See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281545135

Formation Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure

Estimating from Well Log in One of the
Southern Iranian Oil Field
Conference Paper September 2013
CITATIONS

READS

94

1 author:
Mohammadreza Zare-Reisabadi
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI)
16 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammadreza Zare-Reisabadi on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Formation Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure

Estimating from Well Log in One of the Southern
Iranian Oil Field
*

Mohammadreza Zare-Reisabadi, Mehdi Bahremandi

Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI),
Tehran, Iran
*mr.zare.r@gmail.com

Abstract Estimation of the sub-surface pore pressures

and fracture pressure is a necessary requirement to safely,
economically and efficiently drill the wells required to test and
produce oil and natural gas reserves. The purpose of this
paper is to select the best pore pressure and fracture pressure
estimation method for Ahwaz Oilfield. Ahwaz oilfield is one of
the biggest southern Iranian fields in the Middle East.
Petrophysical and mud weight data for four previously drilled
wells in this field will be examined and reviewed. Two pore
pressure and one fracture pressure estimation method will be
reviewed and applied to the available data. The pore pressure
estimation methods are Eaton and Equivalent Depth method.
These methods are simple correlations that predict the
formation pore pressure using the normal pressured
compaction trend line, the observed sonic data, and formation
overburden stress. The fracture pressure estimation method
used in this study also developed by Ben Eaton. An
appropriate MEM has been developed to provide the required
data such as formation overburden stress, shear wave velocity
and formation Poissons ratio. After comparing between
results and mud weigh, most suitable methods have been
chosen as the pore and fracture pressure estimation strategy
in aforementioned field.
KeywordsPore Pressure; Fracture Pressure; Overburden
Stress

I.

INTRODUCTION

For a successful drilling design it is extremely important to

know or estimate the pore pressure for a given area. Casing
design and mud weight designs are planned according to the
estimated pore pressure. If the mud weight is not adjusted for
the correct pore pressure, unwanted events like kicks can
occur, which may result in lost time, or even blowouts. A
good estimation of pore pressure is also essential to avoid
wellbore stability problems like borehole breakouts or stuck
pipes. Avoiding problems related to pore pressure
determination can save lives and money. The subject of many
discussions and technical papers in the last 20 years has been
the estimation of the wellbore pressure gradients that are
required to induce or extend fractures in subsurface
formations. The subject merits this attention because of the
frequently recurring problems that arise from an inability to
predict fracture pressure gradients. Several methods for
predicting fracture pressures have developed and refined.

Ali Najibi
Petroleum University of Technology,
Ahwaz, Iran
Encountered in several common types of operations in the
oil industry are problems associated with the estimation of
formation fracture pressure gradients. When wells are being
drilled in both new and old fields, lost circulation is often a
very troublesome and expensive problem. Complete loss of
circulation has been disastrous in some cases. Many times,
such disasters could have been avoided if techniques for
calculating fracture pressure gradient had been employed in
the well plans, and if casing strings had been set, and mud
weight plans had been followed accordingly. In areas of
abnormally pressured formations, the estimation of fracture
gradients during the well-planning stage is extremely
important. In fact, it is as important as the estimation of
formation pressure gradients, which has received a great deal
of attention in recent years.
II.

OVER PRESSURE AND ITS GENERATING MECHANISMS

Overpressure is often also called abnormally high pore

pressure. It is known as the excess pore pressure observed for
the area. In this study it will be defined as any pore pressure
which is higher than the hydrostatic water column pressure
extending from surface to the drilling target. In the literature,
there are many mechanisms proposed to explain the
development of overpressure. It is important to differentiate
the porosity changes with respect to these different
mechanisms. Here undercompaction mechanism will explain
because of its important in Iran especially in Gachsaran
Formation. Undercompaction is also known as disequilibrium
compaction. In this type of mechanism vertical loading stress
(overburden stress) is the main agent on shaping the pore
space and pore throat systems. Hydrostatically pressured
(normally pressured) areas usually have a characteristic rate of
compaction. The reflection of this characteristic rate of
compaction on well logs is a trend. During compaction the
fluid in the systems will flow into upper sediments under the
influence of vertical stress (overburden) if there is sufficient
permeability. As the fluid escapes grains continue to support
the applied vertical stress [1].
Undercompaction is the most encountered overpressure
mechanism around the world while drilling. Fluid expansion
and fluid movement and buoyancy are encountered often less
than undercompaction. The magnitudes of overpressure in
these types of mechanisms are considered to smaller than
undercompaction mechanism for some researchers. For others
however it is considered to be larger in magnitude. Tectonics
is the rarest encountered mechanism around the world;

however the magnitude of overpressure due to tectonics is

higher than any mechanism generating overpressure.
Independent of generating mechanisms, any overpressure
encountered during drilling is important [2].
III.

PORE-PRESSURE ESTIMATION METHODS

This paper will discuss the methods which use well

logging data for prediction and quantification of overpressure.
Clay is the lithology which compacts the most under stress by
changes in its pore structure, reducing its porosity [3]. The
following well logging based; pore pressure estimation
methods will use this fact with the assumption that sediments
interbedded with clay will have the same pore pressure.
Reference [4] divides pore pressure determination techniques
into two categories: vertical and horizontal methods. Vertical
methods assume that for a given porosity, there will be a
unique effective stress. This is the basis for the equivalent
depth method. Horizontal methods, however, use the
assumption of empirical relationship between pore pressure
gradient and the ratio of porosity indicators like well logs.
Eatons equation is an example of this category. Reference [5]
added two classifications to Traugotts pore- pressure
determination methods: direct and other methods. In this paper
Eaton and Equivalent Depth method have been reviewed
which are in horizontal and vertical category respectively.
A. Equivalent Depth Method
Reference [6] tried to solve the problem of estimating pore
pressure without direct measurements. In his method he used
resistivity and sonic log data trends and the points where the
deviation start from these trend lines. He developed this
method for the Gulf of Mexico using known reservoir pressure
measurements and a hydrostatic gradient of 0.465 psi/ft. His
method is known as the Equivalent Depth Method. This
method can be summarized as:
P = 0.465Z + 1.0(Z Z ) (1)
P = Z 0.535(Z ) (2)

Where, P is pore pressure, ZN and ZA are normal pressure

depth and abnormal pressure depth in ft respectively. An
assumption of the overburden gradient being 1.0 psi/ft is used
in this method as well. The idea behind these formulas is that
in over pressured formations, the overburden below a pressure
seal will also be supported by fluid present in the formation,
which is trapped by a good seal. So the pore pressure
calculated for a depth where it is known that there is
overpressure is the sum of hydrostatic fluid column pressure to
the observed top of overpressure and the difference of depths
between total depth and top of overpressure depth multiplied
by overburden gradient of 1.0.

B. Eaton's Method
In 1972 Reference [7] published a technique for pore
pressure estimation. Eaton recognized that Hottman and
Johnsons basic relationship is correct, but can be improved.
Eaton also developed a similar equation that can be used with
interval transit time data. This equation can be used for both
sonic log and seismic data. It is as follows:

P (
P

D
D
D
D

t
t

(3)

Where Pf is fluid pressure in psi, D is the depth of burial in

ft, ob is overburden stress in psi, PF(n) is area-specific normal
pore pressure in psi, tob(sh) and tn(sh) are observed shale
travel time and normal shale travel time in s/ft in s/ft
respectively. Eatons relationships described above were
thought (at least at the time of development) to predict pore
pressures to within 0.5 ppg equivalent mud weight for any
geologic environment as long as care is taken to provide
quality input data. By its nature this is an empirical equation to
relate well log and pore pressure gradient. This equation could
be used in the environments where sediment compacted
rapidly. Under compaction is usually observed in these kinds
of environments. So Eatons equation is very useful to
quantify pore pressure where sediments show under
compaction. Eatons correlation, based on offshore Louisiana
data in moderate water depths, is one of the more widely used
fracture pressure estimation techniques. His relationship can
be summarized as:
g =

g
(1 )

+ g (4)

Where gf, gob and gn are fracture pressure gradient,

overburden gradient and normal pore-pressure gradient in
psi/ft respevtively. The bracketed Poissons ratio term is in
fact a matrix-stress ratio. Eaton took fracture pressures in the
subject area and back calculated Poissons ratios using
measured pore pressures and the variable overburden curve.
IV.

FIELD APPLICATIONS

The Ahwaz Field is located near the Ahwaz city. This

field, one of the largest hydrocarbon bearing structures in the
world, is a large northwest-southwest trending anticline with a
subsurface area of 80 by 6.5 km. Fig. 1 shows the location of
Ahwaz oilfield. In order to predict the pore pressure and
fracture pressure profile of Ahwaz Oil Field, we collected all
the available well logs data. The relative location of wells and
their formation thicknesses have been shown in Fig. 2.
A. Density Prediction
Usually density logs are used for determination of the rock
density. But, the density log is run in the reservoir section of
wells not the whole interval. In 1974 Reference [8] conducted
a series of controlled field and laboratory measurements of
saturated sedimentary rocks and determined a relationship
between P-wave velocity and density that has long been used
in seismic analysis.

a.V b

(5)

Where is in gr/cm3, and V is in m/s, a= 0.31, b= 0.25

Using density log and sonic log data in the reservoir
section, the constant parameters of Gardner equation can be
estimated for Ahwaz oilfield. Data of six wells has been used.
Fig. 3 shows the relation between bulk density and P-wave
velocity in Ahwaz oilfield. The following correlation was
obtained for density estimation along the well A and B.

 0.2577V 0.2376

(6)
Where V is in ft/s and is in gr/cm3. Fig. 4 shows the
accuracy of predicted density.
B. Vertical Stress Gradient
The overburden is the weight of the column of sediments.
Although it is not measured directly, it can be easily computed
as the integral over depth of the bulk density:
h

v gdh

0
(7)
Fig. 5 shows the vertical stress gradient versus depth in the
Ahwaz oilfield. Fig. 6 shows that the data points have been
fitted well with a following exponential function:

v (h) ae

bh

ce

d h

(8)
Where v is in psi/ft, h is in ft, a=1.472, b=-1.514e-5,
c=-0.5847 and d=-9.141e-5
C. Ratio Prediction
Due to absence of laboratory data in studied wells, direct
calculation of Poissons Ratio is impossible. But the Poisson's
ratio is related to the sonic log with the physical equation [9]:

t s

1
t c

V p 2Vs2

(9)

2(V p Vs2 )

Where ts and tc are shear and compressional transit

time respectively, Vp and Vs are compressional and shear
sonic velocity.
The following equation related the sonic transit time in
s/ft to sonic velocity in ft/s:

1
t 10 6

(10)

Most of available sonic logs in Ahwaz oilfield include only

the compressional or P-wave transit time. The DSI log data are
available in well A. The DSI tools record both shear and
compressional transit time. Fig. 7 shows the available shear
velocity versus compressional velocity. Fig. 7 shows that the
data points have been fitted well with a following power law
function:

V s 2 .5228 V p

PREPARATION OF SONIC LOGS DATA USING CLAY

DISCRIMINATION LINES

As be mentioned later in the literature, the most

compaction occurred in the clay formations. If we use all the
sonic logs data, they will not specify the compaction trend
clearly, especially in the Gachsaran Formation. So, for
observing the compaction trend especially in Gachsaran
formation, the lithologies which have the most clay can be
used. For discrimination of lithologies which have the most
clay in their structure, Gamma Ray Logs have been used. The
data that have less value in gamma ray from clay
discrimination line have been filtered and other data have been
employed for pore pressure estimation. This procedure has
been illustrated in Fig. 10.
VI.

NORMAL COMPACTION TREND (NCT)

One of the prerequisite for pore pressure and fracture

pressure estimation is filtered sonic logs. Figures (11.1 to
11.4) show the filtered sonic logs and their normal compaction
trend and their equations. As be mentioned later, normal
compaction trend is required for pore pressure estimation from
Eaton's method. These figures illustrate that In Aghajari and
Mishan Formations, the sonic data has a linear trend line
which reveals that pore pressure is normal in these formations
and in Gachsaran Formation, the sonic data deviates from
normal compaction trend line which indicates abnormal pore
pressure in this formation.
VII. PORE PRESSURE AND FRACTURE PRESSURE
ESTIMATION STRATEGY

1 t s

1
2 t c

V.

0 .8386

ft/s

(11)

Fig. 8 shows the prediction of shear velocity of well A by

equation 11 and Fig. 9 shows the estimated Poissons ratio.

Sonic log, gamma ray, and daily drilling parameters such

as mud weight are available data of aforementioned oil field.
Considering these data base, among the available pore
pressure estimation, only Eaton and Equivalent Depth method
can be applicable in this field. Fracture pressure and pore
pressure gradient for aforementioned Oil Field are shown in
figures 12.1 to 12.4. As it is mentioned before, Eaton and
Equivalent Depth method are applied in four wells. The results
from those methods show that, pore pressure for Aghajari and
Mishan Formation is close to each other. In addition for the
Gachsaran Formation in the cases of well No. 1 and well No. 2
Equivalent Depth method give smaller amount of pore
pressure relative to mud weight and Eaton Method, so it can
be concluded Equivalent Depth method underestimate in these
cases. Regarding figures 12.1 to 12.4 Equivalent Depth
method gives smaller amount of pore pressure relative to mud
weight and Eaton Method. Equivalent Depth method can give
an estimate for pore pressure, but the degree to which the fluid
carries of the entire overburden load is unknown. It is because
of the value of Biot constant considered unity in effective
stress equation.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
To estimate the pressure, results of both the Eaton and
Equivalent Depth method were compared and the following
conclusions are made:
1) According to the normal compaction trend lines and
pressure which are calculated in this study, it can be

concluded that under compaction is a major

mechanism in explaining high pore pressure in
Gachsaran Formation.
2) For Aghajari and Mishan Formation, both of Eaton
and Equivalent
ivalent Depth method give same results.
3) In the case of Gachsaran Formation, Equivalent
Depth method tends to underestimate pore pressure.
So, Eaton method is recommended to estimate pore
pressure of Gachsaran Formation in this field.
4) To estimate pore and fracture
racture pressure gradient with
suitable accuracy, it is recommended to assume an
amount of 1 psi/ft overburden gradient for Aghajari
and Mishan Formation and 1.06 psi/ft for Gachsaran
Formation.
Fig. 2. The relative locations of studied wells

REFERENCES
3.5

2.5

1.5

1
0

5000

10000

15000
Velocity [ft/s]

20000

25000

Recorded density

Predicted density

Density [gr/cm3]
1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

10800

11000

11200

11400

11600

11800

12000

12200

12400

12600

Fig. 4. Predicted and recorded density

Fig. 1.location of Ahwaz Oil Field [10]

30000

Fig. 3. Relation between density and velocity in Ahwaz oilfield

Depth [ft]

Density [gr/cm3]

Mouchet, J.P. and Mitchell, A., Abnormal Pressures

Pressur While Drilling,
Manuels Techniques 2, Elf Aquitaine, Bouseens, France, 1989.
[2] Swarbrick, R.E., Osborne, M.J., Yardley, G.S., Comparison of
Overpressure Magnitude Resulting from the Main Generating
Mechanisms, Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and Their
Prediction, A.R. Huffman, and G.L. Bowers , AAPG Memoir, Vol. 76,
PP. 1-12, 2002.
[3] Schutjens, P.M.T.M., Hanssen, T.H., Hettema, M.H.H., CompactionCompaction
Induced Porosity/Permeability Reduction in Sandstone Reservoirs: Data
and Model for Elasticity-Dominated
Dominated Deformation, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, PP. 202--216, 2004.
[4] Traugott, M., Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure Determination in
Deep Water, Deep Water Technology Supplement to World Oil, 1997.
[5] Bowers, G., State of Art in Pore Pressure Estimation, Report No.1,
DEA Project 119, Knowledge Systems Inc., Stafford, Houston, Texas,
1999.
[6] Ham, H.H., A Method of Estimating Formation Pressures From Gulf
Coast Well Logs, Trans., Gulff Coast Association of Geological
Societies, Vol. 16, PP. 185-197, 1966.
[7] Eaton, B. A., The Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopressure
Prediction from Well Logs, Journal of Petroleum Science &
Engineering, Vol. 24, PP. 929-934, 1972.
[8] Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner,
ner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R., Formation
Velocity and Density- The diagnostic basis for stratigraphic traps,
Geophysics, Vol. 39, PP. 770-780, 1974.
[9] Chardac, O., Murray, M., Marsden, J. R., A proposed data acquisition
program for successful geomechanics projects, SPE 93182 presented at
the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference in Bahrain, 12-15
12
March 2005.
[10] Zare-Reisabadi, M.R, Shadizadeh, SR, Habibnia,
Habibnia B. Mechanical
Stability Analysis of Directional Wells: A Case Study in Ahwaz
Oilfield. In: proceedings
ceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. Abuja, Nigeria; 31 July-77 August 2010. SPE 136989.

y = 0.2577x 0.2376
R2 = 0.4992
0.499

[1]

3.1

Shear velocity [ft/s]

Sigma v [psi/ft]
0.9

0.95

4500

1.05

11540

2000

11550

4000

11560

6000

Depth [ft]

Depth [ft]

0.85

8000

5500

6500

7500

8500

9500

10500

11500

11570

11580

10000

11590
12000

11600
14000

11610

Fig. 5. Vertical stress gradient estimation [10]

Real

Predicted

Fig. 8. Predicted shear velocity by (11)

Poisson's ratio
0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

11500

11550

11600

Fig. 6. Fit equation of vertical stress gradient [10]

Depth [ft]

11650

13000
0.8386

y = 2.5228x

12000

11700

R = 0.9191

S-wave velocity [ft/s]

11000
10000

11750

9000
8000
11800

7000
6000
11850

5000
8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

P-wave velocity [ft/s]

Fig. 7. Relation between S-wave and P- wave velocity in Ahwaz oilfield

Fig. 9. Poissons ratio prediction

0.4

Clay Discrimination Line

Gamma Ray (API)

0

10

20

30

Clay Transit Time ( s/ft)

40

50

60

10

100

1000

500

Depth (m)

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Fig. 10. Application of Clay Discrimination lines for filtering of sonic data

Fig. 10.2. Application of Clay Discrimination lines for filtering of sonic data

Fig. 11.1. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 1

Fig. 11.2. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 2

Fig. 11.3. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 3

Fig. 11.4. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 4

Well No. 1

Well No. 2

Eaton's Method

Equivalent Depth Method

Mud Weight

Fracture Pressure

Eaton's Method
Fracture Pressure

Pressure Gradient (ppg)

Pressure Gradient (ppg)

10

15

Equivalent Depth Method

Mud Weight

20

25

10

15

20

25

500

500

1000

1500

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

1000

1500

2000

2000

2500

2500

3000

Fig. 12.1. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 1

Fig. 12.2. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 2

Well No. 3

Well No. 4

Eaton's Method

Equivalent Depth Method

Eat on's Met hod

Equivalent Depth Met hod

Fracture Pressure

Mud Weight

Mud Weight

Fracture Pressure

Pressure Gradient (ppg)

0

10

15

Pressure Gradient (ppg)

20

25

10

15

20

500

500

1500

2000

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

1000

1000

1500

2500

2000

3000

Fig. 12.3. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 3

View publication stats

Fig. 12.4. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 4