A comparative analysis of states of stress for analyzing fault slip potential

• Three different methodologies for determining the state of stress are analyzed. • The induced seismicity hazard is calculated as the Coulomb failure function for each of the states of stress. • The hazard varies little between the states of stress, although statistical differences are observed. • The choice of the state of stress method is recommended to be based on project objectives. A key consideration when planning the injection of fluids into the subsurface is the potential for induced seismicity. While avoiding major faults during injection is ideal, a detailed understanding of the fault slip potential of faults at the site enables operators to prevent large seismic events. Induced seismicity forecasting relies on combining fault surface geometries—here, we utilize ant-tracking of three-dimensional seismic images to map faults in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico—and the state of stress, which we evaluate using three distinct models. The fault slip potential is quantified using the Coulomb failure function, which measures proximity to frictional failure, based on the states of stress and fault geometries for both individual faults and a complete fault suite ( n = 51). The differences observed across the three stress states are subtle, but the statistical distributions of the Coulomb failure function suggest that uncertainties vary between the models. Notably, our findings reveal that both the linear-elastic approximation and the failure criterion yield similar fault slip potentials. Consequently, the choice of method for determining the state of stress most relevant to a project depends on the specific requirements and context of the project.