Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity

Data: Accounting for Overpressure

Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction
Glenn L. Bowers, * Exxon Production Research Co.
Summary
A new method for estimating pore pressure from formation sonic ve-
locity data is presented. Unlike previous techniques, this method ac-
counts for excess pressure generated by both undercompaction, and
fluid expansion mechanisms such as aquathermal pressuring, hydro-
carbon maturation, clay diagenesis, and charging from other zones.
The method is an effective stress approach: the effective stress is
computed from the velocity, and the result is subtracted from the over-
burden stress to obtain pore pressure. To include multiple sources of
overpressure, a pair of velocity-vs.-effective-stress relations are
introduced. One relation accounts for normal pressure and overpres-
sure caused by undercompaction. The second is applied inside veloc-
ity reversal zones caused by fluid expansion mechanisms.
Example applications of the method are presented from the U.S.
gulf coast, the Gulfof Mexico, and the Central North Sea. Some oth-
er pore pressure estimation approaches are also examined to demon-
strate how these techniques have unknowingly accounted for over-
pressure mechanisms other than undercompaction.
It is also explained how velocity-vs.-effective-stress data can be
used to identify the general cause of overpressure in an area. For
instance, the empirical correlation of Hottman and Johnson indi-
cates that overpressure along the U.S. gulf coast cannot be due only
to undercompaction.
Introduction
Numerous methods have been developed for estimating pore fluid
pressure from geophysical data, and the list continues to grow. Empir-
ical approaches equate departures from the normal trend line of some
porosity-dependent measurement to an equivalent pore pressure gra-
dient. Recent methods have followed the more fundamental effective
stress approach pioneered by Foster and Whalen, 1Ham,2 and Eaton.
3
All current pore pressure estimation methods fail tojormally take
into account the cause of overpressure. It will be demonstrated that
this can lead to significant errors. For a given velocity at a given
depth, the pore pressure can vary by 4 Ibm/gal or more, depending
upon how the excess pressure was generated.
This paper presents a method for estimating pore pressure from
sonic velocity data that systematically accounts for the cause of
pressure. When applied to wireline sonic logs, it is preferable to only
use shale data to minimize the effects of lithology changes. Howev-
er, the method is also applicable for pre-drill predictions from seis-
mic interval velocities.
The paper begins with a review of fundamental aspects of shale com-
paction behavior that form the foundation of this method. This is fol-
lowed by a discussion of how different causes of overpressure affect
the sonic velocity. Some current pore pressure estimation methods are
then examined in light of these concepts. The new method is then de-
scribed, and example applications are presented and discussed.
Compaction Behavior
Non-Decreasing Effective Stress States. Under increasing effec-
tive pressure, sediments compact, and their sonic velocity goes up.
At the limit, their porosity approaches zero, and their sonic velocity
approaches the value for the sediment grains. Borrowing terminolo-
'Now with Applied Mechanics Technologies.
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 10. 1994. Revised manuscript received
Nov. 30. 1994. Paper accepted for publication Feb. 27. 1995. Paper (SPE 27488) first pres-
ented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas. Feb. 15-18.
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995
gy from soil mechanics, the velocity-effective stress relation for
non-decreasing effective stress states will be referred to as the virgin
curve. Fig. la plots shale virgin curve data derived from well log
and RFT measurements from the Gulf of Mexico slope, and shows
an estimate of the complete virgin curve.
Effective Stress Reductions. Much (but not all) of the porosity loss/
velocity gain that occurs during compaction is permanent. As a result,
the sonic velocity will not go down the virgin curve when the effective
stress is reduced (unloading). The velocity will track a different, fast-
er velocity-vs.-effective-stress relation that will be called the unload-
ing curve. If the effective stress is subsequently increased, the veloc-
ity will follow the unloading curve back to the virgin curve.
Fig. Ib illustrates unloading behavior with laboratory velocity-
effective stress data for Cotton Valley shale (Tosaya
4
) . .The veloci-
ties measured at effective stresses below the maximurnin-situ stress
state must be on an unloading curve. F9r-coril"parison, the virgin
curve for the Gulf of Mexico sediments is replotted in Fig. lb.
Overpressure Causes/Effects
Normal Pressure. During burial under normal pressure conditions,
the effective stress continually increases with depth. Consequently,
normal trend velocity-vs.-effective-stress data follow a virgin curve.
Undercompaction. Overpressure most commonly occurs when
pore fluid trapped by low permeability is squeezed by the weight of
newly deposited sediments. This overpressuring process is referred
to as undercompaction or compaction disequilibrium.
Undercompaction cannot cause the effective stress to decrease.
Therefore, the virgin curve also applies for formations overpres-
sured by undercompaction. The most undercompaction can do is
"freeze" the effective stress in time, which would cause the velocity
to become fixed on the virgin curve. On a velocity/depth plot, this
would appear as a velocity plateau.
Fig. 2 illustrates undercompaction overpressure in the Gulf of
Mexico. Pore pressure, sonic velocity, and stress information are
shown in Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c, respectively. Fig. 2d plots velocity-
vs.-effective- stress data determined at RFT locations. It can be seen
that all of data in Fig. 2d appear to lie on a virgin curve, and that the
points below 7200 ft are approaching a fixed point.
Fluid Expansion. Overpressure can also be generated by fluid ex-
pansion mechanisms such as heating,5.6 hydrocarbon maturation'?
charging from other zones,
8
and expulsion/expansion of intergranu-
lar water during clay diagenesis.
9
.
10
Here, excess pressure results
from the rock matrix constraining the pore fluid as the fluid tries to
increase in volume.
Unlike undercompaction, fluid expansion can cause the pore
pressure to increase at a faster rate than the overburden stress. This
forces the effective stress to decrease as burial continues, which pro-
duces a velocity reversal (see Fig. 3b). Velocities inside the reversal
will track an unloading curve(s), while velocities outside the rever-
sal will remain on a virgin curve.
Fig. 3 illustrates this with data from an Indonesian well. Pore
pressure, velocity, and stress data are displayed in Fig. 3a, 3b, and
3c, respectively, while Fig. 3d compares velocity-vs-effective-
stress data from inside (open circles) and outside (solid circles) the
velocity reversal. The start of the reversal coincides with the top of
overpressure at approximately 6350 ft.
It can be seen in Fig. 3d that the velocities from inside the reversal
track a much faster trend. This suggests that fluid expansion mecha-
89
17,--------------, 17,--------------,
15
13
9
7
Estimated
Virgin
Curve
GuK of Mexico
In Situ Dala
15
13
!
>- 11
i
>
9
7
'\
nloading Curve
08 0 0
0
0
0
Virgin Curve
for GuK of
Mexico Data
o Tosaya (1982) Collon
Valley Shale Lab Data
5L-....L----'--'---'---'---'-..L--'---'
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Effective Stress (ksi)
5 L--'-........-..J._l..-...L..--'--..J._'-----'
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Effective Stress (ksi)
a) b)
Fig. 1-Shale compaction behavior: (a) virgin curve and (b) unloading curve.

,
\
\
,
\
,
\
'\,-Normal
Trend
,
4
Effective Stress (ksi)
123
6
d)
7
5 L..- ....J
'1
10 Virgin Curve
o
12 ,-----r--r----r--r1
c)
Effective
, Stress
\
,
\
,
\
,
\
,
\
,
Pore
Pressure '\
Stress (ksi)
2 4 6 8 10
,
\,-Overburden
'\ Stress
\
,
\
\
\
,
\
,
\
b)
\
Velocity (kftls)
7.5 10 12.5 15 0
RFT's
a)
Pore Pressure (ppg)
10 12 14 16 18 20 5
101..- --'
Fig. 2-Undercompaction overpressure-Gulf of Mexico.
15 17 0
Stress (ksi)
2 4 6 8 10
Effective Slress (ksi)
13 0j-_-;' 2:;-_--;3,--_--;4
6
Outside
Reversal
o Inside
Reversal 5 L- ...J
7
12 Unloacing Vmax
_ 6543'
11 . 5990'
03::;' 5789'
10 0, 06950'
- I 4780'
i 9 '
>-

8
Ovel1:lurden
,,- Stress
\
,
\"...-- Effective
,....\ Stress
,
\
\
,
\
,
\

"
3
RFT's
2
9
7
8
10L------------J
4

";;5

a 6
a) b) c) d)
Fig. 3-Fluid expansion overpressure offshore Indonesia.
90 SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995
a) b)
Fig. 4-Fluid expansion overpressure, Gulf of Mexico.
Pore Pressure
.813 ppg
o ,.-18ppg
15 ,........-----------"7""-,
13
23.. 567 8
Effective Stress (ksi)
Fig. 5-Fluid expansion overpressure, central North Sea.
7 2 3 5 6
Effective Stress (ksi)
POI8 Pressure
.915 ppg
o 15-17ppg
23. 5 6 7 0
Effective Stress (ksi)
12
11
10
..
!
9
>-
1i
0
8
G
>
7
6
50
edmaled
Pore Pr....r.
Pore Pressure at 6950 fl.
Actual (RFT) =16.2 ppg
Estimated =11.7 ppg
Ov.rblKden S.."
'. Elect; SIr...
\
10 L . - - - _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ . . . J
5 7.5 10 12.5 0 2 .. 6 8 10
Velodly (kft/s) Stress (ksi)
Fig. 7-case where equivalent depth method fails-offshore In-
donesia.
Velocity Reversal Without Unloading. Not all velocity reversals
are caused by fluid expansion mechanisms. The velocity will also
drop across the transition from a normally pressured sand/shale se-
quence to a massive undercompacted shale. If fluid expansion is not
the cause, the velocity-vs.-effective-stress data from the reversal
will follow a virgin curve.
Determining the Cause of Overpressure In Velocity Reversals.
A reliable way has not been found to determine from velocity data
alone whether a reversal was caused by undercompaction or fluid
expansion. However, some general guidelines can be offered on the
geologic conditions that are conducive to each of these causes of
pressure (Miller and Luk
6
).
The amount of overpressure generated by undercompaction de-
pends upon the relative compressibility of the rock matrix and the
pore fluid. They act like two springs in parallel. If the rock matrix
is much more compressible, increases in overburden stress will be
carried primarily by the pore fluid. If the rock matrix is much less
compressible, then it will bear most of the overburden. Therefore,
undercompaction will typically generate the greatest overpressure
at shallower depths, where formations are soft.
o
'.
Plumley13 discussed unloading caused by fluid expansion over-
pressure, and presented a U.S. gulf coast example of its occurrence.
He compared porosities from an overpressured and normally pres-
sured interval having the same effective stresses. The porosity in the
overpressured zone was halfthe value in normal pressure (17.6% vs.
38%). Plumley concluded this was because the high pressure zone
had undergone unloading. Berg and Habeck
14
came up with a simi-
lar conclusion using density log data from a south Texas well.
2
".
-"
\
'.OvINburden s
~
\
t
\.
.
co
\
o 6
\
.
----\----
p';:==r.,
8
.
Pore Pressure at 7200 fl.
\
Actual (RFT) =15.9 ppg
Normal
Trend Estimated =15.7 ppg
10
5 7.5 10 12.5 0 2 .. 6 8 10
Valodly (kfVs) Stress (ksl)
Fig. 6-Case where equivalent depth method works-Gulf of
Mexico.
nisms contributed to the overpressure inside the reversal. Note the
similarity between the unloading curve in Fig. 3d and the trend fol-
lowed by the Cotton Valley shale data in Fig. lb.
Fig. 3d also demonstrates the importance of accounting for the
cause of overpressure when estimating pore pressures. The virgin
curve would overestimate the effective stress at 6950 ft by 1700 psi,
which means the pore pressure would be underestimated by the
same amount. This would correspond to a 4.7 Ibm/gal error in the
equivalent mudweight prediction.
Fig. 4 present further evidence of unloading. Fig. 4a shows veloc-
ity-effective stress data derived from RFT and well log measure-
ments along the Gulf of Mexico slope. The data are divided into two
groups according to the magnitude of overpressure. Solid circles are
in the 9 to 15 Ibm/gal equivalent mudweight range, while the open
circles are in "hard" overpressure. Contrary to what might be ex-
pected, the higher pressure data tend to have faster velocities. As
Fig. 4b indicates, a possible explanation is that most of these data
are from formations that have undergone some unloading. Similar
trends are evident in the Central North Sea velocity-vs.-effective-
stress data plotted in Fig. 5.
Others have also reported evidence of unloading caused by high
pressure. Magara
ll
found that the Equivalent Depth method under-
predicted the pore pressure data of Hottman and Johnson.
12
The
equivalent depth method
2
equates the effective stress in an over-
pressured zone to that in a normally pressure interval with the same
velocity (see Fig. 6). This assumes that the overpressure data are on
a virgin curve. If fluid expansion has driven the data onto an unload-
ing curve, as in Fig. 3, the effective stress will be overestimated, and
the pore pressure will be underestimated, as Magara observed.
o r----------,
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995 91
2

6
,"
a(.
." A. Equiv. Depth
..
/,/ Reveraal
0 Imide Rewraal
6 /.' (Preasure Tella)
Asaumed
Normal Outside Reversal
Trend (Normal Trend)
9
7
10
Effective Streas (lIsi)
o 2 3 5
11
Honman& \
Johnson __\
o Pressure Tests
Pore Presaure (ppg)
10 12 16 18
.......-..-... ... " ..
Equivalent........ 0
Depth '1'
8
(kIVa)
oSr-,.---:7-T.
S
:....--.:.
1
.;:.0_.:.12::;..:..5_.:.;15
\
'\,/ Assumed Normal
Trend
\

'a
"
a

yvrru
.( \
aa. \
a, "
12
10
16 L- ----l
SI..-----------l
a) b) c)
Fig. 8-U.S. gulf coast application of the Hottman & Johnson and equivalent depth methods.
On the other hand, the activity of many fluid expansion mecha-
nisms increases with temperature. and therefore depth. To be a
strong source of overpressure. fluid expansion also requires a fairly
rigid. well-compacted rock matrix that can adequately constrain the
pore fluid. Consequently. fluid expansion is more likely to be an im-
portant source of overpressure at deeper depths. in stiffer rocks.
The only sure way to determine the cause of overpressure in a ve-
locity reversal is with measured pore pressures. One way is to plot
velocity-vs.-effective-stress data from inside and outside the rever-
sal. as in Fig. 3d. The reversal data will track a much faster trend if
fluid expansion mechanisms were active.
Another approach is to compare measured pore pressures with
those computed with the equivalent depth method. The equivalent
depth method will underestimate pore pressure caused by fluid ex-
pansion. Figs. 6 and 7 present cases where the equivalent depth
method works and fails.
Cementation. Unloading may not be the only reason that velocity
reversal data deviate from the virgin curve; cementation could also
be a factor. From the standpoint of pore pressure estimation. this is
inconsequential. What counts is that the separate trend tracked by
the reversal data be recognized and accounted for.
However. cementation does complicate diagnosing the cause of
overpressure within a reversal. Even with petrographic analyses. it
can be difficult to sort out the relative effects of unloading and ce-
mentation. What can be said is that cementation is conducive to fluid
expansion overpressure. because it increases the rock matrix's
constraint of the pore fluid. Consequently. while local geologic
conditions must be considered. there is reason to believe that under-
compaction is generally not the sole source of overpressure when
velocity reversal data diverge significantly from the virgin curve.
Current Pore Pressure Estimation Methods
Most pore pressure estimation methods claim to only be applicable
for overpressure caused by undercompaction. However. it turns out
that many current pore pressure estimation methods are (unknow-
ingly) predicting fluid expansion overpressure. To illustrate this.
two popular techniques are examined
Hottman and Johnson. The Hottman and Johnson (H&J) method
empirically correlates departures from the velocity normal trend
line to an equivalent pore pressure gradient.
12
Empirical correla-
tions have no inherent bias towards one particular overpressure
mechanism. They simply reflect whatever the dominant cause of
overpressure is in the area in which they were developed. For their
U.S. gulf coast correlation. H&J assumed this was undercompac-
tion. If this is true. then the Equivalent Depth and H&J methods
should give similar results. As a test. both approaches were applied
to shale sonic log data from H&J's original paperI
2
(Well "R"). Fig.
8a shows the velocities. while Fig. 8b compares the estimated pore
pressures with bottomhole pressure measurements.
It can be seen that the equivalent depth method underpredicts the
pressure. while the H&J correlation performs well. This has two pos-
sible implications. First. because the Equivalent Depth method failed.
this suggests that fluid expansion is an important source of overpres-
sure. Second. because the H&J method worked. H&J's Gulf Coast
correlation appears to have fluid expansion "built" into it.
As further evidence. Fig. 8c plots velocity-vs.-effective-stress
data from the well. Solid circles are from the normal trend line. Ea-
ton's U.S. gulf coast overburden stress curve
l5
and a normal pres-
sure gradient of 0.465 psi/ft were used to estimate effective stresses
at these points. Open circles are from the three pressure tests inside

Fig. 9-U.S. gulf coast application of the Eaton and equivalent depth methods.
Effective Stress (ksl)
18 0 2 3 4 5 6
11
Eaton
Vmax
Original Eaton Equation
Solution
10 Inside the
(V 3 Reversal
CT=
crnorm -v.::::-)
Re,,;sed
norm
9
\ Eaton
or
l
.....
V =
C CT
1
/
3
;:8 .... -
'5
-:..-
0
:Q'
..
> .'
7
,
Revised Eaton Equation
0
Inside Reversal
(V 5 6 (Pressure Tests)
cr= CTnorm -V--)

OUtslde Reversal
norm
5
(Normal Trend)
o Pressure Tests
Pore Pressure (ppg)
8 10 12 16 15
a)
Velocity (kills)
7.5 10 12.5 5
0
2
4
6
!.
.s=
8
Q.
.,
0
10
12
14
16
92 SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995
Unloading Curve. The unloading curve is defined by the empirical
relation:
v = 5000 + A[omax (%max)(lIU)jB (4)
where A and B are as before, U is a third parameter, and
Virgin Curve, Over stress ranges of practical interest, it has been
found that the virgin curve for shale, as shown in Fig. I a, can be ade-
quately represented by the following equation:
v=5000+Ao
B
(3)
where v is velocity (ftls), a is effective stress (psi), and A and Bare
parameters calibrated with offset velocity-vs-effective-stress data.
Here, Omax and V
max
are estimates of the effective stress and velocity
at the onset of unloading.
In the absence of major lithology changes, V
max
is usually set
equal to the velocity at the start of the velocity reversal. This as-
sumes that all formations within the reversal at one time passed
through the same maximum stress state. While this generally may
not be true, using the velocity at the start of the reversal for V
max
has
been found to work satisfactorily.
........................... (5)
I/B
_(Vma,-5000)
Omax - A .
New Method
Overview. The new method is an effective stress approach that em-
ploys virgin and unloading curve relations to account for both un-
dercompaction and fluid expansion overpressure. Effective stresses
outside of velocity reversal zones are computed from the virgin
curve. Inside a velocity reversal, offset well data are used to decide
which equation is appropriate. For rank wildcats, the pore pressure
can be computed both ways to establish lower and upper bounds on
the pressure. The unloading curve will always yield higher pore
pressure estimates.
Modified Eaton Method. If the Eaton pore pressure estimates are
too low, Eq. I can be adjusted to yield lower effective stresses. One
way is to increase v
norm
by shifting and rotating the normal trend line
(Weakley16). Another, simpler alternative, is to raise the exponent in
Eq. 1. Either way, the net effect is the same; it allows the original Ea-
ton virgin curve relation to be transformed into an unloading curve.
For example, by raising the exponent from 3 to 5, the revised Ea-
ton solution (dotted line in Fig. 9b) is able to closely match the Well
R pressure data. As Fig. 9c shows, this is because the higher expo-
nent has allowed Eaton's equation to simulate an unloading curve.
Eaton. Original Eaton Method. Eaton's method
3
is an effective stress
approach, with the effective stress, a, computed from the equation:
the velocity reversal. The faster trend tracked by the reversal data
is characteristic of unloading.
The solid line in Fig. 8c is the velocity-vs.-effective-stress path
defined by H&J's pore pressure estimates inside the reversal. This
curve clearly deviates from the normal pressure data, which again
suggests the H&J Gulf Coast correlation is biased towards fluid ex-
pansion overpressure. This also means that this correlation will
overestimate the pore pressure at wells where undercompaction tru-
ly is the dominant cause of overpressure, as in Fig. 2.
3
0=0norm (yL) . (I)
nonn
Here v is the measured velocity, and 0norm and V
norm
are the values
the effective stress and velocity should have under normal pressure
conditions. Eq. I implies that normally pressured and overpressured
formations both follow a virgin curve relation of the form:
v=C 0/3 (2)
Consequently, Eaton's method should underestimate fluid expan-
sion overpressure.
The velocity normal trend line is usually assumed to be a straight
line on a plot oflog(v
norm
) vs. depth. However, according to Eq. I,
v and V
norm
should both satisfy Eq. 2. Therefore, to be consistent,
V
norm
should actually be calculated from Eq. 2 using Onorm values
determined from the overburden stress and normal pore pressure
profiles. Ifthis were done, the normal trend line would not be a semi-
log straight line.
Fig. 9a compares H&J's semi-log normal trend for Well R (dot-
dashed curve) with one analytically computed from Eq. 2 (solid
line). The parameter C = 564 was obtained by fitting Eq. 2 through
the normal trend velocity-effective stress data in Fig. 9c. It can be
seen that the semi-log normal trend line is faster than the analytical
solution below the top of overpressure. By overestimating V
norm
, the
semi-log normal trend will make Eq. I predict lower effective
stresses, and therefore higher pore pressures than Eq. 2. This will
generally be true. However, unless unreasonably large values are as-
sumed for vnorm, Eq. I will still underestimate fluid expansion over-
pressure.
This is the case with the Eaton pore pressure estimates for Well
R, which are plotted as a solid line in Fig. 9b. The dot-dashed line
is the equivalent depth solution. It can be seen that both methods fall
well short of the measured pressures in the velocity reversal. The ve-
locity-effective stress data in Fig. 9c explain why. Even with the
semi-log normal trend line, the Eaton solution inside the reversal re-
mains close to the virgin curve defined by Eq. 2.
a Uye a...
Effective Stress
0.6 0.8
Normalized
Unloading Curve
(O"\lT
max
) = (CT..,\O'maxl
U
0."
0.2
* Weill
o W.U2
W .,3
W .,.
o W.U5
l>w.lee
oL-__....L-__-J. .L-__....L-__--l
o
0.2
0.8
_ 0.6
J
~
0."
Vmax,O"max
~ l c a
Unloacing Curve
(U=3to8)
Virgin Curve: B
V.SOOO+A 0"
Unloading Curve:
[
(1IUl]B
V.SOOO+A 0".... (O"llT
mox
)
>.
."C
U
.Q
..
>
Effective Stress
Fig. 1D-The unloading parameter "U." Fig, 11-Normalized unloading curve,
SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995 93
16'-----------'
o mlh,. Reversal
(Pr.... Te"l)
o"tsid, ReverSll
(Normal Trend)
9
10
Effective S"e (leai)
11 0;:-"--'r_--;.2_-:r
3
_....:.;---;r--';
6

"'8
i
>
o Pro....roT....
Estimoted
Pore
P,...ure
Pore P,..ure (ppg)
10 12 1. 16 18
Vrnu
Volocily (W.)
7.5 10 12.5 15
12
10
1.
a) b) c)
Fig. 12-U.S. gulf coast application of new method.
As the insert in Fig. 11 illustrates, oYe is the stress at which the cur-
rent velocity v intersects the virgin curve. Fig. 1I shows the normal-
ized version of the unloading data in Fig. 5.
The unloading parameter U is a measure of how plastic the sedi-
ment is (see Fig. 10). U = 1 implies no permanent deformation. be-
cause the unloading curve reduces to the virgin curve. U= 00 corre-
sponds to completely irreversible deformation, since v = V
max
for all
values of effective stress less than 0max' In practice, U typically
ranges between 3 and 8.
Solving for U. While virgin curve data track a single curve, unload-
ing data from multiple wells will generally lie on multiple unloading
curves (see Fig. 5). However, by substituting Eg. 3 into Eg. 4, the
unloading curve can be recast into a form that normalizes multiple
well unloading data onto a single curve:
(o/omax) = (Oye/omax)u, (6)
where
Example Applications
U.S. Gulf Coast. Fig. 12 shows an application of the new method
to Hottman and Johnson's Well R. The virgin curve parameters
(A =4.4567, B =0.8168) were determined by fitting velocity-vs.-
effective-stress data from the normal pressure interval above 10000
ft (see Fig. 12c). A normal pressure gradient of 0.465 psi/ft, and Ea-
ton's U.S. gulf coast overburden stress curve were used to estimate
effective stresses along the normal trend. The normal trend line in
Fig. 12a was calculated from the virgin curve relation.
Pore pressures inside the velocity reversal were computed from
the unloading curVe relation, with U = 3.13. This is a regional un-
loading parameter determined from U.S. gulf coast and Gulf of
Mexico data. Fig. l2b compares the pressure estimates with the
measured values. The accuracy achieved is similar to that for the
Hottman & Johnson U.S. gulf coast correlation.
Fig. 12c compares the virgin curve and unloading curve relations
with velocity-effective stress data from inside and outside the rever-
sal. Also shown is the velocity-vs.-effective-stress path defined by
H&J's pore pressure estimates inside the reversal. As can be seen,
the new method's unloading curve is very close to H&J's stress path.
Their divergence is due to the Hottman and Johnson normal trend
line exponentially increasing with depth.
Deepwater GulfofMexico. The next example is from a well drilled
in nearly 1400 ft of water in the Gulf of Mexico. Fig. 13a plots the
sonic log data, and a normal trend line analytically computed from
Eg. 3. There are a number of small velocity reversals above 9700 ft,
and one major reversal between 9700 ft and TD. Because all of the
shallower reversals are very weak, they were not considered to be
due to fluid expansion.
Within the large reversal, the velocity at first drops at a ratc similar
to that in the smaller reversals. However, at 10200ft, the slope steep-
ens significantly. This slope break was interpreted to be the onset of
fluid expansion overpressure. Therefore, in the unloading relation,
V
max
was assumed to be the velocity at 10200 ft, not the peak veloc-
ity at 9700 ft. Where the velocities near TD are above the value at
10200 ft, the virgin curve was used to compute effective stresses.
As in the U.S. gulf coast example, a value of 3.13 was assumed
for the unloading parameter U. Regional virgin curve parameters,
determined from wells in water depths between 600 and 1500 ft
were used for A and B, with A= 28.371 I, B= 0.6207.
.............................. (7)
_ (V-5000)1/8
OYe - -A--
b)
Pore Pressure (ppg)
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Velocity (kftls) Pore Pressure (ppg)
Velocny (kftls)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8 10 12 1. 16 18 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
0
o
ORFrS
\ 2
2
1

\ Used 6
I
I
8
a
6 I .s::
.,
I a
Cl 10
8
12
1.
10
\ XUnconformny
16
12
18
a) b) a)
Fig. 13-Deepwater Gulf of Mexico example.
Fig. 14-Central North Sea example.
94 SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995
Glenn L. Bowers is president of Applied MechanicsTechnologies
in Houston. which providesconsulting servicesin abnormal pore
pressure. wellbore stability. wellbore fracturing. and general
rock mechanics. He previously spent 12 years at Exxon Produc-
tion Research Co.. where he performed research in these same
areas. He holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering
from the U. of Akron. and a PhD degree in theoretical and ap-
plied mechanics from the U. of Illinois.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Exxon Production Research Co. for permission
to publish this paper. Data for the deepwater Gulf of Mexico exam-
ple were provided by Exxon Exploration Co., while the Central
North Sea well data were received from Shell E&P U.K" and Esso
E&P U.K. The interpretations of these data are those of the author
and not of the organizations furnishing the data.
References
I. Foster, J. B, and Whalen, J. E.: "Estimation of Formation Pressures
From Electrical Surveys Offshore Louisiana," lPT(Feb. 1966),165.
2. Ham, H. H.: "A Method of Estimating Formation Pressures From Gulf
Coast Well Logs," Trans., Gulf Coast Assn. of Geol. Soc., 16,185-197.
3. Eaton, B. A.: "The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well
Logs," SPE 5544.
4. Tosaya, C. A.: " Acoustical Properties of Clay Bearing Rocks ," Ph.D.
Dissertation, Stanford U., Palo Alto, CA (1982).
5. Barker, C.: "Aquathermal Pressuring-Role of Temperature in Devel-
opment of Abnormal Pressure Zones," AAPG, 56, 2068-2071.
6. Miller, T. W. and Luk, C. H.: "Contributions of Compaction and Aqua-
thermal Pressuring to Geopressure and the Influence of Environmental
Conditions: Discussion," AAPG Bull. (Nov 1993) 77, No. II,
2006-2010.
7. Spencer, C. W.: "Hydrocarbon Generation as a Mechanism for Over-
pressuring in Rocky Mountain Region," AAPG Bull. (April 1987) 71,
No.4, 368-388.
8. Fertl, W. H.: Abnormal Formation Pressures. Elsevier Scientific Pub-
lishing Company, New York City (1976) 21.
9. Powers, M. C.: "Fluid-Release Mechanisms in Compacting Marine Mu-
drocks and Their Importance in Oil Exploration," AAPG Bull. (July
1967) 51, No.7, 1240-1254.
10. Bruce, C. H.: "Smectite Dehydration-Its Relation to Structural Develop-
ment and Hydrocarbon Accumulation in Northern Gulf of Mexico Ba-
sin," AAPG Bull. (June 1984) 68, No.6, 673-683.
I I. Magara, K.: "Importance of Aquathermal Pressuring Effect in Gulf
Coast," AAP.G Bull. (Oct. 1975) 59, No. 10,2037-2045.
12. Hottman, C. E. and Johnson, R. K.: "Estimation of Formation Pressures
from Log-Derived Shale Properties," lPT (June 1965) 717.
13. Plumley, W. J.: "Abnormally High Fluid Pressure: Survey of Some Ba-
sic Principles," AAPG Bull. (March, 1980) 64. No.3, 414-430.
14. Berg, R. R. and Habeck, M. E: "Abnormal Pressures in the Lower Vick-
sburg, McAllen Ranch Field, South Texas," Trans.. Gulf Coast Assoc.
Geol. Soc. (1982) 32,247-253.
15. Eaton, B. A.: "The Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopressure Predic-
tion from Well Logs," lPT(Aug. 1972,929.
16. Weakley, R. R.: "Use of Surface Seismic Data To Predict Formation
Pore Pressure (Sand Shale Depositional Environments)," SPE 18713.
SPEDC
effective vertical stress at the onset of unloading, psi,
m1Lt
2
sonic velocity at the onset of unloading, ftlsec. Ut
virgin curve parameters
unloading curve parameter
effective vertical stress at which the sonic velocity
intersects the virgin curve, psi, m1Lt
2
effective vertical stress for normal pore pressure, psi,
m1Lt
2
sonic velocity for normal pore pressure, ftlsec, Ut
parameter in Eaton's implied virgin curve relation
v
max
=
A,B=
U=
Ove=
max=
v
norm
=
C=
nonn=
Fig. 13b plots the pore pressure data. Open circles are pore pres-
sures determined from RFT measurements. The dotted line shows
the mudweights that were used, while the solid line is the estimated
pore pressure. It can be seen that the new method is able to track both
the rise in pressure, and the pressure regression.
Conclusions
Based on the literature, there appear to be some misconceptions
about fluid expansion as a source of overpressure. First, it occurs
more frequently than is generally assumed. For instance, undercom-
paction is often cited as the cause of overpressure along the U.S. gulf
coast. However, velocity-vs.-effective-stress data from this area in-
dicate that fluid expansion mechanisms are an important factor.
The second misconception is that fluid expansion overpressure
cannot be estimated from geophysical data. It can. In fact, a number
of current pore pressure estimation methods have been doing so
without realizing it.
Failure to account for the absence or presence of fluid expansion
overpressure can lead to large errors in the estimated pore pressure.
Therefore, it is important to have a systematic approach for estimat-
ing pore pressure due to both undercompaction and fluid expansion.
Such an approach has been presented. It consists of two key ele-
ments: 1) a pair of velocity-vs.-effective-stress relations that ac-
count for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction, and
2) a procedure for determining when each relation should be used.
Both elements are equally important.
Nomenclature
0= effective vertical stress, psi, m1Lt
2
v = sonic velocity, ftlsec, Ut
Central North Sea. The final example is from a high pressure/high
temperature (HPHT) well in the Central North Sea. Fig. 14a shows
the sonic log data, and three separate normal trends; one for the Ter-
tiary shales above 9000 ft (A =2.8746, B=0.9037), another for the
chalk (A =802.1, B=0.3215), and a third for all other formations
above and below the chalk (A = 8.116, B= 0.8002).
Overpressure above the chalk is primarily due to undercompac-
tion, while below the chalk, fluid expansion mechanisms appear to
be important. This is evident from the velocity-effective stress data
in Fig. 5. The 8 to 13 Ibm/gal group (solid circles) includes forma-
tions from above and below the chalk. All of the data in the 14 to 18
Ibm/gal range (open circles) are from Jurassic formations below the
X-unconformity. A fit of the normalized Central North Sea unload-
ing data in Fig. 11 yielded U =4.48.
There are essentially no normally pressured shale intervals along this
well. Consequently, it would be very difficult to apply pore pressure es-
timation methods that rely on a normal trend line. This would include
empirical correlations, the equivalent depth, and Eaton methods.
Near the top and bottom of the chalk, velocity changes due to pore
pressure are obscured by those due to lithology. Significant variations
in sonic properties also occur within the chalk. Consequently, pore
pressure estimates in and near the chalk are not considered reliable.
To compensate for lithology effects, the following approach was
used. Above the chalk, pore pressures estimated down to the onset
of the rapid velocity rise at 9800 ft were honored. Pore pressures
computed below the X-unconformity were also assumed to be valid.
The estimates on either side of the chalk were then connected with
straight lines to the pore pressure calculated at the first major veloc-
ity peak within the chalk.
Lithology effects also made it necessary to use a different criteri-
on for picking V
max
for the clastic formations below the X-unconfor-
mity. The velocity at the start of the reversal could not be used, be-
cause this point is in the chalk. From pore pressure hindcasts at other
Central North Sea wells, it was decided to set V
max
equal to the nor-
mal trend velocity at the X-unconformity.
Fig. 14b compares the estimated pressures with mudweights used
during drilling, and RFT data. It can be seen that outside the chalk,
the pore pressure estimates are in good agreement with the mea-
sured values. However, within the chalk, as was discussed above,
the predictions are essentially a guess.
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995 95