## 1 Introduction  
Mining-induced seismicity in rock strata and associated rockbursts represent the most perilous potential hazards facing the copper and coal mine operators in Poland. Since the geology of rock strata, rock properties and mining conditions in the Legnica-Glogow Copper District (LGCD) [1, 2] differ from those prevailing in the Upper Silesia Copper Basin (USCB) [3, 4], the scale and nature of rockburst hazard manifestations should be different, too. Nevertheless, whether mineral or metal is being mined, the underlying cause, mechanism and origins of the registered events are basically the same. Tremors occur due to forces acting upon the structure of the rock strata and triggering the occurrence of dynamic phenomena, revealed by the release of seismic energy. In consideration of the location of these phenomena and the nature of cause-and-effect relationships, two types of mining tremors can be distinguished [5]. The first group includes mining-induced seismic events, their foci located in the vicinity of the deposit, in the immediate or main roof strata [6, 7]. In the case of those tremors, the parameters of the mining operations and the local geological settings are major determinants of the scale, spatial distribution and energy levels of registered seismicity. The other group includes tremors that are only partly related to the ongoing underground mining operations and should be attributed to local changes within the extensive mining sites due to progressing mining operations in combination with the presence of tectonic disturbances [8; 9]. Those are mostly high-energy tremors whose foci are mostly located at a considerable distance from the active excavations. Despite the continuing development of monitoring equipment, tools and systems, the state-of-the-art and practice in the field of seismic hazard forecasting is still far from satisfactory. This issue is of particular interest for mining engineers, mining companies as well as research and development units [10]. As seismic events can potentially produce most adverse impacts, leading to rockbursts or rock de-stressing in excavations, and work safety has been considered the top priority, new methods of predicting mining-induced seismicity are being sought and existing methods are being upgraded [11; 12]. In order to improve the effectiveness and reliability of seismicity forecasts, diverse criteria and concepts are recalled, including the solutions offered by mining engineering, geophysics and geomechanics. Among well-known solutions are those based on correlations between seismicity data and registered roof convergence values and changes of the drillhole diameter in the roof strata [13; 14]. There are methods of seismic risk assessment that involve the detailed analysis of the attributes of registered events [15; 16], such as times series of seismic and seismoacoustic energy emissions, taking into account the local geological settings and mining conditions [17; 18; 19]. The interpreting criteria based on analyses of focal mechanisms [20; 21; 22] and those recalling the Gutenberg-Richter law are being developed and upgraded [23; 24; 25]. A large group of methods for mining-induced seismicity evaluation use the P-wave and S-wave tomography profiles to identify anomaly zones [26; 27; 25] or rely on peak particle velocity (PPV) measurements in the vicinity of mining excavations [28; 29]. Probabilistic models are now widely applied [30; 31] alongside machine learning methods [32; 33]. Generally, predictions by geomechanical methods consist of observations of the changes in the stress-strain behaviour or elastic energy with an aim to identify the zones where the conditions are likely to trigger the dynamic processes leading to disruption (failure) of the rock strata [34; 35; 36; 37]. The study explores the applications of geomechanical strain and energy forecasts based on analytical simulations in terms of evaluating the seismic and rockburst hazard levels in underground mining.