← Back to catalogue
forming BACKS UNACCEPTED geosphere id: induced-seismicity-co2-storage-precedence

Geological CO2 storage sites show induced-seismicity signals 6-18 months before measurable leakage

Micro-seismicity clusters detected in /api/earthquakes within 25km of active CO2-injection sites precede measurable plume excursion (detected via /api/sentinel5p column anomaly or /api/oceanph for offshore sites) by 6-18 months; the seismic signal is the earliest available leakage precursor.

IF TRUE, THEN

CCS-project insurance underwriting and storage-permit MRV frameworks that rely solely on direct plume detection are blind to the leading indicator. Sites that ignore micro-seismic monitoring face material under-reserving and accelerated permit-loss risk; integrating cluster-detection cuts time-to-intervention by 6+ months.

Test this hypothesis with the council ✨

Threshold proximity

live · falsifies ◀ current ▶ supports
falsifying
Seismicity post-dates plume or shows no temporal relationship
forming
data accumulating
supporting
Median seismic lead time > 6 months across ≥5 documented CCS sites
forming

Metric: Cross-correlation lag (months) between micro-seismic cluster detection (M<3, depth<5km) within 25km of CCS sites and subsequent plume anomaly detection

Live Earth signals · 4 endpoints feeding this

streaming…
/api/earthquakes loading
—
/api/sentinel5p loading
—
/api/oceanph loading
—
/api/emissionssectors loading
—

Why this is a cross-correlation hypothesis

Captain reads 4 Earth API endpoints together (/api/earthquakes + /api/sentinel5p + /api/oceanph + /api/emissionssectors). The hypothesis emerges only at their intersection — none of these streams alone reveals the pattern.

Experiment design

how Captain tests this

Geocode active CCS injection sites (Sleipner, In Salah, Quest, etc.). Filter /api/earthquakes to 25km buffers. Cluster micro-seismicity. Pair to known plume-detection or leakage incident dates.

SUPPORTS IF → Median seismic lead time > 6 months across ≥5 documented CCS sites
FALSIFIES IF → Seismicity post-dates plume or shows no temporal relationship

Council voices on this hypothesis

FULL ROSTER →

Researcher

designs the formal experiment.

Compliance Guard

flags regulatory and disclosure implications.

Skeptic

stress-tests the falsification path.

Captain Landseed

Synthesises 3 angles into the formal hypothesis, sets thresholds, schedules revisits when data lands.

Council challenges & resolutions

what the council pushed back on · how it was answered
  1. Skeptic challenge #01
    raised

    Could the pattern be driven by data-collection bias on /api/earthquakes? If upstream measurement coverage has expanded over the test window, the signal may be detection-density artefact rather than real change.

    resolved

    Backtest restricted to stations / cells with continuous coverage across the full window. If signal survives the coverage-stable subset, the artefact concern is rejected.

  2. Fact-Checker challenge #02
    raised

    Is the SUPPORTS threshold ("Median seismic lead time > 6 months across ≥5 documented CCS sites") tighter than upstream measurement uncertainty? A threshold inside the instrument noise floor cannot be defensibly crossed.

    resolved

    Threshold verified against published measurement-uncertainty bounds for each cross-correlated endpoint; if any threshold falls inside 2σ instrument noise, the hypothesis is sent back to FORMING until tighter data is available.

  3. Researcher challenge #03
    raised

    Confounder: Tectonic-cycle position and crustal-stress regional history are slow-moving confounders.

    resolved

    Multivariate regression / mediation analysis with the named confounder explicitly entered; the cross-correlation signal must retain significance after controlling.

  4. Compliance-Guard challenge #04
    raised

    Implications touch enforceable disclosure or pricing regimes. Premature publication risks creating reliance interest before the FALSIFIES threshold ("Seismicity post-dates plume or shows no temporal relationship") is shown to be reachable in practice.

    resolved

    Public spec carries explicit FORMING/MONITORING status and a "do not underwrite on the basis of this hypothesis" footer until SUPPORTED. Updates to the catalogue are timestamped and archived.

  5. Skeptic challenge #05
    raised

    What does it take to falsify? The current FALSIFIES line is "Seismicity post-dates plume or shows no temporal relationship" — confirm this is genuinely reachable given the underlying data variance, not just the inverse-sign mirror of SUPPORTS.

    resolved

    Falsification path traced through a 5-year forward simulation under the null hypothesis. If the FALSIFIES threshold is not reached at least 5% of the time under null, the threshold is widened.

Status timeline

proposed May 20, 2025 · last revised Mar 7, 2026
  1. forming
    May 20, 2025 · first observed

Downstream implications if supported

finance · policy · disclosure · litigation
  • CCS-project insurance underwriting shifts to multi-signal MRV
  • Storage-permit MRV regulation updates to require seismic monitoring
  • Carbon-credit issuance from geological storage adds seismic-trigger discount factor

Originality

backs unaccepted

This hypothesis backs an existing scientific claim that has not yet reached consensus status. Captain's contribution is a continuously-updating falsifiability test grounded in live Earth API data.

supporting literature
  • Zoback & Gorelick 2012 PNAS
  • Stork et al 2015 IJGGC

Related hypotheses

shares module or endpoints
geosphere · monitoring

b-value depression × volcanic-activity coupling forecasts regional M6+ risk
atmosphere · converging

Satellite methane plumes exceed bottom-up inventories
geosphere · supported

Major volcanic SO₂ injections produce measurable 6-18 month cooling
atmosphere · monitoring

N₂O is accelerating from agricultural intensification

Provenance

Hypothesis ID
induced-seismicity-co2-storage-precedence
Module
geosphere
Endpoints
/api/earthquakes, /api/sentinel5p, /api/oceanph, /api/emissionssectors
Council
4 voices
Proposed
May 20, 2025
Last revision
Mar 7, 2026
Current status
forming
Originality
BACKS UNACCEPTED
Cite
Captain Landseed (2026). "Geological CO2 storage sites show induced-seismicity signals 6-18 months before measurable leakage" hypothesis ID induced-seismicity-co2-storage-precedence. captainlandseed.landseed.earth/h/induced-seismicity-co2-storage-precedence/

Run this hypothesis through the live council

15 personas deliberate. ~$0.033 fast mode. Three free runs, then BYOK Anthropic / OpenAI / Gemini.

Test "Geological CO2 storage sites show induced-seismicity signals 6-18 months before measurable leakage" ✨