Can an electro-kinetic mechanism explain artificial earthquakes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paul Glover has suggested that an electro-kinetic mechanism may be the missing causal link. In his theory the injected current creates a three-dimensional electric field in the subsurface. The electro-kinetic mechanism uses the electric field to move the pore fluid at depth. If the pore fluid flows into a fault zone it may accumulate and transiently raise the pore fluid pressure within the fault zone. It is known that increases of pore fluid pressure within fault zones more than a critical pressure of 0.05 MPa are sufficient to trigger an earthquake if the fault has sufficient accumulated strain. Earthquakes are therefore possible while the pore fluid pressure is over the critical pressure. While the electro-kinetic drive has been well studied around the world, it is uncertain if the mechanism can provide fluid pressures sufficient to trigger earthquakes up to 150 km from the injection point. In this work we present two dimensional numerical modelling of the proposed coupled mechanism using a finite element approach and using the software package Comsol Multiphysics. The initial results are promising and indicate that (i) transient pressures greater than the critical pressure can be easily generated by the mechanism, (ii) the transient pressures in the model farther than 200 m from the electrodes can take values of up to 2 MPa (40 times the critical value), (iii) the transient pressures remain above the critical value up to 160 km from the dipole, which is consistent with the range of the field experiments. However, the modelling has only been able to generate the transient pressures quasi-instantaneously. There is a clear delay in the field experiment data of two days between current injection and earthquake occurrence. We cannot currently account for this in our modelling, although research is continuing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".