Reprinted from:

December 2005 issue,

pgs 55-58.
Used with permission.

RESERVOIR
CHARACTERIZATION

Pore pressure in the Gulf of Mexico:

Seeing ahead of the bit
A pore pressure cube built over the entire northern Gulf of Mexico using
data released by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) substantially
reduces the time needed for pore pressure prediction projects in this area.
Data acquired while drilling allows the pore pressure prediction ahead
of the bit to be improved and the uncertainty to be reduced.
Colin Sayers, Lennert den Boer, Zsolt Nagy, Patrick Hooyman, and Victor Ward, Schlumberger, Houston
Knowing pore pressure is becoming increasingly essential for drilling in depleted,
deep or overpressured zones. Pre-drill,
pore pressure can be predicted using fitfor-purpose seismic velocities with a velocity-to-pore pressure transform calibrated
to offset wells. To reduce the time required
for such projects, it was decided to build a
pore pressure cube over the entire northern
Gulf of Mexico, using data released by the
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
This paper describes the workflow used to
build the regional, northern Gulf of Mexico pore pressure cube.
All released checkshots for the Gulf
of Mexico were inverted for velocity versus depth below mudline, then kriged to
populate a 3D Mechanical Earth Model
(MEM) with both velocity and expected
uncertainty. The 3D velocity cube thus
obtained was used to infer regional variations in overpressure. Once an area of interest for drilling has been identified, any
extra data provided by the client can be
added to increase the local model resolution. This refinement process continues

Fig. 1. Pore pressure prediction in the

Gulf of Mexico using seismic velocities
from reection tomography, with a
velocity-to-pore-pressure transform
calibrated to offset wells.1

with data acquired while drilling, which

allows the uncertainty in pore pressure
prediction ahead of the bit to be reduced
ahead of the drill-bit.
INTRODUCTION
Pore pressure can be predicted from
seismic velocities via a velocity-to-pore
pressure transform calibrated to offset
wells, Fig. 1, where pore pressure in the
GOM, predicted from reflection tomographic seismic velocities1, is overlain on
the migrated seismic volume.
This approach has recently been extended to include an estimate of pore
pressure uncertainty, using Monte-Carlo
methods to build a 3D probabilistic mechanical earth model.2 The technique
employs a velocity-to-pore pressure
transform based on a rock physics analysis of available offset wells.3 An example
of a pore pressure prediction using this
method is shown in Fig. 2, while Fig. 3
illustrates how the resulting model can
be used for well planning.
Pore pressure studies like those shown
in Figs. 13 typically take 12 months

Fig. 2. Pore pressure (left) with

uncertainty (right) predicted using a
probabilistic mechanical earth model,
or P-MEM2 with a velocity-to-pore
pressure transform based on a rock
physics analysis of offset wells.3
DECEMBER 2005 World Oil

to perform, whereas drillers often require a faster result. To reduce the time
required, a pore pressure cube was built
covering the entire northern GOM, using data released by the MMS. All checkshots released by the MMS in the Gulf
of Mexico were inverted to obtain compressional velocity versus depth below
mudline. These velocity functions were
then kriged to populate a 3D MEM with
both velocity and expected uncertainty.
The 3D velocity cube thus obtained was
used to infer the regional variation in
overpressure and undercompaction of
shallow sediments.
By applying a threshold to the predicted kriging error, maps of undercompaction and overpressure can be
limited to areas of greater reliability. The
methods developed and presented here
should find wide application in the drilling of safe and economic wells in overpressured regions.
VELOCITY SENSITIVITY TO
UNDERCOMPACTION
In the GOM, compaction disequilibrium is the most important cause of

Fig. 3. Use of a probabilistic mechanical

earth model for well planning.2

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

overpressure. For sediment to compact,

pore water must be expelled. However,
if sedimentation is rapid compared to
the time required for fluid to be expelled
from the pore space, or if seals that prevent dewatering and compaction form
during burial, the pore fluid becomes
overpressured and supports part of the
overburden load.
Elastic wave velocities in rocks normally increase during loading due to
porosity reduction and increased grain
contact. Because of overpressure, the porosity is higher and the elastic wave velocity is lower than in normally pressured
sediments. This situation is illustrated in
Fig. 4, where (for illustration) the increase in velocity with depth below the
mudline is represented by a linear depth
gradient k:
v = v0 + kz
(1)
In areas undergoing rapid sedimentation, the compaction coefficient k is
smaller than in areas of slower sedimentation, where pore pressures induced by
loading have sufficient time to dissipate.
Overpressures resulting from compaction disequilibrium can therefore be predicted, given sufficiently accurate seis

terion. A least-squares solution was obtained by minimizing:

CHECKSHOT INVERSION
Fig. 5 shows the locations of checkshots included in the study, corresponding to all the surveys available from the
MMS archive at the end of 2004. Fig.
6 shows time-depth pairs from a typical
checkshot survey, together with interval
velocity calculated from the relation:
z z i 1
vi = i
( 2)
t i t i 1

where || || denotes the L2 norm, D is the

second-derivative matrix, DS is the penalty function, and is the damping parameter, governing the trade-off between
minimization of the data misfit and the
penalty function. Fig. 7 shows the inverted interval velocity as a function of depth
for several values of . An appropriate
choice of was made by examining the
associated travel time residuals.

From Fig. 6, it is evident that the velocity versus depth profile is adversely affected by picking errors in the measured travel time. Accordingly, a weighted damped
least-squares inversion of the measured
travel times was employed to compute
velocity-depth profiles consistent with the
errors in the travel time data.
Following Lizarralde and Swift5, the
interval velocities between receivers may
be determined from measured first arrival times, by solving the linear equation:

CONSTRUCTION OF THE 3D
VELOCITY MODEL
Following inversion of the checkshots,
the derived interval velocity versus depth
profiles were loaded into a 3D geostatistical modeling application, together
with sonic and density logs from several
deepwater wells released by the MMS. A
detailed sea-bottom surface for the entire western GOM (15-sec. resolution)
was derived from bathymetry and elevation data (NGDC) for the geographical
region between 83 to 97 longitude,
and 26 to 30 latitude, Fig. 8.
A 3D curvilinear stratigraphic grid
was constructed conformable to this
mudline surface by spline interpolation,
to a maximum depth of 30,000 ft subsea. Each cell in the stratigraphic grid
measures 0.05 0.05 in area (about
3.5 3.5 sq mi, or one block), by 60-ft
thick. A 3D estimate of bulk density was
derived using a relation of the form given by Traugott6, calibrated to available
deepwater density logs. Density was then
integrated to obtain overburden stress.
A corresponding 3D velocity trend was
obtained from density via Gardners relation, calibrated to available sonic logs.

mic velocities.4 Velocities employed for

this study were obtained by inversion of
checkshot data released by the MMS for
the GOM.

Fig. 4. Schematic variation of elastic

wave velocity with depth below
mudline for normally compacted and
undercompacted sediments.

where ti are the first-arrival times at each

receiver depth (i =1..N), zi are difference in depths between receivers, and
si = 1/vi are the interval slownesses, vi
being the interval velocities. It is convenient to write Eq. 3 as
T = ZS

( 4)

A damped least-squares inversion was

performed5, employing a penalty function based on the second derivative of
estimated slowness as a smoothing cri-

L = T ZS + 2 DS

(5)

Fig. 5. Locations of checkshots (red dots) currently released by the MMS in the Gulf of
Mexico, relative to the coastline (blue).
DECEMBER 2005 World Oil

Fig. 6. Time-depth pairs for a checkshot

in the GOM (left), together with interval
velocity calculated as the difference in
depth divided by the difference in time
for adjacent receiver positions (right).

Fig. 8. Water bottom depth (ft subsea).

Fig. 7. Damped least-squares inversion of a checkshot (Fig. 6) for various values of

in Eq. 5.

After upscaling to the stratigraphic

grid, the combined checkshot and sonic velocities were kriged, using the 3D
velocity trend as an estimate of the local mean in each cell, assuming an exponential model of spatial correlation
with a laterally isotropic effective range
of order 1, and vertical range of order
600 ft. The resulting trend-kriged velocity model is shown in Fig. 9, with the 3D
distribution limited to a region where the
average predicted kriging error (Fig. 10)
is less than 1,200 ft/sec. Fig. 11 shows
a map of the compaction coefficient k
draped on the water-bottom surface, also
limited to the area where velocity error is
less than 1,200 ft/sec. This map was obtained by minimizing the rms difference
between kriged velocity and Eq. 1 for the
first 10,000 ft below mudline. The compaction coefficient thus obtained is seen
to be minimum in the deepwater areas
near the shelf edge, indicating that undercompaction is greatest in this region.
PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION
Since any increase in pore pressure
above the normal hydrostatic gradient
reduces the amount of compaction that
can occur, elastic wave velocities can be
used to predict pore pressure. This was
first demonstrated7 using sonic velocities. In the following discussion, it is assumed that elastic wave velocity is a function only of the vertical effective stress ,
defined by:

=S p

(6 )

where p is pore pressure and S is total

vertical stress.
The vertical effective stress, was
obtained from trend-kriged velocity, assuming a Bowers-type relation8 between
seismic interval velocity and effective
stress of the form:
v = v 0 + A B

(7)

where v0 is the velocity of the sediment

at low stress, and A and B describe the
variation in velocity with increasing effective stress. Parameters v0, A, and B were
obtained as described by Sayers, et al.4
Fig. 12 shows the 3D pore-pressure
estimate, in pounds per gallon (ppg)
mud weight equivalent, obtained using
the trend-kriged velocity and computed
overburden stress as input to Eq. 7. Note
that a mud weight of 1 ppg is equivalent
to a density of 0.1198 g/cm3, and a pressure gradient of 1.17496 kPa/m.
REAL TIME UPDATING
The pre-drill pore pressure model
aims to incorporate all new information
acquired while drilling to reduce the uncertainty, not only at the current depth,
but also ahead of the bit. To reduce
uncertainty, drilling operations closely
monitor the well conditions and update
the model in real time. New measurements of formation pore pressure and
DECEMBER 2005 World Oil

Fig. 9. Velocity model (in ft/sec)

obtained by trend kriging inverted
checkshots and sonic logs from
deepwater wells released by MMS, for
all locations where the predicted kriging
error (Fig. 10) is less than 1,200 ft/sec.
(Scale for land elevation above sea level
is not shown).

Fig. 10. Average predicted kriging

error (ft/sec) for trend-kriged inverted
checkshots and sonic logs from
deepwater wells released by MMS,
draped on the water-bottom surface.

Fig. 11. Map of compaction coefcient

k (sec-1) derived by minimizing the rms
difference between Eq. 1 and trendkriged velocity (Fig. 9), for all locations
where predicted kriging error (Fig. 10)
is less than 1,200 ft/sec. (Scale for land
elevation above sea level is not shown).

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

logging-while-drilling sonic data give

further information with which to calibrate the pre-drill model and constrain
the various parameters. This process is
illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14.
CONCLUSION
Knowledge of pore pressure is a key
requirement for optimal development
decisions in overpressured areas. Predrill pore pressure can be predicted using
fit-for-purpose seismic velocities with a
velocity to pore pressure transform calibrated to offset wells. The time required
for such projects has been substantially
reduced by building a pore pressure cube
over the entire northern Gulf of Mexico,
using data released by the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

All checkshots released by the MMS

for the Gulf of Mexico were employed
to estimate the 3D distribution of elastic
wave velocity. The map of compaction
coefficient k derived from this velocity
model suggests that undercompaction,
and associated risks from overpressure
and/or shallow water flow, is likely to be
largest in the vicinity of the continental
shelf edge, particularly near the present
mouth of the Mississippi. These results
were obtained by assuming that velocity is a function only of vertical effective
stress, defined as the difference between
total vertical stress and pore pressure.
Such regional knowledge of undercompaction trends should aid in the planning and safe drilling of future economic
WO
deepwater wells.
LITERATURE CITED
1 Sayers, C.M., Woodward, M.J. and Bartman, R.C., Seismic pore
pressure prediction using reflection tomography and 4-C seismic
data, The Leading Edge, pp. 188192, February 2002.
2 Doyen, P.M., Malinverno, A., Prioul, R., Hooyman, P., Noeth, S.,
den Boer, L., Psaila, D., Sayers, C.M. and Smit, T.J.H., Seismic pore
pressure prediction with uncertainty using a probabilistic mechanical
earth model, 73rd SEG Annual Meeting, Extended Abstracts, 2003.

Fig. 12. Pore pressure (ppg) predicted

from trend-kriged inverted checkshots
and sonic logs for deepwater wells
released by MMS, for all locations
where pore pressure exceeds 10 ppg
and predicted velocity error (Fig. 10) is
less than 1,200 ft/sec. (Scale for land
elevation above sea level is not shown.)

Fig. 13. The procedure for updating

the pore pressure prediction with data
acquired while drilling.

3 Sayers, C.M., Smit, T.J.H., van Eden, C., Wervelman, R.,

Bachmann, B., Fitts, T., Bingham, J., McLachlan, K., Hooyman,
P., Noeth, S. and Mandhiri, D., Use of reflection tomography to
predict pore pressure in overpressured reservoir sands, 73rd SEG
Annual Meeting, Extended Abstracts, 2003.
4 Sayers, C.M., Johnson, G.M. and Denyer, G., Predrill pore pressure
prediction using seismic data Geophysics, pp. 12861292 Vol. 67,
2002.
5 Lizarralde, D. and Swift, S., Smooth inversion of VSP traveltime
data, Geophysics, Vol. 64, pp. 659661, 1999.
6. Traugott, M., Pore/fracture pressure determinations in deepwater:
World Oil, Deepwater Technology Special Supplement, pp. 6870,
August 1997.
7 Hottman, C.E. and Johnson, R.K., Estimation of formation
pressures from log-derived shale properties, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 17, pp. 717722, 1965
8 Bowers, G.L., Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for pore pressure mechanisms besides undercompaction, SPE
Drilling and Completion, Vol. 10, pp. 8995, 1995.

THE AUTHORS
Colin M. Sayers is a scientic advisor in the
Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services Geomechanics Group in Houston, providing consultancy in pore pressure prediction, wellbore
stability analysis, geomechanics, rock physics,
geophysics and the properties of fractured reservoirs. He earned a BA in physics in 1973 while
at the Univ. of Lancaster, then a DIC in mathematics/ physics in 1977, and a PhD in theoretical solid state physics 1977, from Imperial
College. His technical expertise includes pore
pressure, fracture gradient and drilling hazard
prediction, analysis of production-induced reservoir stress changes, subsidence, fault reactivation, 3D mechanical earth modeling, fractured
reservoir evaluation, borehole/ seismic integration, stress-dependent acoustics, rock mechanics and uid ow in fractured reservoirs. He has
published more than 100 technical papers. He
has received the Conrad Schlumberger Award
for Outstanding Paper for Technical Depth
Lennert den Boer is senior geomechanics engineer for Schlumbergers Data & Consulting
Services. He earned a BSc. in geophysics from
University of British Columbia in 1983. Based
in Calgary, he is currently involved in 3-D geomechanical earth modeling, 3-D pore-pressure
plus uncertainty estimation, and geomechanics
application development.
Zsolt Nagy is a geologist for the geomechanics group, Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services. He has been involved in numerous pore
pressure and well bore stability projects in the
US on land and in the Gulf of Mexico. He has a
MS degree in geology from the Etvs University-Budapest, a PhD in geology from the University of Missouri-Rolla, and a second BSc degree
in petroleum engineering from Rolla, Missouri.
Patrick Hooyman is Houston geomechanics
manager for Schlumbergers Data & Consulting Services. Hooyman began his career with
Amoco as a geophysicist where he participated in the discovery of several signicant U.S.
oil and gas elds including Whitney Canyon.
Hooyman earned a BSc degree in physics from
Benedictine University and a PhD in physics
from the University of Wyoming.

Fig. 14. Implementation of the process for updating the pore pressure prediction with
data acquired while drilling.
Article copyright 2005 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Victor Ward began working for Schlumberger

in 1980 and is now software deployment manager for the Schlumberger Integrated Project
Management division. He received his BSc
degree in petroleum engineering from Marietta
College in Ohio in 1979.
Printed in U.S.A.