From checking deterministic predictions to probabilities, scenarios and control loops for regulatory supervision

  • J.A. de Waal
  • A.G. Muntendam-Bos
  • J.P.A. Roest
Keywords: control loop, induced seismicity, regulator, risk, subsidence

Abstract

Prediction of gas-production-induced subsidence and seismicity is much more difficult and uncertain than generally recognised in the past. It is now widely accepted that uncertainties in predicted subsidence and seismicity are large prior to and during the initial stages of production. At later stages, predictions remain highly uncertain for periods more than three to five years into the future. This requires a different regulatory framework to ensure that associated risks remain within accepted boundaries. Previously, single-scenario operator predictions were checked against field measurements. When subsidence or seismicity started to deviate beyond claimed uncertainties, the operator was asked to provide prediction updates. The practice was long considered acceptable, as structural damage to buildings and infrastructure or personal risk to people was not expected. This all changed following the 2012 Huizinge seismic event, necessitating better identification, assessment and ranking of risks, the use of scenarios, probabilistic forecasting and a much intensified field monitoring and control loop. It requires that the regulator becomes actively involved in assuring the integrated control loop of risk identification, predictions, monitoring, updating, mitigation measures and the closing of knowledge gaps, to ensure that subsidence (rate) and induced seismicity remain within acceptable limits. And it requires that this increased involvement of the regulator is supported in the mining law and by appropriate conditions in the Production Plan assent.

Published
2018-01-17
How to Cite
de Waal J., Muntendam-Bos A., & Roest J. (2018). From checking deterministic predictions to probabilities, scenarios and control loops for regulatory supervision. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 96, 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/njg.2017.15
Section
Original Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)