Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

Uncertainty is known to play many roles and can be useful to enable action. In the case of human-induced seismicity, tracking the trajectories of seismic monitoring tools allows us to understand what stakeholders want to know and what they don’t know, thus highlighting a genuine (dis)interest in it.

Long abstract:

The Lacq gas field in southwest France is crucial as the largest hydrocarbon deposit in the country since its eruptive discovery in 1951. While extensive commercial gas extraction was the priority until the field became depleted, wastewater injection into the gas reservoir later initiated the transformation of the Lacq basin into a chemical industrial hub. Today, amidst strong criticism, a proposal is being made to explore geological carbon capture and storage in the reservoir. However, fluid manipulations (extraction and injection) have induced hundreds of earthquakes as unintended side-effects, forcing the industry to implement costly seismic monitoring networks. Despite the tremendous amount of data collected through these networks, data quality has highly varied due to network overlaps and abrupt shutdowns. This article examines the history of different monitoring tools used (such as networks, sensors, and algorithms), looking at how they have contributed to a fragmented body of knowledge about Lacq seismicity. Based on semi-structured interviews and archival research, this paper challenges singular accounts of seismicity, revealing that stakeholders (such as industry, regulator, scientists, citizens) have distinct knowledge interests. If substantial efforts have undoubtedly allowed a better understanding of induced seismicity, the divergence of knowledge interests has also led to undone science, having different impact and profits on stakeholders. In conclusion, this paper suggests that studying the history of monitoring tools can be a promising way to highlight the gap between stakeholders’ discursive statements and their implemented measures in knowledge, unveiling a certain (dis)interest in critical issues such as human-induced seismicity.