Geopressuring Mechanism of Smackover Gas
Reservoirs, Jackson Dome Area, Mississippi
C. A. Stuart, SPE·AIME, Shell Oil CO.
H. G. Kozik, SPE·AIME, Shell Oil Co.
Introduction
Geopressures of the Smackover sour gas reservoirs in the
Jackson Dome area of the Mississippi salt basin appear to
be created by the temperatures and overlying weight of
the earth's crust. Calculations indicate that the geopres-
sure cell was sealed and geopressuring started at a depth
of about 12,500 ft. With burial that occurred there-
after, the pore-gas pressure increased in accordance with
the equation for real gases that combines Boyle's and
Charles' laws.
The Smackover exists at 12,000 ft on the north flank
and plunges to about 27,000 ft at the synclinal axis of the
basin. The geopressure gradients of the reservoirs in-
crease with depth from hydropressures in the 12,500-ft
Loring reservoir to 19.0 lb/gal, or 0.99 psi/ft, in the
22,100-ft Southwest Piney Woods reservoir. The mea-
sured reservoir pressure is 21,835 psi. This is the highest
pressure and pressure gradient of a potential reservoir
ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico basin.
Calculations indicate that this pressuring mechanism
could create a geopressure gradient up to 24.4 Ib/gal
(1.28 psi/ft) at the synclinal axis of this subregional
province; however, it is not known whether a rock can
hold such a pressure gradient. Porosity reduction by
compaction appears to decelerate with geopressuring and
essentially stops when the pore-gas pressure approaches
the geostatic pressure.
Geopressures
Geopressures l are found in increasing numbers in the
Mississippi salt basin as more deep wells are drilled. To
To help understand the problems associated with geopressures in the Mississippi salt basin,
Smackover sour gas reservoirs were studied and a geopressuring mechanism was conceived.
The concept presented is that gas was sealed in a confined container, and then geopressured by
the temperature and pressure of the earth's crust with subsequent burial.
MAY, 1977
help understand the problems associated with these pres-
sures, a geopressuring mechanism for the Smackover
sour gas reservoirs was conceived2 and is presented here.
The concept is simply that gas was sealed in a confined
container, and then was geopressured by the temperature
and pressure of the earth's crust with subsequent burial.
The concept conforms to the "seal and pressurize"
method of geopressuring. The pressuring source of heat
and weight of the earth's crust is essentially the same as
that proposed for the generation of geopressures for the
entire Gulf of Mexico salt basin and other basins.l
The seal 2 of the geopressures in the review area is
different from that for the Texas-Louisiana Cenozoic salt
basin.l The seal, however, is not the subject of this
discussion.
Several pressuring sources for creating geopressures
have been proposed by other investigators; 1 some have
proposed that the Mississippi salt basin has a different
pressuring source than the Cenozoic salt basin. Other
pressuring sources have been proposed by Parker:! for the
origin of geopressures in Mississippi.
The area discussed is a corridor traversing the Loring,
Pelahatchie, Thomasville, Piney Woods, and Southwest
Piney Woods fields, adjacent to the Jackson Dome in the
Mississippi salt basin, as illustrated in Fig. I. Smackover
sour gas has been found in the five fields, ranging in
depth from 12,450 to 22,100 ft. The Smackover area of
the Jurassic age in this basin is 1,200 ft thick, exists at
12,000 ft on the north rim, and plunges to 27,000 ft in the
geosynclinal axis of the basin.
579

Reconstruction of Smackover Reservoir in
Geological Past
To prove the concept, a given Smackover reservoir pres-
sure profile was reconstructed in the geological past as it
was buried and projected into the geological future with
additional burial. Then, this geopressure burial profile
was compared with the geopressure regional-dip profile
of all Smackover reservoirs that exist today. Any Smack-
over reservoir ·will do; but adequate data are available
for the Smackover reservoir at Thomasville field, so
this reservoir was selected for the reconstruction. The
19,800-ft Thomasville reservoir has a bottom-hole pres-
sure of 17,500 psi that yields a geopressure gradient of
0.884 psilft (17.0 lb/gal).
If this geopressuring concept is valid, then it must obey
the gas law for real gases:
pV == ZNRT, ............. . . . .......... . . (1a)
where
p == pressure, any units
V == volume, any units
Z == deviation factor
N == number of moles
R == gas constant
T == absolute temperature, OR.
This equation combines two gas laws: (1) Boyle's law,
which states simply that pressure is inversely propor-
tional to the volume, and (2) Charles' law, stating that
pressure is directly proportional to the temperature. The
equation includes the gas deviation factor and a constant
(NR) for real gases .
To accomplish this reconstruction, the gas law was
modified into its material-balance form:
NR=~=~ .................... . (1b)
ZtTt Z2 T 2
The p, V, Z, and T data for the present Thomasville
Smackover reservoir were available, and the NR constant
could be calculated . If the V, Z, and T data at a point in
time are available, then the pressure can be calculated at
that same geological time. And a pressure burial profile
can be developed if the following burial profiles are
secured: temperature burial profile, deviation-factor
burial profile, and volume burial profile.
Temperature Burial Profile . A regional-dip temper-
ature profile can be constructed from present in-situ
Smackover reservoir temperatures of the Loring,
Pelahatchie, Thomasville, Piney Woods, and Southwest
Piney Woods fields as shown in Fig . 2. The same profile
was used as a Thomasville temperature burial profile and
is shown as Curve Bt. Curve Bt extrapolates to 68 OF at
the surface and honors the present Thomasville reservoir
temperature of 360 OF.
Deviation-Factor Burial Profile. The deviation factor
for the various stages of burial of the Thomasville Smack-
over gas was developed from a PVT analysis of a gas
sample from Thomasville, as shown in Fig. 3. The curve,
based on a constant reservoir temperature, was modified
for increasing temperatures with depths, or the geo-
therms, to solve our geological problem. The curve was
used tentatively as a Z burial curve to approximate a
geopressure profile. From this, pressures vs depth were
approximated. Then, the Z curve vs pressures and the
geothermal gradient was calculated by using a computer
program presented by Samish. 4 The curve is shown as Z
at geotherms in Fig" 3 . The Z geothermal curve and Z
curve at a constant temperature are superimposed on each
other through much of the geopressure section, and little

-L- ARKANSAS

I I IIISSISSIPPI
I
I

.~--.-----­ I
I

.I .I ALABA"'A
I
I I
J
\
\.
\ -----
j LOUISIANA

/ FLORIDA

CENOZOIC
B AS I N
GULF
OF
Fig. 1-Mississippi salt basin.

580 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

iteration was required. The Z geothermal curve is equiv-
alent to a deviation-factor burial profile.
A Z geothermal curve was run in the same manner on
Piney Woods gas, as shown in Fig. 3. The Thomasville
and Piney Woods Z geothermal curves are reasonably
parallel in the geopressure interval. Accordingly, one
will get similar results with either Piney Woods or
Thomasville gas because the gas law covers the rate of
change, and the rate of change is essentially the same for
the two gas curves.
Volume Burial Profile. Volume was taken to be the
squares fit shown as Curve Ap in Fig. 4. As can be seen,
the porosity reduction, or compaction, is a consistent 1.7
porosity points per 1,000 ft of depth in hydropressures.
With these profiles, the best fit was made in constructing
a Thomasville porosity burial profile shown as Curve Bp
in Fig. 4.
The 19,800-ft Thomasville Smackover reservoir has a
calculated average porosity of 8.1 percent and connate

7
gas-filled porosity and is the porosity less the connate °~
water. A constant mass of connate water was assumed 385°.
throughout geopressure time. Therefore, if the porosity is 377 0 / I'

available, the gas-filled volume can be determined at any /

360~' ,/ 1.6
time. The compressibility and thermal expansion effects /

on the connate water reasonably cancel each other. The /

/
I.S
unit of volume used is not pertinent, since the units cancel
1.1
out in the gas law. It is the change in volume for a given
unit that enters into the gas law. /
A regional-dip porosity profile (Curve Cp) of the pres-
ent Smackover reservoirs was constructed as shown in 1,2

Fig. 4. This profile has three deficiencies: (1) Thomas- 1.1

ville and Piney Woods fields are sandstone layers be-
tween carbonate layers; one pay at Pelahatchie is sand-
stone while another is sucrosic dolomite; and Loring is
oolmoldic and sucrosic dolomite. Therefore, the profile
crosses rock types. (2) There is no Smackover rock above "Z" AT GEOTHERM5 OF

12,500 ft. (3) There is no hydropressure Smackover rock

below 12,500 ft. However, there was available a aT vs
depth relationship5 of the post-Smackover hydropres-
sure sandstones. The transit times were converted to f
porosities. The porosities vs depth are a spread of points,
or family of profiles, that range over 7 porosity points.
An average line was constructed based on the least-
10,000
PRE'55U~E • PSIG
68° AT SURFACE
BY EXTRAPOLATION Fig. 3- Deviation Z burial curve for Smackover gas.

POROSITY "'0 (IN.SITU)

10,000 i i i ,
10 20 25

10,000

LORING

15,000
"-
... '"'"
o",'" f~
Q.
'-

U
15,000

§! tll\ PELAHATCHIE
~~f' ~~XXD~~~55L-------~~~~~---------

! ~
I U
20,000 I
!::II
377° PINEY WOODS I
!
':]'/
~ 8.1% ss THOMASVILLE

t 5 W PINEY W0005 ~1 20,000

, 4~00~o________L!________________ ~~8.1"'o
x
5S PINEY WOOO5

--.J I ! , ! I , ! ! ! !

~ E ~ m m ~ m ~ ~ m ~ D "DOLOMITE
FORMATION TEI,IPERATURE ,OF 55 " 5AND5TONE

Fig. 2-Thomasville Smackover temperature burial profile. Fig. 4-Thomasville Smackover porosity burial profile.

MAY, 1977 581

 TABLE 1-EXAMPLE CALCULATION AT 18,000 FT OF GEOPRESSURE OF THOMASVILLE
SMACKOVER IN GEOLOGICAL PAST
Gas-Filled Porosity (Gas Saturation) Gq,
AtThomasville, porosity", = 8.1 percent; connate water Swc = 21 percent, Gq, = 8.1 x (1 - Swc) = 6.399.
At 18,000 ft, '" = 8.4 percent (Fig. 4, Curve Bp).
Assume constant mass of connate water.
Swc= 21 percent x 8.1/8.4 = 20.25 percent, or 0.2025.
Gq, = 8.4 x (1 - 0.2025) = 6.699.
Thomasville Temperature
360 of (820 OR) at 19,800 ft, 332 of at 18,000 ft (Fig. 2, Curve Bt).
Develop Z-Factor Equations
Constant reservoir temperature (9,000 to 20,000 psi): Z = 0.63 + (0.057pI1 ,000).
Geotherm: (10,000 to 20,000 psi):Z = 0.65 + (0.055pI1,000).
(4,000 to 8,000 psi): Z = 0.42 + (0.083pI1 ,000).
Thomasville bottom-hole pressure = 17,500 psi. Geotherm Z at 19,800 ft (17,500 psi) = 1.615.
Calculate NR Constant for Thomasville
NR = pVIZT = (17,500 x 6.399)/(820 x 1.615)
= 84.56.
Thomasville Pressure When Buried to 18,000 ft
P = NR (T IV)Z From curve: Z = 1.452 at 14,434 psi
p 1 = 84.56 (792/6.699)Z P2 = 9,997 x 1.452 = 14,516 psi
P 1 = 9,997 [0.65 + (0.055P1 11,000)] From curve: Z = 1.456 at 14,516 psi
P1 = 6,498 + (0.549811 ) P3 = 9,997 x 1.456 = 14,556 psi
0.4502P1 = 6,498 From curve: Z = 1.457 at 14,556 psi
p 1 = 14,434 psi P 4 = 9,997 x 1.457 = 14,565 psi
Iteration forp
Z1 = 0.65 + 0.794 = 1.444 P = 14,565 psi (0.809 psilft or 15.56Iblgal)

water of 21 percent. As shown in Table 1, the gas-filled From these data, it is inferred that the Thomasville
volume is calculated at 6.399. When the reservoir Smackover reservoir was hydropressured while being
existed at 18,000 ft, the gas-filled volume is calculated at buried to 12,500 ft, then was sealed and became geopres-
6.699. A volume burial profile was obtained by similar sured; the geopressures continued to increase with depth
calculations. of burial and reached 17.0 lb/gal by a depth of 19,800 ft.
A connate water of 21 percent is unusually low for a Future burial would increase the FPG to 18.8 lb/gal at a
rock with 8. I-percent porosity. The connate-water figure
is based on petrophysical evaluations where Archie's m
and n have been determined from cores and, thus, it is
believed to be reliable. POROSITY
I
"'0 (IN·SITU)
, i ,
\0 15 20 25

Although the three required burial profiles for T, Z, 10,000

and V have been secured, the gas law (PV = ZNRT) still
had one equation and two unknowns (p and Z). As shown
in Table 1, two Z equations in terms of pressure were
developed: (1) from 10,000 to 20,000 psi, Z = 0.65 +
(0.055 p/l ,000); and (2) from 4,000 to 8,000 psi, Z =
0.42 + (0.083p/1,000).
With the gas-law equation and one oftwoZ equations,
15,000
pressure was solved at Thomasville for pressures (con-
verted to formation pressure gradient, FPG) at 20,800,
21,220, and 22,100 ft; and in 1,000-ft increments from
19,000 ft up to its intersection with the hydropressure
line. An example calculation at 18,000 ft is shown in
Table 1.
Thus, the Thomasville Smackover reservoir pressures
were reconstructed in the geological past as the reservoir 20,000

was buried and were constructed for the geological future

with additional burial. This geopressure burial profile
is shown as Curve Bg in Fig. 5 (line connecting open
circles). Curve Bg shows the FPG decreasing from 17.0 ~,
lb/gal at 19,800 ft to shallower depths; the curve inter- 19 18 ~7 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 8

sects the 8.7-lb/gal hydropressure line at 12,500 ft. Be- 1/ "LB/GAL

FORMATION PRESSURE GRADIENT
FPG IN lB/GAL

low 19,800 ft, the FPG of Curve Bg continues to increase Fig. 5-Geopressure profiles of Thomasville burial and existing
with depth. Smackover gas reservoirs.

582 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF THOMASVILLE GEOPRESSURES IN
GEOLOGICAL PAST (CURVE Bg) WITH GEOPRESSURES OF EXISTING
SMACKOVER FIELDS (CURVE Cg)
FPG Regional Thomasville
Dip, Curve Cg, Calculated FPG,
Depth Reservoir Burial Profile,
Field ~ Pressure (lb/gal) Curve Bg (Ib/gal)
Loring 12,450 9.0 8.7
Pelahatchie 16,500 13.9 14.2
Thomasville 19,800 17.0 17.0
Piney Woods 20,800 17.6 17.7
Southwest Piney Woods 21,220 18.0 18.1
Southwest Piney Woods 22,100 19.0 18.8

depth of 22, 100 ft. It is inferred further that the geopres-
suring process follows the gas law.
Comparison With Field Data
The measured in-situ (present geological time) geo-
pressure gradients of the five fields in the corridor were
plotted as a regional-dip profile; this profile was su-
perimposed in Fig. 5 as Curve Cg (line connecting the
squares). Examination shows that there is a remarkably
good fit of the calculated Thomasville burial geopressure
profile (Curve Bg) with the geopressure profile of the
existing Smackover fields (Curve Cg). Table 2 quantifies
the closeness in fit and shows that the maximum devia-
tion is only 0.3Ib/gal.
The Thomasville porosity burial profile (Curve Bp of
Fig. 4) was plotted in Fig. 5. As shown, the porosity
reduction in hydropressures decelerates as geopressures
begin at 12,500 ft and essentially stops when the reservoir
pressure approaches the geostatic pressure. Thus, poros-
ity below 19,800 ft should be preserved if gas is in place.
Also, Boyle's law (volume) enters into the geopressuring
mechanism at low geopressure gradients but diminishes
to a negligible amount at the depth where porosity reduc-
tion becomes negligible. Below this depth, most of the
geo-pressuring would be due to Charles' law (tempera-
ture plus the Z factor of the gas).
To further validate the concept, all other wells around
the Jackson Dome area, most of which are CO 2 wells,
were investigated. The geopressure gradients were plot-
ted in Fig. 6; some of these gradients were quantified only
within a range with the available data. Curves Bg and Cg
were transposed from Fig. 5 to Fig. 6. As shown, the
trend is the same and the maximum deviation was 1.5
lb/gal. These data add more credence to the geopressur-
ing mechanism and suggest that all the reservoirs were
sealed at about the same time and/or at about the same
drilling revealed a measured reservoir pressure of 21 ,835
psi at 22,100 ft, yielding a geopressure gradient of
0.99 psi/ft, or 19.0 lb/gal, as shown in Table 2. Calcu-
lations produced an 18.8-lb/gal gradient at that depth.
These geopressure gradients are also shown in Fig. 5 and
fall on the trend of Burial Curve Bg and Regional-Dip
CurveCg.
To our knowledge, the 22,loo-ft geopressure cell,
which had a bottom-hole pressure of 21,835 psi and an
FPG of 0.99 psi/ft, exhibits the highest pressure and
pressure gradient of a potential reservoir ever recorded
in the Gulf of Mexico basin.
Calculations using one set of curves extrapolated
beyond present field data show that, with additional
burial of our example reservoir (Thomasville), the in-
crease in the geopressure gradient would continue up
to the geostatic gradient and then stop. Calculations
using another set of extrapolated curves show that addi-
tional burial to 27,000 ft would produce a pressuring
mechanism capable of creating a geopressure gradient of
24.4 Ib/gal (1.28 psi/ft). Fig. 7 schematically illustrates
these pressure gradients through the synclinal axis, show-
ing the burial and regional profile relationship.
In the Mississippi salt basin, the highest geopressure
gradient previously reported is about 1. 0 psi/ft (19.2
10,000
15,000

depth and were geopressured in the same manner.

Projections
These data led to the question, "What magnitude of
geopressures could be expected downdip and in the syn-
clinal axis at 27,000 ft of the Mississippi salt basin?"
It is noteworthy that the concept was developed and
20,000
used to calculate the gas pressure gradient at Southwest
Piney Woods before drilling was begun. Only the depth,
which was obtained from seismic data, was known.
Using the Thomasville reservoir data, the present pres-
sure gradient was calculated at 18.1 lb/gal, as shown in I ! ! 1 ! ! , ! 1

18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
Table 2. The discovery wildcat well, Shell Ridgeway FPG IN lB/GAL
Management No.1, was drilled and encountered a geo- Fig. 6-Geopressures of Smackover wells around Jackson
pressure gradient of 18.0 Ib/gal at 21,200 ft. Deeper Dome.

MAY, 1977 583


8.1 ._HM'pR~~~~RE-1-IN£ __ ~-;
"
50 ~! ~ ! k !
Fig. 7-Smackover regional geopressure profile extrapolated to
synclinal axis.
lb/gal) in a salt-water flow at 19,904 ft in Shell Murphy
U.S.A. No. 22-7, Henderson area, Wayne County,
Miss. This geopressure gradient is just below the calcu-
lated geostatic gradient. An FPG at or exceeding the
geostatic gradient has not been seen; it is generally ac-
cepted that a rock would rupture before reaching such a
gradient. It is observed l that the geopressure rocks hold
equivalent mud weights in excess of the geostatic gra-
dient; but whether this can be equated to a rock being
capable of holding a pore-fluid pressure gradient greater
than the geostatic gradient is not known.
Therefore, with the data at hand, it is not positively
known whether the rocks can hold a geopressure gradient
greater than the geostatic gradient.
Summary and Conclusions
From this study, the following is summarized about the
Smackover reservoirs around the Jackson Dome sub-
regional geological province.
1. The Thomasville geopressure burial profile cor-
relates with the present-day geopressure gradients of
the Smackover reservoirs. Therefore, the concept that
Smackover geopressuring results from a gas being sealed
in a confined container and then subjected to burial and
increased temperatures following Boyle's and Charles'
basic laws for real gases is substantiated.
Discussion
P. H. Jones, SPE-AIME,LouisianaStateU.
Stuart and Kozik have defined a geopressured reservoir
system as it exists today, and have attributed observed
fluid pressure gradients in a "sealed" container to
deepening burial (some 15,000 ft of downwarp at the
geosynclinal axis), with concurrent loading by sedimen-
tation and progressive geothermal heating to present
temperatures. This concept meets all engineering re-
quirements quite well, but it ignores several profound
aspects of the reservoir rocks, the nature of the reservoir
fluids, the principles of hydrofracturing, the geothermal
regime of the basin, and the progressive structural defor-
mation (including extensive faulting) that has occurred
584
2. Sealing of the reservoirs and subsequent geopres-
sures apparently started at about 12,500 ft.
3. An estimated pressure gradient of a Smackover
~
~
. reservoir can be calculated if the depth is known.
4. With geopressuring, compaction (porosity reduc-
~ tion) appears to decelerate and essentially stops as the
12
pressure gradient approaches the geostatic gradient.
Porosity below 20,000 ft should be preserved if gas is in
place.
5. The Southwest Piney Woods reservoir pressure and
pressure gradient break all records for a potential reser-
voir in the Gulf of Mexico basin.
6. The Smackover gas reservoir should follow the
pV/zr relationship with depletion.
, ~ 7. The size of the reservoir can be calculated after only
a small quantity of gas has been produced.
8. A geopressuring mechanism may exist that can
create a pressure gradient of 24.4 lb/gal in the synclinal
axis. This suggests a pressure gradient 4 to 5 lb/gal
greater than the geostatic gradient. Whether a rock at the
base of a synclinal axis can hold this much pressure is
unknown.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Shell Oil Co. for permission to publish
this report. The assistance of J. R. Johnston in furnishing
the deviation-factor curves is appreciated.
Reterences
1. Stuart, C. A.: "Geopressures," Proc. (Supplement), Second Sym-
posium on Abnormal Subsurface Pressure, Louisiana State U.,
Baton Rouge, Jan. 30, 1970.
2. Stuart, C. A.: "Geopressures in Jurassic Carbonates of Missis-
sippi," Shell Oil Co. report (June 1970).
3. Parker, C. A.: "Geopressures in the Deep Smackover of Missis-
sippi," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1973) 971-979; Trans., AIME, 255.
4. Samish, N. c.: private communication, Shell Oil Co.; computer
program is based on several publications covering properties of
gases and thermodynamic equations of state (1970.
5. Downer, D. G. and Ausburn, B. E.: "Mississippi Log Evaluation:
Composite Sand AT Depth Relationship of Post Smackover Sands,"
Shell Oil Co. report (1967).
Original manuscript received in SOciety of Petroleum Engineers office Aug. 7, 1973.
Paper accepted for publication Feb. 22, 1974. Revised manuscript received Jan. 14,
1977. Paper (SPE 4572) was first presented at the SPE-AIME 48th Annual Meeting,
held in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 3D-Oct. 3, 1973. © Copyright 1977 American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be included in the 1977 Transactions volume.
SPE 6558
since the Smackover formation was at a depth of about
12,000 ft throughout the Mississippi salt basin.
The gases that occur in the sour gas reservoirs of the
Smackover formation are mainly H 2 S, CO 2 , and CH 4 •
The H 2 S is probably of metamorphic origin, formed by
igneous intrusion of anhydrite; or it is diagenetic, formed
by thermal cracking of sour oil. l The CO2, in the quan-
tities present, is probably the result of igneous intrusion
of limestone and dolomite;2 and the CH4 is a stable end
product of the cracking of oil. These gases occupy reser-
voirs created by rising, geopressured, high-temperature
brines at saturation in NaCl, which arose from the
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
Louann salt along faults that were formed in Jurassic and
Cretaceous rocks by deformation associated with late
Cretaceous igneous activity in the basin. These high-
temperature geopressured brines, believed by Carpenter
et al. 3 to have been original connate water in the Louann,
dissolved parts of the matrix and cements in the Smack-
over rocks - which previously had been cemented solid,
with little or no pore space remaining. Porous reservoir
rocks in the Smackover, in which the geopressured fluids
now occur, are all related to structural deformation. 1 The
structural evolution of the Jurassic rocks, including
geosynclinal downwarp, was controlled directly by salt
mobilization associated with igneous activity at depth.
Hydrothermal fluids at high pressure, generated by these
intrusives, probably produced pressure jointing in overly-
ing rocks and temperatures much higher than those ob-
served today - as evidenced by the condition of reser-
voir rocks.
It is believed that the upflux of geopressured geother-
mal fluids is still in progress in the Mississippi salt dome
basin, and that the pressure gradients reported by Stuart
and Kozik are fluid-release pressures. They reflect the
pressure required at any depth to open a pre-existing
fracture system in the "seal," with release of a quantity
of fluid sufficient to lower the pressure in the reservoir for
closure of the fracture. According to this interpretation,
the title of the paper should be "Fluid Mechanics of
Geopressured Smackover Gas Reservoirs, Jackson
Dome Area, Mississippi. "
References
1. Parker, C. A.: "Geopressures in the Deep Smackover of Missis-
sippi," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1973) 971-979; Trans., AIME, 255.
2. Farmer, R. E.: "Genesis of Subsurface Carbon Dioxide," Fluids in
Subsuiface Environments, AAPG Mem. 4 (1965) 378-385.
3. Carpenter, A. B., Trout, M. L., and Pickett, E. E.: "Origin and
Chemical Evolution of Lead- and Zinc-Rich Oil-Field Brines in
Central Mississippi," Econ. Geol. (1974) 1191-1206.
Authors'Reply SPE 6559
We thank Jones for his comments. He has called attention
to several geological aspects that were not covered in our
paper. However, most of these are discussed in some
MAY, 1977
detail in the first two references of our paper. Our replies
to Jones' points follow.
1. The genesis of subsurface gases was not included
since it is not appropriate to the thrust of our paper and it
would be advisable to handle such a controversial subject
separately.
2. The composition of the gases was not included
because the startling phenomenon of Boyle's and
Charles' laws is that the laws apply regardless of the
composition of the gas. The effects of the different gases
on the Z factor in the gas law are explained in the paper.
3. Fracturing was covered in a treatise in "Geopres-
sures," our Ref. 1. Reference was made to fracturing in
our paper when dealing with a possible generation of
geopressures above the geostatic pressures.
4. There are several disadvantages to the theory that
high-temperature brines, coming from the original con-
nate water of the Louann salt, have intruded upward. The
chief disadvantage is that wells drilled in the review area
are conspicuous for their lack of geopressure hot salt-
waterflows. 2
5. Regarding the geothermal regime, three tempera-
ture profiles were considered: stratigraphic, burial, and
regional dip. As to igneous activity, one of the objectives
of the paper was to determine if existing geopressures
were different from those obtained by a geological recon-
struction, which might suggest distortion by igneous ac-
tivity. Little orno distortion is suggested by our data. We
are aware that the Jackson Dome is an igneous intrusion
that occurred during Cretaceous time. 2 We also take
cognizance that the igneous activity has been extinct for
about the last 65 million years.
6. We have found no evidence that upflux of geopres-
sured geothermal fluids is in progress within the area of
our study.
7. As to structural deformation, the structures of the
deep fields in the paper are low relief. The Smackover
0
regional dip of the review area is a modest 3 •
8. We agree that other titles would be appropriate. In
fact, several titles were used before the final one was
adopted. The objective of the paper is simply to deter-
mine how the Smackover sour gases became geopres-
sured. The title proposed by Jones would be suitable for a
treatise on the behavior of the fluids after they became
geopressured. JPT
585