
TY  - JOUR
A1  - van Ruth, P.J. 
A1  - Nelson, E.J. 
A1  - Hillis, R.R. 
T1  - Fault reactivation potential during CO2 injection in the Gippsland Basin, Australia
JF  - Exploration Geophysics
JO  - Explor. Geophys.
Y1  - 2006
VL  - 37
IS  - 1
SP  - 50
EP  - 59
KW  - 
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1071/EG06050 
N2  - The risk of fault reactivation in the Gippsland Basin was calculated using the FAST (Fault Analysis Seal Technology) technique, which determines fault reactivation risk by estimating the increase in pore pressure required to cause reactivation within the present-day stress field. The stress regime in the Gippsland Basin is on the boundary between strike-slip and reverse faulting: maximum horizontal stress (~40.5 MPa/km) > vertical stress (21 MPa/km) ~ minimum horizontal stress (20 MPa/km). Pore pressure is hydrostatic above the Campanian Volcanics of the Golden Beach Subgroup. The NW-SE maximum horizontal stress orientation (139ºN) determined herein is broadly consistent with previous estimates, and verifies a NW-SE maximum horizontal stress orientation in the Gippsland Basin. Fault reactivation risk in the Gippsland Basin was calculated using two fault strength scenarios; cohesionless faults (C = 0; m = 0.65) and healed faults (C = 5.4; m = 0.78). The orientations of faults with relatively high and relatively low reactivation potential are almost identical for healed and cohesionless fault strength scenarios. High-angle faults striking NE-SW are unlikely to reactivate in the current stress regime. High-angle faults oriented SSE-NNW and ENE-WSW have the highest fault reactivation risk. Additionally, low-angle faults (thrust faults) striking NE-SW have a relatively high risk of reactivation. The highest reactivation risk for optimally oriented faults corresponds to an estimated pore pressure increase (Delta-P) of 3.8 MPa (~548 psi) for cohesionless faults and 15.6 MPa (~2262 psi) for healed faults. The absolute values of pore pressure increase obtained from fault reactivation analysis presented in this paper are subject to large errors because of uncertainties in the geomechanical model (in situ stress and rock strength data). In particular, the maximum horizontal stress magnitude and fault strength data are poorly constrained. Therefore, fault reactivation analysis cannot be used to directly measure the maximum allowable pore pressure increase within a reservoir. We argue that fault reactivation analysis of this type can only be used for assessing the relative risk of fault reactivation and not to determine the maximum allowable pore pressure increase a fault can withstand prior to reactivation. 
ER  -

