Bridging the Gap Between Energy Sector Regulations and Seismic Hazard Assessment

The recognition that earthquakes pose a significant risk to infrastructure has resulted in well-established hazard assessment frameworks in industries such as nuclear energy and mining. The Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process, developed in 1997, has provided a structured approach to probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) for critical infrastructure, ensuring consistency in estimating seismic hazard. While these frameworks have been widely applied to natural seismicity, the energy sector (globally, including North America) has historically regarded induced earthquakes as a negligible concern due to the perceived minimal seismic impact of conventional hydrocarbon extraction. However, the increasing use of technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, wastewater disposal, enhanced geothermal systems, and geological carbon storage has altered subsurface stress conditions, leading to a rise in induced seismicity globally, including in Western Canada.
 
In response to the rise in induced seismicity, regulators have introduced mandatory seismic hazard mitigation measures, such as Traffic Light Protocols (TLPs). At the end of 2024, for example, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) updated Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs. This directive now requires an induced seismic hazard assessment of all new fluid disposal wells and existing disposal wells if amendments to operating conditions are being requested, whereas previously this applied only to CO2 injection wells. It also requires seismic risk assessment and a Monitoring, Mitigation, and Response (MMR) plan for all existing wells deemed by the AER to be seismogenic and any wells for which the initial seismic hazard assessment determines the area to be “prone to induced seismic events.” Directive 065 does not lay out what, exactly, a seismic hazard assessment should include, leaving operators of all sizes, and often without in-house expertise, to figure it out for themselves. It suggests analyses such as in situ stress assessment, fault mapping, and PSHA, none of which are simple and some of which may even be problematic. For example, traditional PSHA is built on the assumption of a Poissonian process, meaning that the occurrence of one earthquake is independent of others and the rate of occurrence is stable over time. This assumption generally works well for long-term natural seismicity (especially larger earthquakes) but does not fully capture the transient, operationally driven nature of induced seismicity, which is often localized in space and time.
 
This presentation explores the regulatory gaps in managing induced seismicity within the energy sector and aims to spark discussions on refining hazard assessment methodologies so that they are applicable to the induced seismicity process with the goal of achieving economic development while maintaining public safety.
 
Registration closes on Friday, June 6 at 8AM MDT.