Geothermal energy is a green source of power that could play an important role in climate-conscious energy portfolios; enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) have the potential to scale up exploitation of thermal resources. During hydraulic fracturing, fluids injected under high-pressure cause the rock mass to fail, stimulating fractures that improve fluid connectivity. However, this increase of pore fluid pressure can also reactivate pre-existing fault systems, potentially inducing earthquakes of significant size. Induced earthquakes are a significant concern for EGS operations. In some cases, ground shaking nuisance, building damages, or injuries have spurred the early termination of projects (e.g., Basel, Pohang). On the other hand, EGS operations at Soultz-sous-Forêts (France), Helsinki (Finland), Blue Mountain (Nevada, USA), and Utah FORGE (USA) have adequately managed induced earthquake risks. The success of an EGS operation depends on economical reservoir enhancements, while maintaining acceptable seismic risk levels. This requires state-of-the-art seismic risk management. This article reviews domains of seismology, earthquake engineering, risk management, and communication. We then synthesize “good practice” recommendations for evaluating, mitigating, and communicating the risk of induced seismicity. We advocate for a modular approach. Recommendations are provided for key technical aspects including (a) a seismic risk management framework, (b) seismic risk pre-screening, (c) comprehensive seismic hazard and risk evaluation, (d) traffic light protocol designs, (e) seismic monitoring implementation, and (f) step-by-step communication plans. Our recommendations adhere to regulatory best practices, to ensure their general applicability. Our guidelines provide a template for effective earthquake risk management and future research directions.

Prospects for geothermal energy in the Netherlands have renewed concerns around induced earthquakes. Risks from induced earthquakes are managed by traffic light protocols (TLPs), where the red-light is chosen as the stop-point before exceeding a tolerance to risk. Here, we simulate post-shut-in earthquake scenarios based on realistic information for the Netherlands. We focus on three risk metrics: aggregates like nuisance and damage impacts and also local personal risk (LPR) – a likelihood of building collapse fatality for an individual. Our results show that the severity of these risks varies spatially by orders of magnitude. Prior induced seismicity (e.g., the 2012 Huizinge event) provides a reference baseline to calibrate the Dutch earthquake risk tolerances. We find that these calibrated risk tolerances are similar to those observed in North America, suggesting an underlying sociological ‘license to operate.’ Furthermore, the use of calibrated risk tolerances results in nuisance concerns completely eclipsing the other two metrics. We compare our results to a hypothetical Groningen geothermal operation and find that our approach sets red-light thresholds approximately one magnitude unit below the M_L 3.6 Huizinge event. Overall, our results provide a first-order recommendation for red-light thresholds and proactive management of Dutch enhanced geothermal induced seismicity.