Suckale, Jenny (2017). Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(15), 7773-7782. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl073878 ```bibtex @article{dempsey2017physics, title = {Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands}, author = {Dempsey, David and Suckale, Jenny}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, year = {2017}, volume = {44}, number = {15}, pages = {7773-7782}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union (AGU)}, doi = {10.1002/2017gl073878}, url = {https://ddempsey.github.io/papers/2017-dempsey-physics-forecasting-induced-seismicity-groningen/} } ```