Normal Fault Reactivation Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing: Poroelastic Effects

Abstract

Numerous surface-felt earthquakes have been spatiotemporally correlated with hydraulic fracturing operations. Because large deformations occur close to hydraulic fractures (HFs), any associated fault reactivation and resulting seismicity must be evaluated within the length scale of the fracture stages and based on precise fault location relative to the simulated rock volumes. To evaluate changes in Coulomb failure stress (CFS) with injection, we conducted fully coupled poroelastic finite-element simulations using a pore-pressure cohesive zone model for the fracture and fault core in combination with a fault-fracture intersection model. The simulations quantify the dependence of CFS and fault reactivation potential on host-rock and fault properties, spacing between fault and HF, and fracturing sequence. We find that fracturing in an anisotropic in-situ stress state does not lead to fault tensile opening but rather dominant shear reactivation through a poroelastic stress disturbance over the fault core ahead of the compressed central stabilized zone. In our simulations, poroelastic stress changes significantly affect fault reactivation in all simulated scenarios of fracturing 50-200 m away from an optimally oriented normal fault. Asymmetric HF growth due to the stress-shadowing effect of adjacent HFs leads to 1.) a larger reactivated fault zone following simultaneous and sequential fracturing of multiple clusters compared to single-cluster fracturing; and 2.) larger unstable area (CFSgt;0.1) over the fault core or higher potential of fault slip following sequential fracturing compared to simultaneous fracturing. The fault reactivation area is further increased for a fault with lower conductivity and with a higher opening-mode fracture toughness of the overlying layer. To reduce the risk of fault reactivation by hydraulic fracturing under reservoir characteristics of the Barnett Shale, the Fort Worth Basin, it is recommended to 1.) conduct simultaneous fracturing instead of sequential; and 2.) to maintain a minimum distance of ~ 200 m for HF operations from known faults.