OTC 13042

Determining an Appropriate Pore-Pressure Estimation Strategy

Glenn L. Bowers, Applied Mechanics Technologies, Houston, Texas
Copyright 2001, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, 30 April3 May 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
A procedure is presented for using wireline or MWD data to
identify when high pressure techniques are necessary to
predict pore pressures inside velocity reversals. Shale sonic
velocity and density data are smoothed and cross-plotted. If
the reversal data lie on the same trend as points from lower
pressure intervals, shale pore pressures can be computed with
an Equivalent Depth approach. A high pressure technique is
necessary when the reversal velocities track a slower trend.
Introduction
An indicator of possibly high overpressure is a velocity
reversal, i.e., a zone in which the velocities all drop below the
value at some shallower depth. When velocity-effective stress
data from a reversal diverge from the compaction trend
defined by shallower formations, the Equivalent Depth
method can significantly underestimate pore pressures (Fig.
1). The same will hold true for any pore pressure estimation
method that relies upon a single velocity-effective stress
relation.
Bowers (1995) discussed ways to account for high
pressure situations. For instance, a second velocity-effective
stress relation can be introduced, the exponent in Eatons pore
pressure equation (1975) can be increased, or the standard
Eaton equation can be combined with an exponential normal
trend (Fig. 2). Wilhelm (1998) employs velocity effective
stress relations that steepen with decreasing cation exchange
capacity (CEC) and, to a lesser degree, increasing temperature
(Fig. 3). Temperature defines the shape of the shallow normal
trend curve. High pore pressures are matched by reducing the
CEC values for an interval.

Not all velocity reversals warrant high pressure techniques

(Bowers, 1995). In cases where the Equivalent Depth
approach is appropriate, high pressure methods can cause pore
pressures to be significantly overestimated. Therefore, it is
important to have some systematic way to determine which
type of pore pressure approach is required within a velocity
reversal.
Until recently, the best criterion for determining an
appropriate pore pressure method was thought to be a direct
comparison between computed and measured pore pressures.
However, with dipping sands having good hydraulic
continuity and significant vertical structure (Fig. 4), so-called
centroid effects can cause mismatches between the pore
pressure measured in a sand and those calculated in nearby
shales (Traugott, 1997; Stump, et. al., 1998). Calibrating a
pore pressure estimation method to match crestal or basal sand
pressure measurements can lead to erroneous results at other
depths. Therefore, it is also important to know when a pore
pressure estimation method should not match observed
pressures.
This paper presents a procedure for using a crossplot of
shale sonic velocity vs. density data to identify when high
pressure techniques are required inside velocity reversals, and
when the Equivalent Depth method is appropriate even when
it fails to match measured pressures. The paper begins with a
review of the theory the procedure is based upon. The
procedure is then presented, followed by a discussion on how
velocity-density crossplots can be used to refine the Bowers
(1995) pore pressure estimation method. An example from
Eugene Island 330 is then presented and discussed.
Theory
Compaction Trend Departures. There are two factors that
could cause velocity reversal data to diverge from the main
compaction trend. One is a change in rock properties. The
formations in the velocity reversal may simply be different
from the shallower rocks, and so they follow a different
compaction trend. Dutta (1987) and Lahann (1998) attribute
compaction trend changes to clay diagenesis.
Another possibility is the cause of overpressure (Bowers,
1995). When excess pressure results from undercompaction
(trapped pore fluid being squeezed by the weight of more
recently deposited sediments), overpressured and normally

GLENN L. BOWERS

pressured formations with similar lithologies should follow the

same compaction relation. Overpressure just prevents the
velocity and effective stress from increasing as quickly as they
would for normal pressure.
On the other hand, overpressure generated internally by
fluid expansion mechanisms such as heating, hydrocarbon
maturation, and up-dip transfer of reservoir pressures, affect
the rock differently. Here, overpressure results from the rock
matrix constraining the pore fluid as the fluid tries to increase
in volume. Unlike undercompaction, this can cause the pore
pressure to increase at a faster rate than the overburden stress,
which forces the effective stress to decrease as burial
continues (Fig. 5). It should be noted that both the Dutta
(1987) and Lahann (1998) clay diagenesis models also
produce effective stress reductions during burial. In effect,
unloading in their models results from the transfer of stress
from smectite grains to pore water as illitization occurs.
Since compaction is predominately an inelastic process,
only a small amount of elastic rebound occurs when the
effective stress is reduced (unloading). Consequently, elastic
rebound occurs along a flatter effective stress path than the
initial compaction curve. During reloading, the rebound curve
is re-traced until the past maximum effective stress is reached,
and inelastic deformation resumes. Figure 6 illustrate this
with laboratory data for Cotton Valley shale (Tosaya, 1982).
The solid lines are estimates of the original compaction
curves, while the laboratory data define the rebound curves.
Regardless of why reversal data diverge from the main
compaction trend, the bottom line is that when they do, the
Equivalent Depth method will fail.

OTC 13042

The key difference between bulk and transport properties is

that bulk properties only depend upon net pore volume, while
transport properties are sensitive to pore sizes, shapes, and
how the pores are interconnected. Bowers & Katsube (in
press) proposed that a rocks pore space consists of a
combination of relatively large, high aspect ratio storage pores
linked together by a network of smaller, lower aspect ratio
connecting pores (Fig. 9).
Storage pores undergo primarily inelastic deformation, while
the more flexible connecting pores are capable of elastic
rebound. According to the pore structure model of Toksoz
(1976) and Cheng and Toksoz (1979), connecting pores with
aspect ratios in the 0.1 to 0.001 range should undergo the most
widening during effective stress reductions. Larger aspect
ratio storage pores are too rigid. And crack-like pores with
aspect ratios less than .001 are too flexible; they close at low
stress levels, and require near zero effect stresses before they
are able to re-open.
Since elastic deformation is, by definition, a reversible
process, we can use the elastic reloading data in Figs. 6 and 8
to infer how these formations would respond during elastic
rebound. As the connecting pore widths vary, they alter the
flow path sizes available for electrical current and fluid, and
change the number of intergranular contacts for transmitting
sound. The data in Figs. 6 and 8 indicate that elastic rebound
should have a much greater impact on sonic velocity,
resistivity, and permeability than porosity and bulk density.
This, in turn, suggests that a velocity reversal in which the
wireline sonic and resistivity data drop without a comparable
change in bulk density is an indicator of elastic rebound, and
therefore, unloading.

Detecting Unloading. The Equivalent Depth method will fail

whenever unloading has occurred. Therefore, the criterion for
determining when a high pressure pore pressure estimation
method is required in a velocity reversal is actually a criterion
for determining when unloading has occurred.

Pore Pressure Estimation Method Criteria

The procedure for determining whether or not a high pressure
method is required within a velocity reversal is as follows:

It is impossible to determine from velocity data alone

whether or not unloading has occurred. For example, the
velocity at Point C in Fig. 7 could have evolved along either
Path AC, or Path ABC. The first path does not involve
unloading, while the second one does. This apparent dilemma
can be resolved by incorporating the response of the density
log.

As demonstrated by the laboratory compaction data in

Fig. 6 (Tosaya, 1982) and Fig. 8 (Bowers & Katsube, in
press), transport properties such as sonic velocity,
permeability, and resistivity generally undergo more elastic
rebound than bulk properties (porosity and density). Among
the porosity data in Fig. 8-a, only a sample of seafloor mud
(VSF-1) undergoes any significant porosity change during
loading. And yet, all of the permeability and resistivity data in
Figs. 8b & 8c exhibit comparable sensitivities to increases in
effective pressure.

Pick the cleanest available shale data from inside and

outside the reversal;
Smooth the data by passing them through a boxcar filter.
Since only general trends are of interest, filter sizes on the
order of 300 to 500 are typically used.;
Crossplot the data;
If the reversal data lie on the same trend as points from
lower pressure intervals, the Equivalent Depth method, or
any approach that uses a single velocity-effective stress
relation will work;
If the reversal data track a slower velocity trend, a high
pressure technique is required.

For the two examples shown in Figure 7, a high pressure

technique is indicated for Case C, but not Case C.
A simple quick-look evaluation can also be performed by
directly comparing the sonic, resistivity, and density logs. A
clear indicator of the need for a high pressure technique is

OTC 13042

DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION STRATEGY

when the sonic and resistivity logs undergo reversals, but the
density log does not, as in Fig. 10.
If all three logs go through reversals, then pick a point at
the same depth in each reversal, and project it vertically
upwards until it crosses the log again. If all three logs are
crossed at similar depths, the Equivalent Depth method should
work. If the density log is intersected at a deeper depth than
the other two logs, a high pressure technique is necessary.
Velocity-Density Crossplots
When interpreting velocity-density cross-plots, it is helpful to
have some bounds on the expected range of values for shales.
For densities greater than 2.1 g/cc, Gardners relation:
V (ft/s) = (/.23)4

(1)

has been found to serve as an approximate upper bound for

shale velocity as a function of density. For a lower bound, the
following equation is used:
3.57

V (ft/s) = 4790 + 2953 (-1.3)

(2)

Fig. 11 compares Eqs. 1 and 2 with published velocitydensity data for sands and shales. Note that Gardners
equation can significantly overestimate near seafloor densities.
Revised Bowers Method
Bowers (1995) proposed a modified Equivalent Depth
method for dealing with velocity reversals when unloading is
expected. The vertical effective stress at Point B in Fig. 12
would be computed from the equation:
ED U
B = Max
Max

(3)

where B is the effective stress at Point B, ED is the

Equivalent Depth solution for the effective stress at B (A in
Fig. 12), Max is the Equivalent Depth solution for the
effective stress at the start of the velocity reversal (VMax), and
U is a parameter calibrated with local data.
In reality, Max and VMax are supposed to equal the
maximum effective stress and velocity reached by a formation
before unloading began. However, at the time, Bowers (1995)
did not have a means for determining these values at each
point along the reversal.
An approach has now been developed for estimating the
maximum velocity VMax and density Max at each point along a
reversal from a cross-plot of sonic velocity vs. density (see
Fig. 13). After smoothing the data, points from outside the
reversal are fit with a compaction trend of the form:
V = V0 + A(-0)B

(4)

where V0, 0, A, and B are curve fitting parameters. The

unloading path between the curve defined by Eq. 4 and the

current velocity and density is then assumed to be of the form:

v-0
-0 = (Max 0)
Max- 0

(5)

where is the current density, 0 is the parameter from Eq. 4,

Max is the density at which the unloading curve intersects Eq.
4, is a parameter, and v is the density obtained by
substituting the current velocity V into Eq. 4. As shown in
Fig. 13, =0 implies no elastic rebound for density, while =1
aligns Eq. 5 with Eq. 4. As a default, =1/U can be used,
where U is the unloading parameter in Eq. 3. For Gulf of
Mexico and Gulf Coast areas, U=3.13 has been found to work
well.
Eq. 5 can be inverted to yield the following relation for
Max:
0 1/(1-)
Max = 0 +
(v-0)

(6)

V Max is then obtained by substituting Max into Eq. 4.

Figs. 14-16 illustrate how local values for Vmax and Max
can change along a velocity reversal.
EI 330-A20S/T (Pathfinder)
Figures 17-a,b plot shale sonic velocity and density data from
the Eugene Island 330-A20S/T well. The data have been
passed through a 300 ft. boxcar filter. Regional experience
indicates that compaction trends fit through the velocity and
density peaks near 5800 ft would cause shallower pore
pressures to be overestimated. On the other hand, compaction
relations that honor the velocity and density data near 4900 ft
would make the top of overpressure appear erroneously deep.
The velocity-density cross-plot (Fig. 17-c) suggests this
difficulty in picking compaction trends may be due to
lithology changes. The shallowest data lie near the Gardner
curve, while deeper points migrate towards the right, loop
around, and eventually end up along the estimated compaction
trend drawn through the points from 5840 to 6365 km. The
corresponding normal trends for velocity and density are
plotted in Figures 17-a and 17-b. These compaction trends
were assumed to apply for all shales below 5840 ft.
Starting at 6400 ft, the velocities and densities both go
through large reversals. Between A and B, the velocity drops
faster than the density (see Fig. 17-c), similar to the unloading
curves in Figures 6-c and 7-c. From B to C, the velocitydensity data are nearly parallel to the lower bound curve, with
Point C ending back on the compaction trend.
One
interpretation is that the data below 6400 ft are in various
stages of unloading. The amount of unloading (difference
between the current velocity and Vmax) increases from A to B,
and decreases from B to C, with no unloading at A or C. The

GLENN L. BOWERS

estimated Vmax and max values along the reversal are shown
in Figures 17-a and 17-b.
The velocity drop from A to B on the velocity-density
cross-plot could also be attributed to a lithology change, with
segment B-C defining a different compaction trend.
However, experience has shown that when reversal data drop
below the compaction trend for lower pressure intervals, high
pressure techniques are generally necessary.
Figures 18-a and 18-b compare the estimated pore
pressures and effective stresses with measured data. Two sets
of estimates are shown for each parameter: the current value,
and the value at the onset of unloading.
The pore pressure and effective stress plots both indicate
that maximum unloading occurred at the point where the well
penetrated the sand. Above and below this point, the current
and past profiles approach each other, and ultimately merge
together. This effect is probably easiest to see in Fig. 18-c,
which plots the ratio of the estimated past maximum effective
stress divided by the current effective stress.
Estimates of the maximum past effective stress at the
point indicated by the triangle in Fig. 18-b were obtained by
Stump, et. al., (1998) through laboratory compaction tests. It
can be seen that the lab-derived value is in good agreement
with the curve derived from the velocity-density data.
All-in-all, this well appears to be a textbook example of
the centroid effect.
Summary
The velocity-density cross-plot can be a highly useful tool for
pore pressure analysis. It can help: 1) identify where high
pressure pore solutions are appropriate, 2) sort data into
common compaction trend groups, and 3) for unloading zones,
establish estimates of past maximum velocities.
Nomenclature

= bulk density, g/cc

Max = maximum past bulk density, g/cc
V
= sonic velocity, ft/s, L/t
VMax = maximum past sonic velocity, ft/s, L/t

= vertical effective stress, psi, m/L2

Max = maximum past vertical effective stress, psi, m/L2
V0,0, A,B = parameters in the velocity-density relation

= parameter in the velocity-density unloading

relation

OTC 13042

References

1. Bowers, G. L., Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity

2.

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.

11.

12.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft x 3.048
E-01 =m
ft2 x 9.290304 E-02 =m2
psi x 6.894757 E+0 = kPa

13.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Beth Stump, Peter Flemings, and Penn State
for generously allowing access to the EI 330-A20S/T well
data..

14.

Data; Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides

Undercompaction, SPE Drilling and Completions, June,
1995.
Bowers, G. L., and Katsube, T. J., The Role of Shale
Pore Structure on the Sensitivity of Wireline Logs to
Overpressure, AAPG Special Volume on Pressure
Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction, in
press.
Cheng, H. C., and Toksoz, M. N., nversion of Seismic
Velocities for the Pore Aspect Ratio of Rock, JGR, v. 84,
no. 813, 1987.
Domenico, S. N., Elastic Properties of Unconsolidated
Porous Sand Reservoirs, Geophysics, v. 42, no. 7, 1977,
p. 1339-1368.
Dutta, N. C., Fluid Flow in Low Permeable, Porous
Media, 2nd IFP Exploration Research Conference on
Migration of Hydrocarbons in Sedimentary Basins,
Caracans, June, 1987.
Eaton, B.A., The Equation for Geopressure Prediction
from Well Logs, SPE 5544.
Gregory, A. R., Aspects of Rock Physics from
Laboratory and Log Data that are Important to Seismic
Interpretation, in Seismic Stratigraphy Applications to
Hydrocarbon Exploration, AAPG Memoir 26, The
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
1977.
Hamilton, E. L., Variations of Density and Porosity with
Depth in Deep-Sea Sediments, Jr. of Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 46, no 2., 1976, p 280-300.
Han, D., Nur, A., and Morgan, D., Effects of Porosity
and Clay Content on Wave Velocities in Sandstones,
Geophysics, v. 51, no. 11, 1986, p. 2093-2107
Issler, D. R., and Katsube, T. J., Effective Porosity of
Shale Samples from the Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin,
Northern Canada, in Current Research 1994-B;
Geological Survey of Canada, 1994, p. 19-26.
Karig, D.E., and Hou, G., High-Stress Consolidation
Experiments and Their Geologic Implications, Journal
of Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, No. B1, January 10,
1992.
Karig, D.E., 20. Reconsolidation Tests and Sonic
Velocity Measurements of Clay-Rich Sediments from the
Nanakai Trough, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling
Program. Scientific Results, Vol. 131, 1993.
Lahann, R., Impact of Smectite Diagenesis on
Compaction Profiles and Compaction Equilibrium,
American Association of Drilling Engineers Industry
Forum on Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and
Their Prediction, Lake Conroe TX., Sept. 2-4, 1998.
Smith, D. T., Acoustic and Mechanical Loading of
Marine Sediments, Physics of Sound in Marine

OTC 13042

DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION STRATEGY

15. Sediments, L. D. Hampton, editor, Plenum Press, New

York, 1974.

16. Stump, B., Flemings, P.B., Finkbeiner, T., and Zoback,

17.

18.
19.
20.
21.

M.D., Pressure Differences Between Overpressure Sands

and Bounding Shales of the Eugene Island 300 field
(Offshore Louisiana, U.S.A.) with Implications for Fluid
Flow Induced by Sediment Loading, Overpressures in
Petroleum Exploration, 7th-8th April, 1998, Pau France.
Stump, B., Flemings, P.B., and Karig, D. E., Gaining
Insight into Pressure History with Shale Deformation
Experiments, American Association of Drilling
Engineers Industry Forum on Pressure Regimes in
Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction, Lake Conroe
TX., Sept. 2-4, 1998.
Toksoz, M. N, Cheng, C. H., and Timur, A., Velocities
of Seismic Waves in Porous Rocks, Geophysics, v. 41,
no. 4, 1976.
Traugott, M.O., 1997, Pore/Fracture Pressure
Determinations In Deep Water, Deepwater Technology
(supplement to World Oil), August, 1997.
Tosaya, C.A., Acoustical Properties of Clay Bearing
Rocks, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., 1982.
Wilhelm, R., Fraceware, L. B., and Guzman, C.E.,
Seismic Pressure Prediction Method Solve Problem
Common in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Oil & Gas
Journal, Sept. 14, 1998.

GLENN L. BOWERS

Velocity (kft/s)
7.5 10 12.5

Equiv. Mud Wt.

8 (ppg)
10 12 14 16

15

18

0
2000

6000

6000

VA

8000
10000

Pressure Tests

Reversal

11

Press. Tests

Main Compaction
Trend:

10
Velocity (kft/s)

4000

Depth (ft)

4000

12

Equiv. Depth

Normal
Trend

2000

Depth (ft)

OTC 13042

8000

VB = VA

9
8

Equivalent
Depth
Estimate

10000

12000

14000

Equivalent
Depth
14000
Estimate
For PB
16000

VB

16000

a)

5
0

For

12000

3
4
5
6
Effective Stress (ksi)

b)

c)

Fig. 1 Reversal zones. Case where the Equivalent Depth method fails due to velocity
reversal data diverging from the compaction trend for shallower formations

Velocity (kft/s)
7.5
10 12.5

15

Equiv. Mud Wt. (ppg)

10 12 14 16 18

0
Pw r Law V n

2000

2000
Exp. Vn

4000

4000

6000

6000

15

Pressure
Tests
Pw r Law

Pw r Law ; E=3

14

Expon.; E=3

13

Eatons Eq.

12

B = NB (V/VNB)

Press. Tests

Velocity (kft/s)

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

11

8000

10000

10000
12000
14000
16000

VNB

VNB
Pwr Law

a)

VB

Expon. Vn;
E=3

7
6

12000
14000

VNB
Pwr Law

10

8000

VNB

Pwr Law Vn;

E=3

5
0

B Pwr Law

3
4
5
6
Effective Stress (ksi)

16000

b)

c)

Fig. 2 Reversal zones: Effect of switching from a power law to an exponential normal
trend on Eaton method pore pressure estimates in a velocity reversal.

NB
7

DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION STRATEGY

11

CEC=12;
Tgrd=2F/100
CEC=12;
Tgrd=1F/100

10

Velocity (kft/s)

OTC 13042

9
8

CEC=22;
Tgrd=1F/100

CEC=22;
Tgrd=2F/100

8-15 ppg

15-17 ppg
5
0

Effective Stress (ksi)

Fig. 3 Wilhelms velocity-effective stress relations (1998) vs Gulf of Mexico velocityeffective stress data for different equivalent mud weight ranges (referenced to mud line).

Overburden Stress
Shale Far Field
Pore Pressure
Reservoir
Pore
Pressure

Crest Charges
Shallow Shales

Base
Charges
Crest
Deep Shales
Charge Base
Sand

Normal
Pressure

Shale

Fig. 4 The Centroideffect up-dip transfer of reservoir pressures..

GLENN L. BOWERS

OTC 13042

Overburden
Stress

Normal

Top of
Overpressure

Undercompaction

Undercompaction
+
Fluid Expansion

Sand

Effective
Stress

Pore
Pressure

Unloading
During
Burial

Shale

Fig. 5 Effective stress response to different overpressure mechansisms.

17

2.8

17

2.6

15

Density (g/cc)

Velocity (kft/s)

15
13
Estimated
Compaction
Trend

11
9
7

2.4

Unloading Curve

2.2
Estimated
Compaction
Trend

2
1.8

Cotton Valley Shale

(Tosaya,1982)

Velocity (kft/s)

Unloading Curve

10

15

Effective Stress (ksi)

a)

20

13
Compaction

11
9
7

1.6
0

Unloading

5
0

10

15

20

Effective Stress (ksi)

b)

Fig. 6 Shale compaction/unloading behavior.

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

Density (g/cc)

c)

2.5

2.7

OTC 13042

DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION STRATEGY

Velocity

Density

Compaction
Trend

Velocity

Depth

B
Normal
Trend

Normal
Trend

A, C

C
Unloading

C
C

Reversal

C
Density

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 7 Identifying unloading within a velocity reversal.

100

1000

10000

100

1000

(%)
E

B-TG-6b
1

V-8
V-7

0.1

0.01

K (nd)

EJA-2

10

VSF-1

10

10

0.1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Effective Pressure (MPa)

a)

70

100

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

Effective Pressure (MPa)

b)

60

70

10

20

30

40

50

Effective Pressure (MPa)

c)

Fig. 8 Response of porosity (a), permeability (b), and formation factor (c) to changes in
effective confining pressure (Bowers & Katsube, 2001). VSF-1 is a sample of
seafloor mud. All other samples are shales.

60

70

10

GLENN L. BOWERS

Basic Pore Types

Storage Pore

Connecting
Pore

OTC 13042

Pore
Shape

Aspect
Ratio

Sensitivity
to Fluid
Expansion

> 0.1

Poor

0.001 0.1

Good

Storage Pores
High aspect ratios

Mechanically stiff
Nodes along the pore network

If P < Smin:

Smin

Connecting Pores

Poor
< 0.001

Low aspect ratios

If P = Smin:

Mechanically flexible

Good

Control transport properties during rebound

Fig. 9 Pore structure models used to characterize shale behavior (Bowers & Katsube, 2001).

Density (g/cc)
2.2
2.4
2.6

Res. (ohmm)
0.5
1

1.5

1.5

Vp (km/s)
2.5

Equiv. Mud Wt. (ppg)

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

3.5

0
P P s o nic

a)

b)

Depth km)

Depth (km)

RFT's

c)

Mud
Weight

Equiv.
Depth
Soln.

d)

Fig. 10 Determining from wireline logs when the equivalent depth method will fall. The
sonic and resistivity logs undergo reversals not seen by the density log.

OTC 13042

DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION STRATEGY

20

20
Suspensions

18

Gulf Coast Sand/Sandst

14

Vp (kft/s)

Ottawa Sand

12
10

Shaley Sand; 35-51% Cla y

18

Sandstone; < 30% Clay

16
Vp (kft/s)

11

Gardners Eq.

50:50 Silica/Clay

16

Hamilton Mudstone

14

Beaufort-Mackenzie Shale
Gulf Co a s t S h a le

12

Cotton Valley Shale

10

P ie rre Shale

Proposed
Lower Bound

6
4
1.5

1.7

1.9
2.1
2.3
Density (g/cc)

2.5

Gardners Eq.
Proposed
Lower Bound

6
4

2.7

1.5

1.7

1.9
2.1
2.3
Density (g/cc)

a)

2.5

2.7

b)

Fig. 11 Gardners relation and the proposed lower bound curve vs sand (a) and shale (b) velocity-density data.
References: Suspensions (Smith, 1974); Sandstone, 30%, & 31-51% Clay (Han, et. al, 1986); Gulf Coast
Sand/Sandstone (Gregory, 1977); Ottawa Sand (Domenico, 1977); 50-50 Silica Clay Mix (Karig & Hou,
1992); Hamilton Mudstone, Hamilton (1976 (1976; 1979); Beaufort-Mackenzie Shale (Issier & Katsube,
1994); Gulf Coast Shale (Gregory, 1977); Cotton Valley Shale & Pierre Shale (Tosaya, 1982).

Velocity (kft/s)
7.5 10 12.5

15

0
2000

Normal
Trend

8000

Vmax

12000

16000

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

6000

8000
10000

11

Unloading Curve

Vmax

VB
8
7

Max

12000

B VB

14000

Compaction Trend

B = Max (A/Max)U

10

4000

Zmax

Pressure
Test

12

Overb
Pnorm
Press. Test

2000

6000

14000

15

4000

10000

Pressure (ksi)
5
10

Velocity (kft/s)

PB

16000

Fig. 12 The Bowers pore pressure estimation method (1994).

Max

3
4
5
6
Effective Stress (ksi)

12

GLENN L. BOWERS

Velocity

OTC 13042

Density

Velocity (kft/s)

Depth

Depth

VMax

Compaction Trend:
V = V0 + A (-0)B

=1

=0

Unloading Trend:
V -0
- 0 = (Max-0) -
Max
0

VMax

Max

Max

Density (g/cc)

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 13 Equations for determining VMax and Max.

Vp (kft/s)
10

15

10

15

12
2.8
11

Depth (kft)

Depth (kft)

Density (g/cc)
2.4

10

A
B

VMaxB

VMaxC
a)

Velocity (kft/s)

15

10

Compaction Trend:

B, C

8
7
6

A
B

MaxB

MaxC

5
2

b)
Fig. 14 Velocity reversal with constant Vmax.

2.1

2.2

2.3

Density (g/cc)

c)

2.4

2.5

OTC 13042

DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION STRATEGY

Vp (kft/s)
10

15

12
2.8
11

10

VMaxC

MaxB

a)

Compaction Trend:

8
7

5
2

MaxC

15

10

A
B

VMaxB

15

10

A
B

Velocity (kft/s)

Depth (kft)

Depth (kft)

Density (g/cc)
2.4

13

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Density (g/cc)

b)

c)

Fig. 15 Velocity Reversal with Decreasing Vmax.

Vp (kft/s)
10

15

10

11

10

A
B

15

12
2.8

Depth (kft)

Depth (kft)

Density (g/cc)
2.4

VMaxB
VMaxC

C
a)

Velocity (kft/s)

15

10

Compaction Trend:

C
9

8
7
6

A
B

MaxB
MaxC

5
2

b)
Fig. 16 Velocity Reversal with increasing Vmax.

2.1

2.2
2.3
Density (g/cc)

c)

2.4

2.5

14

GLENN L. BOWERS

Vp (kft/s)
7 8
9 10 11

2
1

2
3

TVDrkb (kft)

5
6

A
B

Vmax, max

From
A to C

B
Unloading

7
C

5
6

4.17-5.02 kft
5.12-5.77
5.84-6.36
6.40-7.81

A
B
max

Unloading

Unloading

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Rho (g/cc)

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 17 Velocity/density data from EI 330-20AS/T.

Pore Pressure (ksi)

2
4
6

Effective Stress (ksi)

1
2

Sigm ax/Sigm a
1
2
3
4

P @ S igmax

5
6

7
8
9
10

P@
Sigmax

Sigma

Sigmax

Sand Pressures
Transferred Up-dip

a)

S igma
S ig m a x
S igma @ RFT's
La b S igmax

10

TVDrkb (kft)

RFT's

TVDrkb (kft)

Compaction
Trend

2.4
9

Vmax

10

Vp (kft/s)

TVDrkb (kft)

TVDrkb (kft)

Rho (g/cc)
2.1 2.2 2.3

OTC 13042

6
7
8
9

Unloading Above
& Below Sand

10

b)

Fig. 18 Unloading zone induced by up-dip transfer of reservoir pressures.

c)