SEG Houston

Pore Pressure Prediction

July 2003
Martin Traugott
University of Durham
RES/05-00/03
(www.dur.ac.uk/m.o.traugott) 1
 Course Outline
Nomenclature, Conversions, Equations
Pressure Gradients, Centroid Concept
Pressure Prediction
Basin-Model prediction methods
Petrophysical prediction methods
Seismic prediction methods (main focus)
Limitations of each method
Fracture Gradients and Casing Selection
Summary
_ Exam 2
 60 second introductions
Your name and company
Discipline (geology, geophysics, engineering,
petrophysics, drilling, basin modelling, other)
Level of PPP expertise (1=rookie, 10=expert)
Main Interest (e.g. casing design, deep water,
seal capacity, seismic pressure prediction)
Optional What key problem made you attend
this pore pressure prediction course? Optional
What is the main thing you want to get from this
pore pressure prediction course
 Course Objectives
To become reasonably expert at :
Prediction of overburden stress
Prediction of pore pressure
Prediction of Fracture gradient

To acquire an understanding of
Casing seat selection
Leak-Off Test interpretation
Breached seals 4
Why do pore pressure prediction?

5
 Basics

PA PB PC

Pore pressure is dependent only on TVD depth

6
 Basics - Continued
Add Sediments

PB
PA

PA PB Time

PA = PB at some time T1
7
 Basics - Continued
Hydrocarbon Seals: Any lithology that leaks
hydrocarbons (at a rate) slower than the rate of
influx of hydrocarbons into a trap (from Jerry Lucia)

Pressure Seals: A lithology with nanadarcy

permeability e.g. salt, anhydrite, and certain
mudstones (shales)

Mudstones that are good seals have low acoustic

velocity, high cation exchange capacity, and low
resistivity (slowness (ITT) > 90 microseconds/foot)
8
 Part 1

Introduction

Origin of Overpressures
Sources of Pressure Data
Nomenclature, Conversions, Equations

9
 Origin of Abnormal Pressures
Compaction: Entrapment of pressure due to rapid
deposition and overlying seal not allowing water to
escape

Centroid: Deeper fluid pressure in communication with

shallower formations along dipping formations

Artesian: Outcrop at a higher elevation

Hydrocarbon buoyancy: (large effect at shallow depths)

Fluid Expansion
10
refer to Osborne and Swarbrick
 Sources of Pressure Data
Direct Measurement: Good
Formation Tests (RFT, MDT,DST)
Kick
Indirect Measurement:
Petrophysical methods (e.g. LWD)
Seismic interval velocities
Basin modelling
Gas Detection
Mud Weight
Drilling parameters (e.g. d-exponent)
Poor
11
 Nomenclature
A air gap (height of rig floor)
D depth below rotary table, TVD
DBSF depth below sea floor (mud line)
PPG pore pressure gradient (Pp/D)(cf)
FPG fracture pressure gradient
OBG overburden gradient
Gfrac fracture gradient (reference to sea floor)
Gint interval pore pressure gradient
Gnormal Go if Pp is normal
Go PPG referenced to sea floor
Gsed average sediment gradient (density)
Gsw seawater gradient
Pp formation pore pressure (e.g. in kPa or psi)
12
W water depth (referenced to subsea)
 Petrophysical Nomenclature
De equivalent depth (retention depth)
ITT sediment acoustic interval travel-time
ITTnormal travel time if Pp is normal
R sediment resistivity
Rnormal resistivity if Pp is normal
TWT two-way time (from seismic data)
V acoustic interval velocity
Vnormal velocity if Pp is normal

13
 Units Conversion (approx.)
sg = ppg / 8.335 = (.12 ) (ppg)
sg = g/cc / 1
sg = kg/m3 / 1000
sg = psi/foot / 0.433
ppg = (psi/ft) (19.25) = psi/ft / 0.052
psi/foot = ppg / 19.25 = (ppg) (0.052)
Bars = psi / 14.5
KPa = (Bars) (100)
MPa = Bars / 10
Feet = (Meters) (3.281)
Velocity = (10^6) / ITT
14
 Main Equations
DBSF` = D - A - W
Gint = delta (Pp) / delta (D)
Gsed = (16.3 +(DBSF/3125)0.6) in feet and ppg
Gsed = (16.3 +(DBSF/952)0.6 ) in meters and ppg
Go = Gsed - (Gsed - Gnormal)(V/Vnormal)3
Go = Gsed - (Gsed - Gnormal) (ITTnormal/ITT)3
Pf = OBG-(OBG-8.7)(DTnorm/DT)3-------(KSIMOntecarlomodel)
Go = Gsed - (Gsed - Gnormal) (R/Rnormal)1.2
Gfrac = (k) (Gsed - Go) + Go
PPG = (WGsw + DBSF Go)/D
FPG = (WGsw + DBSFGfrac)/D
OBG = (WGsw + DBSF Gsed )/D
ITTnormal = 55 + 140 exp(-DBSF/6247) in feet

15
 Part 2

Pressure Gradients

16
 Interval Gradient, Gint

Interval Gradient (Gi) is the rate of change in

pore pressure with depth:
Gint = Pp/D = (Pp1-Pp2)/(D1-D2)
Gint is the apparent formation fluid density.
Values greater than 1.22 sg (0.53 psi/ft or 10.2
ppg) indicate no hydraulic connectivity i.e.
indicates separate pressure compartments

17
 Example
RFT pressure at 9305 feet is 4377 psia
RFT pressure at 9427 feet is 4387 psia

What is the interval gradient (Gint)?

Note: RFT refers to a wireline Repeat
Formation Tester. (Could be a MDT, DST,
or Production bottom-hole pressure test)
18
 Solution
Gint = (Pp1-Pp2)/(D1-D2)
Gint = (4377-4387)/(9305-9427) = 0.082 psi/ft
or (0.082)(19.25) = 1.6 ppg
or 0.082/.433 = 0.19 sg

Fluid Type is Gas assuming two intervals are in

hydraulic continuity
19
 Typical Values for Gint
TYPE* PSI/FT kPa/m ppg sg
Freshwater 0.42 9.49 8.1 0.97
North Sea water 0.45 10.2 8.7 1.04
Gulf of Mexico water 0.465 10.4 8.9 1.07
Saturated saltwater 0.53 12.0 10.2 1.22

Oil @30 API 0.30 6.8 5.8 0.69

Gas 0.10 2.3 1.9 0.23

Isolated cells 1.00 20.6 19.2 2.31

Isolated cells deepwater 0.84 19 16.2 1.93

Transition Zone >4.0 >90 77 9.23

* @ 10,000 feet. Varies with salinity, temperature, and

pressure. Oils vary with API gravity and Gas-Oil ratio.
20
 Lithostatic Gradient, Gsed

Lithostatic gradient (Gsed) is the average density of

the sediments
Gsed increases with depth below seafloor (DBSF)
but does not increase with water depth (W)
Gsed = Gnormal + (1-)RhoM
where is porosity and RhoM is matrix denstiy
RhoM is 2.7 for shales and and carbonates
and 2.65 for sandstones
21
 Determination of Gsed
Methods - Ranked Best to Worst
Wireline derived (or MWD) density
Model derived density
Acoustic derived
1 psi/foot (19.25 ppg) text book value. OK
at depths over 10,000 feet (3000 meters)
below sea floor
Cuttings derived (using a mud balance) 22
Exercise
Given bulk density log,
determine Gsed at
10000 (z units = ?)

express as sg and ppg

note: RhoB is in g/cc

Assume (yellow lines)

03000 RhoB = 2.07
300010000 = 2.23
23
 Typical Values for Gsed
DBSF feet (meters) ppg sg

0 (0) 16.3 1.96

2000 (609) 17.1 2.05
4000 (1219) 17.5 2.1
10000 (3047) 18.3 2.2
16000 (4876) 19 2.3

FOR SANDSTONES AND MUDSTONES (SHALES)

FOR NO UPLIFT
(Use this table in following problems)
Exceptions - 24
 SeaWater Gradient, Gsw

Gsw is the pressure gradient of

average sea water. A typical value
is 1.04 sg (8.7 ppg or 0.45 psi/ft
or10.2 kPa/m)
from Mark Alberty, BP
Gsw for the Caspian Sea is 1 sg

25
 Part 2b

Equivalent Mud Density

26
Equivalent Mud Density, PPG
PPG is defined as the gradient of a column of mud
when hydrostatic mud pressure equals pore
pressure
PPG = (Pp/D)(CF)
where the conversion factor (CF) is 19.25 for psi/foot

Implicit in the definition

Mud density does not change with depth
Top of the mud in annulus is at the derrick floor

Note EMW decreases as either A or W increases 27

 Prediction ahead of Bit

Exercise
Assume PPG is 14 ppg at the top of a gas
column at a depth D of 4,000. What is the
predicted EMW at a depth of 4,500?
PPG

(Note you are not told if D is in feet or meters)

28
Normal Equivalent Mud Weight
derrick floor
sea level
sea floor seawater

borehole

PPGnormal = (WGSW+DBSFGnormal)/D

29
 Exercise

Given W = 0 and A = 100, what is the PPG at a

depth (D) equal to 500?

Assume Gnormal = 1.07 sg

Report answer in sg and ppg

30
 Part 2c

the Centroid Concept

31
 Centroid - Definition

The centroid is the depth in a dipping

reservoir where there is no net flow in or
out of the reservoir.

Above the centroid the flow is from the

reservoir to the shale.

Below the centroid the flow is from the

shale to the reservoir.
32
 feet
Centroid
1000
2000
3000
4000 Fracture Pressure
5000 Shale Pressure
6000 Hydrostat
7000
centroid
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Pressure, psig 33
 Continued
feet
feet

centroid?
9000 1psi/ft gradient 9000
centroid?
0.43 psi/ft gradient
10000 10000

11000 11000
centroid?

6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 8 10 12 14 16 18

Pressure, psig 1000/div Equivalent Mud Weight, lbs/gal

Main Points -
In each separate cell, pressure (Pp) increases with depth while
the equivalent mud weight decreases with increasing depth.
Gradient (Gint) increases at a rate of about 1 psi/ft from cell to
cell, that is, from one overpressured compartment to another cell.34
Execise
1. If depth (W) is 200 feet and air gap (A) is 70 feet, what is the overburden gradient at a depth
of 10,000 feet? Assume a normal compacted clastics section and no uplift.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. Assume that a well penetrated a water bearing reservoir at a depth of 12,000 feet with a
measured value of 9970 psia. What mud weight will be required to drill the same reservoir at
an updip location where the depth at the reservoir will be 10,000 feet.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3. Consider that a well requires a 14 ppg mud to control a kick at a depth of 12,000 feet. What
will be the equivalent mud weight when the the well reaches total depth at 16,000 feet?
Assume that the geologic section is shale interbedded with sandstone and that the shale is
soft and clay rich.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Work Problem 3 again assuming that the interval 12,000 to 16,000 feet is a carbonate.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
5. A BP well in Colombia drilled the objective sand at a depth of 9,100 feet and required a 21
ppg mud. Elevation at the derrick floor was 850 feet above sea level. A second well will be
drilled 1000 feet away and the top of the objective will come in flat i.e. the second well will
penetrate the same formation at the same subsea elevation. What is the required mud weight
if the rig for the second well is placed in a river valley with a derrick floor elevation of 410 feet?
__________________________________________________________________________
35
6.
 Part 3

Pore Pressure Prediction

Basin Modeling methods

Petrophysical methods (e.g. acoustic)
Seismic methods
Drilling methods

36
 Basin Modelling

Concept Pore Pressure is controlled by

(1) permeability (of the seals)
(2) time (rate of sedimentation)

37
 Basin Model Methods
feet

2000
3000
500 feet/Ma
4000 5000 feet/Ma
5000 Lithostatic
6000
7000
8000
9000 1d Basin Model

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Pressure, psig 1000/div 38
 Exercise
Assume Retention Depth is 2000 DBSF. What is
PPG at D = 5000, if W= 900 and A=100

Solution:
Gnormal is 1.07
DBSF at D=5000 is 5000-900-100 = 4000
Gint from 2000 to 4000 is Gs (assume 2.3)
Go = ((2000)(1.07)+(2000)(2.3))4000 = 1.685

PPG = (WGsw+DBSFGO)/D = 1.535 (12.8 ppg)

39
 Petrophysical Methods

Equivalent-depth

Eaton

40
 Travel time Ohm meters Bulk density

normal trend line

4000
Casing
4000 4000

8000 8000 8000

cap?
12000 12000 12000 top overpressures

16000 16000 16000

-90 110 200 50 0 120 0.2 20 0 120 1.8 2.8 8 18

SP Acoustic GR Resistivity GR Density lbs/gal 41
 Notes
Deflections to the left on the spontaneous potential curve (SP)
indicate sandstones. All three porosity curves (acoustic,
resistivity and density) are scaled such that porosity decreases
to the right.
The solid curve lines shows normal compaction.
Acoustic and resistivity data show clearly a break from the normal
compaction trend (towards higher porosity) at the top of
overpressures at about 9000 feet.
Density data appear not to pick up the top of overpressures. The
next slide is an example of complete lack of response on the density.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________ 42
 Equivalent Depth Method

Porosity = (Porosity)e
Therefore assume Pe = (Pe)e

43
 Eaton Method

Pe = (depth)((Gsed-Go)+k(Gsed - Go)+k(Gsed - Go))/3

Pe = (depth)(Gsed - Go)(1+2k)/3

case 1 (depth)(Gsed - Go) )(1+2k)/3 = aVx

case 2 (depth)(Gsed -Gnormal) )(1+2k)/3= aVnormalx
Divide two equations
(Gsed - Go)/(Gsed - Gnormal)=(V/Vnormal)X

44
Resistivity Method - flow chart
1. Pick clean shale points from log data.
Avoid values near the sea floor
2. Plot resistivity vs. depth on a semi-log graph
(resistivity on log axis). Better: plot
temperature-corrected resistivity
3. Identify top of overpressures
4. Draw a normal compaction line (using data
above the top of overpressures) and
extrapolate to depth of interest

45
 Continued
5. Get measured shale resistivity (R) from plot at
depth of interest
6. Get normal value (Rnormal) from the normal
compaction line at the same depth
7. Determine lithostatic sediment gradient (Gsed)
8. Determine pressure gradient (Go)
Go = Gsed - (Gsed-Gnormal)(R/Rnormal)1.2
9. EMW = (WGsw+DBSFGo)/D
Note: Use Gnormal = 1.07 sg (0.465 psi/ft or 8.9
ppg ) Use Gnormal = Gsw near seafloor
46
 Resistivity Exercise

Using the depth vs. shale resistivity plot

on next slide where W=200 feet and
A=70 feet, determine the equivalent
mud weight (PPG) at a depth of
10,000 feet

47
 feet

1000
2000 model
use with discretion
3000
cec = 0.5
4000 cec = 1.0
5000 cec = 1.5
cec = 2
6000
7000
8000
top overpressures??
9000
10000

.1 10
Shale Resistivity 48
 Review

Pressure gradient
Gavg = Pp/D EMW equivalent mud density (P or PPG)

49
 Review

Pressure gradient
Gavg = Pp/D EMW equivalent mud density (P or PPG)
Gint interval gradeint apparent fluid density
special cases of interval gradient

Gsw sea water density (8.7ppg)

Gnormal formation water density (8.9ppg)
Go interval from seafloor to D. A rock property
Ggas 1.9 ppg
Gbetween sealing units 19.2 (actually equal to Gsed)

50
 Review

New Dimensionless Method to Evaluate Pressures

EMW = (H1G1 +H2G2+H3G3 )/(H1 + H2 + H3 )

EMW2 = (EMW1D1+HG)/D2
EMW1 = (EMW2D2-HG)/D1

51
 Review

(O-EMW)/(O-EMWnormal)=(V/Vnormal)X

X = 3 or 3
Better
(Gsed-Go)/(Gsed-Gnormal)=(V/Vnormal)X

Gsed = 16.3 +(Dbsf/3125)0.6

Vnormal = 106/(155+40exp(-Dbsf/6247))

52
 Acoustic Method - flow chart
1. Pick clean shale points from log data.
2. Plot travel-time vs. depth on a semi-log
graph (travel-time on log axis)
3. Identify top of overpressures
4. Draw a normal compaction line (using data
above the top of overpressures) and
extrapolate to depth of interest

53
 Continued
5. Get measured travel time (ITT) from plot
6. Get normal value (ITTnormal) from the normal
compaction line (at the same depth).
7. Determine lithostatic sediment gradient (Gsed)
8. Determine pressure gradient (Go)
Go = Gsed - (Gsed-Gnormal)(ITTnormal/ITT)3
9. PPG = (WGsw+DBSFGo)/D
Note: Use Gnormal = 1.07 sg (0.465 psi/ft or 8.9
ppg ) Use Gnormal = Gsw near seafloor

54
 Acoustic Exercise

Using the acoustic data on the next slide,

determine PPG at 10,000 feet

Note: (W=200, A=100)

55
 2000 2000 156

4000 4000 139

5000 ___

6000

7000 115

8000

9800 131
-10 100 200 50 200 50
SP feet Acoustic s/ft

56
 Part 3b

P in Shales versus P in Sands

57
 Hydrocarbon Effect

P in sands not equal P in shales

P in sands can be sharply higher

than P in shales. Effect is
strongest at shallow depths

58
 Centroid Effect

P in sands can be sharply higher or

lower than P in shales. Effect is
strongest when P is highest
Centroid effect is insignificant when
P is close to normal or when dip is
low

59
 Part 3c

Fracture Gradients
Leak Off Tests
Casing Seat Selection

60
 Fracture Gradient

Fracture gradient is the static mud weight

required to fracture or cause the
formation to separate, that is, F is the
static mud weight at which lost
circulation occurs.
Lost circulation is a major cause of well
control problems

61
 Fracture Gradient

Fracture gradient at a given depth

depends on:
lithostatic gradient
pore pressure
ratio of horizontal and vertical stresses in
the matrix, derived from the Poissons
Ratio

62
 Stress Ratio, k

by definition: k = (GfracGo)/(Gsed-Go)
assuming Gfrac = fracture gradient
Gfrac = (k) (Gsed-Go)+Go
F = (WGsw+DBSFGfrac)/D

k is dimensionless, use any consistent

units for other terms
63
 Six Ways to Determine k
1. k = /(1-) uniaxial strain model
2. k = (.039)(D-A-W/4)0.33 empirical model
3. k = 1/(( 2+1)0.5+)2 failure model
4. k=1 plastic model
5. k = 1/ tan2() fault angle model
6. k = 0.33 hard rock model
7. k =.64 soft mudstones
where = Poissons Ratio
= coefficient of friction
= angle of faults from horizontal 64
 Exercise
D = 5,050 feet
A = 50 feet
W = 2,000 feet
Pp = normal
Soft sediments

Determine MW required to fracture formation

depth of 5,050

65
 Solution
D = 5,050 feet
A = 50 feet
W = 2,000 feet
Go = normal (1.06 sg)
Gsw = 1.04 sg for seawater

DBSF = 5050-50-2000= 3000

k = .64
Gsed = 2.07 sg
Gfrac = (0.64)(2.07-1.06) + 1.06 = 1.706
FPG = ((1.04)(2000)+(1.706)(3000))/5050 = 1.425 sg
FPG = (8.335)(1.425) = 11.9 ppg
66
 Poissons Ratio Typical
Clay, very wet = 0.50
Soft Shale = 0.35 - 0.48
Limestone, porous = 0.20
Sandstone = 0.20 - 0.35
For Deepwater GOM sediments with D<5000
feet below sea floor,
=0.312+(0.05787)(D/1000)-0.00609)(D/1000)2
for D>5000 feet below sea floor
=0.426+(0.00729)(D/1000)-(0.00019)(D/1000)2
where D is DBSF (from Eaton, 1997)
67
 Leak Off Test (LOT)
Purpose:
To determine the actual integrity (fracture
gradient) of the formation at the casing
shoe
To evaluate the integrity of the cement
job
To determine Gfrac

68
 Procedure: leak off test (LOT)
Drill out the shoe 10 to 15 feet. Circulate to ensure
that the mud weight is uniform.
Rig up cement pump. Start pumping at a constant
rate of about 1/4 bbl/min.
Record and plot pressure and volume at 1/4 bbl
intervals.
Stop pumping when the slope breaks, or when the
leak off pressure exceeds lithostatic.
For extended LOT tests, pump to breakdown.
69
after Hashmi
 Leak Off Test Plot
Formation Breakdown
Pressure (FBP)

Shut-in
Pump Pressure

Instantaneous Shut-In
Pressure (ISIP)
Leak-Off
Pressure (LOP)

Formation Fracture Closure

Integrity Test
Mud pumps off
Pressure (FCP)
(FIT)

Time
70
 Casing Selection - Flowchart
Plot EMW and fracture gradient (F).
Add safety margin to EMW (actual MW)
Subtract ECD margin from fracture gradient.
Select depth of conductor pipe, based on
shallow hazards and top overpressures.
Start from bottom. Draw a vertical line to the
adjusted fracture gradient. Draw a horizontal
line to the mud weight. Repeat the process
for subsequent strings of casing.
71
after Hashmi
 Steps 1,2, add overbalance &
feet
ECD
Step 1 - Add overbalance
2000 Step 2 - Subtract ECD
4000
6000
8000 F - 0.5 ppg
10000
12000
P + 0.5 ppg
14000
16000

8 10 12 14 16 18
Equivalent Mud Weight, lbs/gal 72
 Step 3,4 Determine Casing
feet
depths
Step 1 - Add overbalance
2000 Step 2 - Subtract ECD
Step 3 - Select conductor depth
4000 Step 4 - Draw vertical lines
6000 starting from bottom
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

8 10 12 14 16 18
Equivalent Mud Weight, lbs/gal 73
Part 4 Seismic Prediction Methods

74
 Terminology and Notes
Cable length (also called spread or offset)
Stacking velocity (also called root-mean-square RMS)
Two-way time (TWT)
Interval velocity (V) derived by simple Dix (cheap) or complex ray
tracing (expensive) e.g. prestack depth migrated
Depth Conversion (derived as velocity x one-way time)
1) V is only good to about one cable length deep
2) V below salt or carbonate is questionable
3) V near sea floor is questionable (better as W increases)
4) If V is too fast (usual case), derived depth is too deep
5) If V is too fast, computed Go (pore pressure) is too low
6) Derived V is horizontal velocity (vertical V is slower)
7) V decreases as Go increases and as Vclay increase
8) Dip lines are better than strike lines (3d data better?)
75
Compaction and Velocity Laws
phi=phi(0)exp(-Pe/f)
from Hubbert and Rubey (1959)
V=a-b(phi)-c((Vclay.5))+d(Pe-exp(e(Pe))
from Eberhart-Phillips, Han, Zoback (1989)
where
phi = porosity, phi(0)=porosity at the sea floor
V = interval velocity
Vclay = clay volume
Pe = (mean?) effective stress
a,b,c,d,e,f = empirical constants 76
 EHZ compared to Eaton
feet
1000 Gom.Vel
2000
EHZ vs EATON
3000 Normal Trend
4000 EHZ - 14 ppg
5000
6000 Eaton - 14 ppg
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
4000 18000
Velocity, ft/sec
 Effect of Vclay on Velocity
DBSF
1000 .
2000
3000 Phi(0)=.4, Pp=Normal
4000 Vclay = .2
5000 Vclay = .4
6000 Vclay = .6
7000 Vclay = .8
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000

4000 18000
Interval Velocity, ft/sec
78
 Notes
The last slide is a plot of the Eberhart-Phillips, Han, Zoback velocity
law evaluated at a range of values for volume of clay, assuming
porosity decreases with depth in accordance with Hubbert and
Rubey and assuming pore pressure is normal.
The data points shown are typical of wireline data from a large
worldwide database. Vclay of 0.4 is a normal value. The next
slide holds Vclay at 0.4 and and looks at the sensitivity of
porosity at the sea floor (phi(O)).
The low velocity values below 11,000 feet are too slow to be
explained by mineralogy and are therefore likely overpressured.

_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________ 79
 DBSF Velocity vs. Go
2000
4000
Assumes Vclay=.4, Phi(0)=.4
6000
8000 9 ppg Go
10000 12 'ppg
12000 15 ppg
18 'ppg
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
in ppg,EMW = ((W)(8.7)+(DBSF)(Go)) / D
4000 18000
Interval Velocity, ft/sec
80
Example - Pressure Prediction

V (interval velocity) = 8000 feet/second

Interval = 10500 to 11500 feet (subsea)
W (water depth) = 1000 feet (subsea)
A (derrick floor height) = 100 feet
Solution Referenced to Mid-Point
DBSF=((10500+11500)/2)1000 =10000
Go=14.9 ppg (from the last slide)
D=(DBSF+W+A)=11100 feet
PPG=((W)(8.5)+(DBSF)(Go))/D=14.2 ppg
81
 Metric Plot
meters
Metric Version Velocity
800
1600 Assumes Vclay=.4, Phi(0)=.4

2400 1.2 'SG'

1.5 'SG'
3200 1.7 'SG'
4000 2.0 'SG'

4800
5600
6400
EMW in sg = ((W)(1.04)+(DBSF)(SG)) / Depth
1000 6000
Velocity, m/sec 82
 Exercise Case Study
1. Make a pre-drill pore pressure prediction for
an exploration prospect in the North Sea. The
apparent interval velocity is 10000 feet/sec for
the interval 13500 feet to 14500 feet. Water
depth is 200 feet and rig floor elevation is 100
feet.

Hint: Seismic depths are subsea (ss) for offshore

operations. Add airgap (A) to get depth (D).

83
 Solution
A=100, W=200
Mid-Point Depth = (13500+14500)/2 = 14000 feet
DBSF = 14000-200 = 13800
Go from chart is 15 ppg
D = DBSF+A+W = 13800+200+100 = 14100 feet
Gw = 8.7 = 1.04
P = ((200)(8.7)+(13800)(15))/D = 14.8 ppg = 1.78
pg
 Exercise - Continued
2. Make a model-derived pore pressure
prediction at 14,000 feet-ss assuming
a retention depth (i.e. top of
overpressures) at 4000 feet-ss (from
shallow wells in the area). Assume a
1 psi/ft lithostatic gradient and a 0.46
psi/ft hydrostatic gradient.

Hint: Compute normal Pp at 4000 feet.

Add 1 psi/ft from 4000 to 14,000 feet.
85
 Solution

A=100
Gw=0.45 psi/ft = 1.04
DBSF = Dss-W = 4000-200 = 3800
Gi = 0.46 psi/ft from = 1.06
P4000 = (200)(.45)+(3800)(0.46) = 1838 psi
P14000 = P4000+(1.0)(14000-4000) = 11838 psi
D = 14000 + 100 = 14100 feet
P = (P14000/D) = 11838/14100 = 0.84 psi/ft
pg

(0.84 psi/ft)(19.25 ppg/psi/ft) = 16.2 ppg =

1.94
 Exercise Continued

3. During drilling, the well encounters the base

of the Chalk at 13,500 feet (high to
prognosis) and encounters the top of the
Kimmeridge at 14,300 feet (200 feet high to
seismic prediction). Make a new pressure
prediction at 14,300 feet given that the
seismic derived 2-way times at the base of
Chalk and top of the Kimmeridge was 3.50
and 3.69 seconds, respectively.
Hint: Compute a new interval velocity (IV) where
IV=(interval thickness)/(1-way interval time)87
 Solution
Base Chalk at 13500 feet (kb)
Top Kimmeridge at 14300 feet (kb)
Interval thickness = (14300-13500) = 800 feet
Interval 1 way time = (3.69 - 3.50)/2 = 0.095 sec
Velocity = thickness/time = 800/.095 = 8421 ft/sec
Mid-Point Depth = (14300+13500)/2 = 13900
DBSF = 13900 200 100 = 13600 feet
Go from chart = 16.5 ppg
P = 16.4 ppg at 13900 feet = 1.97
pg
 Part 4b

Drilling Methods Pore Pressure Detection

89
 Drilling Methods

Increase in background gas

Increase in connection or trip gas
Increase in drilling rate-of-penetration (ROP)
Change in shape and size of shale cuttings
Decrease in bulk density of shale cuttings
Loss of circulation
Increase in chloride concentration
Increase in flowline temperature
Increase in torque and drag
90
 Part 5

More Details on Overburden Gradients

91
 Wireline - Derived Gs

Use average measured bulk density from

wireline or measure-while-drilling (MWD)
tools

Limitations :
No density data shallow (generally)
Bad data in washed out intervals
Incorrect values in salt i.e. 2.07 g/cc instead
of true value of 2.16 g/cc.
92
 Acoustic-Derived Gs

RhoSed = (0.23)(Velocity)0.25
where Velocity is in feet/second
and RhoSed is in g/cc
from Gardener, Geophysics, Dec 1974

Limitations :
for sandstones and mudstones only
not accurate at higher temperatures
not accurate if overpressured
93
 Model-Derived Gsed

Gsed = (0.12)(16.3 + (DBSF/3125)0.6 ) feet

Gsed = (0.12)(16.3 + (DBSF/952)0.6 ) meters
where
Gsed = average bulk rock density sg
(sg)( 8.335) equals ppg
from Traugott, 1997
Note: Limitations
for sandstones and shales only
for no uplift, that is, no unloading 94
 Cuttings-Derived Gs

Method:
1. Start adding drill cuttings to the mud
balance. Stop when the balance indicates
8.3 ppg, with the cap on.
2. Finish filling the cup with fresh water. The
new reading (with cap on) is Wt.
3. RhoSed = 8.3/(16.7Wt) sg
Limitations:
Size of cuttings and contamination
95
 Part 6

Limitations
of Each Pressure Prediction Method

96
 Basin Model - Summary

Resolves pore pressure in BOTH sandstones

and shales. Geology based.
Accounts for lateral pressure transfer i.e. for
the centroid effect.
Limitations
Accuracy depends strongly on assumed
permeability model.
Accuracy poor where diagenetic alteration is
a factor (at formation temperatures greater
than about 250 degrees f ??)
97
Resistivity Method - Summary
Simple model. Exponent (i.e 1.2) is invariant.
Limitations
Strongly affected by clay type (requires a
normal section for CEC calibration).
Strongly affected by formation temperature
(and salinity?) particularly near the mud line.
Strongly affected by porosity WHEN porosity
is low (less accurate at > 15,000 feet BSF?)
Gives pore pressure ONLY in shales (and
only shales with no carbon or hydrocarbons).
98
 Acoustic Method - Summary

Not affected by clay type (CEC) or salinity.

Much less affected by source rock and by
low porosity effects (i.e. resistivity problem).
Limitations
Trend line selection is a multiple choice.
Empirical exponents vary between one of two
states depending on overpressure
mechanism.
Gives pore pressure ONLY in shales (and
only in shales with no TOC). 99
 Seismic Method - Summary

Available pre-drill
Can use to construct 3D pressure cubes.
Limitations
Data quality is dependent on cable length -
best between 1/4 to 1 cable length deep.
Requires a correction for dip and anisotropy.
Resolves pore pressure ONLY in shales.
Models and normal compaction trend line
selection is complex.
100
 Drilling Method - Summary

Real time predictors

(except for lag time)
Predicts pressure in the sandstones

Limitations
d exponent useless if controlled drilling
d exponent questionable with PCD bits
Gas detection methods qualitative ONLY
requires experience
101
 Key References
Eaton, 1976, Graphical method predicts geopressures worldwide,
World Oil, July 1976, p. 100-104.

Eberhart-Phillips, Han and Zoback, 1989, Empirical relationships

among velocity, effective pressure, porosity, and clay content in
sandstone, Geophysics, v. 54, n. 1, p. 82-89.

Osborne and Swarbrick, 1997, Mechanisms for Generating

Overpressure , AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1023-1041.

Traugott, 2002, Dimensionless Gradients , CSEG Recorder, v.

27, n. 7, p. 78-80.

102