Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70189621

Surface monitoring of microseismicity at the Decatur, Illinois, CO2 sequestration demonstration site

Abstract

Sequestration of CO2 into subsurface reservoirs can play an important role in limiting future emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (e.g., Benson and Cole, 2008). For geologic sequestration to become a viable option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, large-volume injection of supercritical CO2 into deep sedimentary formations is required. These formations offer large pore volumes and good pore connectivity and are abundant (Bachu, 2003; U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013). However, hazards associated with injection of CO2 into deep formations require evaluation before widespread sequestration can be adopted safely (Zoback and Gorelick, 2012). One of these hazards is the potential to induce seismicity on pre-existing faults or fractures. If these faults or fractures are large and critically stressed, seismic events can occur with magnitudes large enough to pose a hazard to surface installations and, possibly more critical, the seal integrity of the cap rock. The Decatur, Illinois, carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration site is the first, and to date, only CCS project in the United States that injects a large volume of supercritical CO2 into a regionally extensive, undisturbed saline formation. The first phase of the Decatur CCS project was completed in November 2014 after injecting a million metric tons of supercritical CO2 over three years. This phase was led by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and included seismic monitoring using deep borehole sensors, with a few sensors installed within the injection horizon. Although the deep borehole network provides a more comprehensive seismic catalog than is presented in this paper, these deep data are not publicly available. We contend that for monitoring induced microseismicity as a possible seismic hazard and to elucidate the general patterns of microseismicity, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface and shallow borehole network described below provides an adequate event detection threshold. The formation targeted for injection is the Mount Simon Sandstone, which is laterally extensive, has high porosity and permeability and has the potential to host future CCS projects due to its favorable hydrologic characteristics and proximity to industrial sources of CO2 (Birkholzer and Zhou, 2009). At Decatur, CO2, a byproduct of ethanol production at the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) facility, is compressed to supercritical state and injected at 2.1 km depth into the 460 m thick Mount Simon Sandstone. This sandstone has varying properties, ranging from the lower, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone with high permeability and porosity, to the middle and upper Mount Simon, which consist of planar, cross-bedded layers of varied permeability and porosity (Leetaru and Freiburg, 2014). The changes in permeability and porosity within the Mount Simon Sandstone, due to depositional and diagenetic differences, create horizontal baffles, which inhibit vertical flow and restrict the injected CO2 to remain near the injection horizon (Bowen et al., 2011). The lowest portion of the Mount Simon Sandstone overlying the Precambrian rhyolite basement is the Pre-Mount Simon interval, generally < 15 m in thickness and composed of fine- to medium-grain size sandstone that is highly deformed (Leetaru and Freiburg, 2014). The basement rhyolite has a clayrich matrix and is fractured, with significant alterations within the fractures. The primary sealing cap rock is the Eau Claire Formation, a 100–150 m thick unit at a depth of roughly 1.69 km (Leetaru and Freiburg, 2014). The Maquoketa Shale Group and the New Albany Shale serve as secondary and tertiary seals at shallower depths of ∼820 and ∼650 m, respectively. The ISGS managed the Illinois Basin–Decatur Project (IBDP), a three-year project beginning in November 2011, during which carbon dioxide was injected at a rate of ∼1000 metric tons per day until November 2014 (Finley et al., 2011, 2013). ADM manages the Illinois Industrial CCS (ICCS) project, which will inject ∼3000 metric tons/day into a second injection well starting in the summer of 2015. The USGS began monitoring microseismicity with a 13- station seismic network at Decatur in July 2013 (Fig. 1). This network provides good detection capabilities and azimuthal (focal sphere) coverage for microseismicity with moment magnitudes (Mw) above about −0:5. Here, we report on 19 months of microseismicity monitoring at the Decatur CO2 sequestration site, which permits a detailed look at the evolution and character of injection-induced seismicity.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.706130149279325° to 39.9634381223102° latitude; -89.09088134765625° to -88.78326416015625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. Ole Kaven, Stephen H. Hickman, Arthur F. McGarr, William L. Ellsworth. 2015-06-10. Surface monitoring of microseismicity at the Decatur, Illinois, CO2 sequestration demonstration site. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150062

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗