Earthquakes occurring close to hydrocarbon fields under production are often under critical view of being induced or triggered. However, clear and testable rules to discriminate the different events have rarely been developed and tested. The unresolved scientific problem may lead to lengthy public disputes with unpredictable impact on the local acceptance of the exploitation and field operations. We propose a quantitative approach to discriminate induced, triggered, and natural earthquakes, which is based on testable input parameters. Maxima of occurrence probabilities are compared for the cases under question, and a single probability of being triggered or induced is reported. The uncertainties of earthquake location and other input parameters are considered in terms of the integration over probability density functions. The probability that events have been human triggered/induced is derived from the modeling of Coulomb stress changes and a rate and state‐dependent seismicity model. In our case a 3‐D boundary element method has been adapted for the nuclei of strain approach to estimate the stress changes outside the reservoir, which are related to pore pressure changes in the field formation. The predicted rate of natural earthquakes is either derived from the background seismicity or, in case of rare events, from an estimate of the tectonic stress rate. Instrumentally derived seismological information on the event location, source mechanism, and the size of the rupture plane is of advantage for the method. If the rupture plane has been estimated, the discrimination between induced or only triggered events is theoretically possible if probability functions are convolved with a rupture fault filter. We apply the approach to three recent main shock events: (1) theM_w4.3 Ekofisk 2001, North Sea, earthquake close to the Ekofisk oil field; (2) theM_w4.4 Rotenburg 2004, Northern Germany, earthquake in the vicinity of the Söhlingen gas field; and (3) theM_w6.1 Emilia 2012, Northern Italy, earthquake in the vicinity of a hydrocarbon reservoir. The three test cases cover the complete range of possible causes: clearly “human induced,” “not even human triggered,” and a third case in between both extremes.

The additional observation of three components of rotational ground motions has benefits for tilt‐seismometer coupling (e.g., ocean‐bottom seismometry and volcano seismology), local site characterization, wavefield separation, source inversion, glacial and planetary seismology, as well as the monitoring of structural health. Field applications have been mostly hampered by the lack of portable sensors with appropriate broadband operation range and weak‐motion sensitivity. Here, we present field observations of the first commercial portable broadband rotation sensor specifically designed for seismology. The sensor is a three‐component fiber‐optic gyro strictly sensitive to ground rotation only. The sensor field performance and records are validated by comparing it with both array‐derived rotation measurements and a navigation‐type gyro. We present observations of the 2018 $Mw$ 5.4 Hualien earthquake and the 2016 central Italy earthquake sequence. Processing collocated rotation and classical translation records shows the potential in retrieving wave propagation direction and local structural velocity from point measurements comparable to small‐scale arrays of seismic stations. We consider the availability of a portable, broadband, high sensitivity, and low self‐noise rotation sensor to be a milestone in seismic instrumentation. Complete and accurate ground‐motion observations (assuming a rigid base plate) are possible in the near, local, or regional field, opening up a wide range of seismological applications.

On 2012 May 20 and 29, two damaging earthquakes with magnitudes M_w 6.1 and 5.9, respectively, struck the Emilia-Romagna region in the sedimentary Po Plain, Northern Italy, causing 26 fatalities, significant damage to historical buildings and substantial impact to the economy of the region. The earthquake sequence included four more aftershocks with M_w ≥ 5.0, all at shallow depths (about 7–9 km), with similar WNW–ESE striking reverse mechanism. The timeline of the sequence suggests significant static stress interaction between the largest events. We perform here a detailed source inversion, first adopting a point source approximation and considering pure double couple and full moment tensor source models. We compare different extended source inversion approaches for the two largest events, and find that the rupture occurred in both cases along a subhorizontal plane, dipping towards SSW. Directivity is well detected for the May 20 main shock, indicating that the rupture propagated unilaterally towards SE. Based on the focal mechanism solution, we further estimate the co-seismic static stress change induced by the May 20 event. By using the rate-and-state model and a Poissonian earthquake occurrence, we infer that the second largest event of May 29 was induced with a probability in the range 0.2–0.4. This suggests that the segment of fault was already prone to rupture. Finally, we estimate peak ground accelerations for the two main events as occurred separately or simultaneously. For the scenario involving hypothetical rupture areas of both main events, we estimate M_w = 6.3 and an increase of ground acceleration by 50 per cent. The approach we propose may help to quantify rapidly which regions are invested by a significant increase of the hazard, bearing the potential for large aftershocks or even a second main shock.