Limited Earthquake Interaction During a Geothermal Hydraulic Stimulation in Helsinki, Finland

We investigate induced seismicity associated with a hydraulic stimulation campaign performed in 2020 in the 5.8 km deep geothermal OTN-2 well near Helsinki, Finland as part of the St1 Deep Heat project. A total of 2,875 m(3) of fresh water was injected during 16 days at well-head pressures <70 MPa and with flow rates between 400 and 1,000 L/min. The seismicity was monitored using a high-resolution seismic network composed of 10 borehole geophones surrounding the project site and a borehole array of 10 geophones located in adjacent OTN-3 well. A total of 6,121 induced earthquakes with local magnitudes MLHel>-1.9 ${M}_{\mathrm{L}}<^>{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}} > -1.9$ were recorded during and after the stimulation campaign. The analyzed statistical parameters include magnitude-frequency b-value, interevent time and interevent time ratio, as well as magnitude correlations. We find that the b-value remained stationary for the entire injection period suggesting limited stress build-up or limited fracture network coalescence in the reservoir. The seismicity during the stimulation neither shows signatures of magnitude correlations, nor temporal clustering or anticlustering beyond those arising from varying injection rates. The interevent time statistics are characterized by a Poissonian time-varying distribution. The calculated parameters indicate no earthquake interaction. Focal mechanisms suggest that the injection activated a spatially distributed network of similarly oriented fractures. The seismicity displays stable behavior with no signatures pointing toward a runaway event. The cumulative seismic moment is proportional to the cumulative hydraulic energy and the maximum magnitude is controlled by injection rate. The performed study provides a base for implementation of time-dependent probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the project site.

Automated summary

We investigated induced seismicity caused by hydraulic stimulation in a geothermal well near Helsinki, Finland. The seismicity was monitored and analyzed, and it was found that there was no correlation between earthquake magnitudes during the stimulation. The interevent time statistics followed a Poisson distribution. The study suggests that the hydraulic stimulation did not result in earthquake interaction or prolonged seismic events.