SOCIETYOF PETROLEUMENGINEERSOF AIME

6200 North CentralExpressway ?~RSP~ 5544

Dallas,Texas 75206

THIS PRESENTATIONIS SUBJECT,TOCORRECTION

The Equation for Geopressured

Prediction from Well Logs

By

Ben A. Eaton,Member SpE-AIME,Eaton Industriesof Houston,Inc.

——
(@Copyright 1975
American Institute of Mining, Metaiiurgicai, and Pet roieum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was preparedfor the 50th Annual Fall Meetingof the Societyof Petroleum
Engineersof AIME, to be held in Dallas,Texas, Sept. 28-Ott.1, 1975. Permissionto COPY
is restrictedto an abstractof not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied.
The abstractshouldcontainconspicuousacknowledgment of where and by wh~m the paper is
presented. Publicationelsewhereafterpublicationin the JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY
or the SOCIETYOF PETROLEUMENGINEERSJOURNALis usuallygrantedupon requestto the Editor
of the appropriatejournalprovidedagreementto give proper.creditis made.

Discussionof this paper is invited. Three copiesof any discussionshouldbe sent

to the Society~f PetroleumEngineersoffice. Such discussionsmay be presentedat the
above meetingand, with the paper, may be consideredfor publicationin one of the two
SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT containinga springand a fluid,they simulated

the compactionof clay that containedwater,
This studyhas resultedin the development Overburdenstresswas simulatedby a piston, as
of four equationsthat may be used for the in Fig, 1. It was shown that the overburden
predictionof geopressuredmagnitudesfrom well stress$S, was supportedby the stressin the
log and drillingparameterdata. Equationsare spring,u, and the fluid pressurefp. Thus, the
given for use with resistivityplots, conduc- long-acceptedequationof equilibriumwas
tivityplots, sonictravel-timeplots, end established.
corrected“d” exponentplots. All equations
have the same theoreticalbasis. s= d +p.. , e . . ●(1:
● ● ● ● ● ● ●

INTRODUCTION If Fig. 1 and Eq. 1 are studied,it is obvious

In 1965f Hottman and Johnsonlpresenteda
methodfor predictinggeopressured magnitudesby
using resistivityand sonic log data. This
techniquehas receivedwide acceptanceeven
thoughthe predictionchartswere based only on
data concerningTertiaryage sedimentsin the
Gulf Coast area. It was specificallypointed
out Knat these techniqueswere applicableonly
in areaswhere the generationof geopressuredis
primarilythe resultof compactionin response
to the stressof overburden.
In 19’72,
this authorpresenteda theoryon
the effectof overburdenstressgradientson
geopressured
predictiontechniques@2
Compactioncausedby overburdenstresswas
describedclassicallyin a soil mechsnicsbook
.3 with a vessel,
by Terzaghiend Peck in 194.8
Referencesand illustrationsat end of paper.
that if S is increasedand the fluid is allowed
to escape,dmust increasewhile p remainsas
hydrostaticpressure. However,if the fluid
cannotescape,p muet also increaseas S is
increassd.
Hubbertand Rube# publisheda comprehensive
treatmentof this theory as relatedto sedi-
mentaryrock compaction. They showedthat, as
the overburdenstressis increasedas a result
of burial~the porosityof a given rock is
decreased. Therefore,some fluid that was once
in the pores of a given formationwas later
squeezedout by compaction, In many such cases,
there is no escaperoute for the fluid, and thus
the fluid Lecomesoverpressuredaccordingto Eq.
1. This happensin many areas,end such
generatedoverpressuredzones are often called
‘tabnormal~t
pressurezones or “geopressured”zones
 TT.TF! liYrTTfiTTflN9! ?i’f)U CWWRFSL.TTRF! PRT!llTf!TTf)N FIW3M WTT.T, Tf)f%$! sm. s%

Hottmsn end Johnsonrecognizedthe main Now, if we incorporatethe theoriesof

significanceof the precedingtheory end
developeda very useful relationshipbetween
electricallog propertiesand geopressured.
They reasonedthat, since rocks are more
resistiveto electricalcurrentthan is forma-
tion water, swell compactedshale containing
less water (becausethe water has escaped)is
more resistivethan a less compactedshale
containingmore water (one in which the water
has not escapedto the same degree). Also, they
reasonedthat a sequenceof normallycompacted
sediments(in which water is free to escape)
shouldhave a normallyincreasingresistivity
trend. They substantiatedthis when they
plottedresistivityfrom actualwell logs. Any
resistivitydecreasefrom the well established
normal trend indicatesthe presenceof abnor-
mally high-pressuredzones.
Empiricaldata from well tests and logs
were used to developa correlationof the pore
pressuregradientas a functionof the resistiv-
Terzaghiend Peck3 and Hubbert and Rubey4where-
by Eq. 1 is used, p/D is shown as follows:
Solve Eqo 1 (S = d+ p)for p and divide all
qusntitiesby depth,D, obtaining:
p/D = e/D - C5/D . . . . . . . .. o(6)
ox
p/D = f(s/D, b/D)..o.o.o.c(~)
If we combineEq. 7 firstwith Eq. 4 and sepa-
ratelywith Eq. 5, we find that the log psrsm-
eters are functionsof p/D, which in turn is a
functionof s/D and IS/D.
One empiricalrelationshipwas developedby
trial-and-errorfittingof data, and it predicts
the abnormalpressurebehaviordata of Hottman
smd Johnsonfairlywell. The equationis:

E-i3rT
‘8
ity departureratio (seeFig. 2). A similar
idea was used in conjunctionwith similarempir- P/D = s/D - 0.535
ical data to developa correlationof the pore ●

pressuregradientwith sonic-logtravel-time Eq. 8 reducesto the theoreticall?q,6whenwe

departurefrom normal traveltimes (see Fig. 3). assumethat the overburdenstressgradient
Note that in each correlationonly one line is equals 1.0 psi/ft,the resistivityratio equals
drawn and the data points scatterconsiderably. 1,0 (normalpressure),and the normalpore
.Sucha scatterindicatesthat the chancesof pressuregradientequals0.L+65psi~ft.
error in the pressurepredictionmagnitudeare
high when values are read from the be. Tirnko p/D= 1*O - 0.535 (1)1*5
and Fertljhave shown a differentcorrelating
curve that more accuratelypredictsthe magnit- = 0.465 psilft . . . . , . . . . (9) ●
udes of geopressuredin one localizedarea (eee
Fig. 4). ‘T& authortheorizedin 1972 that cf~Dis represented by the 0.535 term.
such scatterwas causedprimarilyby differences
in overburdengradients. In simpleterms,normallycompactedsedi-
ments have a matrix stressgradientequalto the
THE THFDRY overburdengradientminus the normalpore pres-
sure gradient.
The log data and measuredpressuredata
cc)rrelations discussedabove show that there is It was postulatedthen that p/D and s/D are
definitelya relationshipbetweenthe two. tl~evariablesthat controlthe log-derived
Ekpationsof these correlationsmustbe of the groups. In other words, the parametersderived
form: from log data sre dependentvariablesprimarily
p/D - f (NormalR~h/ObservedR~h) . , . (2) controlledby the efistinfi pore pressuregradi-
ents and overburdenstressgradients. If this
ie the case, correlationss~ch as those
and developedby Hottman snd Johnson shouldbe
expendedto includethe effectof overburden
p/D = f (Obsened~ t~h - Normal ~t~h) stressgradients. It couldbe -a?gued that the
overburdenstressgradientis constantfor a
.0.s.. eooco
● O***. (3) given area and thereforeof no significance.
● ● O

However,this is not true in areaswhere compac-

tion and geopressuredare causedby increasing
= NormalR~h
= f(p/D) . . .. . . . , (4) overburdenloadswith deeperburial. Overburden
ObservedRsh stressgradientsare functionsof burialdepth
in areas such as the Gulf Coast.
and
Overburdenstressesend overburdenstress
Observed -
A tsh
Normal A tSh = f(p/D). gradientsmay be determinedby eny means whereb3
the bulk densitiesof sedimentsfrom the surfac~
. ..0., . . ...0 ,..00. .,
(5
--,. ., Q17RT A
me
li!ATf’lhT a
b >X4 JJJ4V -.V.V

LO total depth are measured. Overburdenstress

k relatedto bulk densityby the following ( d /D) Normal =~- (P/D) Normal ●

Squation:
‘n
‘m- ~gD.. , , . . . . . . . . . .(10) It was also shownby Eq. 8 that for abnormal
/ pressuresituations~the matrix stressgradient
3u1.kdensitiesare determinedeasilyby the use6 was approximatedby:
)f densitylogs. A cumulativeaveragingscheme
nay be used to convertlGg balk-densitydata to ( d /D) Abnormal=
?urvesof overburdenstressgradientvs dept... 1*5
l!wosuch curvesare shownin Figs. 5 and 6. 0.535 ObservedRsh ● ****. (12) ●

Note that the overburdengradientis not Normal RGh

constantwith depth. [1
To developthe empiricalrelationship The constant,G.535, in Rq* 12 is reallythe
matrix st~~jgradient when S/D = 1.0, md (p/D)
betweenthe log resistivityparameter,the pore
pressuregradient,and the overburdenstress normal = . Therefore,if the right-hand
gradient,we need considerabledata of the side of Eq. 11 is substitutedinto %. 12?
followingform: (1) logresistititydata, (2) replacingthe 0.535 constanttthen
measuredpore pressures,and (3) log bulk- ( d /13)Abnormal=
densitydata. Similarly,we need sonic-logdata
to developthe shale acousticparametercorrela- ~o 1.5
s
tion as a functionof pore pressuregradients - (p/D)Norma ~ 9“” .(13)
snd overburdenstressgradients, [5 ]()

Such data were not avtilablein 1972! but where Ro signifiesthe resistivityobservedin
were thoughtto be availableto severalinditid- a clean shale and Rn is the resistivityat the
uals within large oil companies. If such data same depth on the normal compactiontrend line.
sre availableand are plottedon charts such as (p/D)normal si.mplymems the averagenormal
those shownin Figs. 7 and 8, the theory says pressuregradientof formationwatersin a given
that the pointswill fall-along -S s~~fti g srea. This value usuallyrangesbetween0.434
differentoverbur~enstressgratientsSUKLISX to ~d 0.465 psiift of depth.
those shown.
If value..for any normalpressuredsitua-
The lines shown in Figs. 7 and 8 shouldbe tion sre used inFq. 13 as was done in Eq. 9, th
nearly correct,but this can be determinedonly resultwill be the same.
with experimentaldata. However,two points on
each curve are fixed. One point is the end Pore pressuregradientsin any area can the
representingnormal pressuregradients(seeEq. be found using ~s. 6 and 13. In fact, the two
9). The other end point of each curve shouldbe equationsmay be combinedto give
the extremecase in which the pore pressure
gradientequalsthe overburdenstressgradient. P/D=;-
In this latterefireme,the matrix stress [~- ‘p’Dl b 1’5 “ ● (’4) ●

approacheszero. Therefore,the curve must

approachthe value of the overburdenat some One shouldnote that normalmatrix stress (which
limitinglog parametervalue. equalsthe term in bracketsabove)is reduced
when abnormalpressuresexist and is reflected
THE THEORE?!ICAL-EMPIRICALPORE PRESSURE by (Ro/’Rnbeing less than one. The term,
PREDICTIONIQUATIONS (Ro/Rn)1°& (whenit is less than 1.0),when
multipliedwith the normalmatrix stress (brack-
Recently,in 197L? Lme md Macph-0n7 eted term in %. 14) restits in the abnorm~
publishedmuch data on this subject. The data matrix stressthat is lower than normal. This
included: overburdenstressgradients,log is exactlyas it shouldbehave in abnorma3-
resistivitydata, measuredpore pressuregradi- formationpressuresituations.
ents,respectivewell.depthsfor each point, and
the geologicage for each data set. These data The correctvalue of the exponenton the
were used to developthe pore pressurepredic- resistivity-ratio term was a great questionmark
tion equationsthat follow. until l%. II+was ev~uated ~th MUCh datao
If one reviews.
the precedingtheory and Th~~ ~v~uation is shownin Table l?o. lt
especiallyMS. It 6T 8$ and 9? it Cm be seen where the value of the exponentwas variedfrom
that for normalpressuregradientSituationsthe 1.2, 1.3, I.L, to 1.5. MeasuredformationPres-
matrix stressgradientis givenby: sure gradients,calculatedformationpressure
gradients,and overburdenstressgradientsare
4 THE EQUATIONSFOR GEWRESSURE PREDICTIONFROM WELL ILXX! SPE 551+J

also shown,as are the correspondingRo/Rn

values. Results of the anaQsis shownin Table
No. 1 led this authorto what is believedto be
en excellentpore pressurepredictionequation.
p/D = 0.98 - [98 - 46~ ● (~) ‘o’
The equationis
= 0.98 - (0.515] (1..00)
6e

= .98 - .515
Formationpressuregradien~=
eithernormal or abnormal
= .465psi/ft
(Psi/ft) =

= 9.0 ppg equivale~twhich is normal.

. (-.)1920.
~-($-J
I
overburden - Matrix stressgradient, At 17,!500
ft of depth$
stress gradient eithernormal or abnozmal
~o,h) 1s2 .[~)” = 0.,,
(Psi/ft) - (Psi/ft) e(15)
● ●

Note how this equationcorrespondswith Then,

the very basic Eq. 6 for any pressur’:
situation
in sedimentaryrocks. P/D = 0.98 -
(o*S’S) (fi,)
In order to understandbetter how to use
Eq. 15 to predictformationpressures,the E .98 - 0.072
followingexampleis used.

ExampleProblem1
I = 0.9C8 psi/ft
The problemis to predictthe pressure
gradientsexistingin the formationsin a well = 17.46ppg equivalent,
locatedin South Louisisna,a very troublesome
drillingarea.
If one desiresto use the direct conduc-
Solution tivity log values,rather then log resistivities
Eq. 15 istrsnsformed as follows:
1. Evaluatethe electriclog from top to
bottom for conductivityor resistivityvaluesin
the clean shales. :=; -[% (%)
-(P,D)-J1“20.
. .(16, ● ●

2, Plot these resistivityvaluesvs depth

as shown in Fig. 9. Recently,it has been found that if one calcu-
lates end plots the correctedd exponentfrom
3. Establishthe normal compactiontrend. drillingparameters,the resultingplot is very
Use experienceand any known data to aid in similarto a log resistivityplot. Therefore,
drawingthe normal line. the followingequationwas developedfor geo-
pressuredpredictionfrom correctedd exponent
4. Calculatevalues at variousdepthsfor data.
(Ro/Rn)l*
2.

5. DetermineSID from densitydata

6, Determine(p/D)nfromknownnory;t~gs J
Note the similaritybetweenEqs. 15 and 17.
sure gradientsor water salinitydata.
particularcase, S/D = O.$@psi/ft and (p/D)n. Also, it has recentlybeen determinedthat
0.465 psiift. sonic-logdata can be used to predictgeo-
pressuremagnitudeswiiththe followingequation:
7. Use Eq. 15 to calculatepressure
gradientsof the variousRo points. At 8,5(20ft
of depth,for example,Ro = 1.00 sndRn . 1.(X3. ~=;- [~- (p’D)~ ~) 3“0 ● . .(18)
Then,
SPE ..-.
--— SEAL BEN A. EATON

Eq. 18 shouldbe valid for the predictionof o = observed

geopressured
magnitudesfrom seismicdata also. n= normal

Each term of ~s. 15 through18 have units REFERENCES

of psiift.
1, Hottman,C. E., and Johnson,R. K.: “Esti-
CONCLUSION mation of FormationPressuresfrom Log-
DerivedShale l%operties,”J. Pet. Tech.
The authorconcludesthat Eqs. 15 through (June 1965)717-722.
18 are extremelyaccurate. Also concludedis 2. Eaton,B. A.: ‘IATheory on the Effect of
the fact that the accuracyof each equation’s OverburdenStresson Geopressured Prediction
abilityto predictgeopressured gradientmagni- From Well lkgs,”paper SPE 3?’19presentedat
tude dependson the qualityof the input data. SPE-AIMEAbnormalSubsurfacePore Pressure
The methodsused to establishnormaltrends Symposium,Baton Rouge, La., May 15-16,
varies as much as the numberof peoplewho do 1972;J. Pet. Tech (Aug.1972) 929-934.
it. Generallyspeaking,however,if the equa- 3. Terzag~, Karl, and Peck,R. B,: Soil
tion is used with knowledgeand care, it will Mechanic~in I&uzineeringPractice,=
predict geopressuredgradientmagnitudeswithin ~ey& Sons, Inc., New York (1948)566.
less than 0.5 ppg equivalent. 4. Hubbert,M. King, and Rubey,W. W.: ‘Role
of Fluid Pressurein Mechanicsof Over-
NOMENCLATURE thrustFaulting,Part 1,I;Bfll.f GSA (Feb*
1959)70.
C = conductivity- mill.imhos 5, Timko,D. J., Fertl,W. H.: ‘!Relationship
d = con?ectedd exponent BetweenHydrocarbonAccumulationand Geo-
D = depth, ft pressureand Its EconomicSignificance,” ~.
f . function Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1971)9z~-933*
g = accelerationof gravity,cm/sec2
p . formatio.1pressure,psi 6. Eaton,Ben A.: ItFracture GradientPredic-
R . shale resistivity,ohm-m tion snciIts Applicationin OilfieldOpera-
S = overburdenstress,psi tions,“ J. Pe%. Tech. (Oct. 1969) 1353-136o.
t = sonic traveltime, microsec/ft 7, Lane,Robert A., and MacphersonfLcuis A.:
PB = averagebulk densityof se&ents, gin/cc ‘~ARetiew of Geopressured
EvaluationFrom
a= rock matrix stress,psi I Well Logs - LouisisnaGd.fCoast~”SPE
Paper 5033 presentedat the 49th Annual Fall
Subscript SF%AIME Meettig,Houston,Tex,f Ott, 6-9,
c . corrected 1974*
sh = shale
B=bulk
 TA8LE NUM82R I
Pore PressureGmd ienc Ca2cu2atiow Page 2
PORE PRSSSIJRE
GFWIW2 CALCULATIONS
1.3 1.4

I
1.2 1.3 1.4 l.s * Calculated FFG 1.5
J@_ JL& J& ~ & FPG ~ Ro & ~

M Pa Ft.
* Rn Rn D Pai/Ft. -iG- Rn Ro
I
$

.777 .570
.582 .837
I .808
794 I .894
.567
.553

-1----1
575 .810 .760 .937 .578
.745 .585 .780 .559
.739 .588 .766 .565

I
.7S6 .570

--1-
.343 .786
740 .400 .304 .954 .805 .582 .792 ,739 .695 .577
.277 .819 .722 .585
.706 .591

.508 .708 .756 .570

717 .568 .479 .959 .722 .565 .792 s339 I .895 .577
.454 .735 .722 .585
I .428 .748 .706 .591
.—
.924 .497 .765 .566
524 .918 .887 .891 .513 .553 .800 ,748 .895 .573
.878 .517 +.732 .580
r

-1--
.872 .520 .587

.813 .545 .801

.798 .894 .552 .574 .831 .786
.785 .557 .772
.772 .567 .758

_-l-
.893 .511 .651 .616
,479 .909 .886 .891 .514 .559 .700 .629 .896 .625
-i-- .875 .519 .607 .634
.866 .522 + .586 .664

E
.835 ,536 .885 I .514
.523 .861 ,823 .894 .541 .496 .903 .876 .894 .518

H
.811 .547 .867 .522
.799 .551 .858 .526
1

.559 .816
.784
.767
.752
.895
,558
.565
.572
.-.
.>Ju .800 I .765
.748
.732
.897
.567
.574
.581
.736 .579 .716 .588
% ,

x
.847 .531
.835 .894 .536 .684
.824 .541
.813 .545
6 m
Pore Preewre GradientCa3.culat
iow Page 3
Por. r.?=$ureGradientGalculations Page 4

1.5 Calculated 1.2 1.3 1.4 L.5 Calculated

FPG
~ FPC J& Ro ~ > & FPG
_PsJ RO
Rn r h h D Psi/Ft.
Ft. -ET Rn -1 Psi/Ft.

.513 .910 .505

.889 .477 .917 .893
.880 .894 .516 .907 .512
.502 .907 .886
.871 h- .520 .515
.862 .878 .519
.702 .596
.803 .550 .548 .7.45

-H
.682 .905 .60S
.511 .833 .788 .894 .556 .662 .6M
.774 .562 .643 .622
.760 .568
.668 .611
.852 .528 .s91 .714 .646 .905 .621
.514 .875 .841 .892 .533 .624 .631
.829 .538 .603 .642
.818 .5.43
.816 .543
,852 .528 .539 .844 .803 .888 .548
.523 .875 .841 .892 .533 .789 .554
.829 .538 .776 .560
.818 .543
-!
.818 .541
.906 .505 .562 .847 .806 .889 .547
.503 .922 .897 .892 .509 .792 .553
.892 .511 .780 .558
.884 .515
.832 .536
.886 .514 .549

-H-
.857 .828 .886 .542
.587 .904 .877 .894 .518 .806 .547
.8M .522 .794 .552
.859 .526
.702 .607
.699 .598 .593 .745 .682 .941 .616
.620 .742 .678 .907 .607 .662 .626
.659 .616 .643 .635
.639 .625
.702 .607
.832 ,540 .603 .745 .682 .903 .616
.497 .857 .818 .907 .545 .662 .626
.806 .551 .643 .635
.793 .557
.744 .589
.884 .517 .608 .726 .938 .598
.495 .902 .875 .910 .521 .709 .605
.866 .525 .692 .613
.857 .529
++ a

-1
.708 .606
.607 .750 .688 .938 .615
.688 .625
.650 .633
 Pore Preseuxe Gradient Galculationa Page 6
Pore PressureGradiantCa2cu2ations
, -
1 FPG
SI
=3
1.2 1.3 i.4 1.5 Calculated F?G 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.5 Galculamd

3 T
~ Jt& ~ & RO & PPG & ~ & _& ~ FPG
Ft. 2n .Rn Rn -iG- Rn -r Psz/Fc. Ft. Rn Rn 7(U r Rn Psi/T.

.708 .606 . S64

. 61S .750 .688 .938 .61S . 93s .571
.6M .625 .759 .578 I
.650 ~ .633 .744 .585

.607 .768
.728
.710
.691
.673
.940
.594
.603
.612
.620
.658 .667
.615
.591

;
.567
.545
1 .647
.658

.558 .675 .668 .622 I

.68 .615 .532 .940 .687 .655 .71.% .645 .938 .633

.577
.506 .700 .643
.482 + .711 .653
L
--

L
. 6S3 .602 .654

--l
.604
.678 .657 .579 .940 .665 .6:0 .655 .940 .666
.555 .676 .553 .677
.532 .687 .530 -i .688

.668 .622 ,515

.635 .714 .645 .937 .623 .930 .519
.624 .6L2 .875 .523
.603 .652 .867 .527
*

.564 .673 .598

.679 .621 .538 .942 ,685 .932 . .607
.513 .697 .676 .616
.490 .708 .658 .625

.746 .586 .828

.554 .783 .728 .940 .594 .839
.710 .603 .155 .849
.693 .611 r .236 + .858
4
.752 ’582
.619 .788 .734 .935 .590
.716 , .598
.700 .606
1 53 data po$nce - =points m L.2 ZK OOJIJG~-
.681 .615 7 poin~ on 1.3 t,
. 62S .726 .660 .936 .625 4 potitson 1.4 ~1
.639 .635 10 pointson 1.5 0
.618 .665
 s

a
A*I 0*S5<A<I .l~0465

STAGE A STAGE B STAGE C

~ PERFORATE PLATES

m WATER

Fig.1 - Schematic representation of shale compaction. 3

RESERVOIR EQUIVALENT
REsERVOIR EQuIvALENT FPQ MuO WEIQHT
FPG MuO WEIGHT D81/ft. [bs /gel
p81
/it. lb8. /gel
0400
04

03
to 0 0500
,00

06
120
0800

07 ,20
,40

08 0700
,60 .
,40

0.9
[Bo .
0800

,0 !60
10 Is 20 3.0 40 5.0
●
NORMAL- PRESSUREO Rlth) / OBSERVEO R(8h)

0900
\“
Fig. Shale resistivity
2 - parameter vs reservoir “ <,
,70
fluid pressure gradient. \
\
h.%

I 0000 4
PO 60

‘% b{ah)-otri[sh),~ ft.

Fig. 3 - Shale acoustic parameter vs reservoir fluid

pressure gradient.

04
I I I I
1111111 I I i 1111 1111

05
:“ 100?G
a
06 —
E
:
120 e
.
= $
. .
o
= 07 — 8.”
HOTTMAN a JOHNSON s
g ● . ,40
GULF COAST AVERA9E
~ k
. . Y
: 08 —
g
160 s
EAST CAMERON
~ ( PARTICULAR BLOCKS) . , ● “ ~ ~
09
-. ,10

to,. 1 I I I 1111111 I I I 11111111111

40
,5 20 So 5.0

NORMAL R(,h) / OBSERvEO R(h)

.Fig
, 4 - Shale resistivi$yparameter vs reservoir
fluid pressure gradient.’
 0

\
o
7
1

4
s-
\
6
4
&
0
8 0
~
I 5
s
~
10 w
0 ~

,2
7
\

,4
8

I6
9
+

T_
I8
—.
\
8007 n
075 08 005 09 095 ID

OVERBURDEN STRESS QRADIENT - p$i /ft.

2%50 075 “d I 090 (

OVERBURDEN STRESS QRAOIENT - FId /ft

Fig. 6 - Overburden stress gradient - Santa Barbcra
Channel, Calif.
Composite overburden stress gradient for all
compacted Gulf coast formations.

0 045.0

0300
0
- 100
0$
D
~ s
>0 ~
=
.0 ~
g 0600
L :
eo n =. - 120
g ~z \
=
s g .
g
y g
go u.
~g ~ 0?00
a
$ 6
> - ,40
0 g
.0
E
0
t 0800
HCTTMAN a JOHN!ION
\ ~ < c 1 RVE - ,60
NORMA, R(~h} / OBSERVEO R{th) .

Fig. 7 - Shale resistivityparameter vs reservoir ●

fluid pressure gradient. —s /D*O.90 -

k
090 0 . — _
\
●
\
—w D DO.S6 -180

-.
\
Slo = 1.OD ‘b -190
~
100 00
m 40 so
A lob(,h) - Atn(t~) , fIt/ft.

Fig. 8 - Shale acoustic parameter vs reservoir

fluid pressure gradient.
 R8h-Ohm-M

Fig. 9 . Short normallog - resistivitydata -

South Louisianawildcat.