Shared Knowledge and the Challenge of Abnormal Pressure

Graeme Gordon*, Phil Crookall, Jon Ashdown and Adrian Pelham.

Scott Pickford – Core Lab Reservoir Technologies Division, London - United Kingdom.
Web-site: http://www.scopic.com
Email: graeme.gordon@scopic.com

Introduction
Companies are beginning to recognise the value of pore pressure prediction. A cross-disciplinary team
approach (engineering, geology, petrophysics and geophysics) can unlock the valuable information held
within the available data (core data, seismic, wireline, test data). Integration and shared knowledge allows an
accurate assessment of abnormal pressures that can be incorporated into bidding, prospectivity, drilling and
field development strategies, thus reducing risk. Reliable predictions of formation pore pressures are
essential in order to plan and safely control wells, to avoid operational problems, and to reduce technical and
economic risks.

Historical Approach
Prediction based on seismically derived sediment interval velocities has been used since the late 1960s.
The approach is based on the observed inverse relationship between velocity and pore pressure. Several
groups have documented this relationship and published empirical equations that relate velocities to
pressure.
Traditionally geophysicists have derived stacking velocities using velocity analysis. These are usually
picked on a coarse grid and are designed to optimise the stack or migration result where the aim is to best
image the seismic data. Determining stacking velocities is a standard step in seismic processing, but picks
are not always horizon consistent and resulting interval velocity models tend to be blocky (figure 1).
Pore pressure prediction depends on the accuracy of these seismically derived velocities. Often though,
this approach fails, particularly if velocity varies laterally due to the presence of dipping structures, lithology
variations, fault blocks, salt layers of various thickness, or variations in compaction and pore pressure. This
is because of the hyperbolic assumption that averages the velocity over the seismic aperture.

Figure 1 Conventional versus more advanced seismically derived velocities

Interval velocities obtained from conventional Interval velocities obtained using grid-based
processing tomography

The stacking velocities can be related to interval velocities under certain conditions and assumptions using
the Dix equation. The primary assumption in the Dix conversion is that the sediment column consists of flat
parallel beds of uniform velocity. In some areas this is true, and derived velocities can produce meaningful
pressure predictions. However, unreasonable interval velocities can result, particularly where picks are made
close together. Another technique is needed to address this problem.
In order to obtain the most reliable velocity information, pre-stack depth migration using tomography is
used to assist in the velocity model building process. Several iterations of the process are necessary in order
to build a velocity field, which will meet the criteria of the migration i.e., an optimum seismic image in depth,
and are required for input into the pore pressure prediction.

7th Floor Leon House, 233 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 9XT. England. UK.
Telephone: +44 (0) 208 253 4000 Fax: +44 (0) 208 253 4001 www.scopic.com 1
Velocity To Pore Pressure Transforms

The aim is to infer pore pressure from knowledge of pressure-dependent parameters. Integration of
engineering data with geomechanical core measurements, petrophysical modeling and wireline trends gives
a much clearer picture of actual and inferred overpressured zones at well site.

Core Laboratory Analysis

A multi-sample automated system provides both compressional- and shear-wave velocities and acoustic
impedance studied versus a range of confining and pore pressures, fluid saturations and temperature
conditions at various frequencies (figure 2). From the acoustic velocities dynamic mechanical properties can
also be obtained - Poisson’s Ratio, Young’s, Bulk and Shear Modulus. In exploration areas outcrop or
analogue samples can be simulated.

Figure 2 8 sample system: measures core compressional- and shear-wave velocities v pressure

4290 2610

4270 2590

4250 2570
Vp (m/sec)

Vs (m/sec)
4230 2550

4210 2530

4190 2510

4170 2490

4150 2470
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Pore fluid pressure (MPa) Pore fluid pressure (MPa)

Petrophysical Modeling
Modelling with core measurement calibration is used to determine which seismic parameters respond to
variations in lithology, fluid and pressure. The parameters derivable from seismic are limited to velocity,
compressional- (Ip) and shear-wave (Is) impedance (and sometimes density), and derived parameters
(Elastic Impedance, Lamé parameters, Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio). Well calibration using these
parameters gives maximum sensitivity and simplicity.
A single seismic property (conventionally acoustic impedance) can often not discriminate shales from
sands and carbonates. The use of two parameters, both P- and S-wave information, can make a significant
impact on the non-uniqueness problem in many cases (figure 3).

Figure 3 Determine which seismic parameters respond to variations in lithology, fluid and pressure

IP v GR IP v IS Lambda / Mu v Lambda x Rho

7th Floor Leon House, 233 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 9XT. England. UK.
Telephone: +44 (0) 208 253 4000 Fax: +44 (0) 208 253 4001 www.scopic.com 2
Wireline Trends
Relevant information from daily drilling reports, wellsite geology and comments on the mud and composite
logs, are often overlooked. Operational issues, such as well kicks, blow outs, lost circulations, differential
sticking, borehole stability problems, drilling fluid losses, bit drops, etc… should also be noted along with
drilling exponent input parameters, gas volumes in drilling mud, mud weights and pressure data.
Linking core descriptions to wireline logs a depositional litho-facies is produced. By building up a
geological model of stratigraphic tops by interpretation of sedimentary processes within a sequence
stratigraphic framework, ilthology dependant normal to observed trends in the data are modeled and
displayed on a composite plot per well (figure 4). Terzaghi’s effective stress principle is used to transform the
lithology filtered velocity and density to formation pore pressure.

Figure 4 Well composite plot – showing actual and inferred overpressured zones

7th Floor Leon House, 233 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 9XT. England. UK.
Telephone: +44 (0) 208 253 4000 Fax: +44 (0) 208 253 4001 www.scopic.com 3
Seismic Pre-Stack Inversion

When an incident compressional wave strikes a reflecting interface at an angle some of the energy is
converted into shear wave energy. As the angle increases more energy is lost to shear wave. This amplitude
variation with angle in pre-stack seismic data (or amplitude variation with offset (AVO) as it is traditionally
known in seismic processing) can be exploited. From the loss of energy we can infer the shear reflectivity of
the interface – thus the loss of energy becomes a gain of information.
Using the AVO results we have two images of the sub-surface, the P reflectivity and the S reflectivity. But
these are reflectivity images – they show the interfaces between the layers of rock. It is the layer properties
that we want to see. The reflections come from the differences in impedances between two layers. Using
seismic inversion we can determine these impedance values using a modelling approach. Thousands of
models of layers and their impedance values (P and S) are tested for their reflectivity result. The model that
gives the best fit to the observed seismic image is output as the impedance model for that trace. This
combination of AVO and seismic inversion is called pre-stack inversion. The outputs are the P and S
impedance of the rock layers. These are two independent measures of the sub-surface. They respond
differently to different rock types. For each lithology type we can determine a relationship between P
impedance and P velocity. These lithology specific relationships can then be applied to our seismic inversion
P impedance volumes to derive a high frequency velocity field highlighting thinner zones (figure 5).

Pore Pressure Prediction

Terzaghi’s effective stress principle is then used to transform the seismic inversion derived velocities to
pore pressure:
Overburden Pressure = Effective stress + Pore Pressure.

The principle assumption is that the overburden load is borne by in part the rock matrix and in part by the
pore fluid. The rock matrix borne part of the stress is known as the effective stress. As there is a link between
acoustic velocity and lithotype which allows the calculation of effective stress we can utilise these results to
predict pore pressure (figure 5). Published empirical equations are available for solving for pore pressure,
two examples are Eaton’s (1976) equation derived to address overpressure due to undercompaction, and
Bowers (1995) equation derived to address abnormal pore pressure due to fluid expansion. All of the
methods need to be calibrated for the individual field study being undertaken. The combination of seismic,
core, wireline and test data allows a comprehensive field consistent model to be produced.
The pore pressure prediction can give an indication of the minimum mud weights required stop flow in the
well. Further to the pore pressure prediction the data aquired and processed can also be utilised to predict
the fracture gradient which if exceeded would cause lost circulation and formation damage.

Figure 5 High frequency velocity field highlighting thinner overpressured zones

Increased velocity resolution Seismic pore pressure prediction with inversion velocity input
left tomography - right inversion (sand, yellow – chalk, blue – overpressured shale, grades of red)

7th Floor Leon House, 233 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 9XT. England. UK.
Telephone: +44 (0) 208 253 4000 Fax: +44 (0) 208 253 4001 www.scopic.com 4
Conclusions
Companies are beginning to recognise the value of pore pressure prediction. Integration of relevant data
helps to reduce the risks associated with abnormal pressure. Prediction is dependent on the input velocity
field and the calibrated velocity to pore pressure transform. Each study should be tailored to available data,
local geology and physical properties. Interval velocities obtained from conventional processing may not be
accurate nor have the resolution required. Pre-stack inversion allows lithology prediction and increases the
input velocity resolution. Resultant pore pressure prediction facilitates better decision making as abnormal
pressures have a major impact on strategies and cost.
In order to unlock the valuable information held within the available data a focused integrated team of core
analysts, petrophysicists, geological engineers, seismic processors, interpreters, velocity and basin
modellers as well as geostatisticians is put together. Inter-disciplinary communications allows a more rapid
and accurate assessment of abnormal pressures (figure 6). This can subsequently be incorporated into
prospectivity, drilling and development strategies.

Figure 6 Pore pressure prediction workflow – a small integrated cross-disciplinary

Well header & Detailed lithology Engineering Check shot data Seismic gathers
wireline data data data

Data loading &

QC
WELL Synthetic Well-seismic SEISMIC
seismogram match
Geological tops Tie horizons and Velocity analysis
tops

Petrophysical Shear-wave Wide angle AVO

analysis estimation

Log based Wavelet Impedance

modelling extraction inversion

Seismic Seismic
Parameters Parameters

Cross-plotting Attribute
Lithology, fluid &
mapping
pressure
prediction

Applications
Geoscientists can integrate pressure information into prospect evaluation - effectiveness of seal integrity,
sealing potential of faults and hydrocarbon migration dynamics.
Engineers can use this information for well planning, to design casing and drilling mud programs. The
effectiveness of these programs has a significant impact on drilling cost, rig safety and environmental
incidents.

Acknowledgment
Thanks to Paul Haskey, Jon Ashdown, Thomas Schulte and Nick Crabtree of Scott Pickford for input,
stimulating discussion and valuable comments. Also the Porcupine Studies Group (PSG) of the Irish
Petroleum Infrastructure Programme Group 3 for their kind permission to present this data. The PSG
comprises: Agip, Chevron, Enterprise, Marathon, Phillips, Statoil, TotalFinaElf and the Petroleum Affairs
Division of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.

7th Floor Leon House, 233 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 9XT. England. UK.
Telephone: +44 (0) 208 253 4000 Fax: +44 (0) 208 253 4001 www.scopic.com 5