*3.3. Results*

In the resulting models (Figure 7), the stress is calculated based on the assumption of a linear elastic material. Rocks normally behave elastic up to 1%–2% strain at low temperature and pressure [46,48,49]. The elastic behavior of rocks is limited by their strength, that is, the maximum applied compressive or tensile stress the rock can withstand before failure occurs. The tensile strength of most rocks is in the range 0.5 to 6 MPa, most commonly 2–3 MPa [46,50]. This means that crustal tensile stress exceeding these values is not very common, as it is likely to result in tensile failure of the rock. The shear strength of rocks is twice their tensile strength, as follows from the Gri ffith failure criterion [46,51]. Thus, in the models, the tensile stress is truncated at 6 MPa, and the shear stress at 12 MPa. Areas concentrating stress above these values are likely to fail in tension or shear. However, due to uncertainties related to the material properties for the involved sedimentary units and the flexure-related load, the stress magnitudes in the models below should be read in terms of relative values. The stress is likely to be released by failure in the high magnitude areas (marked in yellow and red), and less likely to lead to failure in low magnitude areas (marked in blue).

The first model (Figure 7, top) shows the resulting maximum principal tensile stress (σ3) when the area is subject to extension during LGM deglaciation. Tensile stress can be described as stretching stress, and can lead to opening up of new extension fractures (when the tensile strength of the rock is exceeded) or opening up of preexisting fractures. The SW–NE extension causes large areas between the faults to concentrate high magnitude tensile stress, whereas other parts of the host rock are located in a "stress shadow". Here, the host rock surrounding SW–NE trending faults accumulate high magnitude tensile stresses, whereas the fault zones themselves show minimal e ffect. This indicates that due to the LGM deglaciation, the host rock surrounding SW–NE trending faults is likely to experience increased local fracture-related permeability, which may lead potential hydrocarbons towards and along the faults. Focusing on the exploration wells, the result suggests that wells 7324/2-1 and 7324/8-2 are placed within areas of high fracture-related permeability during the LGM deglaciation. Potential hydrocarbon may have migrated along faults out of a potential reservoir during the deglaciation. According to the results, the other wells are located in areas of low tensile stress, and therefore less likely to have been affected by flexural stresses during and after LGM.

The von Mises shear stress results (Figure 7, bottom) show similar tendency. Most of the wells are located in areas of low magnitude shear stress, whereas wells 7324/2-1 and 7324/8-2 are located in areas of higher shear stress magnitudes. Well data for exploration wells drilled in the area show that all wells included here are oil or gas discoveries, except for well 7324/2-1 and 7324/8-2 which are dry with shows, indicating former presence of hydrocarbons.

**Figure 7.** Stress models covering an area of 120 × 90 km in the Hoop Fault Complex, SW Barents Sea. The results include related exploration wells with data made public prior to 2017. **Top**: Resulting distribution of maximum principal tensile stress (σ3) during SW–NE extension due to deglaciation of LGM. **Bottom**: Resulting distribution of von Mises shear stress during flexure-related SW–NE extension. Scale in megapascals.
