Othermal and CO2 Reservoirs in Europe PDF

Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics
A survey of the induced seismic responses to uid injection in geothermal and

CO2 reservoirs in Europe
Keith F. Evans a, , Alba Zappone b , Toni Kraft b , Nicolas Deichmann b , Fabio Moia c
a
b
c
Engineering Geology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zrich, Switzerland
Swiss Seismological Service, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zrich, Switzerland
RSE-Ricerca Sistema Energetico S.p.A., Milan, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 February 2010
Accepted 13 August 2011
Available online 21 October 2011
Keywords:
Geothermal
Injection-induced seismicity
Large-magnitude events (LME)
CO2 sequestration
a b s t r a c t
The paper documents 41 European case histories that describe the seismogenic response of crystalline
and sedimentary rocks to uid injection. It is part of an on-going study to identify factors that have
a bearing on the seismic hazard associated with uid injection. The data generally support the view
that injection in sedimentary rocks tends to be less seismogenic than in crystalline rocks. In both cases,
the presence of faults near the wells that allow pressures to penetrate signicant distances vertically
and laterally can be expected to increase the risk of producing felt events. All cases of injection into
crystalline rocks produce seismic events, albeit usually of non-damaging magnitudes, and all crystalline
rock masses were found to be critically stressed, regardless of the strength of their seismogenic responses
to injection. Thus, these data suggest that criticality of stress, whilst a necessary condition for producing
earthquakes that would disturb (or be felt by) the local population, is not a sufcient condition. The
data considered here are not fully consistent with the concept that injection into deeper crystalline
formations tends to produce larger magnitude events. The data are too few to evaluate the combined
effect of depth and injected uid volume on the size of the largest events. Injection at sites with low
natural seismicity, dened by the expectation that the local peak ground acceleration has less than a 10%
chance of exceeding 0.07 g in 50 years, has not produced felt events. Although the database is limited,
this suggests that low natural seismicity, corresponding to hazard levels at or below 0.07 g, may be a
useful indicator of a low propensity for uid injection to produce felt or damaging events. However,
higher values do not necessarily imply a high propensity.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Induced seismicity is recognised as a possible hazard in practically all engineering endeavours where stress or pore pressure in
the subsurface is altered. This can be taken as a reection of the
realization that has dawned in the past 20 years that the Earths
crust generally supports high shear stress levels and is often close to
failure. Historically, the most damaging events, which have sometimes caused fatalities, are associated with the impoundment of
reservoirs (Gupta, 1992). However, earthquakes of a size sufcient
to cause damage have also been associated with mining activity
(Gibowicz, 1990), long-term uid withdrawal (Segall, 1989) and
uid injection (Nicholson and Wesson, 1990).
Given that massive uid injections to stimulate crystalline
rocks have routinely been performed during Engineered/Enhanced
Geothermal System (EGS) projects formerly called Hot Dry Rock
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 44 633 2521; fax: +41 44 633 1108.
E-mail address: keith.evans@erdw.ethz.ch (K.F. Evans).
0375-6505/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.08.002
(HDR) projects since the early 1970s, it is perhaps surprising

that the issue of seismic hazard associated with these operations
has only recently come to the fore. This is because the pioneering EGS developments at Fenton Hill (USA), Rosemanowes (UK),
Hijiori (Japan) and Soultz (France) (3.5 km reservoir) did not produce events large enough to disturb the local population, whereas
more recent attempts to develop systems at 4.55.0 km depth at
Soultz, Cooper Basin (Australia) and Basel (Switzerland) produced
events approaching or exceeding magnitude 3. There are also one
or two instances where small but felt events have been associated
with the operation of deep (3 km) hydrothermal systems.
The recent increase of interest in developing deep geothermal
systems and of sequestering large quantities of CO2 underground
makes it desirable to identify factors that inuence the different
seismogenic responses to uid injection at various sites. This paper
documents the rst stage of an on-going study that seeks to determine such factors through examination of incidences where uid
injection has taken place without generating seismic events that
were felt by the local population, as well as cases where it has. We
make no distinction between induced and triggered seismicity.
K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054
31
Fig. 1. Location of injection sites discussed in the paper shown on a Mercator projection. There are four sites in the Munich area that are considered: Riem, Pullach, Unterschleissheim and Unterhaching. The background is taken from the global seismic hazard map of the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP)
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/static/GSHAP. The color scale denote the GSHAP index of local seismic hazard from natural earthquakes dened in terms of the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) in %g on stiff soil that has a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (equivalent to a recurrence period of 475 years).
The scope of this study is limited to reporting European case

histories of injection-related seismicity, including the project to
develop an EGS beneath the city of Basel in 2006. Most, if not all
incidences of injection into crystalline rocks are included, regardless of whether events were felt. However, at this stage our coverage
of injection into sedimentary rocks is not complete, especially for
non-geothermal injections that did not produce felt earthquakes.
Two sites where CO2 is injected into sedimentary rock are included.
We exclude from consideration other types of induced seismicity
associated with such activities as uid withdrawal, excavation or
reservoir impoundment since these may involve somewhat different mechanisms.
The case histories of injections into igneous and sedimentary
target rocks are presented in separate sections and are ordered
alphabetically according to country. This structuring has the disadvantage that case histories from the same geological province
but different countries are not reported contiguously, although the
incidences are few. The locations of the sites are shown in Fig. 1, and
a summary listing of parameters for the sites is given in Table 1. A
rock mass will be referred to as critically stressed if the shear stress
level it supports would produce failure of an optimally oriented
fracture whose strength is described by Coulomb friction criterion
with a coefcient 0.65. The maximum and minimum principal horizontal stresses will be denoted by SHmax and Shmin , respectively,
and the vertical stress by SV .
For the purpose of comparing the natural seismic activity at a
site, we used an index of estimated local seismic hazard which is
based on an assessment for all of Europe that conforms to a single
standard. This hazard is quantied in Table 1 and Fig. 1 by the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) in units of g, the acceleration of gravity
taken from the compilation of Giardini et al. (1999). The value of
PGA for a site denotes the acceleration level on stiff soil that has
a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (equivalent to a

recurrence period of 475 years). Regions of low hazard are characterised by values below 0.08 g, high hazard areas have PGAs above
0.24 g, and moderate hazard regions present intermediate values.
It should be emphasised that this value is not necessarily a measure
of the seismogenic response of the ground to injection, but rather,
is a conveniently available index of natural seismic hazard at a site
that is based on the peak earthquake-induced shaking that is likely
to occur at the site. Consequently, PGA values will be high for localities with no natural seismicity if it neighbours a region where large
events occur. Such situations are noted in the text.
Throughout this report, seismic magnitudes are given as
either local magnitude, ML , duration magnitude, MD or momentmagnitude, MW . Whenever possible, macroseismic intensities are
given in terms of the EMS-98 scale (Grntal et al., 1998) and
denoted Io(EMS). Most macroseismic intensities given in this
paper were derived before EMS-98 was dened. These values are
denoted as Io and should be broadly consistent with the EMS-98
classication. The most likely difference is that indistinct values
such as Io = IVV or Io = VIVII would most probably be assessed as
Io(EMS) = IV and Io(EMS) = VI respectively in the EMS-98 classication.
2. Geothermal injection case histories: igneous rocks
2.1. France
2.1.1. Le Mayet de Montagne, France
The site is located 25 km south-east of Vichy, France, at the
northern fringe of the Massif Central where the granite outcrops.
It was established in 1985 as an EGS test site with two boreholes
drilled to 800 m depth. The local stress state is characterised as
32
Table 1
Summary of site and injection parameters and the associated maximum earthquake magnitudes for the cases discussed in the text. The injection parameters refer to the operation (i.e. stimulation or circulation) associated with
the largest magnitude event detected.
Setting
Location/Countrya
Depthb
(km)
Geothermal: igneous rocks

0.75
Le Mayet/FR
Soultz/FR
3.5
Soultz/FR
5.0
4.3
Bad Urach/DE
Rockc
Stressd
regime
Critical
stress?
Granite
Granite
Granite
Gneiss
NF
SS/NF
SS/NF
SS/NF
SS
SS
9.0
3.0/6.0
3.0
Gneiss
Gneiss
Gr/SS/Carb.
Kraa/IS
Laugaland/IS
Svartsengi/IS
Hellisheidi/IS
Monte Amiata/IT
Fjllbacka/SE
Basel/CH
Rosemanowes/UK
2.0
1.8/2.8
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
5.0
2.5
Basalt
Basalt
Basalt
Basalt
Metam.
Granite
Granite
Granite
Geothermal: Sedimentary rocks

1.9
Simbach-Brunau/AT
Altheim/AT
2.2
2.1
Geinberg/AT
Bad Blumau/AT
2.6
Thisted/DK
1.25
Margretheholm/DK
2.5
Paris/FR
1.16-1.98
2.4
Neustadt-Glewe/DE
1.55
Waren/DE
Carb.
Carb.
Carb.
Carb.
SS
SS
Carb.
SS
SS
SS/NF
TF
SS
SS
Date
Inject.f type
Qmaxg
(l/s)
Pw-max
(MPa)
Vinjh (m3 )
Max ML i
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
8
8
9
1987
1993
2003
2002
Stimulation
Stimulation
Stimulation
Stimulation
73
38
90
504
25
10
18
34
200
20 103
37 103
5.6 103
N-Felt
1.9
2.9
1.8
Yes
Yes
6
6
8
1994
2000
2007
Inject. test
Inject. test
Circulation
9
1.2
70
55
30
6.0
200
2 103
Balanced
1.2
0.5
2.7
1.3
20022004
19971999
1993
2003
1969
1989
2006
1987
Circulation
Circulation
5-month inj.
Drill&Stim.
Circulation
Stimulation
Stimulation
Circulation
45
621
30
50
0.1
3.4
3.4
1.7k
21
55
33
13
30
11
200
12 103
2.0
<1
<1
2.4
3.5
0.2
3.4
2.0
0.17
5
6
6
7
4
2
4
2
2
2001
2001
1998
1999
2001
2004
19711995
1984
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
74
81
21
30
56
65
83
31
14
0.1k
<1.7
<0.2
<0.7
1.7
7.0
3.5
0.8k
6.0k
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.01.4
1.5
1.3
2
1
1989
2007
Circulation
Stimulation
28
150
1.1k
59
Balanced
13 103
N-Rep
1.1
1.2
2
5
2003
1999
Stimulation
Circulation
50
45
32
1.5k
20 103
90% injected
<0
N-Rep
1.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SS/TF
SS/TF
SS/TF
Neubrandenburg/DE
Gross Schnebeck/DE
1.25
4.0
SS
SS/Volc.
NF
Horstberg/DE
Straubing/DE
4.0
0.8
SS
Carb.
SS/TF
Yes
24
14
40
49
19
3
15
4
200 103
Well sep.j
(km)
Comments
Attempted hydrofracture
Event 9 days after shut-in
Event after shut-in
Initial inj. rate drops from 50
to 10 l/s in hrs.
Wells intersect faults. Event

after 1.9 yrs.
Operational geothermal eld
Recharge depleted reservoir
Recharge depleted reservoir
Well HE-8: event at 7 km
Felt event during circulation
Both wells intersect faults

Both wells near faults
Injection well near a fault
Faults not targeted

P-inject. reduced to 1.6 MPa in
1986
Data from stimulation of 2nd
well
Munich-Pullach/DE
Munich-Riem/DE
3.4/3.4
2.7/3.0
Carb.
Carb.
SS/TF
SS/TF
5
5
2005
2004
Circulation
Circulation
32
75
4.0
2.5k
Balanced
Balanced
N-Rep
N-Rep
1.8
2.2
Unterhaching/DE
Unterschleissheim/DE
Bruchsal/DE
3.6/3.35
1.6/1.6
2.0/2.5
Carb.
Carb.
SS
SS/TF
SS/TF
5
5
7
2007
2003
2008
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
120
100
24
2.5k
<1.0k
0.5k
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
2.4
N-Rep
N-Rep
4.0
2
1.4
Injection well intersects minor

fault
Neither well intersects faults
Production well intersects
fault
Both wells intersects faults
Both wells intersect faults
KTB/DE
KTB/DE
Landau/DE
PGAe
(% g)
2.0
1.0
Carb.
Carb.
SS/NF
SS/NF
Yes
Yes
16
19
1977
1984
Circulation
Injection
Torre Alna/IT
2.0
Carb.
SS/NF
Yes
20
1977
Injection
40
Cesano/IT
Bialy-Dunajec/PO
Uniejw/PO
Riehen/CH
2.0
2.4
2.0
1.25/1.55
Carb.
Carb.
SS
Carb.
SS/NF
NF
Yes
14
11
2
15
1978
2001
2001
1989
Injection
Circulation
Circulation
Circulation
2008
1996
Injection
Injection
CO2 sequestration: sedimentary rocks

Ketzin/DE
0.65
Sleipner/NO-Offshore
0.81.1
a
SS
SS
SS
Balanced
3.0
2.9
1.2
4.2 103
3.0
15
186
19
18
7.5
3.8k
0.3k
1.2
2 103
Balanced
Balanced
Balanced
2.0
N-Rep
N-Rep
N-Rep
0.8 kg/sl
32 kg/sl
1.7k
<3.4k
N-Rep
N-Rep
2.0
1.2-1.7
1.0
1

Event near active injection
well L2.
Max. event larger than
background
Injection into well RC-1
In operation since 1992
System extended in 2004
CO2 is a gas at formation PT

CO2 is supercritical at
formation PT
AT: Austria; CH: Switzerland; DE: Germany; DK: Denmark; FR: France; IS: Iceland; IT: Italy; PO: Poland; UK: United Kingdom.
Where two values are given: the rst denotes the depth of the injection well.
c
Carb.: carbonate; GR: granite; Meta: metamorphics; SS: sandstones; Volc.: volcanics.
d
TF: thrust faulting (i.e. S1 is vertical); SS: strike-slip (i.e. S2 is vertical); NF: normal faulting (i.e. S3 is vertical).
e
Peak ground acceleration (% of the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 mm/s2 )) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years as estimated on the basis of natural seismicity. Values of 7 or less denote low hazard: 823
denote moderate hazard: 2448 denote high hazard: and 49 and greater denote very high hazard.
f
Stimulation: relatively short high-pressure injection to enhance rock mass permeability; Drill: injection during drilling due to uid losses; Circulation: simultaneous injection and production from doublets or triplets whose
ow volumes may or may not be equal. CO2 : injection of liquid carbon dioxide.
g
The injection or circulation parameters reect peak operational values.
h
The uid volume injected is difcult to estimate for circulations lasting more than a few months. Balanced: injection and production rates are equal.
i
N-Rep: No events reported either by local population or a regional/local network. N-Felt: events of uncertain magnitude recorded by a local network but none were felt by the local population.
j
Separation at reservoir depth between injection and production wells for circulation operations. No separation is given for single-well injection tests.
k
Value indicates estimated downhole injection pressure above the natural formation pressure.
l
Flow rates and volumes are specied in terms of mass because the uid is a gas under formation pressure and temperature conditions.
b
Larderello-Travale/IT
Latera/IT
33
34
strike-slip with a Shmin /SV ratio of 0.55, and thus the rocks are critically stressed. Natural seismicity is low, although the historical
record indicates that two events estimated to be of momentmagnitude MW 4.3 have occurred at distances of 16 and 27 km from
the site over the last 130 years (Grnthal et al., 2009).
Numerous injection experiments were conducted at depths
between 400 and 800 m in attempts to develop an underground
heat exchanger. Microseismicity was recorded with a 15-station
array. The rst stimulation at the site was conducted by injecting 61 m3 of water through a double packer at 443 m depth at a
wellhead pressure of 19 MPa. Six seismic events of local magnitude
ML 1.3 to 0.9 were recorded (Talebi and Cornet, 1987). Numerous stimulation injections followed. One of the largest involved
the injection of 200 m3 of uid at 73 l/s and up to 25 MPa wellhead pressure (Table 1), and resulted in a shut-in pressure of
16 MPa (Cornet, 1989), much greater than the 4 MPa wellhead
pressure needed to attain Shmin within the reservoir. Relatively
few events were recorded during the stimulations, although 140
were detected at depths of 400800 m during the various circulation tests conducted on the doublet system (Evans et al., 1992).
The event magnitudes have not been reported, although none
were felt by the on site project personnel (F. Cornet, pers. comm.,
June 2009).
2.1.2. Soultz-sous-Forts, France
The Soultz-sous-Forts site is located in the Upper Rhine Graben
(URG), some 40 km NNE of Strasbourg, France (other sites in
the URG described in this paper are Bruchsal, Landau, Basel and
Riehen). At the Soultz site, the granitic basement lies below 1.4 km
of sediments. Graben-parallel faults produce a horst-and-graben
structure within the basement. Fracture zones within the basement
are high-angle and strike approximately normal to the EW average
minimum stress direction. The magnitude of Shmin is about 0.5SV ,
which is typical of a graben setting. Thus, the rock mass, and many
of the large-scale structures within it, is critically stressed at all
reservoir depths (Evans, 2005; Valley, 2007). The region has low-tomoderate seismic hazard (Table 1). In 1954 a series of events with
magnitudes up to ML 4.8 and intensities up to Intensity Io(EMS) VI
on the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) occurred 1020 km
to the southeast of Soultz towards Seltz/Wissenbourg (Helm, 1996).
The hypocentre depth is uncertain although the macroseismic
observations suggest several kilometres.
The development of the project site began in 1987 with the
drilling of a 2 km deep well to explore the granitic basement below
1.4 km. Subsequently, a doublet system was developed and circulated at 3.03.5 km depth in 19921997, and a triplet at 4.55.0 km
depth developed and tested between 1998 and 2009. Long-term
circulation of the deep system with power production commenced
in 2010 (Genter et al., 2010).
All wells were subjected to massive hydraulic injections of typically 20,00040,000 m3 at ow rates of 4080 l/s and pressures
that reached the minimum stress value (Cornet et al., 2007). Seismic activity was monitored with downhole and surface networks.
Tens of thousands of events associated with each stimulation were
recorded by the downhole array. For the reservoir at 3.03.5 km
depth, the largest event that occurred during the rst massive injection into the rock mass in 1993 was assigned a magnitude of ML
1.7 from the surface array (Helm, 1996) and occurred during the
highest-rate injection of 36 l/s. However, a ML 1.9 occurred some 9
days after shut-in. Neither of these events were felt by site personnel. At Soultz, magnitudes greater than ML 2.0 can felt by the nearby
population under ideal conditions (N. Cuenot, pers. comm., May
2010). Fluid circulation of the 3.5 km deep system for 4 months in
1997 was balanced (i.e., injection = production), and hence did not
involve a component of net injection. No seismicity was detected
during this test (Baria et al., 1997).
Stimulation of the wells of the deeper reservoir involved comparable injection volumes to those used in the upper reservoir,
and again pressures appear to have been limited near the minimum principal stress level by natural processes (Valley and Evans,
2007). Stimulation of the rst well that penetrated the 5 km reservoir, GPK2, began in June 2000 with the injection of 22,000 m3 of
water at rates of up to 50 l/s. Wellhead pressure rose to 14.5 MPa at
shut-in. Some 700 events with magnitudes between ML 1.0 and 2.5
occurred during injection, but a magnitude ML 2.6 occurred some 10
days after shut-in (Dorbath et al., 2009). Stimulation of the second
deep well, GPK3, took place in May 2003 and involved the injection of 34,000 m3 of brine and water into GPK3, for the most part at
50 l/s with occasional increases for a few hours of up to 90 l/s which
produced the maximum wellhead pressure of 17.9 MPa. Midway
through the stimulation, some 3400 m3 of water was simultaneously injected into GPK2 for 40 h at a rate of 20 l/s (Baria et al.,
2004). GPK2 wellhead pressure rose to 7.9 MPa. Some 200 events
with magnitudes between ML 1.0 and 2.5 occurred during this injection (Charlty et al., 2007). A magnitude ML 2.9 event occurred 2
days after shut-in, despite an attempt to avoid this by a stepwise
injection rate reduction (Baria et al., 2004).
The stimulation of the third deep well, GPK4, began in
September 2004. Injection rate was maintained at 30 l/s with a few
short increases of 2 h duration to 44 l/s. Peak wellhead pressure was
17.5 MPa. The injection was terminated after injecting 9000 m3 due
to a pump failure. The stimulation program resumed in February
2005 when a further 12,500 m3 of water was injected at up to 45 l/s
and peak wellhead pressures of 18.5 MPa (Dorbath et al., 2009).
Some 128 events with magnitudes between ML 1.0 and 2.7 were
recorded during injection, but none larger than ML 2.0 occurred
during shut-in.
Of the three deep Soultz wells, GPK3 appeared to be the most
prone to produce large events in response to injection. Dorbath
et al. (2009) found the b-values for the GPK2 and GPK3 seismicity
to be 1.23 and 0.94, respectively (although only over the respective
limited magnitude ranges of ML 1.01.9 and 1.02.3), and suggested
that the difference reected the activation of a major fracture zone
intersecting GPK3. In 2005, the 3-well system was subjected to a
6-month close-loop circulation test at 15 l/s using only buoyancy
drive to produce from GPK2 and GPK4. The uid was injected into
GPK3 at a wellhead pressure that progressively increased from 4
to 7 MPa. Seismicity began soon after injection commenced, and a
total of 32 events exceeding ML 1.2 were recorded during the entire
period, the largest being ML 2.3.
A 2-month closed-loop circulation test of wells GPK2GPK3 was
performed in 2008 at 25 l/s using a production pump in GPK2. No
seismicity was observed for 5 weeks during which time the GPK3
injection pressure rose steadily to 6 MPa. Seismicity began once
that pressure was exceeded, and included four events having magnitudes in the range ML 1.31.4 (Cuenot et al., 2010).
2.2. Germany
2.2.1. Bad Urach, Germany
The site is located near the centre of a geothermal anomaly in
the foothills of the Swabian Alb mountains. The orientation of SHmax
of N82 E is well dened by breakouts that are observed below
1900 m depth in the wells at the site (Heinemann et al., 1992).
The magnitudes of the horizontal principal stresses are not known
with condence, although the frequency of breakouts and their
consistent orientation suggests they are signicantly different. A
hydrofracture stress test on a 1 m naturally fractured interval at
3350 m in Urach-3 yielded an instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP)
of 4150 MPa (Rummel et al., 1991), implying Shmin is about 5055%
of the vertical stress. However, this value is not obviously consistent
with the 33 MPa overpressure sustained in the 168 m open-hole
interval during the hydrotesting phase. The area has moderate natural seismicity. Several events of intensity Io IVVI have occurred
within 15 km of the site in the past 200 years. However, it lies only
40 km from a region where events of up to ML 5.5 have occurred,
and hence the PGA takes a relatively high value. In 2002, a seismic
network of ve 3-component sensors was installed in 250 m deep
boreholes to monitor the stimulation of the deepened hole (Schanz
et al., 2003).
The HDR project was initiated in 1977 with the drilling of a
3334 m deep borehole, Urach-3, through 1.6 km of sediments into
the basement of metamorphic gneisses (Dietrich, 1982). Bottomhole temperature was 143 C. Seven inch casing was cemented
to 3320 m, leaving 14 m of 81/2 in. open hole. Further access to
the formation was provided by three 5 m long perforated intervals
located 25, 47 and 58 m above the casing shoe. Each interval was
subject to series of small-volume (<100 m3 ) stimulation injections,
which included gel and proppant for the perforated intervals, at
rates up to 20 l/s to establish a hydraulic linkage between them.
Very high wellhead pressures of up to 66 MPa were required
(Schdel and Dietrich, 1982). Post-stimulation interval transmissivities were of the order of 106 m2 /s (Stober, 1986) implying an
equivalent porous medium (EPM) permeability of 8 1016 m2 . A
circulation loop was established by running a packer on production tubing into the well and setting it below the lowest perforation
interval. Most circulation tests involved injection into the rock mass
through the three perforated intervals in the annulus and production from the open hole section through the tubing. Fluid losses
were low but system impedance was high and increased during
the test sequence (e.g. 35 MPa wellhead pressure required to inject
at 0.5 l/s in test 22) (Schdel and Dietrich, 1982). No seismic events
were felt on-site during the injections (Stober, 2011).
In 1983, the hole was deepened to 3488 m, leaving 168 m of
open hole. Initial hydraulic testing of the combined open hole and
perforated intervals combined showed that the transmissivity of
all intervals had been signicantly reduced during the deepening,
suggesting mud invasion of the fractures had reduced their permeability (Stober, 1986; Stober and Bucher, 2000). Transmissivity
was also pressure-dependent, and markedly increased at wellhead
injection pressures above 17 MPa, indicating the onset of fracture
dilation. No limiting injection pressure, as might be expected for
hydrofracture growth, was reached up to 33 MPa (Stober, 1986).
In 1992, the well was further deepened with a 57/8 in. bit to
4395 m TVD (true vertical depth) as the rst well of an intended
doublet. Bottom-hole temperature was 170 C. Following logging,
a drill string was lost in the well (Tenzer et al., 2000). The top
lies within the casing at 3234 m and obstructs access to the open
hole, although it remains hydraulically open. Injection tests showed
similar behaviour to that seen before the latest deepening, with
evidence of fracture dilation above 17 MPa and no limiting pressure being reached up to a maximum wellhead pressure attained
in the tests of 25 MPa (Stober, 2005). The low-pressure transmissivity was of the order 5 107 m2 /s, implying an EPM permeability
of 9 1018 m2 .
In September 2002, the 1125 m long open hole together with
the perforated intervals was subjected to a large-volume stimulation injection of 5600 m3 of brine and water. The stimulation
began with two 1 h, high-rate injections of heavy brine prepared
from high-grade salt. In the second of these, 150 m3 was injected
at 3540 l/s and a wellhead pressure of 34 MPa, the maximum
imposed by casing limitations (Tenzer et al., 2004). The main water
stimulation began immediately afterwards at a rate of 50 l/s and a
wellhead pressure of 34 MPa, but injection rate had to be progressively reduced to 10 l/s over several hours due to rapidly increasing
reservoir impedance. The rst seismicity was detected 9 h after
the start of operations (Schanz et al., 2003), and was coincident
with the injection impedance increase, suggesting that the initial
35
high-rate phase had served to inate the reservoir created in previous phases of the project. After 5 days, a further slug of brine was
injected to achieve higher downhole pressure. Injectivity declined
further, necessitating a further reduction in injection rate to 5 l/s
and eventually 4 l/s to prevent wellhead pressure exceeding the
34 MPa casing limit (Tenzer et al., 2004). This may have been due
to clogging of the ow paths by sediment from the salt used to prepare the brine (U. Schanz, personal comm., April 2011). Injection
was paused after 7.4 days and the well vented in two 4 h relatively high-rate production periods during which uid volumes of
210 and 140 m3 were recovered at rates which declined to 12
and 10 l/s. Each period was followed by a 4 h period of shut-in
(note that the venting rate of 90 l/s reported by Stober (2011) for
this phase is in error (I. Stober, personal comm., March 2011)). Wellhead pressure rose within 2 h to stable levels of 14.7 and 12.3 MPa
during the rst and second periods respectively. Given the uid
volumes recovered and the low porosity nature of the rock, these
observations qualitatively indicate that reservoir overpressures in
excess of 10 MPa extended signicant distances from the wellbore
and were not limited to the near-eld. A total of 420 events were
detected during the injection. These had moment-magnitudes of
0.6 to 1.8, and extended more than 500 m from the well (Tenzer
et al., 2004).
A step-rate injection test was conducted 2 weeks after the stimulation. A total of 1200 m3 of water was injected at rates of 2.4 and
1.8 l/s and wellhead pressures of up to 17.0 MPa. Following shut-in,
wellhead pressure dropped quickly within a few hours to 13 MPa
but then declined more slowly to reach 7.5 MPa after 6 days (Baisch
et al., 2004; Schanz et al., 2003). Transmissivity estimates lie in
the range 0.51.5 106 m2 /s, only marginally higher than before
the stimulation (Stober, 2011). A further set of injections was performed in summer 2003, the largest of which involved the injection
over 10 days of 1950 m3 of water at a rate of 2.1 l/s and wellhead
pressure of up to 18.3 MPa. A total of 218 events were detected
(Tenzer et al., 2004). The seismic energy release rate continued to
increase with pressure once 15 MPa was exceeded (Baisch et al.,
2004).
In 2006, drilling of a second borehole, Urach-4, commenced with
the intention of forming a doublet. The drilling was stopped at a
depth of 2793 m due to budgetary considerations (Stober, 2011).
The condition of the wells was evaluated in 2008 with a view to
developing a duplet between the 100 m separated wells at 2500 m
depth. Urach-4 could not be logged below 1600 m because of gelled
drilling uid. The costs of cleaning the well were considered prohibitive and so the proposal was abandoned (Cammerer et al.,
2009). The lost drill string remains in Urach-3.
2.2.2. KTB borehole, Germany
The 9.1 km deep German Continental Deep Borehole (i.e. the
KTB borehole) that penetrates gneisses and amphibolites was completed in 1994 in SE Germany. Natural seismicity at the site is
very low. However, it lies just south of a region of moderate natural seismic activity characterised by swarms of events whose
intensity rarely exceeds Io V within 30 km of the site. The rocks
are in a critical stress state, at least between 3 and 7.5 km depth
(Brudy et al., 1997). Shortly after completion, about 200 m3 of
brine was injected at up to 9 l/s and 55 MPa wellhead pressure
into the 70 m open-hole section at well bottom. Microseismicity
was monitored using a temporary surface network of 73 shortperiod stations augmented by an instrument located at 3.8 km
depth in the KTB pilot borehole. A group of 400 events of magnitude less than ML 0 extended several hundred metres above the
injection interval, and a cluster that included the largest event
of ML 1.2 occurred at 8.6 km depth (Zoback and Harjes, 1997). A
few events were observed as much as 1.5 km above the injection
interval.
36
In 2000, a larger injection of 4000 m3 of water was performed

at ow rates of up to 1.2 l/s and wellhead pressures of 30 MPa over
60 days. The injection was monitored by a surface network of 40
3-component stations augmented with a downhole instrument at
3.8 km in the pilot borehole. A total of 2800 seismic events were
located. The vast majority were found to be clustered at 3.3, 5.4,
6.6 km, as well as near the hole bottom at 9.0 km. These depths
are believed to reect points where uid ow into the rock mass
occurred, through casing leaks or open hole. The maximum event
magnitude was ML 0.5 (Baisch and Harjes, 2003). More recently,
a 10-month injection test was conducted into the 4.0 km deep
pilot hole at a constant rate of 3 l/s and a wellhead pressure of
912 MPa. Some 3000 events were recorded (Shapiro et al., 2006),
but they were of lower magnitude than those in the earlier experiments (Kmpel et al., 2006).
2.2.3. Landau, Germany
This dual use (electricity/district heating) project is located in
the Upper Rhine Graben some 35 km NE of Soultz (Fig. 1). The injection occurs into both basement and the lowermost units of the
sedimentary section, and so this site could equally well be included
in Section 3 on sedimentary rock (Schindler et al., 2010). The locality
is cut by high-angle faults that strike NS (Illies and Greiner, 1978),
sub-parallel to the NNESSW strike of the graben. There is no published stress information for the site. However, given the graben
setting, the focal mechanism solutions of local earthquakes and the
measured stress state at the Soultz EGS site, it is likely that Shmin
is oriented EW to SWNE, and is substantially less than SV . The
region has low-to-moderate natural seismic activity with historical events that produced maximum intensities of up to Io VIIVIII
on the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98). An event with an
estimated maximum intensity of Io VII occurred some 10 km to the
south of Landau, near Kandel in 1903 (Ahorner et al., 1970b). For the
Upper Rhine Graben region, a maximum intensity Io(EMS) VII for
shallow events corresponds to a magnitude ML of 4.04.5. Macroseismic observations suggest a depth of a few kilometres (Ahorner
et al., 1970b). The site borders an oileld that has produced oil from
a formation at 1.1 km depth since 1955 (Doebl, 1968) and continues to do so today. Long-term uid extraction can be a source of
seismicity (Van Eck et al., 2006).
During 2005 and 2006, two boreholes were drilled deviated in
opposite EW directions so as to penetrate faults that cut relatively
permeable carbonates and sandstones at the base of the sedimentary section and the uppermost level of the basement at 3 km
depth (Schindler et al., 2010). Well separation at reservoir depth is
1.3 km. The faults are believed to intersect some distance north of
the site, and so ow within the reservoir is complex and probably
fault-controlled (Baumgrtner et al., 2010b). The injection well, GtLa2, was subjected to a hydraulic stimulation at rates of up to 190 l/s
and wellhead pressures of 13.5 MPa (Hettkamp et al., 2007). There
was no felt seismicity associated with this operation (Baumgrtner
et al., 2010a). The production well, Gt-La1, did not require hydraulic
stimulation because it intersected a highly transmissive fault.
The doublet was tested during 2007, and power production
from a 3.8 MWe ORC plant was demonstrated in November of
that year. A balanced circulation rate of 65 l/s was maintained
from February to November 2008, during which time the injection pressure declined from 6.0 to 3.0 MPa (Baumgrtner et al.,
2010a). Following the installation of a downhole pump in GtLa1, circulation at 70 l/s resumed in February and continued until
mid-September 2009. Injection pressure during this time steadily
increased from 4.0 MPa to almost 5.5 MPa (Baumgrtner et al.,
2010a). In February 2008, two small earthquakes with magnitudes
of ML 1.7 and 1.8 were recorded in the area by the Seismological Services of Baden-Wrttemberg and Rheinland-Pfalz. Another
event of ML 1.7 occurred in the area in October 2008, and three
further events of magnitudes ML 1.61.9 were detected in the area

on 9 May 2009. Although these events occurred in the area of Landau, their depths were not well constrained. On 15 August 2009,
an ML 2.7 event that was felt by the population of Landau occurred
shortly after operation of the system had been halted for maintenance operations. The event hypocentre was located by an expert
group as lying 1.52.0 km north of the plant at a depth of 2.33.3 km
(Bnnemann et al., 2010). Thus the failure area could lie either in
the sediments or the basement or both. A further seven events
were recorded on the same day. The plant resumed operation in
November 2009 with the maximum injection pressure lowered to
4.5 MPa.
A similar dual use project is being developed about 5 km south
of Landau near Insheim. Drilling and initial testing of the second well of the doublet was completed in 2009 (Baumgrtner
et al., 2010a). In September 2009 the Seismological Services of
Baden-Wrttemberg and Rheinland-Pfalz recorded ve events of
magnitude approximately ML 2.0 within a few kilometres of the site
(LED-LGRB, 2010). The relationship of these events to operations at
the site is unclear.
2.3. Iceland
Geothermal well injection in Iceland is used both for reservoir stimulation and pressure maintenance or recharge. In most
cases, injection takes place at pressures less than several MPa or
is gravity-driven since the basalt reservoirs tend to have relatively
high natural transmissibility. The reservoirs and hence the injection horizons also tend to be comparatively shallow, the deepest
injection well being 2.8 km. Many geothermal areas experience
intermittent phases of natural seismic activity that are clearly unrelated to uid injection or other human activities. Here we describe
four sites where the seismic response to injection has been documented.
2.3.1. Kraa
Geothermal power has been generated at Kraa since 1977.
A 60 MWe power station is located in the Kraa caldera, which
was the source of a series of eruptions and intrusions associated
with crustal accretion that took place between 1975 and 1984
(Gudmundsson, 2001). The magmatic events were accompanied
by considerable seismicity which subsequently declined to low
levels. Analysis of focal mechanisms of earthquakes up to magnitude ML 2.1 occurring 1 year after the termination of the eruptions
indicated that a heterogeneous stress eld prevailed at that time
(Foulger et al., 1989). Some of the events were believed to result
from heat-mining operations. In 2004 a passive seismic experiment
was performed around the main injection well KG-26 of the hightemperature Kraa-Leirhnkur eld, which is located within the
caldera, 1 km north of the power station. This well supplies uid
to the lower reservoir at a depth of 2.02.1 km (Tang et al., 2005a),
and had been used as an injector more-or-less continuously since
2002 at rates of up to 70 l/s and wellhead pressures of 0.3 MPa.
In 2004, the rate and wellhead pressure were 45 l/s and 0.1 MPa
(. Gudmundsson, pers. comm., July 2010). The seismic activity
and velocity structure (including anisotropy) near the well were
monitored for 2 months with two 20-station 3-component arrays
(Onacha et al., 2005). During this period, injection into K-26 was
halted for 11 days to study the effect on seismicity and velocity
structure. An average of four locatable seismic events per day of
magnitudes less than ML 2.0 were detected (Tang et al., 2008). The
hypocentres lay between 1 and 3 km depth, and dened a predominantly EW trend near the well (Kahn, 2008; Tang et al., 2008).
Consequently, it is likely the majority of events were associated
with injection, although no obvious change in event frequency
accompanied the halt in injection (Tang et al., 2005b). However,
shear velocities along local raypaths around the well increased during the halt in injection, implying the closure of fractures that were
open during injection (Tang et al., 2005a). This is consistent with
the observation of shear-wave velocity anisotropy.
2.3.2. Laugaland
This is a low-temperature eld in central N-Iceland where production had resulted in a pressure drop of 3.5 MPa (Axelsson et al.,
2000). To recharge the reservoir, 1520 C water from the district
heating system was injected at rates of 621 kg/s and wellhead
pressures of up to 2.8 MPa into two deep wells (1.6 and 2.8 km) over
a 2-year period. Microseismic activity was monitored throughout
the operations by a network with a detection threshold of ML 1,
but no events that could be ascribed to the injection were recorded
(Axelsson et al., 2000).
2.3.3. Svartsengi
Exploitation of this high-temperature eld since 1976 had
resulted in a 2 MPa drop in reservoir pressure (Brandsdttir et al.,
2002). In 1984, intermittent injection of 7080 C waste water into
a 2.0 km deep well commenced with year-averaged rates as high as
55 l/s. A single seismometer installed on site in 1984 failed to detect
any events within the eld through 2001. The single instrument
was supplemented by a 16-instrument array for a 5-month period
in 1993 when 217,000 m3 of water was injected at rates up to 30 l/s
under gravity, but again no events were recorded (Brandsdttir
et al., 2002).
2.3.4. Hengill
This extensive geothermal area is located at a triple-junction in
a volcanically active region. Two geothermal elds lie immediately
north and south of the Hengill volcano. The area is characterised by
episodes of natural seismic swarm activity, and two ML 5.0 events
occurred in 1998 (Agustsson and Halldorsson, 2005). Consequently,
numerous studies have been conducted in the area to assess the
seismic hazard (Agustsson and Halldorsson, 2005) and for geothermal exploration purposes (Arnason et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2006).
The eld to the north, called Nesjavellir, is one of the highest temperature geothermal systems under exploitation in Iceland and has
been producing power since 1987 (Arnason et al., 2010). The eld
to the south, called Hellisheidi, is also high-temperature and was
explored somewhat later. It began producing power in 2006.
Signicant injection-induced microseismicity appears to have
occurred during the drilling and stimulation of a 2.8 km deep well
HE-8 in the Hellisheidi eld in 2003 (Bjornsson, 2004). The area
within a few kilometres of the well had been microseismically
active between 1995 and 1999, possibly associated with activity at Mt. Hengill, but had been largely quiet since then. During
drilling, water was lost into the formation at rates of 2050 l/s,
essentially constituting injection (Bjornsson, 2004). Drilling was
paused at 2500 m and the hot well stimulated by intermittently
injecting cold water at up to 60 l/s for several days. This coincided
with the detection by the national seismic network of a series of
earthquakes below the well at depths provisionally given in the
catalogue as 46 km. Shortly after drilling recommenced, another
series of events occurred near the well, the largest of which had
a magnitude ML 2.4 and a provisional depth of 7 km. After several
months of shut-in, cold water was injected for 15 days at 50 l/s with
downhole pressures of 1.7 MPa (Fig. 4 of Bjornsson (2004)). This was
accompanied by events with magnitudes in the ML 0.21.2 range
at depths between 4 and 6 km.
Similar behaviour was observed during injections into the
2.0 km deep well HE-21 in the same eld in February 2006. Following completion, the well had a low injectivity, and was stimulated
over a 3 days period by rst circulating and then injecting cold
water at progressively higher rates and downhole pressures up to
37
1.8 MPa above the formation pressure (Axelsson et al., 2006). By the
end of the operation, some 31 l/s of the uid entered the formation
at a downhole pressure of 1.4 MPa above the formation pressure
(Mortensen et al., 2006). During this time, several small events of
magnitude up to ML 2.0 were detected close to the well by the
national network of the Icelandic Meteorological Ofce (Axelsson
et al., 2006; Vogfjrd and Hjaltadttir, 2007). Consequently, two 3component seismic stations were temporarily installed to improve
event detectability and location accuracy (K. Vogfjrd, pers. comm.,
July 2010). Thermal stimulation operations resumed after 1 week
of shut-in with injection for 2 days at 65 l/s and a downhole overpressure of 3.4 MPa (Mortensen et al., 2006). Most uid entered
the formation through a fracture zone at 1850 m. No events were
detected during injection although a few that were too small to
locate occurred 12 days later (Vogfjrd and Hjaltadttir, 2007). A
few days later, a 2.5 day injection was conducted. The details of this
injection are not currently available, although it appears that ow
rates were not signicantly higher than the earlier injection due to
limitation of the water source, which was two nearby groundwater
wells. Seismicity began after 24 h of injection and included a ML 2.7
event. A total of 50 events could be located, the vast majority of
which lay between 1.0 and 2.5 km depth and dened a structure
that extended from the well towards the northeast (Vogfjrd and
Hjaltadttir, 2007).
The four Icelandic examples above emphasise the importance of
stress criticality in injection-induced microseismicity. The Laugeland and Svartsengi reservoirs had suffered pressure depletion,
and thus injection would serve to restore the stress-state to
pre-exploitation conditions, whereas the Hellisheidi and Kraa
reservoirs are located in zones which are undergoing, or have
recently undergone, tectonic activity, and hence the stress state
is more likely to be critical.
2.4. Italy
2.4.1. Monte Amiata area
This area is located at the southern boundary of Tuscany, and contains the Piancastagnaio and Bagnore elds (Billi
et al., 1986). Both elds have two reservoirs: a shallow one in
evaporites/carbonates at 0.61.0 km depth, and a deeper, waterdominated reservoir in the metamorphic basement at 2.53.5 km
with temperatures of 300350 C (Barelli et al., 2010; Bertini
et al., 2005). The level of background seismicity at the site is substantial (Batini et al., 1980b, 1990), and tends to mask potential
induced events. Studies of historical seismicity since year 1000
AD indicate that a relatively large event occurred in the area
that produced intensity IX MCS shaking (Batini et al., 1990). An
8 MWe power plant supplied with uid from the deeper reservoir was installed at Piancastagnaio in 1969 and was expanded to
88 MWe in the middle-to-late 1990s through the addition of 20 MW
plants.
A seismic network of 10 stations was installed at the site in
1982 and operated until 1992 when the network geometry was
changed (Moia, 2008). Seismicity is generally shallower than 8 km,
and tends to occur in swarms with many small events (Moia, 2008).
A magnitude ML 3.5 event occurred within the reservoir region in
1983 (Moia et al., 1993). However, it could have been a natural
event that would have occurred in the absence of injection activity (Batini et al., 1990; Moia et al., 1993). Examination of the INGV
(Istituto Nazionale di Geosica e Vulcanologia) catalogue shows
that a further MD 3.5 (duration magnitude) event occurred within
10 km of Piancastagnaio at a reported depth of 5 km in 2000 (INGV
Earthquake Catalogue).
The 88 MWe power plant is still in operation, although expansion is being slowed by environmental concerns unrelated to
seismicity (Cappetti et al., 2010).
38
2.5. Sweden
2.5.1. Fjllbacka, Sweden
This was a shallow (500 m) facility established on the west
coast of Sweden in 1984 to evaluate the Bohus granite as a potential HDR reservoir (Wallroth, 1992; Wallroth et al., 1999). Natural
seismicity is low, although the historical record indicates that several events of magnitude approaching ML 4.0 and intensities up to
Io 5 occurred within 25 km of the site. The stress regime at reservoir
depth is thrust, and near-critical in as much as an overpressure of
a few MPa above hydrostatic is sufcient to produce shearing of a
fracture set (Jupe et al., 1992).
Borehole Fjb1 was drilled to about 500 m depth and stimulated
with numerous injections culminating with 200 m3 of gel at 21 l/s
and 13 MPa wellhead pressure. A 16-station microseismic network
was installed that recorded 74 events during the stimulation with
magnitudes ranging between ML 1.3 and 0.2 (Eliasson et al.,
1988).
Subsequently, well Fjb3 was drilled through the microseismic
cloud about 100 m from Fjb1 and stimulated by injecting 36 m3 of
gel with proppant at 16 l/s and wellhead pressures of up to 19 MPa.
A further 50 events were recorded. The system was circulated for 40
days during 1989 by injecting water at 1.8 l/s into Fjb3 and producing Fjb1 against a 0.3 MPa back-pressure. Injection pressure at Fjb3
rose quickly to 3 MPa within a few hours and then progressively
more slowly to reach 5.2 MPa by the end of the test (Eliasson et al.,
1990). Only 50% of the injected uid was recovered, the remainder
being lost to the formation. Several hundred microseismic events
were recorded at distances up to 400 m from the injection point.
One was felt on site by the project employees but no complaints
were received from the local residents, some of whom lived within
500 m of the site. The event magnitude was not determined because
records were clipped (T. Wallroth, pers. comm., May, 2010).
2.6. Switzerland
2.6.1. Basel, Switzerland
The Basel EGS site is located at the southern end of the Upper
Rhine Graben, where it meets the fold and thrust belt formed by
the Jura mountains. The granitic basement lies under 2.4 km of sediments. The average orientation of Shmin within the granite section is
N144 E 14 (Valley and Evans, 2009), and is consistent with that
obtained from inversion of focal mechanisms from natural seismicity (Kastrup et al., 2004). A lower bound on the magnitude of
Shmin in the open-hole interval (46295000 m) given by 0.69SV is
set by the maximum downhole injection pressure of 74 MPa developed during the stimulation injection of well BS-1 (Haering et al.,
2008). The magnitude of SHmax is currently not well constrained.
The region is characterised by moderate seismicity, although the
city of Basel was severely damaged by a nearby earthquake that
occurred in 1356 (Meghraoui et al., 2001). For this reason, the PGA
value listed in Table 1 is relatively high.
Borehole BS-1 was drilled to 5 km depth within the city of Basel
in 2006 as the rst well of an intended doublet. In December 2006,
the lowermost 370 m was stimulated by injecting approximately
11,500 m3 of water at rates that were progressively increased from
1 to 55 l/s over 5 days. Wellhead pressures were restricted to
30 MPa by casing limitations (Haering et al., 2008). Seismic activity
accompanying the injection was monitored on a six-sensor network of borehole stations installed at depths of 3172740 m, as
well as surface stations of various networks.
Seismicity began at injection pressures of a few MPa indicating
that the rock mass is critically stressed. More than 10,500 events
were recorded on the borehole array during the injection phase,
with event rate and magnitude increasing with ow rate and pressure. On the fth day of injection (8 December 2006), a magnitude
ML 2.6 event occurred within the reservoir. Since this exceeded the
safety threshold for continued stimulation, the rate was reduced
to 30 l/s for 5 h before shutting-in. Two events of magnitude ML
2.7 and 3.4 occurred during shut-in. Hence, venting was initiated
after 5 h of shut-in to reduce the pressure as quickly as possible. In
the following days about one-third of the injected water volume
was allowed to ow back from the well (Haering et al., 2008). Seismic activity declined rapidly thereafter, although three events with
magnitudes exceeding ML 3.0 occurred 12 months after bleedoff (Deichmann and Giardini, 2009; Mukuhira et al., 2008). Minor,
sporadic microseismic activity is still occurring more than 4 years
later.
The hypocentre locations of 195 induced events that occurred
since the start of injection, and that were strong enough to be
recorded by the surface network of the Swiss Seismological Service, are shown in Fig. 2. The overall hypocentre distribution denes
a near-vertical lens-shaped cloud of 1.2 km diameter that strikes
NNWSSE and lies between 4 and 5 km depth. During injection,
seismicity migrated away from the borehole, as would be expected
for a diffusion-regulated process (see Fig. 6 of (Deichmann and
Giardini, 2009)), and step-increases in ow rate/pressure tended
to increase event rate (Haering et al., 2008). After shut-in and
bleed-off, seismic activity took place mainly at the periphery of the
stimulated volume (Deichmann and Giardini, 2009). Fault plane
solutions determined for the 28 strongest events are mostly pure
strike-slip mechanisms with two pure normal faulting, and one
a mixture of the two (Deichmann and Ernst, 2009). These focal
mechanisms are largely in accord with the mechanisms of the naturally occurring regional seismicity. However, the strike of the nodal
planes of most of the events is oblique to the overall orientation of
the seismic cloud. In fact, the focal mechanism of the ML 3.4 event
and its neighbours, together with the alignment of these events,
suggest that failure occurred on a WNWESE striking, near-vertical
plane (Deichmann and Ernst, 2009; Kahn, 2008). This suggests that
the internal structure of the stimulated rock volume is composed of
a complex network of individual fault segments oriented obliquely
to the general trend of the microseismic cloud.
2.7. United Kingdom
2.7.1. Rosemanowes, Cornwall, UK
The Rosemanowes HDR project was active between 1978
and 1991, and culminated in the development and operation
of a circulation system at a depth of 2 km within the Carnmenellis granite, which extends to the ground surface. Seismic
activity was monitored throughout operations with a surface network of 3-component accelerometers and occasionally a string
of hydrophones at reservoir depth (Batchelor et al., 1983). The
stress state is strike-slip and critical, the coefcient of the Coulomb
friction strength law required to prevent failure at 2.0 km under
ambient conditions being 0.85 (Evans et al., 1992). The area has low
natural seismic hazard. The nearest events of note, which include
a ML 3.5 event that occurred in 1981, are clustered near the town
of Constantine, some 6 km south of the site (Turbitt et al., 1987).
Initially, two wells were drilled to 2050 m and stimulated with a
variety of methods, including gel and water injections. For the main
water stimulation, the wellhead pressure was 14 MPa and ow rate
was 90 l/s. Many tens of thousands of events of magnitude less than
ML 0.16 were detected (derived from a moment of 1.8 109 Nm
given by Baria et al. (1985)). None were felt by the local population or the on-site project staff (CSM-Report, 1989; Turbitt et al.,
1987). The seismic activity preferentially grew downward, which
is ascribed to the pore pressure increase required for shear failure
decreasing with depth (Pine and Batchelor, 1984).
In 1985, a third well was drilled through the microseismic cloud
to 2.65 km depth and stimulated with the injection of 5700 m3
(a)
Epicentre locations relative to casing shoe
39
(b)
Horizontal location relative to casing shoe

Fig. 2. Epicentre plot (a) and depth cross-section (b) parallel to the general trend of the epicentre alignment showing the locations of 195 events with magnitudes in the
range ML 0.73.4, that occurred between December 2, 2006 and November 30, 2007 as a consequence of the reservoir stimulation below the city of Basel (after Deichmann
and Giardini, 2009). Average uncertainties of the relative locations of the events, determined with a master-event location technique, are on the order of 50 m horizontally
and 70 m vertically. The location of the vertical well is marked by the black dot at (0,0) in (a), and by the thick (casing) and thin (open hole) vertical line in (b). The size of each
circle is proportional to the seismic moment of the event. The four events with ML > 3.0 are shown by the bold circles; the ML 3.4 event that occurred just after shut-in on
December 8 is located close to the bottom of the well; the other three ML > 3 events occurred in the upper SSW corner of the microseismic cloud, 12 months after the well
had been vented and wellhead pressures had returned to near-hydrostatic levels. The arrows in (a) denote the mean orientation of the maximum horizontal compressive
stress in the granite basement.
of intermediate-viscosity gel (0.05 Pa s) at rates up to 260 l/s and

downhole pressures up to 35 MPa, which is 12.8 MPa above formation pressure (Pine et al., 1987; Parker, 1989). A program of
circulation tests that featured a variety of congurations and ow
rates commenced in August 1985 and ran until the end of 1989.
Fluid losses averaged about 20%, and thus circulation constituted
long-term net injection. Losses and seismic activity increased signicantly at injection pressures above 10 MPa (about 24 l/s), when
downhole pressures approached Shmin , indicating reservoir growth
(Baria and Green, 1990). The largest seismic event that can reasonably be associated with project operations was a magnitude ML 2.0
that occurred in July 1987 and was mildly felt by the local population within a few kilometres of the site (Turbitt et al., 1987). At the
time, the injection rate was 33 l/s at 11.1 MPa wellhead pressure,
which is somewhat less than the peak rate of 38 l/s at 12 MPa that
had been maintained for 2 weeks in April 1986. The event occurred
at 3.1 km depth, and reactivated a seismic structure that had been
active early in the testing (CSM-Report, 1989). Subsequently, injection rate was lowered to 21 l/s for a long-term, constant-rate test.
Another event of ML = 1.7 occurred in January 1988, several hundred metres below the earlier event but was not reported as felt
(Walker, 1989).
3. Injection case histories: sedimentary rocks

3.1. Austria
3.1.1. Upper Austria (South-German Molasse basin):
The region of Upper Austria within 25 km of the German border is host to a cluster of ve doublets that utilise heat from
the Malm carbonate aquifer. These are Simbach-Braunau, Altheim,
Geinberg, Oberndorf and St. Martin (Goldbrunner et al., 2007). Here
we describe the rst three of these sites. The only available stress
information in the area comes from a short (11 m) drilling-induced
tension fracture imaged in a well at the Simbach-Braunau site
which indicates an SHmax orientation that is consistent with the
NS regional stress trend (Reinecker et al., 2010). Stress magnitudes are uncertain. The area has low natural seismicity, although
three events of ML 2.0 and 3.0 and intensity Io V have occurred

within 30 km of the sites.
3.1.1.1. Simbach-Braunau:. This dual use doublet is constructed on
the border between Germany and Austria and provides district
heating to communities in both countries. Although the plant itself
is in Germany, it is included here under Austria because it shares a
similar geologic setting as the neighbouring plants in Upper Austria.
The injection well, Simbach-Braunau Thermal 1, was drilled vertical to 1848 m in 1999 and completed with 113 m of 81/2 in.
open hole in heavily fractured and karstied Malm which contains a fault (Goldbrunner, 2005b; Unger and Risch, 2001). The
Malm at this site is separated from basement by 100 m of the
Dogger formation. Formation pressure is artesian with a shut-in
wellhead pressure of 0.23 MPa. The well is highly productive and
yields 80 l/s on artesian ow with the choke fully open. The downhole pressure change on artesian ow was only 0.06 MPa implying
a transmissivity of 0.04 m2 /s (Goldbrunner, 2007). The production
well, Simbach-Braunau Thermal 2, was drilled from the same pad
and deviated to reach the Malm some 2100 m from the rst well at
a vertical depth of 1942 m (3203 m MD). The well targeted a smalloffset fault in the Malm (Goldbrunner, 2005c) and was completed as
61/8 in. open hole (Goldbrunner, 2007). The system was commissioned in 2001 and operated with a submersible pump in Thermal
2 that produced 74 l/s at 80 C. The water was injected into Thermal 1 at 55 C. Given the high transmissivity, it is unlikely that the
pressure increase in the reservoir during the injection exceeded
0.1 MPa. A 200 kWe ORC unit was added in 2009 that produced
150 kWe net (Goldbrunner, 2010).
3.1.1.2. Altheim:. The site lies 15 km east of Simbach-Braunau.
Development began in 1989 when the rst well, Altheim Thermal
1, was drilled vertical to 2472 m and reached basement near a fault
(Pernecker, 1996). The fractured Malm extended between 2147 and
2429 m, and was found to directly overlie the basement. The reservoir pressure was artesian and the well owed at 11 l/s with fully
open choke. Owing to clogging and ensuing technical difculties,
it was necessary to drill a side-track, Thermal 1a, from 1772 to
2300 m TVD. This was 20 m closer to a fault where the rock was
40
more fractured, which resulted in a higher artesian-ow of 18 l/s.

This increased to 46 l/s after acid stimulation (Goldbrunner, 2005b).
The well was operated under artesian drive and supplied a district
heating system from 1991 to1998 (Goldbrunner, 2005c). Thereafter
it was decided to counter declining reservoir pressure by injecting
the spent uid. In 1997 the injection well was drilled deviated to
a vertical depth of 2165 m (3078 m MD). Very high permeabilities
were encountered on entering the Malm, possibly indicating a fault
had been intersected (Pernecker and Uhlig, 2002). Well separation
at the top of the Malm is 1600 m (Goldbrunner, 2005b). In 2000,
the production ow rate was increased to the operating level of
81 l/s using a submersible electric pump in Altheim Thermal 1a,
and a 500 kW ORC unit was installed. The uid is produced at 105 C
and reinjected into Thermal 2 at 70 C and 1.7 MPa wellhead pressure (Goldbrunner, 2005b). The system supplies 10 MWt during the
winter months and generates electricity during the summer.
3.1.1.3. Geinberg (Austria):. This dual use project is located 5 km
ENE of Altheim and has a developmental history similar to its
neighbour. The rst well was a vertical hydrocarbon exploration
hole drilled in 1976 that entered Malm at 2127 m, near a fault
(Goldbrunner, 1999), but was terminated at 2166 m due to excessive mud losses. The well was reopened and successfully deepened
to 2180 m in 1978 and became Geinberg Thermal 1 (Goldbrunner,
2005b). The well produced 22 l/s of uid at more than 100 C under
artesian drive and thereafter supplied a small district heating system. The system was extended to a doublet in 1998 by drilling
Geinberg Thermal 2, partly to counter declining reservoir pressure.
This was deviated to reach Malm at a vertical depth of 2225 m and
a distance of 1600 m from the rst well (Goldbrunner, 1999). The
well was completed with 276 m of open hole, mostly in Malm, and
after an acid stimulation the productivity index was 1.0 l/s/MPa
(Goldbrunner, 1999). An injectivity test of Geinberg Thermal 1
using hot water produced from Thermal 2 showed that 30 l/s could
be injected at 0.2 MPa (Goldbrunner, 1999). The doublet system
has been in operation since late 1998, with 25 l/s produced from
Thermal 2 at 105 C under buoyancy drive (Karytsas et al., 2009),
and 21 l/s injected into Thermal 1 at 30 C under gravity drive
(Goldbrunner, 2005b).
3.1.2. Bad Blumau (Styrian basin of south-east Austria):
This multiple use doublet is located some 50 km east of Graz
and exploits heat from Paleozoic dolomites at a depth of 2.5 km.
There are no published stress measurements within 45 km of the
site. Whilst seismic hazard is low, two events of intensity Io VI
are reported to have occurred within 40 km in the past 159 years
(Grnthal et al., 2009).
The injection well, Blumau 1a, was drilled as a steeply inclined
side-track from a hydrocarbon exploration well in 1995. It runs
approximately parallel to and within 180 m of a WSWENE trending growth fault with more than 1 km of throw (Goldbrunner,
2005a) and is completed in heavily fractured dolomites that are
encountered at 2583 m TVD. These lie above phyllites that overlie
basement rocks (Goldbrunner, 1999). The production well, Blumau
2, was drilled vertical to 2843 m and completed with 475 m open
hole in the fractured dolomites. The open-hole section lies between
two faults that cut the wellbore. Well separation at reservoir depth
is 1800 m (Goldbrunner, 2005a). Pumping tests in one well produce perturbations in the other and imply a far-eld transmissivity
of 5 105 m2 /s (Goldbrunner, 1999). Near-well transmissivities
are much higher, thanks in part to an acid stimulation, and production ow rates of up to 80 l/s were obtained during tests
(Goldbrunner, 1999). The water is rich in CO2 , which aids artesian
production through the gas-lift effect.
The system began operation for heating usage in 1999 at a ow
rate of 30 l/s. Water is produced from Blumau 2 under artesian
ow at a temperature of 110 C. Almost all of the produced water

is injected into Blumau 1 at 50 C or slightly greater temperature
yielding 7.6 MWt (Goldbrunner, 2005a). Injection pressure at the
wellhead is less than 0.7 MPa (Goldbrunner, 2005b). Electricity generation began in 2001 using a 250 kWe ORC unit (Legmann, 2003)
to produce 180 kWe net (Goldbrunner, 2005a). The heating power
then dropped to 5.1 MWt.
3.2. Denmark
3.2.1. Thisted:
This district heating project is located in NW Jutland in the Danish basin. It exploits heat from the Upper Triassic Gassum sandstone
aquifer at 1.25 km depth that has a transmissibility of 1010 m3
(Mahler, 1995). A large salt diapir structure exists immediately to
the NNW of the site (Mahler and Magtengaard, 2005), and so it is
possible that the sedimentary section is hydraulically decoupled
from the basement. Unpublished analyses of borehole breakouts
in the injection well for the interval 8041014 m reported in the
World Stress Map database (Heidbach et al., 2010) indicate a mean
SHmax orientation of N77 E. Natural seismicity at the site is low.
Only two documented historical events of estimated intensities
Io V1 are recognised within 50 km, the nearest being 13 km away
(Grnthal et al., 2009).
The project began in 1984 with the drilling of a 3287 m deep
vertical exploration well, Thisted-2, which was plugged back to
1273 m and a 37 m screen installed for production. The injection
well of the doublet, Thisted-3, was drilled vertical to 1242 m and
the lowermost 50 m screened (Mahler, 1995). Well separation is
1.5 km (Mahler and Magtengaard, 2005). The system was initially
circulated at 10 l/s (Mahler and Magtengaard, 2010). In 1988, following an improvement in the surface plant, the circulation rate
was increased to 41 l/s, yielding a total power of 4 MWt. The system
was further upgraded to 7 MWt in 2001 by increasing the circulation rate to 56 l/s. The water is produced at 44 C and cooled to 11 C
before injection at a pressure of 1.7 MPa (Mahler and Magtengaard,
2005).
3.2.2. Margretheholm (Copenhagen):
The project supplies a district heating system from a doublet
completed in the Bunter formation at 2.5 km depth. No salt deposits
are present between the Bunter and the Precambrian basement
(Dong E&P, 2004). The natural seismicity in the area is low. Only
three events with intensity Io VVI are recognised as occurring
within 50 km of the site since the 17th century (Grnthal et al.,
2009).
The rst exploration well of this project, Margretheholm-1,
was drilled vertically to basement at 2677 m in 2002. Testing
showed the Bunter formation at 2.52.6 km had a productivity of
22 l/s/MPa and was suitable for reservoir development (Mahler and
Magtengaard, 2005). A second well, Margretheholm-2, was deviation drilled to 2745 m TVD in 2003 from the same pad so that well
separation at reservoir depth was 1.3 km. Testing showed a productivity of 17 l/s/MPa and communication with the rst well (Mahler
and Magtengaard, 2010). The system began operation in late 2004.
Water is pumped to surface at 65 l/s and 1.01.5 MPa by a downhole pump (700 kW) at 650 m depth. It is cooled to 17 C before
being injected at pressures up to 7.0 MPa (Mahler and Magtengaard,
2010).
3.3. France
3.3.1. Paris basin (Paris):
Exploitation of heat from carbonate units beneath Paris for space
heating began in the early 1970s and the system now is second
only to Reykjavik (Iceland) in terms of size. The primary reservoir
is the mid-Jurassic Dogger aquifer composed of oolitic limestone.

This is exploited over a large part of the eastern Paris region, at
depths and temperatures ranging from 1450 to 2000 m and 56 to
80 C respectively (Ungemach and Antics, 2006; Ungemach et al.,
2005). Fifty-ve doublets or triplets have been drilled of which 34
are currently active (Lopez et al., 2010). The sedimentary section
in the area is cut by NS oriented normal faults (Cornet and Burlet,
1992). There are no reported stress measurements in the area. The
regional stress state is characterised by normal-to-strike-slip faulting with mean SHmax oriented approximately N145150 E (Cornet
and Burlet, 1992; Vidal-Gilbert et al., 2009). Natural seismicity in
the region is very low with no earthquakes reported within 50 km
of the centre of Paris.
Most well trajectories are deviated from a single drilling pad and
have reservoir separations of about 1200 m (Ungemach and Antics,
2006). The average ow rates are 3897 l/s, although operation of
most sites follows a seasonal cycle with peak ow rates in the winter (Lopez et al., 2010). Corresponding injection pressures usually
range between 2.0 and 3.0 MPa with a maximum of 4.0 MPa at two
sites (P. Ungemach, pers. comm., Oct 2010).
3.4. Germany
3.4.1. North-German Basin
There are several projects in this basin that mostly exploit
medium-enthalpy geothermal resources hosted in clastic formations.
3.4.1.1. Neustadt-Glewe/Waren/Neubrandenburg:. These plants are
located in the northeast of Germany and extract heat from the
high-porosity Rhtkeuper (Triassic) and Hettang (Jurassic) sandstone aquifers at depths of 1.02.5 km. They were developed in the
1980s and were the rst geothermal doublets in Germany (Seibt
and Kellner, 2003). Throughout the area, the sandstone aquifers
are underlain by evaporites that include the extensive, thick salt
deposits of the Zechstein (Permian) (Seibt et al., 2005). The salt
may hydraulically isolate and mechanically decouple the units of
the overlying section from the basement. Regional stress data from
formations below the salt indicate an approximately northsouth
orientation for SHmax and high deviatoric stress (Rckel and Lempp,
2003). The stress state in the overlying strata shows greater heterogeneity (Rckel and Lempp, 2003). The natural seismicity in the
region is low with no recognised events located within 40 km of
any of the sites (Leydecker, 2009).
Neustadt-Glewe is the deepest and most westerly of the projects.
It utilises the 4060 m thick Contorta sandstone aquifer that has
a porosity of 0.200.23 and a permeability of 0.51.0 1012 m2
(Seibt et al., 2005). The uid is produced at 99 C from the 2455 m
deep well NG-1 and injected at 60 C into the 2335 m deep well
NG-2, which is separated by1500 m from NG-1. The static uid
levels in the wells are about 125 m below ground level (Poppei
et al., 2000). Acid and hydraulic stimulations were conducted on
NG-2 in 1993, but details of the treatments could not be located
(Heederick, 1997). The system began supplying up to 6 MWt to the
district heating system in 1995 and a 210 kWe ORC generator was
installed in 2003. The initial ow rate of 31 l/s could be injected
with a downhole overpressure of 0.5 MPa (Seibt and Wolfgramm,
2008). However, occasional decreases in injectivity due to mineral
precipitation and particle clogging led to temporary increases to
0.8 MPa. These increases could be remedied with soft acidization
treatments, implying the increased impedance was localised near
the well. Thus it is probable that the formation pressures in the
aquifer beyond the immediate vicinity of the well were unaffected.
Waren began supplying a district heating system in 1984, and
was the rst operational geothermal plant in Germany. The initial
conguration produced water from Contorta sandstone at 1560 m
41
depth (reservoir temperature of 62 C). The water was injected into

the Aalen sandstone at 1160 m depth through a well only 50 m distant (Kabus and Jntsch, 1995). The system was circulated at 14 l/s
using a submersible pump. The wellhead pressure at the injection
well reached 5 MPa (U. Reimer, pers. comm., Sept. 2010). In 1986 a
second injection well was drilled to 1580 m at a distance of 1.3 km
from the production well, and was screened in the Hettangian sandstone, which lies just above the Contorta. Thereafter, the ow rate
could be increased to 17 l/s (Kabus and Jntsch, 1995). Production
temperature is 62 C and injection temperature is no less than 45 C
(U. Reimer, pers. comm., Sept. 2010). Injection takes place under
gravity drive. As the static water level in the injection well is 110 m
below ground level, the downhole pressure change under injection
is less than 1.1 MPa (U. Reimer, pers. comm., Sept. 2010).
Neubrandenburg is the most easterly and shallowest of the
projects. In 1985 four boreholes were drilled to make two doublets
accessing the Hettang and Postera sandstones, which are sandstone
units above and below the Contorta respectively. The Postera pair
were N1 (production at 1250 m) and N3 (injection at 1250 m) wells,
and the Hettang pair were N2 (production) and N4 (injection at
1120 m) wells. The two injection wells were 5 m apart and had a
static water level of 62 m (U. Richlak, pers. comm., Sept. 2010). The
Hettang production well N2 had technical problems. Thus, between
1989 and 2001 the system was circulated at 19 l/s with production from well N1 (Postera) and injection into the 1.2 km distant
well pair N3 (Postera) and N4 (Hettang) at 0.5 MPa wellhead pressures (U. Richlak, pers. comm., Sept. 2010), implying a downhole
overpressure of 1.1 MPa. Production temperature was 54 C.
In 2001, the system was recongured to allow waste-heat
from gas-turbine electricity production in summer to be stored
in the Postera reservoir and reused in the winter. Borehole N4
(Hettang-injection) was deepened to reach the Postera, and the
existing Postera injection well, N3, was back-lled leaving a doublet
(N1N4) accessing the Postera. Operation of the thermal storage
system began in April 2004. In summer, water is produced from
N4 at 28 l/s and 54 C, heated to 80 C with waste-heat from a gasturbine generator, and the water injected into N1. In winter the
ow is reversed with production from N1 at 28 l/s and 7080 C,
and injection into N4 at 45 C (Seibt et al., 2010). Wellhead injection pressures are always less than 0.5 MPa implying a 1.1 MPa
downhole overpressure (U. Richlak, pers. comm., Sept. 2010).
3.4.1.2. Gross Schnebeck. This pilot project located north of Berlin
is designed to evaluate the possibility of using the EGS concept to
extract heat from low-permeability sedimentary rocks. The reservoir rocks are the sandstones and conglomerates of the Rotliegend
formation and the volcanic rocks of the uppermost Carboniferous,
all of which lie below the Zechstein salt layer. Hydraulic tests indicate a Shmin /SV ratio of 0.52 in the sandstones at 4150 m depth
(Huenges et al., 2006), indicating that the stress state is critical (Moeck et al., 2008). SHmax is oriented N18 E (Zimmermann
et al., 2008). Natural seismicity in the area is low, the closest event
being a ML 2.7 event at a distance of 50 km that occurred in 1736
(Leydecker, 2009).
The largest volume injection tests were performed in 2003,
after the rst well (E GrSk3/90) was deepened to 4309 m. Some
10,000 m3 of water was injected at rates up to 80 l/s and downhole
pressures that exceeded Shmin by up to 5 MPa. Most uid entered
the volcanics below the sandstones. A surface seismic network
consisting of six 3-component stations in shallow boreholes was
operational at the site during the injections, but detected no events
attributable to uid injection (M. Weber, pers. comm., Oct. 2010).
Subsequently, a second well (Gt GrSk4/05) was drilled and stimulation injections performed in the same formations, the largest
involving the injection of 13,000 m3 of water and proppant into
the volcanic unit at rates of up to 150 l/s and wellhead pressures of
42
59 MPa (Zimmermann et al., 2008). Such volumes and ow rates are

comparable to those used in the hydraulic stimulation of crystalline
reservoirs. Seismic activity was monitored by the surface network
augmented by a downhole 3-component sensor placed at 3800 m
depth in the rst borehole. Only 70 events with magnitudes in the
range ML 1.9 to 1.1 were detected, and then only by the downhole sensor (Kwiatek et al., 2008). This low level of activity despite
the injection of large volumes at high pressure is consistent with
the growth of hydrofractures within the reservoir.
3.4.1.3. Ketzin, Germany (CO2 injection):. This CO2 injection test

site is located 40 km west of Berlin and is designed to monitor
the behaviour of CO2 injected into the Triassic Stuttgart formation. Natural seismicity is very low, the nearest historical events
of intensity Io IV or greater being more than 100 km distant. The
reservoir is an 80 m thick uvial sandstone saline aquifer that has
its top at 630 m depth. It is highly heterogeneous, with porosities
in the range 0.050.35 (Norden et al., 2010), and permeabilities of
0.051.0 1012 m2 (Wrdemann et al., 2010). The static formation pressure is 6.3 MPa at 642 m, and the temperature is 35 C
(Wiese et al., 2010). Thus, the CO2 is a gas under formation PT
conditions. The caprock consists of ne-grained, clay-rich clastic
sediments of the Weser Formation. Further containment is provided by the Rupelian mudstone which served as the caprock to a
gas storage reservoir at depths of 250400 m that was seasonally
operated from 1960s until 2000 (Juhlin et al., 2007). There are no
faults within the CO2 reservoir (Juhlin et al., 2007).
The reservoir is penetrated by three vertical wells drilled in
2007: one 750 m deep injection well (Ktzi-201); and two 800 m
deep monitoring wells (Ktzi-200 and Ktzi-202) located 50 and
100 m from the injector in orthogonal directions (Prevedel et al.,
2008). All three wells are instrumented with bre-optic cables for
distributed temperature sensing and supporting pointwise temperature and pressure measurements, and a 15 electrode vertical
resistivity array (Prevedel et al., 2008). The CO2 is injected through
screens at a depth of 650 m. CO2 injection commenced in June
2008 at a rate of about 2 ton/h which was gradually increased to
3 ton/h over 9 months. Pressure at the formation depth increased
steadily to 8.1 MPa after 1 year, which is 1.7 MPa above the formation pressure (Wrdemann et al., 2010). A seismic network has been
operational at the site since September 2009. No seismic events
have been felt at the site (S. Lth, pers. comm., March 2011).
3.4.1.4. Horstberg. This is a geothermal pilot facility designed to

evaluate the possibility of using single wells to extract heat from
sediments in the North-German Basin (Wessling et al., 2009).
The site is located north of Hannover, and the target production formations are low-permeability sandstone beds within the
Buntsandstein unit that lies above the Zechstein salt beds at about
4000 m depth (Orzol et al., 2005). Natural seismicity in the region is
low, although a very rare event of magnitude ML 4.0 occurred near
Soltau, some 26 km from the site in 1997 (Leydecker, 2009).
Massive water stimulations were performed through perforations into several sandstone beds in 20032004. These injections
involved volumes of up to 20,000 m3 and rates of 50 l/s. Wellhead
injection pressures of up to 32 MPa were higher than expected on
the basis of other injection operations in the area, possibly reecting stress heterogeneity in the formations above the salt beds due to
doming (Jung et al., 2005). Fluid from post-stimulation production
tests was injected into the Kalkarenit formation at 1200 m depth,
which is a karstic carbonate aquifer. The operations were monitored by an 8-station seismic array of 3-component sensors with
a detection threshold of magnitude ML 0. Only seven events were
detected, and all were too small to be located.
3.4.2. South GermanAustrian Molasse basin

This basin is host to numerous medium-enthalpy (100140 C)
geothermal projects. Most are centred on the Munich area
(Schubert et al., 2007; Schulz et al., 2007), the remainder being distributed over a wide area that extends into Austria (see Section
3.1.1) (Goldbrunner et al., 2007). The majority of projects target
the high-transmissibility zones within the Malm carbonate aquifer,
which may be either karstic or fault-related, and many are doublets that involve injection. Productivities are high, and injection
and production pressures are typically less than a few MPa (Schulz
et al., 2007). Stimulation operations tend to use acid rather than
high-rate hydraulic injections. For doublets, the production and
injection points within the Malm are two or more kilometres apart,
and thus the ow eld between the wells within the reservoir can
be complex, and may involve faults.
3.4.2.1. Straubing:. This site lies on the Danube some 10 km south
of the Danube fault and 100 km northeast of Munich. It was one
of the rst doublets to become operational in the basin. The nearest stress measurement in the World Stress Map (WSM) database
lies 60 km to the south and indicates a NS-orientation for SHmax
(Reinecker et al., 2010). The area has low natural seismicity, nearest
documented earthquake is located at a distance of 33 km and had
an intensity IO V (Leydecker, 2009). The production well, Therme I,
was drilled vertical to 824 m depth in 1990 and entered fractured
and karstic Malm at 708 m. The well was artesian with a static wellhead pressure of 0.41 MPa (Goldbrunner, 2007) and produced 29 l/s
of water at 37 C on unchoked ow. The second borehole, Therme
II, was drilled vertical to 885 m depth at a distance of 1680 m NNW
of Therme 1 and penetrated Malm at 715 m, Dogger-age sandstone
and clay (Opalinus) at 842 m and crystalline basement at 863 m.
Most of the discharge during drilling came from the Dogger sandstone. Static wellhead pressure was 0.5 MPa. A production test with
a downhole pump yielded 39 l/s with the water level at 203 m (productivity of 15 l/s/MPa), but only 5 l/s could be injected at 2.0 MPa
wellhead pressure (injectivity of 3.3 l/s/MPa) (Goldbrunner, 2007).
To improve injectivity, the 95/8 in. well was plugged at 600 m,
and an 81/2 in. diameter side-track was drilled towards a fracture zone that lay to the East. The casing shoe was set when the
Malm was reached at 721.8 m TVD, and the hole continued as a
6 in. with a sail angle of 77 to produce 339 m of open hole in the
Malm (Goldbrunner, 2007). The initially poor injectivity was signicantly improved by an acidization treatment with injection at
22 l/s at up to 5.0 MPa. Venting produced signicant quantities of
clastic material, presumably from the natural fractures that intersected the well. Following the treatment, 45 l/s could be injected at
a wellhead pressure of 1.9 MPa (injectivity of 32 l/s/MPa). The system was commissioned in 1999 and operated with 21 l/s of water
produced from Therme I at 36 C and 19 l/s injected into Therme
IIa at 12 C yielding 1.9 MWt for district heating. Later, the production ow rate was increased to 45 l/s of which 40 l/s was injected at
14 C at a wellhead pressure of 1.8 MPa. There are no reports of felt
seismicity associated with this site during its 12 years of operation.
3.4.2.2. Munich area:. In the Munich area, the top of the Malm top
deepens from 1.6 km in the north to 3.5 km in the south, and the unit
directly overlies the crystalline basement. The stress state in the
Malm is strike-slip/thrust with SHmax oriented approximately NS
(Reinecker et al., 2010). No natural seismicity has been recorded
within 40 km of Munich since records began to be kept in the 19th
century. Formation pressure in the Malm is sub-hydrostatic, the
equilibrium water levels in the wells declining from 85 m below
ground surface in the north to 250 m in the south. Since transmissibilities tend to be relatively high, the pressure increase above
formation pressure in the injection wells at reservoir depth is in
all cases less than 5.0 MPa under operational conditions (T. Fritzer,
personal comm. December 2009).
The construction of doublets in the Munich area began in 2003
with the commissioning of the system at Unterschleissheim which
was soon followed by doublet systems at Riem (2004), Pullach
(2005) and Unterhaching (2007) (Schubert et al., 2007; Wolfgramm
et al., 2007). The operational parameters of these systems are
listed in Table 1. The number of doublet and triplet systems
built or planned has accelerated since then, including the deepest hydrothermal system in Europe at Sauerlach to the south of
Munich, which will produce 140 C water from 4.2 km depth for district heating and electricity production in 2012 (Pletl et al., 2010).
Systems commissioned after 2007 are not included in Table 1 to
avoid introducing a local bias. Of the many projects in operation at
2012, the one at Unterhaching is located near an area with recent,
weakly felt seismicity. Thus this project is described in detail.
At Unterhaching, the production (GT1a) and injection (GT2)
wells have vertical depths of 3.35 and 3.59 km respectively and
intersect the Malm at a vertical depth of 3.0 km (Wolfgramm et al.,
2007). The wells are 4 km apart at the Malm depth, and intersect different faults (E. Knapek, pers. comm., June 2010). The wells
have high injectivity/productivity, and pressure perturbations are
seen to propagate between the wells in 24 h, presumably through
the fault system (Wolfgramm et al., 2007). Under operational conditions, the system to date has been circulated at 120 l/s, the
downhole pressure excess above formation pressure in the injection well at this rate being 2.5 MPa. The system began operation
for district heating in October 2007 and electricity production was
added in February 2009. In February 2008, 5 months after operations began, an earthquake of magnitude ML 2.3 was detected
in this formerly aseismic region by the German Regional Seismological Network. The event was located within several kilometres
of Unterhaching and was scarcely felt by the local population living within 5 km of the injection well GT2 (J. Wassermann, pers.
comm., June 2010). A further three events of magnitude ML 2.12.4
occurred over a 3-week period in July 2008, the largest of which
was felt by the local population. In July 2008 a 3-station local network was established in the area to improve the location accuracy.
On 2nd February 2009, shortly after electricity production commenced, a series of seven earthquakes of magnitudes between ML
0.7 and 2.1 was detected by the local network (Kraft et al., 2009)
but none were felt by the local population (Bayerische-Landtag,
2009). No change in circulation parameters occurred at this time
(E. Knapek, pers. comm., June 2010). Analysis of the data using a
local velocity model indicates that all hypocentres are located at a
depth of 3.6 1.5 km and some 0.5 0.3 km west of the Gt-2a injection interval, which lies at a vertical depth of 3.13.6 km (Kraft et al.,
2009). The larger events were also recorded by the national network
and found to have waveforms that were very similar to those of the
earlier events, suggesting that all events occurred within 1 km of
the open-hole section of the injection well (Kraft et al., 2009). The
injection interval includes a fault with a vertical throw of 238 m
(Wolfgramm et al., 2007).
3.4.3. Upper Rhine Graben
The graben hosts several projects at various stages of development that seek to develop hydrothermal reservoirs in faulted
Triassic sandstone (Bundsandstein) and carbonate (Muschelkalk) units or the immediately underlying weathered basement
(Baumgrtner et al., 2006). The project at Landau exploits both sediments and basement and is described in Section 2, whereas that at
Riehen can be found in this section under Switzerland.
3.4.3.1. Bruchsal, Germany. This dual use geothermal project is
located some 20 km northeast of Karlsruhe, on the eastern ank of
the graben. It is one of the rst geothermal projects in the graben,
43
the rst borehole being drilled in 1983. Unpublished borehole

breakout analyses for the geothermal site reported in the World
Stress Map database (Heidbach et al., 2010) indicate SHmax is oriented N130140 E. Stress magnitudes are uncertain. The site has a
low seismic hazard level of 0.07 g, although 10 small events of magnitude ML up to 3.3 with intensities up to Io 5 have occurred within
25 km of the site since 1970 (Leydecker, 2009). The largest historical event within 30 km of the site is the 1948 Forchheim earthquake
that is 26 km distant and has been assigned a peak intensity of Io
VII (Ahorner et al., 1970a).
An exploration borehole, GB1 was drilled vertical to 1932 m in
1983 and discovered an exploitable reservoir in the lower Triassic Bunter and underlying Permian Rotliegend sandstones which
are cut by elements of the main boundary fault of the graben
(Herzberger et al., 2010; Klbel et al., 2010). In 1985, a second vertical well was drilled to 2450 m depth some 1400 m southwest of
the rst well to target the same formations (Klbel et al., 2010). The
system was circulated for 6 weeks at up to 15 l/s in 1987, but technical difculties and economic considerations led to the suspension
of the project in 1990. It was reactivated in 2002 using the deeper,
hotter well, GB2, as the production well. No hydraulic stimulations
were conducted. Static water levels in the wells were 60 m below
the ground surface. A 550 kWe Kalina plant was installed in 2008
and has been in operation since mid-2009. A pump in GB2 produces
water at a rate of approximately 24 l/s and a temperature of 118 C.
The cooled water is injected into GB1 under gravity producing an
increase in downhole pressure of approximately 0.5 MPa above the
static pressure (Klbel, 2010). There are no reports of felt microseismic events that can be ascribed to the operation of the system.
A 4-station seismic monitoring network has recently been installed
to detect and locate any induced microseismic events that are too
small to be felt (Klbel et al., 2010).
For Landau see Section 2.2.3, and for Riehen see Section 3.9.1.
3.5. Italy
3.5.1. Tuscan-Latium geothermal areas, Italy
The region lies in western Italy between Rome and Pisa, and
includes several geothermal sites that have been explored and in
some cases developed since 1970. The area is characterised by high
geothermal gradients, sometimes exceeding 100 C/km, that reect
the presence of shallow magmatic bodies. The tectonic setting
is transcurrent/transtensional with predominant strike-slip faulting (Brogi and Fabbrini, 2009). The elds that have been explored
include Larderello-Travale and Monte Amiata in Tuscany, and Latera, Torre Alna and Cesano in Latium. All elds except Cesano are
associated with signicant natural seismicity (Batini et al., 1980b),
suggesting that the reservoirs are likely to be critically stressed. In
the 1970s, local seismic networks were installed at the sites in order
to systematically assess the seismic response of the various reservoirs to uid injection. In most cases the networks were installed
prior to injection so that induced events could be distinguished
from the background. The networks were operated throughout the
exploration phase (19771992) and remain active in those elds
that are still in production (Larderello-Travale and Monte Amiata).
3.5.1.1. Larderello-Travale. (Shown as Larderello in Fig. 1). This
geothermal area has long produced steam from folded anhydrites
and carbonates that overlie metamorphic basement at a depth of
2 km. In the early 1970s, injection of cold condensate from the
power plants was initiated in order to recharge the upper reservoir, and a seismic monitoring network was installed, in part to
monitor the impact of the injection.
The analyses of seismic data from 1978 to 1982 are presented
by Batini et al. (1980a, 1985). The area has a long history of seismicity, and therefore many, if not most of the events are likely to
44
Well L1
Depth (km)
125
100
75
50
25
0
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
-0.4
0.4
0.0
X (km)
0.8
-0.4
0.4
0.0
X (km)
0.8
Acidification
10
10
10
6
4
6
4
6
4
0.8
0.4
Y (km)
Flow rate (l/s)

Well-head pressure (MPa)
May 1982
February 1982
June 1981
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.0
90
-0.4
80
70
-0.8
60
No of events/hour
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
0
10
0
10
20 30 40
Hours
50
Legend
June 1981 earthquakes
February 1982 earthquakes
May 1982 earthquakes
Geothermal well L1
10
20
40
60
Hours
80
100
10
20 30 40
Hours
(a) Latera Well L1 injection records and recorded microseismicity
50 60
(b)
Hypocentre locations
Fig. 3. (a) Injection parameters and recorded seismicity (in events/hour), for the injection tests in well L1 at Latera during 19811982 (After Carabelli et al., 1984). (b)
Hypocentres of earthquakes associated with the injections. The X- and Y-axes point east and north respectively. The locations differ slightly from those given by Carabelli
et al. (1984) as station elevation corrections were included in the inversion conducted with the Hypoellipse program, although the velocity model was unchanged. The events
cluster closely about the well. However, it should be noted that the formal location errors from the program are mostly larger than 1 km for the vertical, and occasionally
also for the horizontal. This is because clear P- and S-wave arrivals were rarely recorded on all stations.
be natural. The 5 years of data show large spatial-temporal variations in event rate and b-value. The events are shallower than 8 km,
with 75% located between depths of 3.0 and 5.5 km. The maximum
event size approached ML 3.2. A clear correlation between volume
of water injected and event count is seen, although most of the
induced events appear to be of small magnitude. No change to the
frequency of events of magnitude ML 2.0 was evident (Batini et al.,
1985).
3.5.1.2. Monte Amiata area. Listed in Section 2.4.1 on igneous rocks.
3.5.1.3. Latera. The reservoir is hosted by fractured, carbonate
rocks at 0.62.0 km depth and has a temperature of 200230 C.
A 10-station seismic network began operation late in 1978, about a
year before the rst injection (Batini et al., 1980b). Several natural
events having magnitudes in the range ML 0.61.7 were detected
each month at distances of 2035 km from the reservoir (Batini
et al., 1980b). We describe experiments at this site in some detail
as they have not been published in the international geothermal
literature.
One of several injection episodes took place during MarchApril
1980. A total of 30,000 m3 of water was injected into the 1.4 km
deep well L2 during two periods lasting 8 and 10 days, implying
average ow rates of 3545 l/s (Moia, 2008). Wellhead pressure is
uncertain. Some 24 events with magnitudes ML 1.52.0 occurred
in two localised clusters during the 2-month period (Batini et al.,
1980b). One cluster was located only 200 m south of the injection point at a similar depth, suggesting that the microearthquakes
were induced. It is of note that a magnitude ML 2.9 event occurred
near the L2 well on December 9, 1984 when it was being used to
inject uid produced from the 2 km distant well L3D. Unfortunately,
the circulation parameters are unknown (Moia, 2008). This is the
largest event that is thought to have been induced by geothermal

operations at Latera.
A more complete investigation of the seismic response of the
reservoir to injection was conducted in the 2.8 km deep well
L1 between June 1981 and May 1982. The records for the test
sequence are shown in Fig. 3a. The details of the well completion
are uncertain although it is known to have been open to the
formation in a fracture zone at a depth of 1.7 km (Carabelli et al.,
1984). Three separate injections of durations 17102 h were
performed months apart at progressively increasing ow rates
of 15, 25 and 83 l/s. The corresponding mean wellhead pressures
were 5.5, 5.0 and 9.0 MPa (Moia, 2008). Wellhead pressure reached
7.0 MPa at the start of the rst test but then declined to 5.0 MPa
over the 61 h of the test. Microseismicity near the well began after
a few hours and stopped after 35 h (Fig. 3b). A total of 223 events
were recorded with magnitudes less than ML 0.5 (Carabelli et al.,
1984; Moia, 2008). The second injection was conduced at a higher
rate but comparable wellhead pressure in May 1982 and lasted
102 h. Microseismic activity began only after 55 h of injection, by
which time 1.5 times the net volume of the rst test had been
injected. Sporadic seismic activity persisted until shut-in, resulting
in 148 events with a maximum magnitude of ML 0.4. The third and
highest-rate injection was conducted in May 1982 and lasted 17 h.
Microseismicity at a high-rate began almost immediately but subsided after 6 h. A total of 370 events were detected, the maximum
magnitude being ML 0.5 (Carabelli et al., 1984; Moia, 2008). The
hypocentres from all three injections are located between 150 and
1500 m from the well, and at depths between 1.5 and 2.0 km, which
is close to the depth of a fault that intersects the well. However, the
formal location error is large (see caption to Fig. 3). It is clear that
the seismicity was induced and possibly reactivated the fault. The
well was treated with acid shortly after the third injection which
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
20
20
end 9:00
on 2.12.81
begin 17:00
on 1.12.81
16
16
12
12
40
0.0
-0.2
Max pressure =14.2 MPa
-1.0
begin 6:00 end 8:00
on 18.12.81 on 19.12.81
1.7 km depth carbonates
-1.2
40
1.7 km depth
30
30 carbonates
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
Hours
15
20
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Acidification
30
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X (km)
end 11:00
on 22.12.81
begin 16:00
on 21.12.81
40
1.4 km depth volcanics
Well L6
Y (km)
Flow rate (l/s)

Well-head pressure (MPa)
No. events/hour
21-22 December 1981

Depth (km)
18-19 December 1981
1-2 December 1981
45
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Hours
(a) Latera Well L6 injection records and recorded microseismicity
10
15
Hours
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

X (km)
20 25
Well L6
1-2 December 1981
18-19 December 1981
21-22 December 1981
(b) Hypocentre locations
Fig. 4. (a) Injection parameters and recorded seismicity (in events/hour), for the injection tests in well L6 at Latera during 1981 (after (Carabelli et al., 1984)). (b) Hypocentres
of earthquakes associated with the injections. The X- and Y-axes point east and north respectively. The locations differ slightly from those given by Carabelli et al. (1984)
as station elevation corrections were included in the inversion conducted with the Hypoellipse program, although the velocity model was unchanged. The events dene a
linear structure extending to the SE from the well. However, as for well L1, the formal location errors from the program are mostly larger than 1 km for the vertical, and
occasionally also the horizontal.
improved the injectivity. A subsequent injection at 111 l/s and

6.0 MPa wellhead pressure produced no detected events (Fig. 3a).
Further studies of the effect of injection on local seismicity
at Latera were conducted in well L6 in December 1981. The test
records and the corresponding induced seismicity are shown in
Fig. 4. The rst test was performed into volcanic rocks at 1.4 km
depth with the injection of formation uid at a rate of 66 l/s and a
wellhead pressure of 7.5 MPa. About 20 events were observed, all of
negative (i.e. very small) magnitude. The second suite of injections
was conducted on 1819 December at a depth of 1.7 km into carbonate rocks. The sequence began with three short 2 h injections
at a rate of 8 l/s and wellhead pressure of 1314 MPa that culminated in an acid treatment and a step-increase in rate to 28 l/s and
wellhead pressure of 14.5 MPa for 1 h (Moia, 2008). Microseismicity began as soon as the ow rate was increased and stopped with
shut-in. A 24 h injection at 28 l/s was then performed. Microseismic activity began after 10 h, even though wellhead pressures were
below 13 MPa, and terminated with shut-in. The nal injection of
20 h duration was conducted some 2 days later at a rate of 40 l/s
and mean wellhead pressure of 14.5 MPa (Carabelli et al., 1984).
Microseismicity began after 11 h, reached a peak just before shut-in
and continued for several hours afterwards. Some 196 events were
detected, 28 after shut-in. Most had negative magnitude, the largest
being ML 0.8. The hypocentre locations lay to the SE of the well at
distances of 2001500 m (Fig. 4b), although the inferred locations
could be signicantly inuenced by poor network geometry (see
caption to Fig. 4).
The eld was subsequently developed and had up to 14 wells
operational from 1999 to 2003 (Bertani, 2005). The wells were
plugged in 2008 because of problems related to gas emissions, and
not to microseismicity.
3.5.1.4. Torre Alna. This eld lies 10 km north of Latera. The reservoir is a fractured limestone at 0.51.7 km depth and 140150 C
temperature (Billi et al., 1986). Borehole RA1 was drilled to
2710 m and a sequence of injection tests performed with fresh
water in January and February 1977 with injection rates in the

range 2040 l/s and wellhead pressures of up to 1.2 MPa. A 4-station
temporary microseismic network that included three 3-component
instruments recorded 177 events close to the well (i.e. at 1.43.3 km
depth and 0.22.0 km distance). The largest event had a magnitude
ML 3.0 and was felt by the local population (Batini et al., 1980b;
Moia, 2008). The events occurred only at ow rates greater than
25 l/s when injection pressures exceeded 0.7 MPa, and ceased soon
after injection was stopped. Batini et al. (1980b) report that the
injection of uid produced from well A14 into well A4 under gravity
drive did not result in a detectable change in seismicity.
3.5.1.5. Cesano. This 250 C brine reservoir, located north of Rome,
is hosted by fractured carbonates at a depth of 1.53.0 km (Billi
et al., 1986). A 5-station temporary seismic network was installed
in May 1978 and was upgraded to a permanent network in 1979
(Batini et al., 1980b). Dispersed, low-level natural seismicity occurs
at depths of 612 km.
A 2 km deep well RC-1 was drilled in 1978 and short injection
tests conducted once the temporary network had been installed.
The rst test involved a 1-day injection of water at 28 l/s. Wellhead
pressure rose steadily from 3.5 to 7 MPa. A few events of maximum magnitude ML 1.6 occurred near the well at the start of the
test, but none thereafter (Batini et al., 1980b). The second injection
was conducted using a ow rate of 15 l/s sustained for 1.5 days.
Wellhead pressure again steadily rose from 4 to 7.5 MPa. Seismicity began after 1 day when wellhead pressure reached 7 MPa and
continued until shut-in. Batini et al. (1980b) indicate that the events
reached magnitude ML 2.0 and were mostly located within 400 m
of the injection well. However, they were recorded on relatively
few stations and it is likely that the location uncertainty is large.
Nevertheless, the events were clearly triggered by injection.
A further set of experiments was conducted in September 1981
and April 1982 when a very dense seismic network was operational. Circulation tests with production from well RC-1 (sometimes
referred to as C-1) and injection into well C-5 at rates of up to
46
42 l/s under gravity drive produced no seismic events that could

be identied as triggered by injection (Cameli et al., 1983).
To summarise the results for the Tuscan-Latium geothermal
areas, the impact of injection on seismicity at the various sites is as
follows: the effect at Monte Amiata is difcult to assess because of
high background seismicity (see Section 2); at Larderello-Travale,
injection enhances the number of small-magnitude events but
does not detectably affect the large-magnitude events; at Torre
Alna, Latera and Cesano, dedicated injection experiments yielded
clear examples where injection has induced seismicity up to and
including magnitude ML 3.0. However, the injection experiments
also yielded examples where injection produced negligible seismic
response.
3.6. Lithuania
3.6.1. Klaipeda:
This district heating project is located on the Baltic Sea coast. The
objective was to produce 167 l/s of water at 40 C from a Lower
Devonian Viesvile formation at depths between 990 and 1118 m.
The unit consists of sandstone of porosity 0.20.3 interspersed
with clay-rich packets, and has a permeability of 0.26.2 1012 m2
(Zinivicius et al., 2003). The basement lies at about 2200 m. There
are no published stress measurements within 50 km of the site. The
area has low natural seismic hazard. The nearest event in the catalogue of Grnthal et al. (2009) is a Mw 4.2 event at a distance of
100 km.
Construction on the system began in 1996. Initially two neighbouring vertical production wells KGDP-2P and KGDP-3P were
drilled to 1128 and 1225 m respectively, and one injection well,
KGDP-1I was drilled to 1228 m at a distance of 8001000 m from
the production wells (Zinivicius et al., 2003). However, it was found
that the injectivity of the well was insufcient to dispose of uid
at the desired rate of 167 l/s at the maximum injection pressure of
4.0 MPa. Therefore, a second injection well, KGDP-I4, was drilled to
1128 m depth even further from the production wells (Zinivicius
et al., 2003). All wells are completed with 95/8 in. casing and
screened between 1028 and 1128 m. The uid has 95 g/l dissolved
solids and low gas content. The system began operation in 2001
but capacity declined because of decreasing injectivity, primarily
because of mineral precipitation in the surface lines, well and formation (Seibt and Wolfgramm, 2008). Periodic remedial operations
produced only temporary improvement (Seibt and Wolfgramm,
2008). System operation was suspended in 2007 to perform a major
overhaul because ow rate had dropped from 97 to 39 l/s (Zinivicius
and Sliupa, 2010). Operation resumed in November 2008 with
injection rate into KGDP-I4 increasing from 30 to 50 l/s (Zinivicius
and Sliupa, 2010). Injection pressures during operation could not
be determined but presumably approach the design limit of 4 MPa.
Information is unavailable as to whether a seismic network was
operational and whether any earthquakes were felt.
3.7. Norway
3.7.1. Sleipner, North Sea, Norway (CO2 injection):
This is a pioneering project of Statoil to remove CO2 from natural
gas produced from the Sleipner-Vest gas reservoir underlying the
Sleipner-A platform in the North Sea and inject it into the extensive, high-permeability, 200 m thick Utsira saline aquifer that lies at
a depth of 8001100 m (Torp and Gale, 2004). The Sleipner-A platform is located near the eastern margins of the southern part of
the Viking Graben, which is characterised by moderate seismicity.
Several events of magnitude ML 23 have occurred within 50 km
of the platform over the past 20 years (ISC, 2010). The Utsira formation is a hydrostatically-pressured, unconsolidated sandstone
that has an estimated porosity of 3540% and a permeability of
18 1012 m12 (Baklid and Korbl, 1996; Torp and Brown, 2005).
The well entered the Utira formation at 872 m true vertical depth
(TVD), and was deviated so that the injection point is approximately
3 km away from the platform complex. The lowermost 1365 m is
completed sub-horizontal with 7 in. liner to 1086 m TVD, and is perforated over a 138 m interval centred at 1015 m TVD (Hansen et al.,
2005). At the PT conditions of the Utsira, the CO2 is expected to be
in the supercritical phase, which is supported by seismic and gravity measurements (Zumberge et al., 2006). Injection began in 1996
at a rate of 1 Mton/year, or an average of 32 kg/s. The CO2 is injected
at a wellhead temperature of 25 C and a pressure 6.26.4 MPa,
and is thus close to the liquid/gas phase boundary (Hansen et al.,
2005; Eiken et al., 2011). Consequently, downhole injection pressure above hydrostatic is uncertain (O. Eiken, pers. comm., April
2011). The tables produced by Baklid and Korbl (1996) suggest
a value of 3.5 MPa above hydrostatic pressure. This is probably
an upper bound: other evidence suggests pressure may be only
marginally above hydrostatic (Eiken et al., 2011). Possible local
seismic activity is not monitored at the site. However, there is no
evidence from the regional networks of seismicity associated with
the CO2 injection operations (T. Torp, pers. comm., March 2011).
3.8. Poland
3.8.1. Bialy-Dunajec/Banska (Podhale basin):
The geothermal plant in the basin is located near Banska where
a doublet began operation in 1992. This was expanded to a 4-well
system in 2001, primarily for heating. The reservoir is a heavily fractured, karstied, overthrust Triassic carbonate overlain by
post-tectonic, Eocene nummilitic-limestone at depths of 23 km
(Kpinska,
2000). The boreholes lie close to the major lineament
of the Bialy-Dunajek fault, which contributes to the high degree of
fracturing (Kpinska,
2000; Wieczorek, 1999). The area has moderate seismic activity. Events of intensities up to Io VVI are common
within 50 km of the site, with occasional but rare events with intensities up to Io VII. Intensity distributions show that at least some
events occur above the basement at depths of a few kilometres
(Guterch et al., 2005). An earthquake of magnitude MW 4.5 that produced intensities up to Io 7.0 occurred only several kilometres from
the site in 2004 (Wiejacz and Debski, 2009). The focal mechanism
of the event indicates normal faulting with Shmin oriented approximately WNW to NW (Wiejacz and Debski, 2009). The proximity
of the event to the site suggests the stress state in the area is critical. The relationship of the earthquake to geothermal operations is
unclear as there was no local seismic network.
The production well of the initial doublet, Banska IG-1, was
an exploration borehole drilled to 5261 m in 1981. The well was
completed in the Triassic/Eocene carbonates by perforating over
the interval 25882683 m. Static wellhead pressure was 2.7 MPa,
and unchoked artesian-outows of 17 l/s were obtained (Kpinska,

2003c). The injection well of the doublet, Bialy Dunajec PAN-1,
was drilled 1220 m distant from the producer in 1989, and was
completed in the same unit between 2117 and 2394 m (Kpinska,

2003a). Static wellhead pressure was 2.4 MPa. The doublet was
operated between 1992 and 2001 at ow rates up to 17 l/s and injec
pers. comm.,
tion wellhead pressures up to 2.5 MPa (B. Kpinska,
Oct. 2010). Production temperature was up to 80 C and injection
temperatures were no less than 50 C (Bujakowski, 2000).
In 2001 the capacity of the system was increased by adding an
additional production and an injection well. These were drilled into
the same formations at locations near the existing wells giving a
pair of injection and a pair of production wells 1.21.7 km apart.
The second production well, Banska PGP-1, was highly productive and discharged 152 l/s of uid at 87 C under artesian drive.
The second injection well, Bialy Dunajec PGP-2, required 8.4 MPa
wellhead pressure to inject 45 C water at 56 l/s (Kpinska,

2003c),
but this was reduced to 5.0 MPa by acid stimulation (Nagy, 2007).
The 4-well system began operation at a peak ow rate of 186 l/s
in 2001. The maximum wellhead pressure at both injection wells
was 6.0 MPa (Kpinska,

2003c). Given a static wellhead pressure
of 2.4 MPa, negligible friction losses in the 95/8 in. casing, and an
increase in column weight due to cooling of about 0.2 MPa (Dlugosz
and Nagy, 1995), the corresponding maximum downhole pressure
excess above formation pressure during injection is approximately
3.8 MPa.
3.8.2. Uniejw (Polish Lowlands):
The town lies in the Polish Lowland Province, some 50 km WNW
of Lodz. It is located on the southern margin of the Mid-Polish
Trough, which is a major continental suture (Dadlez, 2003; Dadlez
et al., 1995). The reservoir is a Lower Cretaceous sandstone at a
depth of 1.92.0 km (Kpinska,

2010). The basement lies at depths
of 56 km and is overlain by Zechstein salt deposits (Dadlez et al.,
1995). The nearest stress estimate registered in the WSM database
is from a site some 150 km away. Regional data are reasonably consistent in indicating a pattern of NS compression. The area has low
natural seismic hazard. The nearest events are located some 110 km
to the east and have magnitudes in the range Mw 4.24.6.
The injection (AGH-1) and production (AGH-2) wells of the
initial doublet were drilled 1 km apart in 19901991 (Sapnska
Slwa, 2003). The reservoir temperature was 70 C (Kpinska
et al.,
2000), and the static wellhead pressure was 0.4 MPa (Kpinska,
2003b). Production ow rate from AGH-2 under artesian drive was
18.8 l/s at 68 C but could be increased to 33.4 l/s with the aid of
a submersible pump (Kpinska,

2010). Total dissolved solids were
58 g/l. The doublet was commissioned for district heating in 2001.
The operational ow rate in 2004 was 18.8 l/s at 68 C, with injec
tion at 42 C giving 2.1 MWt (Kpinska,
2005). Injection pressure
was 0.7 MPa (Sapnska-Slwa, 2003). The system was expanded
in 2005 with the addition of a second injection well, IGH-1, and
the installation of a submersible pump in the production well
(Sapnska-Slwa and Gonet, 2010). The peak ow rate in winter
was 28 l/s at a temperature of 69 C with injection temperature of
at most 45 C yielding 2.75 MWt (Sapnska-Slwa and Gonet, 2010).
The injection pressures of the 3-well system were approximately
0.60.7 MPa (Sapnska-Slwa et al., 2010).
3.9. Switzerland
3.9.1. Riehen, Switzerland
This hydrothermal doublet is located at the southern end of the
graben, some 5 km east of the Basel EGS site. The locality is characterised by moderate levels of natural seismicity (see Section 2.6.1
on Basel EGS). The system consists of two boreholes drilled to intersect the Muschelkalk carbonate at a depth of 1.251.55 km where
they are 1 km apart (Mgel and Rybach, 2000). This geologic unit is
separated from the basement by thick anhydrite beds and possibly
salt that might serve to hydraulically isolate the pore pressure disturbance in the reservoir from the basement (Hauber, 1991). The
system has been in balanced operation at a ow rate of 18 l/s and
injection wellhead pressure of less than 1.5 MPa since 1989. There
are no reports of felt seismicity associated with the operation of
this dual use (electricity/district heating) plant.
4. Discussion
The primary objective of this study is to document case histories of uid injection with a view to identifying any systematic
dependence of the seismic response on reservoir injection depth or
the various parameters that constitute geological setting. It must
be recognised from the outset that the available data are not ideal
47
in this regard. Injections that involve a net uid volume increase

within the reservoir such as in hydraulic stimulation operations
would, in principle, produce a greater disturbance of pressure in the
reservoir and its surroundings than comparable injections that are
balanced by production from the same reservoir, as is the case with
most operating geothermal plants. These cases are distinguished
in Table 1. Even allowing for this, the data are too heterogeneous
and too few in number to allow rm conclusions to be drawn on
the basis of single-parameter correlation with seismic response.
Multi-parameter correlations such as examining simultaneously
the dependence of seismic response on depth and volume injected
are probably more appropriate but require more data than the 41
sites included here. A further limitation arises from the absence of
local seismic networks at most sedimentary injection sites. In these
cases, all that is known about the seismic response is whether or not
a felt event was generated. In contrast, most igneous injection sites
included in the study are EGS sites where seismic networks were
operational, and thus exact measures of the maximum magnitude
of the induced earthquakes are available.
The index of natural seismic activity adopted in this paper is
the local peak ground acceleration value that has a 10% chance
of being locally exceeded in 50 years, and is denoted as PGA in
Table 1 (Giardini et al., 1999). The map of PGA values for Western Europe is shown with site locations in Fig. 1. A comparison of
the maximum magnitudes triggered by uid injection and the local
PGA value is shown in Fig. 5 for igneous and sedimentary sites. The
boundary between low and moderate hazard is taken by Giardini
et al. (1999) as 0.08 g. Although this is somewhat arbitrary, it will
be seen to have some utility. The threshold magnitude for an earthquake to be felt is taken as ML 2.0, which is the magnitude found for
events in the 5 km reservoir at Soultz to be felt by the local population (N. Cuenot, pers. comm., May 2010). This corresponds to the
boundary between microearthquake and earthquake proposed
by Bohnhoff et al. (2010), although this is also somewhat arbitrary.
Thus, the maximum possible magnitude of induced events at sites
without a local seismic network, and where seismicity was not felt
or recorded on regional networks, was set at 2.0. These sites are
indicated in Fig. 1 by the error bar extending down from ML 2.0 to
indicate the range of possible values. The multiplicative factor indicates the number of sites that are superposed. Sites where an exact
value is available for the maximum magnitude of induced events
are shown by lled circles.
It is evident that there is no simple correlation between the PGA
index of natural seismicity at a site and the maximum ML induced in
response to injection, either for igneous or sedimentary rocks. For
igneous rocks, where the trends are clearer owing to the availability
of exact measures of max-ML , all felt events occurred at sites where
the PGA value was 0.08 g or greater. Most igneous cases denote
stimulation injections. Two Icelandic sites at Laugaland and Svartsengi have relatively high PGA values, but showed very low seismic
response to injection. This is probably because both involved injection into reservoirs whose pressure had declined by a few MPa
owing to earlier production (Brandsdttir et al., 2002). For injection into sedimentary rocks, only four out of 25 cases produced felt
events, and three of these have PGA values substantially greater
than 0.07 g. There are three sites where local PGA values exceed
0.07 g but no felt events were initiated by the injections, although
one of these, Cesano, is marginal in as much as an event of ML 2.0
was recorded. The other two cases are Riehen in Switzerland, where
there are evaporites below the reservoir that might inhibit pressure
diffusion into the basement, and Bialy-Dunajek in Poland.
The only exception to the rule, based on the current admittedly
limited data, that sites with felt events have PGA values higher than
0.07 g is the Unterhaching site where an event of ML 2.4 occurred
during operation despite the area having an expected PGA of 0.05 g.
At Unterhaching, injection takes place into a high-angle fault in
48
Max local magnitude, ML
(a) 4
Low
hazard
Moderate hazard
Igneous rocks
Mt. Amiata
Basel
Soultz-5km
Landau
Hellisheidi
2
Krafla
14 data points
Sites with max-ML estimation

Sites without max-ML estimation
but no reports of felt events
0
Laugaland
Svartsengi
-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
PGA value (%g)
(b) 4
Low
hazard
Sedimentary rocks
Moderate
hazard
Larderello/Travale
Torre Alfina
Latera
Approximate threshold to be felt
3
2
Unterhaching
Cesano
25 data points
x6
x5
x2

x2
-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
PGA value (%g)

Fig. 5. Maximum local magnitude of induced earthquakes as a function of the PGA
value at each of the injection sites. The PGA value is the estimated seismic hazard
and is used as a measure of natural seismic activity. The largest magnitude events
may occur during either stimulation or circulation operations, as listed in Table 1.
The vertical bars denote the range of uncertainty of maximum magnitude at sites
where no local seismic network was operational and no event was felt (N-Rep in
Table 1). Bars marked 4 indicate that four datapoints are superposed. We assume
that events of ML greater than 2.0 are felt and reported. a) Results for injections into
igneous rocks. All except Laugaland, Svartsengi, Kraa and Monte Amiata are stimulation injections involving a net uid volume increase in the reservoir. b) Results
for injections into sedimentary rocks. All except Gross Schnebeck and Horstberg
involve essentially balanced circulation.
limestones just above the basement, and the production well is

4.5 km distant from the injector, both factors that might reasonably
be expected to increase the risk of inducing seismic events. The
event was small, but nevertheless serves to emphasise the point
that felt events cannot, a priori, be ruled out in regions with no
historic record of felt seismicity.
The present limited data tentatively suggest that low natural
seismicity levels given by PGA values below 0.08 g may be a useful indicator of a low propensity for uid injection operations to
produce damaging events. However, higher values do not necessarily imply a high propensity. Other factors can be decisive. This
conclusion is essentially in accord with the ndings of three EGSinduced seismicity workshops which recommended that the record
of historical seismicity, the data underpinning the local PGA estimates, be included in assessments of the potential of planned EGS
projects to induce felt events (Majer et al., 2007, 2008). It is possible that other indices of local natural seismicity may be better than
PGA for anticipating the seismic response to injection, such as local
seismic moment release or b-values. An evaluation of these indices
is beyond the scope of this study, although we note that neither
would have predicted the event at Unterhaching.
The data are too limited to address the question of whether
injection into sedimentary rock tends to be less seismogenic
than comparable injection into crystalline rocks in the same
seismo-tectonic and geologic setting. As noted earlier, most data

from igneous rocks are from stimulation injections that involve
a uid volume increase in the reservoir (Fig. 5a), whereas the
vast majority of data from sedimentary rocks are from balanced
circulation at operating geothermal plants (Fig. 5b). Exceptions are
the stimulations of sedimentary reservoirs at Gross Schnebeck
and Horstberg, and the long-term CO2 injections at Sleipner
and Ketzin, none of which have produced felt seismicity. The
issue of induced seismicity due to long-term injection (rather
than circulation) is particularly important for CO2 sequestration.
Hydraulic fracturing operations of oil and gas reservoirs are commonplace but are not usually associated with felt seismicity. The
volumes injected are small in comparison to those used for EGS
stimulations, although the net volumes injected per well for gas
shale stimulations are comparable (Cipolla, 2009). Recent gas shale
fracturing operations near Blackpool, UK may have been associated
with ML 2.3 and 1.5 events that reportedly occurred close to the
injection well in April and May 2011 respectively (BGS, 2011).
There is no doubt that felt earthquakes can occur in sediments. In
the present study, Unterhaching and possibly Landau if the failure
occurred in sediments rather than basement, represent examples.
Waterood operations for secondary oil recovery have long been
associated with felt induced seismicity, the classic example being
Rangely (Raleigh et al., 1976). However, there have also been
several natural earthquakes of sizeable magnitude in recent years,
such as the 1996 ML 5.3 Annecy (France) event and the Fribourg
(Switzerland) earthquake sequences with a maximum magnitude
ML 4.3, where the failure occurred entirely in sediments at 23 km
depth (Kastrup et al., 2007; Thouvenot et al., 1998). Noteworthy examples of even shallower seismicity are the earthquake
sequences in the Tricastin area of southern France that occurred at
depths of only a few hundred metres (Thouvenot et al., 2009), and
the well-documented cases of rain-induced seismicity in Germany
and Switzerland (Husen et al., 2007; Kraft et al., 2006).
The risk of inducing seismic events is likely to increase when
injection takes place near to or within fault zones (Davis and
Frohlich, 1993), as is often the case in geothermal projects. This is
not only because earthquakes represent the local failure of faults,
but also because faults are often highly transmissive and serve to
channel ow. As such, they promote deeper penetration of pressure
perturbations, both laterally and vertically, thereby increasing the
likelihood of the perturbation reaching a region where conditions
are close to those required for extensive failure. Large separation
between injection and production wells will also tend to increase
the spatial extent of pore pressure perturbation within the rock
mass. However, it is clear from the data that injection into fault
zones does not necessarily produce felt earthquakes. At least 8 of
the 24 sedimentary sites inject into or close to faults, but only one of
these (Unterhaching) is associated with felt seismicity. The injection at Landau, which is also associated with induced seismicity,
also takes place into or near faults in both the basement and overlying sedimentary units. The largest events in the Soultz reservoir
also appear to be associated with a fault that intersected the injection well (Dorbath et al., 2009). Interestingly, all wells at Soultz
were intersected by numerous fracture zones that for the most part
were critically stressed (Evans, 2005). These were seismically active
during the injections, but for the most part the magnitudes of the
events were too small to be felt. The faults are distinguished in
Soultz as larger structures that have accommodated greater offset.
Whether the faults become activated depends upon whether they
are critically stressed, although the maximum magnitude earthquake that will result depends upon other factors, such as the scale
of the fault, and stress and strength heterogeneity.
Simple physical considerations might be taken to suggest that
high injection pressures will increase the risk of producing felt
events. However, felt events will arise only if other factors, such as
a 4
Hellisheidi
Basel
Landau
Igneous rocks
Soultz-5km
14 data points
Rosemanowes
2
Krafla
Bad Urach
Soultz-3.5km
1
KTB-9km
KTB-6km
Fjallbcka

Svartsengi
Laugaland
-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Injection pressure minus formation pressure (MPa)
b 4
Sedimentary rocks
Torre Alfina
20 data points
Unterhaching
Approximate threshold to be felt

Cesano
1
0
Gross Schnebeck
Horstberg
-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Injection pressure minus formation pressure (MPa)

Fig. 6. Maximum local magnitude of induced earthquakes as a function of the values
of injection pressure excess over formation pressure listed in Table 1. When available, the downhole injection pressure is used; otherwise wellhead pressure is used.
a) Results for injections into igneous rocks. All injections at pressures higher than
8 MPa except Rosemanowes correspond to high-rate stimulation injections which
involve a uid volume increase in the reservoir, whereas those below 8 MPa, except
for Hellisheidi, are long-term balanced circulations. Note that the data points for
Landau and Rosemanowes correspond to circulation parameters at or immediately
before the largest magnitude earthquakes occurred, and that stimulation injections
at substantially higher pressures were performed at both sites without generating
felt events. b) Results for injections into sedimentary rocks. All data are for balanced
circulations, except for Horstberg and Gross Schnebeck which were both largevolume stimulation injections. Collectively the results show that there is no simple
relation between injection pressure and the maximum magnitude of the induced
events.
the prevailing stress state and presence of suitably oriented fracture zones or faults, are favourable (Davis and Frohlich, 1993). This
dependence on other factors is evident in Fig. 6, which shows the
maximum magnitude of earthquakes induced at the sites as a function of the injection pressure values listed in Table 1. Fig. 6a presents
the data for injection into igneous rocks. All injections at pressures
higher than 8 MPa, except Rosemanowes, correspond to high-rate
stimulation injections which involve a uid volume increase in the
reservoir. Those below 8 MPa, except for Hellisheidi, are long-term
balanced circulations. The datapoints for Landau and Rosemanowes
denote circulation parameters at or immediately before the largest
magnitude earthquakes occurred. At both sites, stimulation injections at substantially higher pressures were performed without
generating felt events (up to 13 MPa for Landau and 14 MPa for
injections at Rosemanowes). The collective data show that there is
no simple relation between injection pressure and the maximum
magnitude of the induced events. The same conclusion also holds
for the cases of injection into sedimentary rocks shown in Fig. 6b.
49
All data in Fig. 6b are for balanced circulations, except for Horstberg
and Gross Schnebeck which both involved large-volume stimulation injections.
Signicant seismicity, albeit usually at non-damaging magnitudes, invariably accompanies injection into crystalline rocks. All
of the igneous rock masses (and at least some of the sedimentary reservoirs such as Gross Schnebeck) are found to be critically
stressed in the sense that optimally oriented fractures and faults
whose strength is governed by a Coulomb friction criterion with
a coefcient of 0.65 would be at or close to failure. The existence of large faults that are critically stressed near a prospective
reservoir has been used as an indicator of the potential of uid injection to produce damaging earthquakes (Hunt and Morelli, 2006).
Whilst this approach may be practical for assessing the potential for inducing large events on major faults that have a mapped
surface expression, it is difcult to apply it to seismic events of
smaller size, say in the ML 2.54.5 range (circular source diameters
of 2502700 m for 1 MPa stress drop), since these may occur on
structures that are wholly buried or too small to have been mapped.
For example, the Soultz reservoirs contain critically stressed fracture zones or faults that are seismically activated by uid injection,
but the scale of the larger structures, and hence the maximum event
size that can be generated, is unknown.
It should also be noted that the stress levels supported by geologic structures in many of the geothermal reservoirs examined
here imply equivalent frictional strengths that are signicantly
higher than the threshold of 0.65 used to dene criticality in this
paper (e.g. 0.95 at Soultz (Evans, 2005)). Thus, criticality in the
sense used here is a necessary but not a sufcient condition for
failure. The uncertainty in fault strength, and often also the prevailing stresses which are invariably difcult to measure and, like
strength, are subject to heterogeneity, greatly limits the degree to
which it is possible to estimate the proximity to extensive failure
from measurable geomechanical parameters.
Seven of the sedimentary reservoirs described here are underlain, albeit usually not directly, by extensive evaporite deposits. The
presence of these units can mechanically decouple and hydraulically isolate the overlying strata from the basement. The carbonate
reservoir at Riehen, which is only 5 km from the Basel EGS site,
is underlained by anhydrite and possibly salt deposits that might
serve to hydraulically isolate it from basement. This may be a contributing factor to the different seismogenic responses, although
the different nature of the injections (i.e. stimulation as opposed to
balanced circulation) is possibly the primary reason.
The data presented here are not entirely consistent with the
view that deeper injection in crystalline rocks tends to produce
larger magnitude events. Events approaching or exceeding ML 3.0
were generated through injection at 5.0 km in two EGS crystalline
reservoirs (Basel and Soultz 5 km), but only minor seismicity
resulted from injection at 3.34.4 km depth in Bad Urach and at
6 and 9 km depth in the German KTB site, despite high injection
pressures. Neither of these cases involve the injection of large volumes, and it is uncertain whether larger events would have been
registered had injection continued for longer periods. There are too
few data to draw any rm conclusions in this regard.
Acknowledgements
The work was supported by the CARMA (http://www.
carma.ethz.ch) and GEOTHERM (http://www.geotherm.ethz.ch)
projects funded by the Competence Centre for Environment and
Sustainability and by the Competence Centre for Energy and
Mobility of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology (ETH), and
the Swiss Federal Ofce of Energy. We are grateful to the following
people for providing unpublished data or information: Kristjn
50
gstsson (ISOR, Iceland), Gudni Axelsson (ISOR, Iceland), Julia

Angerer (Stadtwerke Mnchen GmbH, Munich, Germany), Stefan
Baisch (Q-Con, Bad Bergzabern, Germany), Francois Cornet (IPGS,
Strasbourg, France), Nicolas Cuenot (EEIG Heat Mining, Kutzenhausen, France), Ola Eiken (Statoil, Trondheim, Norway), Lorenz
Eichinger (Hydroisotop GmbH, Schweitenkirchen, Germany),
Thomas Fritzer (Bayerisches Landesamt fr Umwelt, Munich,
Germany), Wolfgang Geisinger (Geothermie Unterhaching GmbH,
Unterhaching, Germany), sgrmur Gudmundsson (Landsvirkjun
Power, Reykjavik), Andy Jupe (Altcom Ltd., Penzance, UK),
Michael Kaelcke (Innovative Energie fr Pullach GmbH, Pullach
i. Isartal, Germany), Beata Kpinska

(Polish Academy of Science,
Krakw, Poland), Erwin Knapek (former Mayor of Unterhaching,
Germany), Stefan Lth (GFZ-Potsdam, Germany), Udo Reimer
(Stadtwerke-Waren, Waren, Germany), Uwe Richlak (Neubrandenburger Stadtwerke, Neubrandenburg, Germany), Ulrich Schanz
(Geoenergy-Bayern GmbH, Regensdorf, Bavaria, Germany), Jochen
Schneider (Hydroisotop GmbH, Schweitenkirchen, Germany),
Tore Torp (Statoil, Trondheim, Norway), Pierre Ungemach (GPC
Instrumentation Process, Paris), Kristn Vogfjrd (Icelandic Meteorological Ofce, Reykjavk, Iceland), Thomas Wallroth (Bergab,
Gothenburg, Sweden), Joachim Wassermann (Munich University,
Germany) and Michael Weber (GFZ-Potsdam, Germany). We thank
David Bruhn (GFZ-Potsdam, Germany), Agust Gudmundsson (Royal
Holloway College, London), Reinhard Jung (Jung-Geotherm, Isernhagen, Germany), Grzegorz Kwiatek (GFZ-Potsdam, Germany),
Rdiger Schulz (Leibnitz Institute for Applied Geophysics, Hannover, Germany), Ingrid Stober (Freiburg University, Germany) and
Joachem Poppei (AF-Colenco, Baden, Switzerland) for discussion
and assistance in locating information, and Bjrn Oddsson (ETHZrich, Switzerland) for Icelandic translations. The comments of
four reviewers and the editors, Drs. Sabodh Garg and Marcelo
Lippmann, helped improve the manuscript.
References
Agustsson, K., Halldorsson, P., 2005. Seismic hazard in the Hengill area based on the
SIL earthquake catalogue (First results). Report no. 05015. Vedurstofa, Reykjavik,
Iceland, 39 pp.
Ahorner, L., Murawski, H., Schneider, G., 1970a. Die Verbreitung von schadenvurursachenden Erdbeben auf dem Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Zeitschrift fr Geophysik 36, 313343.
Ahorner, L., Murawski, H., Schneider, G., 1970b. The distribution of earthquakes causing damage on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Zeitschrift fr
Geophysik 36, 313343 (in German).
Arnason, A., Eysteinsson, H., Hersir, G.P., 2010. Joint 1D inversion of TEM and MT
data and 3D inversion of MT data in the Hengill area, SW Iceland. Geothermics
39, 1334, doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.01.002.
Axelsson, G., Flovenz, O.G., Hjartarson, A., Hauksdottir, S., Sverrisdottir, G., Arnason,
F., Arnason, A., Bodvarson, R., 2000. Thermal energy extraction by reinjection
from Laugaland geothermal system in North Iceland. In: Proceedings: World
Geothermal Congress, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, May 28June 10, pp. 30273032.
Axelsson, G., Thrhallsson, S., Bjrnsson, G., 2006. Stimulation of geothermal wells
in basaltic rock in Iceland. In: Proceedings ENGINE Workshop 3: Stimulation of
Reservoir and Microseismicity, Ittingen, Switzerland, 29 June1 July, pp. 1725.
Baisch, S., Harjes, H.P., 2003. A model for uid-injection-induced seismicity at the
KTB, Germany. Geophysical Journal International 152, 160170.
Baisch, S., Weidler, R., Voeroes, R., Tenzer, H., Teza, D., 2004. Improving hydraulic
stimulation efciency by means of real-time monitoring. In: Proceedings 29th
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
CA, USA, January 2628, p. 7.
Baklid, A., Korbl, R., 1996. Sleipner Vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a shallow
underground aquifer. In: Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. SPE Paper Number 36600, Denver, Colorado, October 29, p. 9.
Barelli, A., Ceccarelli, A., Dini, I., Fiordelisi, A., Giorgi, N., Lovari, F., Romagnoli, P.,
2010. A review of the Mt. Amiata geothermal system (Italy). In: Proceedings of
World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, April 25-29, p. 6.
Baria, R., Baumgaerner, J., Grard, A., Jung, R., 1997. European hot dry rock geothermal research programme 1996-1997. Final Report to the European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium, 192 pp.
Baria, R., Green, A.S.P., 1990. Microseismics: a key to understanding reservoir
growth. In: Proceedings of Camborne School of Mines International Hot Dry Rock
Conference, Camborne School of Mines, Redruth, U.K., June 2730, pp. 363377.
Baria, R., Hearn, K., Batchelor, A.S., 1985. Induced seismicity during the hydraulic
stimulation of a potential Hot Dry Rock geothermal reservoir. In: Proceedings
of 4th Conf. on Acoustic Emision/Microseismic Activity in Geologic Structures

and Materials, Pennsylvania State University, State Park, Pennsylvania, USA, pp.
327352.
Baria, R., Michelet, S., Baumgrtner, J., Dyer, B.C., Gerard, A., Nicholls, J., Hettkamp,
T., Teza, D., Soma, N., Asanuma, H., Garnish, J., Megel, T., 2004. Microseismic
monitoring of the worlds largest potential HDR reservoir. In: Proceedings 29th
CA, USA, January 26-28, pp. 194201.
Batchelor, A.S., Baria, R., Hearn, K., 1983. Monitoring the effects of hydraulic stimulation by microseismic event location: a case study. In: Presented at 58th Ann.
Tech. Conf. and Exhibition of SPE, San Francisco, California, SPE Paper Number
12109, p. 12.
Batini, F., Bufe, C., Cameli, G.M., Console, R., Fiordelisi, A., 1980a. Seismic monitoring in Italian geothermal areas I: seismic activity in the Larderello-Travale
region. In: Proceedings Second DOE-ENEL Workshop on Cooperative Research in
Geothermal Energy, Report LBL-11555, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley,
CA, USA, October 2022, pp. 2047.
Batini, F., Cameli, G.M., Carabelli, E., Fiordelisi, A., 1980b. Seismic monitoring in
Italian geothermal areas II: seismic activity in the geothermal elds during
exploitation. In: Proceedings of Second DOE-ENEL Workshop on Cooperative
Research in Geothermal Energy, Report LBL-11555, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, October 2022, pp. 4885.
Batini, F., Console, R., Luongo, G., 1985. Seismological study of Larderello-Travale
geothermal area. Geothermics 14 (23), 255272.
Batini, F., Fiordelisi, A., Moia, F., 1990. Main features of the seismicity in the Monte
Amiata and Latera geothermal areas (Italy). In: Presented at XXII General Assembly European Seismological Commission, Barcelona, Spain, September 1722,
pp. 649654.
Baumgrtner, J., Teza, D., Hettkamp, T., Gandy, T., Schindler, M., 2010a. Geothermal
reservoir development in the Upper Rhine Graben Concepts, Techniques and
Experiences, the geothermal projects in Landau and Insheim. In: Presented at
Second European Geothermal Review, Bestec GmbH, Landau, Germany, Mainz,
Germany, June 2123, p. 31.
Baumgrtner, J., Teza, D., Hettkamp, T., Hauffe, P., 2010b. Stimulierung tiefer geothermischer Systeme, (Stimulation of deep geothermal systems). BBR (Fachmagazin
fr Brunnen- und Leitungsbau). Sonderheft Tiefe Geothermie 1423, 84.
Baumgrtner, J., Teza, D., Hettkamp, T., Homeier, G., 2006. Geothermal exploration
in the Upper Rhine valley in Germany. In: Proceedings of the ENGINE Launching
Conference, Orlans, France, February 1215, p. 24.
Bayerische-Landtag, 2009. Schriftliche Antwort auf Anfrage des Abgeordneten
Ludwig Wrner SPD vom 05.03.2009 ber Geothermiebohrungen (Record of
proceedings of the 16th Electoral-Period (2008-2013)). Report no. 16/1233.
Bayerische Landtag (Parliament of Bavarian States), Munich, Germany, 2 pp.
Available at http://www.bayern.landtag.de/cps/rde.
Bertani, R., 2005. World geothermal power generation in the period 2001-2005.
Geothermics 34, 651690, doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2005.09.005.
Bertini, G., Capetti, G., Fiordelisi, A., 2005. Characteristics of geothermal elds in
Italy. Giornale di Geologia Applicata 1, 247254, doi:10.1474/GGA.2005-01.024.0024.
BGS, 2011. British Geological Survey web report of 27th May 2011 event,
(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/BlackpoolMay2011.html).
Billi, B., Capetti, G., Luccioli, F., 1986. ENEL activity in the research, exploration and
exploitation of geothermal energy in Italy. Geothermics 15 (56), 765779.
Bjornsson, G., 2004. Reservoir conditions at 3-6 km depth in the Hellisheidi Geothermal Field, SW Iceland, estimated by deep drilling, coldwater injection, and
seismic monitoring. In: Proceedings 29th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, January 2628, pp. 6774.
Bohnhoff, M., Dresen, G., Ellsworth, W.L., Ito, H., 2010. Passive seismic monitoring
of natural and induced earthquakes: case studies, future directions and socioeconomic relevance. In: Cloetingh, S., Negendank, J. (Eds.), New Frontiers in
Integrated Solid Earth Sciences: International Year of Planet Earth. Springer,
Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 261285.
Bnnemann, C., Schmidt, B., Ritter, J., Gestermann, N., Plenesch, T., Wegler,
U., 2010. Das seismische Ereignis bei Landau vom 15 August 2009 (The
seismic event near Landau of 15th August 2010). Final report by the expert
panel on seismic risk associated with hydrothermal geothermal plants,
Landesamt fr Geologie und Bergbau of Rheinland-Pfalz (Regional authority
for geology and mines of Rheinland-Pfalz), 54 pp. Available at http://www.lgbrlp.de/einzelansicht.html?&no cache=1&tx ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1542&tx
ttnews%5Btt news%5D=64.
Brandsdttir, B., Franzson, H., Einarsson, P., rnason, K., Kristmannsdttir, H., 2002.
Seismic monitoring during an injection experiment in the Svartsengi geothermal
eld, Iceland. Jkull 51, 4352.
Brogi, F., Fabbrini, L., 2009. Extensional and strike-slip tectonics across the Monte
AmiataMonte Cetona transect (Northern Apennines, Italy) and seismotectonic
implications. Tectonophysics 476, 195209, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.02.020.
Brudy, M., Zoback, M.D., Fuchs, K., Rummel, F., Bamgartner, J., 1997. Estimation of
the complete stress tensor to 8 km depth in the KTB scientic drill holes: implications for crustal strength. Journal Geophysical Research 102 (B8), 1845318475.
Bujakowski, W., 2000. The pilot project of a geothermal heat recuperation cascade
system for sh and vegetable breeding, the Pas-Meeri Geothermal Laboratory
(Podhale region, Poland). In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, KyushuTohoku, Japan, May 28June 10, pp. 33793383.
Cameli, G.M, Carabelli, E., Fiordelisi, A., Graziano, F., 1983. Survey of local seismic
activity during production and reinjection of geothermal uids in Cesano and
Latera areas. In: Proceedings of European Geothermal Update, 3rd International

Seminar on the Results of EC Geothermal Energy research, European Community, Munich, Germany, November 29December 1, pp. 232240.
Cammerer, F., Hann, H.P., Martin, M., Obermaier, M., Pechnig, R., Reinold, M., Rupf,
I., Schellschmidt, R., Simon, T., Stober, I., Wolpert, P., Zedler, H., 2009. Machbarkeitstudie fr ein Hot Dry Rock Wrme- und Stromnutzungskonzept Bad
Urach. BMU Report No. FKZ: 0327615A. Stadt Bad Urach, Germany, 118 pp.
Cappetti, G., Romagnoli, P., Sabatelli, F., 2010. Geothermal power generation in Italy:
2005-2009 update report. In: Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress 2010,
Bali, Indonesia, April 2529, p. 8.
Carabelli, E., Moia, F., Fiordelisi, A., 1984. Seismic monitoring during geothermal
wells stimulation as contribution to the individuation of prevailing fracturation
trends. In: Presented at Seminar on Utilization of Geothermal Energy for Electric
Power Production and Space Heating, Florence, Italy, May 1417, pp. 131.
Charlty, J., Cuenot, N., Dorbath, L., Dorbath, C., Haessler, H., Frogneux, M., 2007. Large
earthquakes during hydraulic stimulations at the geothermal site of Soultz-sousForts. International Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences 44, 10911105.
Cipolla, C.L., 2009. Modelling production and evaluating fracture performance in
unconventional gas reservoirs. Journal Petroleum Technology 61 (9), 8490.
Cornet, F.H., 1989. Experimental investigations of forced uid ow through a granite
rock mass. In: Proceedings of 4th Int. Seminar on the Results of EC Geothermal
Energy Demonstration, Florence, Italy, April 2730, pp. 189204.
Cornet, F.H., Brard, F.H., Bourouis, S., 2007. How close to failure is a granite rock
mass at a 5 km depth? International Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences
44, 4766.
Cornet, F.H., Burlet, D., 1992. Stress eld determination in France by hydraulic tests
in boreholes. Journal Geophysical Research 97 (B8), 1182911849.
CSM-Report, 1989. Camborne Geothermal Energy Project 2C-5 Final Report Phase
2C. Report ETSU G 137F, Camborne School of Mines, Penryn, Cornwall, U.K., 42
pp.
Cuenot, N., Dorbath, C., Frogneux, M., Langet, N., 2010. Microseismic activity induced
under circulation conditions at the EGS Project of Soultz-sous-Forts (France).
In: Proceedings World Geothermal Conference, Bali, Indonesia, 2529 April, p.
9.
Dadlez, R., 2003. Mesozoic thickness pattern in the Mid-Polish Trough. Geological
Quarterly 47 (3), 223240.
Dadlez, R., Narkiewicz, M., Stephenson, R.A., Visser, M.T.M., van Wees, J.-D., 1995.
Tectonic evolution of the Mid-Polish Trough: modelling implications and significance for central European geology. Tectonophysics 252, 179195.
Davis, S.D., Frohlich, C., 1993. Did (or will) uid injection cause earthquakes?
criteria for rational assessment. Seismological Research Letters 64, 207224.
Deichmann, N., Ernst, J., 2009. Earthquake focal mechanism solutions of the induced
seismicity in 2006 and 2007 below Basel (Switzerland). Swiss Journal Geosciences 102, 457466, doi:10.1007/s00015-009-1336-y.
Deichmann, N., Giardini, D., 2009. Earthquakes induced by the stimulation of
an Enhanced Geothermal System below Basel (Switzerland). Seismological
Research Letters 80 (5), 784798, doi:10.1789/gssrl.80.5.784.
Dietrich, H.G., 1982. Geological results from the Urach-3 borehole and the correlation with other boreholes. In: Hnel, R. (Ed.), The Urach Geothermal Project.
Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 4958.
Dlugosz, P., Nagy, S., 1995. Determination of hydrodynamic parameters of the Podhale geothermal reservoir. Bulletin Polish Academy Sciences-Earth Science 43
(4), 225242.
Doebl, F., 1968. Die geothermischen Verhltnisse des lfeldes Landau/Pfalz. In: Proceedings of Graben Problems: International Rift Symposium, October1012, E.
Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 192207.
Dong E&P, 2004. Geothermal well MAH-2, 5512/11-2 (Margretheholm-2). Report
No. 17060. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 18 pp.
Dorbath, L., Cuenot, N., Genter, A., Frogneux, M., 2009. Seismic response of the
fractured and faulted granite of Soultz-sous-Forts (France) to 5 km deep
massive water injections. Geophysics Journal International 117, 653675,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04030.x.
Eiken, O., Ringrose, P., Hermanrud, C., Nazarian, B., Torp, T.A., Hier, L., 2011. Lessons
learned from 14 years of CCS operations: Sleipner. In Salah and Snhvit. Energy
Procedia 4, 55415548, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.541.
Eliasson, T., Sundquist, U., Wallroth, T., 1988. Stimulation experiments with water
and viscous uid at the HDR research site in the Bohus granite, SW Sweden.
Report no. Fj-6. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 69
pp.
Eliasson, T., Sundquist, U., Wallroth, T., 1990. Circulation experiments in 1989 at
Fyllbacka HDR test site. Report no. Fj-10. Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 56 pp.
Evans, K.F., 2005. Permeability creation and damage due to massive uid injections
into granite at 3.5 km at Soultz: part 2 critical stress and fracture strength.
Journal Geophysical Research 110, 14, doi:10.1029/2004JB003169.
Evans, K.F., Kohl, T., Hopkirk, R.J., Rybach, L., 1992. Modelling of energy
production from Hot Dry Rock systems. Report. Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology/Polydynamics, Zrich, Switzerland, 316 pp. Available at
http://www.geothermal.ethz.ch/publications.htm.
Foulger, G.R., Long, R.E., Einarsson, P., Bjornsson, A., 1989. Implosive earthquakes
at the active accretionary plate boundary in northern Iceland. Nature 337,
640642.
Genter, A., Evans, K.F., Cuenot, N., Fritsch, D., Sanjuan, B., 2010. The Soultz geothermal
adventure: 20 years of research and exploration of deep crystalline fractured rocks for EGS development. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 342, 502516,
doi:10.1016/j.crte.2010.01.006.
51
Giardini, D., Grnthal, G., Shedlock, K., Zhang, P., 1999. The GSHAP Global seismic
hazard map. Annali di Geosica 42 (6), 12251230.
Gibowicz, S.J., 1990. Seismicity induced by mining. Advances in Geophysics 32, 174.
Goldbrunner, J.E., 1999. Hydrogeology of deep groundwater in Austria. Mitteilungen
der sterreichischen Geologischen Gesellschaft 92, 281294.
Goldbrunner, J.E., 2005a. Bad Blumau (Styria, Austria). The success story of combined use of geothermal energy. Geo-Heat Centre (GHC) Quarterly Bulletin 26
(2), 2730.
Goldbrunner, J.E., 2005b. State, possible future developments and barriers of the
exploration and exploitation of geothermal energy in Austria Country update.
In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, p.
11.
Goldbrunner, J.E., 2005c. Zur Situation der Tiefen Geothermie in sterreich (State
of deep geothermal resource utilisation in Austria). Geothermische Energie 48,
2225.
Goldbrunner, J.E., 2007. Thermalwassererschlieungen - wissenschaftliche
Begleitung von Bohrungen einschlielich Bohrlochuntersuchungen (Research
on thermal water exploitation). BBR (Fachmagazin fr Brunnen- und
Leitungsbau) 11, 2633.
Goldbrunner, J.E., 2010. Austria country update. In: Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 2529, p. 14.
Goldbrunner, J.E., Shirbaz, A., Heiss, H.P., 2007. Wasserwirtschaftliche Bewertung
der Thermalwassernutzungen in Obersterreich: Berichtszeitraum 20002005
(Economic evaluation of thermal water usage in Austria). Report Amt der
Obersterreich. Landesregierung, Wasserwirtschaft, Grund- und Trinkwasserwirtschaft, Wasserwirtschaft Land Obersterreich, L., Linz, Austria, 36 pp.
Grntal, G., Musson, R.M.W., Schwarz, J., Stucchi, M., 1998. European Macroseismic
Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Cahiers du Centre Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie 15. Centre Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie, Luxembourg,
99 pp.
Grnthal, G., Wahlstrm, R., Stromeyer, D., 2009. The unied catalogue of earthquakes in central, northern, and northwestern Europe (CENEC) updated
and expanded to the last millenium. Journal of Seismology 13 (4), 517541,
doi:10.1007/s10950-008-9144-9.
Gudmundsson, A., 2001. An expansion of the Kraa Power Plant from 30 to 60 MWe:
geothermal considerations. Transactions Geothermal Resources Council 25,
741746.
Gupta, H.K., 1992. Reservoir-Induced Earthquakes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 364 pp.
Guterch, B., Lewandowska-Marciniak, H., Niewiadomski, J., 2005. Earthquakes
recorded in Poland along the Pieniny Klippen Belt, Western Carpathians. Acta
Geophysica Polonica 53 (1), 2745.
Haering, M.O., Schanz, U., Ladner, F., Dyer, B.C., 2008. Characterisation of the basel-1
enhanced geothermal system. Geothermics 37, 469495.
Hansen, H., Eiken, O., Aasum, T.O., 2005. Tracing the path of carbon dioxide from a
gas/condensate reservoir, through an Amine plant and back into the subsurface
aquifer case study: the Sleipner area, Norwegian North Sea. In: Offshore Europe
2005, SPE Paper Number 96742, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK 67 September, p. 15.
Hauber, L., 1991. Ergebnisse der Geothermmiebohrungen Riehen 1 und 2 sowie
Reinach 1 im Sdosten des Rheingrabens (Results of the geothermal boreholes Riehen 1, 2 and Reinach in the southeastern Rhein Graben). Geologisches
Jahrbuch E48, 167184.
Heederick, J.P., 1997. Improvement of the injectivity index of argillaceous sandstone.
Report no. NITG 97-260-A. Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience, Delft,
The Netherlands, 183 pp.
Heidbach, O., Tingay, M., Barth, A., Reinecker, J., Kurfess, D., Mller, B., 2010. Global
crustal stress pattern based on the World Stress Map database release 2008.
Tectonophysics 428 (12), 315.
Heinemann, B., Troschke, B., Tenzer, H., 1992. Hydraulic investigations and stress
evaluation at the HDR test site Urach 3, Germany. Transactions Geothermal
Resources Council 16, 425431.
Helm, J.A., 1996. The natural seismic hazard and induced seismicity of the European
HDR (Hot Dry Rock) geothermal energy project at Soultz-sous-Forts, France.
Doctoral thesis. Universit Louis-Pasteur de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France, 197
pp.
Herzberger, P., Mnch, W., Kbel, T., Bruchmann, U., Schlagermann, P.H.H., Wolf, L.,
Rettenmaier, D., Steger, H., Zorn, R., Seibt, P., Mllmann, G.U., Sauter, M., Ghergut,
J., Ptak, T., 2010. The geothermal power plant Bruchsal. In: Proceedings World
Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, April 2529, p. 6.
Hettkamp, T., Teza, D., Baumgrtner, J., Gandy, T., Homeier, G., 2007. A multi-horizon
approach for the exploration and exploitation of a fractured geothermal reservoir in Landau/Palatine. In: Presented at First European Geothermal Review,
Mainz, Germany, October 2931, p. 15.
Huenges, E., Trautwein, U., Legarth, B., Zimmermann, G., 2006. Fluid pressure
variation in a sedimentary geothermal reservoir in the North-German basin:
case study gross Schnebeck. Pure and Applied Geophysics 163, 21412152,
doi:10.1007/s00024-006-0122-2.
Hunt, S.P., Morelli, C.P., 2006. Cooper basin HDR seismic hazard evaluation: predictive modelling of local stress changes due to HFR geothermal energy operations
in South Australia. Report 2006/16. University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia,
50 pp.
Husen, S., Bachmann, C., Giardini, D., 2007. Locally triggered seismicity in the central
Swiss Alps following the large rainfall event of August 2005. Geophysical Journal
International 171, 11261134, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03561.x.
Illies, J.H., Greiner, G., 1978. Rhinegraben and the Alpine system. Geological Society
America Bulletin 89, 770782.
52
ISC, 2010. On-line bulletin of the International Seismological Centre. International

Seismological Centre, Thatcham, UK. Available at http://www.isc.ac.uk.
Juhlin, C., Giese, R., Zionck-Jrgensen, K., Cosma, C., Kazemeini, H., Johojuntti, N.,
Lth, S., Norden, B., Frster, A., 2007. 3D beseline seismics at Ketzin, Germany:
the CO2SINK project. Geophysics 72 (5), B121B132, doi:10.1190/1.2754667.
Jung, R., Orzol, J., Jatho, R., Kehrer, P., Tischner, T., 2005. The Gensys project: extraction of geothermal heat from tight sediments. In: Proceedings 30th Workshop
on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA,
January 31February 2, pp. 306311.
Jupe, A.J., Green, A.S.P., Wallroth, T., 1992. Induced microseismicity and reservoir growth at the Fjllbacka Hot Dry Rock Project, Sweden. International
Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 29 (4),
343354.
Kabus, F., Jntsch, E., 1995. The geothermal heating plant at Waren-Papenberg:
experience and modernisation. In: Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress,
Florence, Italy, May 1831, pp. 22272232.
Kahn, D., 2008. Hydro-fractured reservoirs: a study using double-difference location
techniques. Doctoral Thesis. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA, 175
pp.
Karytsas, C., Mendrinos, D., Goldbrunner, J.E., 2009. Production monitoring at the
Geinberg geothermal site. Energy Sources (Part A) 31, 15371552.
Kastrup, U., Deichmann, N., Frhlich, A., Giardini, D., 2007. Evidence for an active fault
below the northwestern Alpine foreland of Switzerland. Geophysical Journal
International 169, 12731288, doi:10.1111/j.1365-264X.2007.03413.x.
Kastrup, U., Zoback, M.-L., Deichmann, N., Evans, K.F., Giardini, D., Michael, A., 2004.
Stress eld variations in the Swiss Alps and the northern Alpine foreland derived
from inversion of fault plane solutions. Journal Geophysical Research 109 (B1),
22, doi:10.1029/2003JB002550, B01402.
Kpinska,
B., 2000. The Podhale low-enthalpy system (S-Poland): geothermal characteristics. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan,
May 28June 10, pp. 13431348.
B., 2003a. Evolution of selected geochemical and reservoir factors

Kpinska,
inuencing the exploitation of the Podhale geothermal system, S-Poland. In: Proceedings of International Geothermal Conference. Session 9, Reykjavik, Iceland,
September1417, pp. 714.
Kpinska,
B., 2003. Geothermal Energy Development in Poland. Reports 2003 Number 2. Geothermal Training Program of the United Nations University, Reykjavik,
Iceland, pp. 4562.
B., 2003. The Podhale geothermal system and space heating project,
Kpinska,
Poland case study. Reports 2003 Number 2. Geothermal Training Program
of the United Nations University, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 6391.
B., 2005. Geothermal energy country update report for Poland, 2000Kpinska,
2004. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429,
p. 10.
Kpinska,
B., 2010. Geothermal energy country update report for Poland, 2005-2009.
In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 2529, p. 8.
B., Bujakowski, W., Ney, R., 2000. Geothermal energy country update
Kpinska,
report from Poland. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Conference, KyushuTohoku, Japan, May 28June 10, pp. 253259.
Klbel, T., 2010. Geothermal power plant Bruchsal: construction and initial operating experiences. In: Presented at Second European Geothermal Review, Bestec
GmbH, Landau, Germany, Mainz, Germany, June 2123, p. 21.
Klbel, T., Schlagermann, P., Mnch, W., Rettenmaier, D., Zorn, R., 2010. Geothermiekraftwerk Bruchsal: erste Messergebnisse (First results of the geothermal
power station at Bruchsal). BBR (Sonderheft (Special edition) Tiefe Geothermie),
5055.
Kraft, T., Wassermann, J., Deichmann, N., Stange, S., 2009. The 2008 earthquakes in
the Bavarian Molasse Basin possible relation to geothermics? In: Proceedings
of European Geophysical Union General Assembly Research Abstracts, European
Geophysical Union. Vol. 11, EGU2009-10593-6, Vienna, Austria, April 1924, p.
1.
Kraft, T., Wassermann, J., Schmedes, E., Igel, H., 2006. Meteorological triggering of
earthquake swarms at Mt. Hochstaufen, SE-Germany. Tectonophysics 424 (34),
245258, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2006.03.044.
Kmpel, H.-J., Erzinger, J., Shapiro, S.A., 2006. Two massive hydraulic
tests completed in deep KTB Pilot hole. Scientic Drilling 3, 4042,
doi:10.2204/iodp.sd.3.05.2006.
Kwiatek, G., Bohnhoff, M., Dresen, G., Schiulze, A., Schulte, T., Zimmermann, G.,
Huenges, E., 2008. Microseismic event analysis in conjunction with stimulation treatments at the geothermal reserach well GTGRSK4/05 in Gross
Schnebeck/Germany. In: Proceedings 33rd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, January 2830, pp.
391397.
LED-LGRB, 2010. Yearly earthquake bulletins 1996 to 2008 and recent earthquake localisations of the Landeserdbebendienst in Baden-Wrttemberg
(LED). Regierungsprsidium Freiburg, Landesamt fr Geologie, Rohstoffe und
Bergbau, Freiburg im Briesgau, Germany. Available at http://www.lgrb.unifreiburg.de/led pool/led 2 1.htm.
Legmann, H., 2003. The Bad Blumau geothermal project: a low temperature, sustainable and environmentally benign power plant. Geothermics 32, 497503,
doi:10.1016/S0375-6505(03)00067-1.
Leydecker, G., 2009. Earthquake Catalogue for the Federal Republic of Germany
and Adjacent Areas for the Years 8002007. Federal Institute for Geosciences
and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany, Available at http://www.
bgr.bund.de/cln 109/nn 331926/DE/Themen/Seismologie/Seismologie/
Erdbebenauswertung/Erdbebenkataloge/historische Kataloge/germany.html.
Lopez, S., Hamm, V., Le Brun, M., Schaper, L., Boissier, F., Cotiche, C., Giuglaris, E., 2010.
40 years of Dogger aquifer management in Ile-de-France, Paris Basin, France.
Geothermics 39, 339356.
Mahler, A., 1995. Geothermal plant in thisted with absorption heat pump and 10
years operation without corrosion or reinjection problems in sandstone for 15%
saline water. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Florence, Italy, May
1831, pp. 21612166.
Mahler, A., Magtengaard, J., 2005. Geothermal development in Denmark, country update. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, April
2429, p. 8.
Mahler, A., Magtengaard, J., 2010. Country update for Denmark. In: Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 2529, p. 9.
Majer, E.L., Baria, R., Stark, M., 2008. Protocol for induced seismicity associated
with Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Report produced in Task D Annex I (9
April 2008). International Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 8 pp. Available at
http://www.iea-gia.org/publications.asp.
Majer, E.L., Baria, R., Stark, M., Oates, S., Bommer, J., Smith, W., Asanuma, H., 2007.
Induced seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal systems. Geothermics
36, 185222.
Mgel, T., Rybach, L., 2000. Production capacity and sustainability of geothermal
doublets. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan,
May 28June 10, pp. 849854.
Meghraoui, M., Delouis, B., Ferry, M., Giardini, D., Huggenberger, P., Spottke, I.,
Granet, M., 2001. Active normal faulting in the Upper Rhine Graben and
paleoseismic identication of the 1356 Basel earthquake. Science 293 (5537),
20702073, doi:10.1126/science.1010618.
Moeck, I., Schandelmeier, H., Holl, H.G., 2008. The stress regime in a Rotliegend
reservoir of the Northeast German Basin. International Journal Earth Sciences
(Geol. Rundsch.) 98, 16431654, doi:10.1007/s00531-008-0316-1.
Moia, F., 2008. Individuazione ed applicazione di metodologie di monitoraggio di
possibili fughe di CO2 dai serbatoi di stoccaggio (Identication and application
of methodologies for monitoring potential CO2 leakage from storage reservoirs.). Report no. 08001015 CESI RISERCA. ASV Ambiente e Sviluppo Sostenibile,
Milano, Italy, 64 pp.
Moia, F., Angeloni, P., Cameli, G.M., Zaninetti, A., 1993. Monitoring induced seismicity around geothermal elds and reservoirs. In: Presented at First Egyptian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Hurgada Egypt, 1993, pp. 110.
Mortensen, A.K., Egilson, T., Franzson, H., Richter, B., smundsson, K., Danielsen, P.E.,
Steingrmsson, B., Thrisson, S., 2006. Hverahl - Hola HE-21 (Borehole HE-21
at Hverahl). Report no. ISOR-2006/018, SOR (Iceland Geosurvey), Reykjavik,
Iceland, 79 pp.
Mukuhira, H., Asanuma, H., Niitsuma, H., Schanz, U., Hring, M., 2008. Characterization of microseismic events with larger magnitude collected at Basel,
Switzerland in 2006. Transactions Geothermal Resources Council 32, 8794.
Nagy, S., 2007. The simplied estimation of wellhead pressure in reinjection geothermal processes. Wiertnictwo 24 (1), 341346.
Nicholson, C., Wesson, R.L., 1990. Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well
Injection-A. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USGS bulletin
no. 1951. US Geological Survey, Alexandria, VA, USA, 74 pp.
Norden, B., Frster, A., Vu-Huang, D.M.F., Springer, N., Le Nir, I., 2010. Lithological and petrophysical core-log interpretation in CO2 SINK, the European CO2
onshore research storage and verication project. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering 13 (2), 179192.
Onacha, S., Kahn, D., Malin, P., Shalev, E., 2005. Resistivity and microearthquake
imaging of Kraa Geothermal Field, NE Iceland. Transactions Geothermal
Resources Council 29, 497502.
Orzol, J., Jung, R., Jatho, R., Tischner, T., Kehrer, P., 2005. The GeneSys-Project: extraction of geothermal heat from tight sediments. In: Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress. Paper 1621, Antalya, Turkey, April 2429, p. 9.
Parker, R.H., 1989. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy: Phase 2B Final Report of the
Camborne School of Mines Project. Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K, 1391 pp.
Pernecker, G., 1996. Altheim geothermal plant for electricity production by organic
rankine cycle turbogenerator. In: Proceedings 21st Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, January 2224,
pp. 7377.
Pernecker, G., Uhlig, S., 2002. Low-enthalpy power generation with ORC turbogenerator: the Altheim project, Upper Austria. Geo Heat Center Bulletin 23 (1),
2630.
Pine, R.J., Batchelor, A.S., 1984. Downward migration of shearing in jointed rock during hydraulic injections. International Journal Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences
& Geomechnics Abstracts 21, 249263.
Pine, R.J., Baria, R., Pearson, R.A., Kwakwa, K., McCartney, R., 1987. A technical summary of phase 2B of the Camborne School of Mines HDR Project: 1983-86.
Geothermics 16, 341353.
Pletl, C., Angerer, J., Graf, R., Stoyke, R., Toll, H., 2010. Bohrerfahrungen bei Deutschlands grsstem Geothermieprojekt, (Drilling experience from Germanys largest
geothermal project). BBR (Fachmagazin fr Brunnen- und Leitungsbau), Sonderheft -Tiefe Geothermie 3847 (June), 84 pp.
Poppei, J., Wilfried, R., Wenderoth, F., 2000. Characterisation of aquifers for the
utilisation of low-enthalpy geothermal energy during the individual stages of
site planning and operation. In: Proceedings 25th Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, January 2426, p.
8.
Prevedel, B., Wohlgemuth, L., Henninges, J., Krger, K., Norden, B., Frster, A., 2008.
The CO2-SINK boreholes for geological storage testing. Scientic Drilling 6,
3237, doi:10.2204/iodp.sd.6.04.2008.

Raleigh, C.B., Healy, J.H., Bredehoeft, J.D., 1976. An experiment in earthquake control
at Rangely, Colorado. Science 191, 12301237.
Reinecker, J., Tingay, M., Mller, B., Heidbach, O., 2010. Present-day
stress orientation in the Molasse Basin. Tectonophysics 482, 129138,
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.07.021.
Rckel, T., Lempp, C., 2003. The state of stress in the North German Basin. Erdl,
Erdgas. Kohle 119 (2), 7380.
Rummel, F., Konietski, H., Schfer, T., 1991. Aussagen zum Spannungsfeld in der
Forschungsbohrung Urach 3 Stand: 12/1991 (Evaluation of the stress state of
the reserach borehole Urach 3 Status 12/1991). Report no. BMFT 0326598D
Bundesministerium fr Forschung und Technologie, Bochum, Germany,
31 pp.
Sapnska-Slwa, A., 2003. The effects of developing the geothermal energy in Uniejw
town, Poland. In: Proceedings of International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, 1417 September, pp. 2733.
Sapnska-Slwa, A., Gonet, A., 2010. Geothermal heat and water management in
the view of improving economic conditions of geothermal district heating in
Uniejw. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April
2529, p. 9.
Sapnska-Slwa, A., Wojnarowski, P., Gonet, A., 2010. Analysis of Uniejw geothermal
water reservoirs modelling in view of various aspects of geothermal water and
heat management. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia,
April 2529, p. 6.
Schdel, K., Dietrich, H.-G., 1982. Results of the fracture experiments at the Geothermal Research Borehole, Urach 3. In: Haenel, R. (Ed.), The Urach Geothermal
Project. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlungen, Stuttgart, Germany, pp.
323343.
Schanz, U., Stang, H., Tenzer, H., Homeier, G., Hase, M., Baisch, S., Weidler, R., Macek,
A., Uhlig, S., 2003. Hot dry rock project URACH A general overview. In: Proceedings of European Geothermal Conference, Szeged, Hungary, 2530 May 2003, p.
9.
Schindler, M., Baumgrtner, J., Gandy, T., Hauffe, P., Hettkamp, T., Menzel, H., Penzkofer, P., Teza, D., Tischner, T., Wahl, G., 2010. Successful hydraulic stimulation
techniques for electric power production in the Upper Rhine Graben, Central
Europe. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, April
2529, p. 7.
Schubert, A., Hferle, R., Bhm, F., 2007. Geothermal doublets Munich Riem and
Pullach i. Isartal in comparison: geological and drilling concepts for minimizing the geological risk in the Deep Malm Aquifer. In: Proceedings of European
Geothermal Congress, Unterhaching, Germany, 30 May1 June, p. 5.
Schulz, R., Jung, R., Pester, S., Schellschmidt, R., 2007. Quantication of exploration risks for hydrogeothermal wells. In: Proceedings of European Geothermal
Congress, Unterhaching, Germany, 30 May1 June, p. 6.
Segall, P., 1989. Earthquakes triggered by uid extraction. Geology 17 (10), 942946,
doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1989)017, <0942:ETBFE>2.3.CO; 2.
Seibt, P., Kabus, F., Hoth, P., 2005. The Neustadt-Glewe geothermal power plant
practical expeience in the reinjection of cooled thermal waters into sandstone
aquifers. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Conference, Antalya, Turkey, April
2429, p. 4.
Seibt, P., Kabus, F., Wolfgramm, M., Bartels, J., Seibt, A., 2010. Monitoring of
hydrothermal plants in Germany an overview. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Conference, Bali, Indonesia, April 2529, p. 7.
Seibt, P., Kellner, T., 2003. Practical experience in the reinjection of cooled thermal
waters back into sandstone reservoirs. Geothermics 32, 733741.
Seibt, P., Wolfgramm, M., 2008. Practical experience in the reinjection of thermal
waters into sandstone. In: Proceedings of Workshop for Decision Makers on
Direct Heating Use of Geothermal Resources in Asia, Tianjin, China, May 1118,
p. 18.
Shapiro, S.A., Kummerow, J., Dinske, C., Asch, G., Rothert, E., Erzinger, J., Kmpel, H.-J.,
Kind, R., 2006. Fluid induced seismicity guided by a continental fault: injection
experiment of 2004/2005 at the German Deep Drilling Site (KTB). Geophysical
Research Letters 33 (L01309), 4, doi:10.1029/2005GL024659.
Stober, I., 1986. Strmungsverhalten in Festgesteinaquiferen mit Hilfe von Pumpund Injektionsversuchen (Fluid ow in crystalline aquifers from pump and injection tests). Geologisches Jahrbuch C42, 3204.
Stober, I., 2005. Hydrogeologishe Untersuchungen im kristallinen Grundgebirge im
Zuge der Planung fr die zweite Tiefbohrung fr das HDR-Projekt in Bad Urach
(Hydrogeological investigations for the second borehole of the HDR project at
Bad Urach). Bericht Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Freiburg im Briesgau 95
(1), 237253.
Stober, I., Bucher, K., 2000. Hydraulic properties of the upper continental crust. In:
Stober, I., Bucher, K. (Eds.), Hydrogeology of Crystalline Rocks. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 5378.
Stober, I., 2011. Depth- and pressure-dependent permeability in the upper continental crust: data from the Urach 3 geothermal borehole, southwest Germany.
Hydrogeology Journal 19, 685699, doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0704-7.
Talebi, S., Cornet, F.H., 1987. Analysis of the microseismicity induced by a uid
injection in a granitic rock. Geophysical Research Letters 14, 227230.
Tang, C., Rial, J.A., Lees, J.M., 2005a. Shear-wave splitting: a diagnostic tool to monitor
uid pressure in geothermal elds. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (L21317),
3, doi:10.1029/2005GL023551.
Tang, C., Rial, J.A., Lees, J.M., 2008. Seismic imaging of the geothermal eld at Kraa,
Iceland using shear-wave splitting. Journal Volcanology Geothermal Research
176, 315324, doi:10.1016/j.volgeores.2008.04.017.
Tang, C., Rial, J.A., Lees, J.M., Elkibbi, M., 2006. Shear-wave splitting observations and
measurements at the geothermal eld at Hengill, Iceland. In: Proceedings 31st
53

CA, USA, January 30February 1, pp. 512517.
Tang, C., Rial, J.A., Lees, J.M., Thompson, E., 2005b. Seismic imaging of the geothermal
eld at Kraa, Iceland. In: Proceedings 30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, January 31February 2, p.
8.
Tenzer, H., Schanz, U., Homeier, G., 2000. HDR reserach programme and results of
drill hole Urach 3 to depth of 4440 m the key for realization of a HDR programme in southern Germany and northern Switzerland. In: World Geothermal
Congress, Morioka, Japan May 28thJune 10th, pp. 39273932.
Tenzer, H., Schanz, U., Stang, U., Baisch, S., Weidler, R., 2004. Potential for geothermal power production from deep hot crystalline rock at Bad Urach (Southern
Germany). Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Geologie 2, 4349.
Thouvenot, F., Frchet, J., Tapponier, P., Thomas, J.-C., Lebrun, B., Mnard, G., Lacassin,
R., Jenatton, L., Grasso, J.-R., Coutant, O., Paul, A., Hatzfeld, D., 1998. The Ml-5.3
pagny (French Alps) earthquake of 15 July 1996: a long awaited event on the
Vuache fault. Geophysical Journal International 135 (3), 876892.
Thouvenot, F., Jenatton, L., Gratier, J.-P., 2009. 200-m-deep earthquake swarm in
Tricastin (lower Rhne Valley, France) accounts for noisy seismicity over past
centuries. Terra Nova 21 (3), 203210, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2009.00875.x.
Torp, T.A., Brown, K.R., 2005. Underground storage costs as experienced at Sleipner and Weyburn. In: Proceedings of 7th Int. Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies (GHGT-7), Vol. 1, Vancouver, Canada, 59 September, pp. 531540.
Torp, T.A., Gale, J., 2004. Demonstrating storage of CO2 in geological
reservoirs: the Sleipner and SACS projects. Energy 29, 13611369,
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.104.
Turbitt, T., Walker, A.B., Browitt, C.W.A., 1987. Perceptible hydrofracture seismic
events caused by the Hot-Dry-Rock Geothermal Project in Cornwall. Global
Seismology Report Number 339. British Geological Survey, Edinburgh, U.K., 23
pp.
Ungemach, P., Antics, M., 2006. Geothermal reservoir management: a thirty year
practice in the Paris basin. In: Presented at ENGINE Launching Conference,
Orlans, France, February1215, p. 1.
Ungemach, P., Antics, M., Papachristou, M., 2005. Sustainable geothermal reservoir management. In: World Geothermal Congress. Paper 0517, Antalya, Turkey,
April 2429, p. 12.
Unger, H.J., Risch, H., 2001. Die Bohrung Simbach-Braunau Thermal 1: Geologie,
Mikrofaunen, palogeographische Einbindung (Palegeographic interpretation
of geology and microfauna observations from the Simbach-Brunau Thermal-1
borehole). Geologica Bavarica 106, 3358.
Valley, B., 2007. The relation between natural fracturing and stress heterogeneities
in deep-seated crystalline rocks at Soultz-sous-Forts (France). Doctoral
Thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland,
241 pp.
Valley, B., Evans, K.F., 2007. Stress state at Soultz-sous-Forts to 5 km depth from
wellbore failure and hydraulic observations. In: Proceedings 32nd Workshop
on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA,
January 2224, pp. 329338.
Valley, B., Evans, K.F., 2009. Stress orientation to 5 km depth in the basement below
Basel (Switzerland) from borehole failure analysis. Swiss Journal Earth Sciences
102, 467480, doi:10.1007/s00015-009-1335-z.
Van Eck, T., Goutbeek, F., Haak, H., Dost, B., 2006. Seismic hazard due to
small-magnitude, shallow-source, induced earthquakes in The Netherlands.
Engineering Geology 87, 105121.
Vidal-Gilbert, S., Nauroy, J.-F., Brosse, E., 2009. 3D geomechanical modelling for CO2
geologic storage in the Dogger carbonates of the Paris Basin. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (3), 288299, doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.10.004.
Vogfjrd, K.S., Hjaltadttir, S., 2007. Kortlagning skjlfftavirkni vi Hverahli
Hellisheii febrar 2006 (Mapping microseismicity at Hverahld on Hellisheidi
in February, 2006) during pumping of well H-21. Report no. V-ES-04. Icelandic
Metereological Ofce, Reykjavk, Iceland, 20 pp.
Walker, A.B., 1989. SW England seismic monitoring for HDR Geothermal Programme
19871988. Report no. WL/89/02. British Geological Survey, Survey, Edinburgh,
UK, 23 pp.
Wallroth, T., 1992. Hydromechanical breakdown of crystalline rock. A study based
on experiments on hot dry rock geothermal energy. Doctoral Thesis. Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 195 pp.
Wallroth, T., Eliasson, T., Sundquist, U., 1999. Hot dry rock research expeiments at
Fjllbacka, Sweden. Geothermics 28, 617625.
Wessling, S., Junker, R., Rutqvist, J., Dmitriy, S., Sultzbacher, H., Tischner, T., Tsang,
C.F., 2009. Pressure analysis of the hydromechanical fracture behaviour in stimulated tight sedimentary geothermal reservoirs. Geothermics 38, 211226.
Wieczorek, J., 1999. Geological framework of the Tatra Mountains Podhale geothermal system. In: Proceedings of European Geothermal Conference, Vol. 1, Basel,
Switzerland, 2830 September, pp. 261269.
Wiejacz, P., Debski, W., 2009. Podhale, Poland, earthquake of November 20, 2004.
Acta Geophysica Polonica 57 (2), 346366, doi:10.2478/s11600-009-0007-8.
Wiese, B., Bhner, J., Enachescu, C., Wrdemann, H., Zimmermann, G., 2010.
Hydraulic characterisation of the Stuttgart formation at the pilot test site for
CO2 storage, Ketzin, Germany. International Journal Greenhouse Gas Control 4,
960971, doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.013.
Wolfgramm, M., Bartels, J., Hoffmann, F., Kittl, G., Lenz, G., Seibt, P., Schulz, R.,
Thomas, R., Unger, H.J., 2007. Unterhaching geothermal well doublet: structural
and hydrodynamic reservoir characteristic: Bavaria, Germany. In: Proceedings
of European Geothermal Congress. Paper 47, Unterhaching, Germany, 30 May1
June, p. 6.
54
Wrdemann, H., Mller, F., Khn, M., Heidug, W., Christensen, N.-P., Borm,
G., Schilling, F.R., 2010. CO2 SINK from site characterisation and
risk assessment to monitoring and verication: one year of operational experience with the eld laboratory for CO2 storage at Ketzin,
Germany. International Journal Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 938951,
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.010.
Zimmermann, G., Reinicke, A., Brandt, W., Blcker, G., Milsch, H., Holl, H.-G., Moeck,
I., Schulte, T., Saadat, A., Huenges, E., 2008. Results of stimulation treatments
at the geothermal reserach wells in Gross Schnebeck. In: Proceedings 33rd
CA, USA, January 2830, pp. 96100.
Zinivicius, F., Rasteniene, V., Bickus, A., 2003. Geothermal development in Lithuania.
In: Proceedings of European Geothermal Conference, Szeged, Hungary, 2530
May, p. 9.
Zinivicius, F., Sliupa, S., 2010. Lithuania geothermal energy country update. In:
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress Bali, Indonesia, 2529 April, p. 8.
Zoback, M.D., Harjes, H.P., 1997. Injection-induced earthquakes and crustal stress at
9 km depth at the KTB deep drilling site, Germany. Journal Geophysical Research
102 (B8), 1847718491.
Zumberge, M., Nooner, S., Eiken, O., 2006. A seaoor survey of the Sleipner Field
to monitor CO2 injection. Final report on contract DE-FC26-02NT41587. Scripps
Intitute of Oceanography, San Diego, California, 15 pp.

Othermal and CO2 Reservoirs in Europe PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Othermal and CO2 Reservoirs in Europe PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

A survey of the induced seismic responses to uid injection in geothermal and

(HDR) projects since the early 1970s, it is perhaps surprising

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

The scope of this study is limited to reporting European case

a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (equivalent to a

Geothermal: igneous rocks

Geothermal: Sedimentary rocks

Wells intersect faults. Event

Both wells intersect faults

Faults not targeted

Injection well intersects minor

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

CO2 sequestration: sedimentary rocks

Operational geothermal eld

CO2 is a gas at formation PT

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

In 2000, a larger injection of 4000 m3 of water was performed

further events of magnitudes ML 1.61.9 were detected in the area

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

Epicentre locations relative to casing shoe

Horizontal location relative to casing shoe

of intermediate-viscosity gel (0.05 Pa s) at rates up to 260 l/s and

3. Injection case histories: sedimentary rocks

three events of ML 2.0 and 3.0 and intensity Io V have occurred

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

more fractured, which resulted in a higher artesian-ow of 18 l/s.

ow at a temperature of 110 C. Almost all of the produced water

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

is the mid-Jurassic Dogger aquifer composed of oolitic limestone.

depth (reservoir temperature of 62 C). The water was injected into

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

59 MPa (Zimmermann et al., 2008). Such volumes and ow rates are

3.4.1.3. Ketzin, Germany (CO2 injection):. This CO2 injection test

3.4.1.4. Horstberg. This is a geothermal pilot facility designed to

3.4.2. South GermanAustrian Molasse basin

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

the rst borehole being drilled in 1983. Unpublished borehole

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

Flow rate (l/s)

(a) Latera Well L1 injection records and recorded microseismicity

largest event that is thought to have been induced by geothermal

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054

Max pressure =14.2 MPa

1.7 km depth carbonates

1.4 km depth volcanics

Flow rate (l/s)

21-22 December 1981

18-19 December 1981

1-2 December 1981

(a) Latera Well L6 injection records and recorded microseismicity

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

(b) Hypocentre locations

improved the injectivity. A subsequent injection at 111 l/s and

water in January and February 1977 with injection rates in the

K.F. Evans et al. / Geothermics 41 (2012) 3054