Explicit Pore-Pressure Evaluation:
Concept and Application
.lean-Louis Allxant, * SPE, and Robert Desbrandes, Louisiana State U.
Summary. A general method was developed to determine pore pressure in undercompacted shales on the basis of explicit relation-
ships among measured shale properties, shale porosity, effective vertical stress, and pore pressure. Although calibration may be neces-
sary, this technique neither uses empirical correlations nor requires establishment of normal trend lines. A modular approach allows
users to implement custom equations. This paper outlines the concept and focuses on its application to real-time pore-pressure evalua-
tion based on resistivity measurements.
Introduction
The main difficulty in pore-pressure evaluation during drilling is
that direct pressure measurement is impossible. Thus, overpres-
sured formations must be characterized with a measurable pressure-
dependent parameter that can be used to infer pore pressure. Earth
scientists agree that compaction disequilibrium of argillaceous sedi-
ments accounts for the vast majority of overpressures encountered
in tertiary sedimentary basins. This observation changes the prob-
lem of detecting overpressures into one of detecting undercompacted
shales, which are characterized by typical porosity trends.
Conventional Methods. Shale porosity is not directly accessible
during drilling, but it affects such measurable parameters as resistivi-
ty and acoustic travel time. Hottmann and Johnson I extracted pore-
pressure information from these parameters with empirical correla-
tions. That "conventional" approach was extended to the interpreta-
tion of drilling-rate measurements, 2 refined 3,4 and generalized, 5
Conventional interpretation techniques are based on the deter-
mination of a "normal trend" that represents the variations ofthe
monitored shale-porosity-dependent parameter with depth in the
hydrostatic interval. Departures from the normal trend are inter-
preted qualitatively in terms of pressure-regime variations and quan-
tified by means of an empirical correlation that relates the normalized
porosity-sensitive parameter directly to the pore-pressure gradient.
Two main limitations generally are associated with this implicit ap-
proach.
I. The determination of the normal trend is a subjecti've task that
may be troublesome without regional experience.
2, An empirical correlation between petrophysical measurements
and fluid-pressure gradients must be established on the basis of a
regional data set.
Despite these shortcomings, use of conventional pore-pressure
evaluation methods based on resistivity or acoustic travel-time wire-
line logs or rate-of-penetration (ROP) measurements is standard
practice in the drilling industry. Eaton's4 correlations, in particu-
lar, have proved to be fairly reliable and are still used.
Modern Needs. The drilling industry has experienced several im-
portant changes during the last decade. The advent of measurement-
while-drilling (MWD) tools and polycrystalline-diamond-compact
bits, the increased diversity of drilling environments, and the rapid
development of horizontal drilling technology have necessitated a
reassessment of the pore-pressure evaluation concept. 5
One main requirement of modem drilling technology is real-time
capability. To determine the normal trend line within a reasonable
degree of confidence, the operator must ensure that sufficient real-
time data are available for the hydrostatic interval. To obtain these
data, an MWD tool must be run in the upper section of the well-
bore, which increases the cost and the risk of tool failure. When
hydrostatic data are being acquired, defining the normal trend dur-
ing drilling is challenging without regional experience, as the fol-
lowing example illustrates. Fig. 1 is a plot of the shale-resistivity
data available at a given time during drilling. At that time, the nor-
mal trend line can be positioned as shown, which places the top
'Now at Shell Research, Riiswijk, The Netherlands.
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
182
of the overpressured shale interval at about 7,600 ft [2300 m]. Ad-
ditional data become available as drilling progresses, revealing that
the early interpretation is erroneous (Fig. 2). In fact, the top of
the overpressured interval appears to be at 10,400 ft [3200 m]. That
mistake could have caused an unnecessary mud weight increase or
premature setting of the casing string.
This example suggests that a real-time pore-pressure evaluation
method should not use normal trend lines; i.e., to maximize the
benefit of a real-time data-acquisition system, interpretation of the
measurements in terms of pore pressure should be possible as they
are made. Conventional pore-pressure evaluation methods do not
make optimal use of MWD technology, and a new approach is re-
quired.
Explicit Pore·Pressure Evaluation Concept
Effective-Stress Principle. The cornerstone of the proposed pore-
pressure evaluation concept is the effective-stress principle intro-
duced by Terzaghi 6 in his study of the mechanical behavior of
saturated porous media. According to Terzaghi, "All the meas-
urable effects of a change of stress, such as compression, distor-
tion, and a change of shearing resistance are exclusively due to
changes in the effective stresses." That statement emphasizes the
conceptual nature of the effective stress. It is not a physically meas-
urable quantity; only its effects (i.e, deformations) are measura-
ble. Experimental study of the deformations of cohesive soils led
Terzaghi to the following empirical equation for effective stress:
uei=ui-Pp ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . (1)
Therefore, pore pressure can be calculated as the difference be-
tween principal and effective stresses acting in a given direction.
Hence, the problem of determining pore pressure in the subsur-
face is equivalent to determining the principal stress acting in a given
direction and the corresponding conceptual effective stress. The fol-
lowing section presents one possible approach to estimating effec-
tive vertical stress during drilling.
Possible Approach. The principal stress acting in the vertical
direction is the overburden stress, which can be determined from
published correlations or by integration of density logs over depth.
Considering the particular case of the vertical axis, pore pressure
is the difference between overburden stress and effective vertical
stress:
Pp =UV-UeV' (2)
The primary characteristic of porous rock deformation during
the deposition process is porosity. We now assume that overpres-
sures result from shale compaction disequilibrium; hence, that ver-
tical strains dominate during the compaction process. Terzaghi's
effective-stress principle then implies that the effective vertical stress
is the exclusive cause of shale-porosity variations. Conversely,
knowledge of shale porosity should lead to effective vertical stress.
The proposed pore-pressure evaluation model thus includes two
interpretation stages: real-time measurements are first converted
into shale porosity in a petrophysical module, and a mechanical
module then relates shale porosity to effective vertical stress. Each
module can be based on analytical relationships between physically
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991
 -4000 ""T"""--------------,
- -8000
or:
Do
CI)
c -12000
-16000 +-"""T""""""T'".....,........,..---..~.......__,r_".--r__r___1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Resistivity. Ohm.m
Fig. 1-Early determination of the normal trend.
related quantities. Explicit use of shale porosity links petrophysical
and mechanical data in a sound theoretical context. This systematic
and explicit formulation offers the following advantages.
1. Each shale-porosity-dependent data point acquired during drill-
ing is processed independently of previous or future measurements;
normal trend lines are no longer required.
2. The use of analytical equations to estimate pore pressure from
real-time measurements eliminates the need for empirical corre-
lations.
How, then, can shale porosity be calculated from real-time meas-
urements and converted into effective vertical stress?
Proposed Implementation. Foster and Whalen 7 were close to
developing an explicit technique, but Holbrook and Hauck 8 actu-
ally applied the methodology for the first time. More recently, other
implementations based on the above concept have been proposed.
Bryant 9 combined a semiexplicit formulation with the equivalent-
depth concept. Rasmus and Voisin 10 offered an interesting porosity
evaluation option that progressively incorporates MWD drilling and
formation evaluation data as they become available.
The implementation proposed in this study is based on MWD
resistivity data. The relationships used in the petrophysical and me-
chanical modules are based primarily on equations derived analyt-
ically. Calibration coefficients are needed; however, they have
physical significance, which provides the user with better control
and the ability to adapt to a variety of environments with limited
experimental data. Users are free to substitute their preferred
petrophysical or mechanical relationships for those proposed here.
Also, users may select shale-porosity-sensitive parameters other than
resistivity.
Shale-Porosity Calculation: Electrical Module
The electrical characteristics of a clean (nonshaly) saturated porous
medium can be related to its porosity by means of an empirical
relationship II :
Ro/Rw=a/cf>m
The resistivity ratio in Eq. 3 is called the formation factor. Several
pore-pressure evaluation methods use Eq. 3 to calculate shale porosi-
ty from resistivity measurements. Holbrook and Hauck 8 suggest
the use of the Waxman-Smits 12 model, while Rasmus and Voisin 10
prefer Simandoux'sl3 equation. We propose a simple alternative.
Compacting Clay Mineral. Clay particles, such as smectites, bear
a net negative surface charge. When the particles are placed in an
ionic fluid, the negative charges are balanced by cations present
in the solution that become bound to the clay surfaces. In saline
water, the cations are hydrated, so hydration water molecules are
also bound to the clay particles. Chapman 14 and Gouy 15 proposed
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991
-4000 ~-----"""":,,,"--:------,
::: -8000
-
or:
a.
CI)
C
-12000
-16000 +--r-..,..........""T'"....,........,..---..~......,.--,---......-t
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Resistivity. Ohm.m
Fig. 2-Final determination of the normal trend.
similar models (diffuse double-layer theory) to explain clay reac-
tivity in liquid environments.
As clay particles settle at the bottom of the sea, the interstitial
water forms a continuous phase with the seawater. The hydration
water molecules are bound to the clay surfaces, while the water
molecules unaffected by these bonds remain free. As compaction
proceeds and the sediments are buried more deeply, most of the
free water is rapidly expelled out of the system. The remaining water
is bound to some extent to clay minerals.
Formation Factor Relationship. Fricke l6 provided a mathemat-
ical treatment of the electrical conductivity of disperse systems based
on first principles of electromagnetic theory (Maxwell's equations.)
Perez-Rosales 17 adapted Fricke's work to porous media and ob-
tained the following equation:
Ro/R w= 1+G[(l-cf»/(cf>-cf>r)], (4)
where G= geometrical factor that accounts for departures from the
ideal spherical shape of the individual particles and cf>r = residual
porosity, the part of the porosity that does not participate effec-
tively in electrical conduction. Both parameters are expected to vary
with lithology. Perez-Rosales found G=1.85 and cf>r=O.l to be
satisfactory for sand. Specific values for shales have not been de-
rived, and Perez-Rosales' numerical values will be used until ad-
ditional experimental data are acquired.
According to the earlier description of a compacting shale, the
fluid saturating the shale is bound water; thus, the equation becomes
Rshcor/Rwb = 1+ 1.85[(1-cf»/(cf> -0.1)]. . (5)
Use of Eq. 5 to determine shale porosity requires the knowledge of
the shale formation factor, Rshcor/Rwb' The numerator of this ratio
is a corrected resistivity measurement. The denominator, however,
cannot be determined by conventional well-logging interpretation
techniques. The conventional approach assumes water resistivities
in shales and a nearby sandstone to be equal. Bryant 9 assumed that
shale water resistivity is constant over the depth range of interest.
(3)
Temperature Correction. A normal shale-resistivity trend shows
the evolution of shale resistivity within a given depth interval. It
includes not only the effect of porosity, but also that of other influ-
encing parameters, such as temperature. Conventional pore-pressure
interpretation methods use the ratio of observed shale resistivity
to normal shale resistivity for quantitative pressure-gradient esti-
mation. Because the two resistivities are estimated at the same depth,
a difference between the two values can be attributed primarily to
porosity effects and a temperature correction is not required. Con-
versely, interpreting a single shale-resistivity measurement in terms
of porosity requires correction for formation temperature effects.
Clavier et al. 18 established that bound-water resistivity is a
universal parameter for sodium clays that depends only on tem-
183
 dinate system is the "virgin compression curve." For a given shale,
1000 this curve is not a straight line when large effective-stress varia-
~
~
tions are involved because the compression index, Ie' is a func-
U tion of effective stress. Ie' however, is less sensitive to effective
:l
"0 stress at high stresses than at low stresses. This behavior is related

/
100
~ E
Uo
-'=
ii E ations of Ie with effective stress, a constant value can be assumed
iii
•
"0
10
l:
:l
0 usual effective stress range of interest in drilling. Integration of Eq.
m 1
10 100 1000
Temperature, of
Fig. a"':"Bound-water conductivity data (after Ref. 17).
perature: R wb =0.15 n'm at nOF [25°C]. The effect of tempera-
ture, however, was found to be much more important than for sa-
line solutions, and Arps' 19 equation cannot be used to account for
bound-water-resistivity changes owing to temperature variations.
Clavier et at.'s data are used to establish a temperature correc-
tion for our model. If the data points are plotted in a log-log coor-
dinate system (Fig. 3), the relationship between bound-water
conductivity and temperature can be represented by a power-law
function:
Cwb =(3T'Y (6a)
A least-squares fit yields
R wb =297.6T-1.76, (6b)
where T is measured in of.
Thus, R wb can be calculated with Eq. 6b if a formation temper-
ature estimate is available. Because bound-water resistivity is not
very sensitive to small temperature variations, a general regional-
temperature-gradient profIle is usually sufficient to estimate the shale
formation factor. Substitution into Eq. 5 yields porosity.
Noting the resistivity module's limitations is important. First, we
assume that Eq. 4 provides a reliable description of shale conduc-
tivity and recognize that G and ¢r may need to be modified to satis-
fy local conditions. Second, Clavier et al. 's18 data for sodium
clays are assumed to be representative and applicable to overpres-
sured shale environments.
Once shale porosity is estimated, it must be related to pore pres-
sure, which is the object of the mechanical module.
Effective-Stress Calculation: Mechanical Module
Empirical correlations have been proposed to relate shale porosity
to depth 20 or effective vertical stress. 21 The latter relationship uses
shale porosity to determine the effective vertical stress. An analyt-
ical approach, however, is also possible.
ID Compaction. The analysis of compaction is greatly simplified
if we assume that strains occur only in the vertical direction. Such
an assumption is reasonable when the lateral extension of the sys-
tem is great compared with its vertical dimension. That is the case
of the shale-compaction-disequilibrium process, in which vertical
deformations dominate.
In the study of sediment compaction, void ratio is preferred to
porosity. Void ratio is the ratio of void volume to solid volume
(as opposed to total volume for porosity). Porosity and void ratio
are related by
r=¢/(l-¢) (7)
The 1D compaction of cohesive soils such as clays is governed
by the following law 22 :
-dr=Ie d(loglOuey), (8a)
The curve that describes the relationship between void ratio and
effective vertical consolidation stress on a semilogarithmic coor-
to the stiffening that occurs with increasing effective stress. When
extensive experimental data are unavailable to determine the vari-
over a limited stress range. As a result of shale stiffening, the stress
interval over which this approximation is justified increases with
effective stress. A single value can be sufficient for use over the
8a, assuming constant Ie' yields
r2- r l = -Ie loglO(ueY2/ueYI)' (8b)
Eq. 8b can be rearranged as
r=r;-Ie 10glOuey, (8c)
Application to Shale Compaction. Because shale porosity can be
determined by interpretation of a resistivity measurement obtained
with Eq. 4, shale void ratio can be estimated and Eq. 8c can be
rearranged to determine the effective vertical stress:
ueY= lO(r-rj)/-[c. . (9a)
The Ie and r; values needed for use of Eq. 9a can be obtained
from published data or determined experimentally from compres-
sion tests on remolded shale samples. In this study, values for Ie
and ri were obtained from triaxial compression tests on North Sea
shale samples. The following equation was used:
U eY= lO(r-3.84)/-1.1 (9b)
Eq. 9b was found to reproduce the experimental data with < 1%
relative error on the void ratio between 1,100 and 2,300 psi [7.6
and 15.9 MPa] (where shale porosity ranges from 33 to 12%).
Effective-Stress Law. Biot' s23 theory of poroelasticity describes
the mechanical behavior of porous media. When porous rocks are
submitted to high stresses, such as those encountered in petroleum
engineering, the effective stress takes the general form 24
uey=Uy-exPp ' (10)
where ex:S: 1. Because of the high compressibility of shales, how-
ever, ex is generally almost equal to 1. Thus, shales generally are
well described by Terzaghi's relationship (Eq. 1).
Example
The method is relatively simple, considering the complexity of the
initial problem. The data used here were taken from a North Sea
well. Pore pressure is calculated at 5,000 ft [1524 m], where
T"" 121°F [49.5°C] and Rshcor=0.48 n·m.
In the electrical module, bound-water resistivity is first deter-
mined with Eq. 6b: R wb =297.6(121) -1.76 =0.064 n·m. R wb and
Rshcor are used to determine the shale formation factor: F=0.48/
0.064=7.5. Finally, Eq. 5 yields porosity: ¢=[1.75 +(0.1 X7.5)]/
(0.85+7.5)=0.30 (Le., 30%).
Once shale porosity has been evaluated, the mechanical module
can be used to determine pore pressure. The void ratio is calculated
with Eq. 7: r=0.30/(1-0.30) =0.43, which corresponds to an ef-
fective stress given by Eq. 9b: ueY= 10(0.43-3.84)/-1.1 = 1,253 psi
[8.6 MPa]. For an overburden pressure of 4,570 psi [31.5 MPa],
pp=4,570-1,253=3,317 psi [22.9 MPa]. The same procedure
can be repeated each time a new shale-resistivity measurement is
available: roughly every foot, depending on such factors as tool
manufacturer, drilling rate, and data-transmission rate.
Resistivity Device. A deep investigation tool is preferred to shal-
lower devices. When deep-resistivity data are used, the cooling of
the formation and the mechanical disturbances caused by the bore-
hole can usually be ignored in the interpretation. Electromagnetic
propagation tools are the most appropriate for pore-pressure eval-

184 SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991


-4000
= -6000
-8000
-1 0000 4--_-..""I""I"........r----r.....,.~r""I"'I''PIf
.1 10
Shale resistivity, Ohm.m
Fig. 4-Resistivlty data, North Sea example.
uation purposes at this time; measurements based on amplitude at-
tenuation provide adequate resistivity values in shales.
Field Examples
Validation Procedure. Because in-situ pore-pressure measurements
are unavailable in shales, the model's performance cannot be evalu-
ated directly. Therefore, the model is run in shale, and its results
are compared with pressure measurements obtained in nearby
permeable formations. When indirect pressure indicators are avail-
able (such as kicks and borehole instability), they also are used to
assess the model's accuracy. Also, comparison with results from
other pore-pressure evaluation methods is possible.
In addition to a corrected resistivity log, an average formation
temperature gradient, and overburden data, the model requires a
shale discriminator (usually a gamma ray log) and depth references
for pressure-gradient calculations (e.g., directional data and water
depth).
Data from four wells in the U.S. gulf coast, the Mediterranean
Sea, and the North Sea were used in this study. The model also
was run on data from Middle East and Far East wells with com-
parable success.
Example I-North Sea. Fig. 4 shows the resistivity log of this
well. No resistivity data are available above 3,300 ft [1000 m] be-
cause the MWD tool was not run in the upper section. This log
indicates that establishing a normal trend line is impossible because
the resistivity is already decreasing at the top of the shale section,
indicating overpressure. Conventional interpretation methods can-
not be applied in this case without regional experience.
Using the new method, we can perform a point-by-point analy-
sis such as that shown earlier. Fig. 5 shows the results in terms
of pore-pressure gradient vs. depth, with the mud weight (MW)
used to drill this development well. Excellent agreement is found
between the pressure measurement obtained from wireline forma-
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991
MW
-4000
-z: -6000
-
a.
Q)
c
-8000
1+ WFT's I
-1 0000 -f--.....---r-_..,....--.----r--r-~
8 10 12 14 16
Pore Pressure Gradient, Ibm/gal
Fig. 5-Pressure evaluation, North Sea example.
tion tests (WFT's) run in the reservoir and the predicted pressure
gradient. As the resistivity log shows, most of the undercompac-
tion effect takes place during the first 6,000 ft [1830 m]. Below
this point, the pore-pressure gradient increases mainly because of
the increasing overburden gradient.
A kick was taken at 5,000 ft [1524 m] while a permeable inter-
val was being drilled with a 12-lbm/gal [1438-kg/m 3 ] mud. At this
level, the proposed method yielded a pressure gradient of 12.2
Ibm/gal [1462 kg/m 3 ] (1.46 specific gravity), and conventional in-
terpretation of the resistivity measurement yielded 11 Ibm!gal [1318
kg/m 3 ] (1.32 specific gravity). The corrected d exponent yielded
10.3 Ibm/gal [1234 kg/m 3 ] (1.24 specific gravity). Although no
direct pressure measurement is available to determine which of the
three methods is more accurate in this particular case, the kick ex-
perienced with a 12-lbm/gal [1438-kg/m 3 ] mud suggests that con-
ventional methods underestimated the actual pore pressure. This
kick might have been avoided with the new method. Uncertain of
the validity of the conventional methods in use during the opera-
tions, the drilling crew increased the MW to an arbitrary value con-
sidered to be safe, resulting in a greater pressure differential at the
bit (2.5 to 1.5 Ibm/gal [300 to 180 kg/m 3 ] according to the new
model) that penalized drilling performance.
Example 2-Texas Gulf Coast. Fig. 6 shows the results for a 500-ft
[150-m] section of the well; excellent agreement was obtained be-
tween calculated and measured pressures. The pore-pressure-
estimate curve is discontinuous because the model is run in shale
only. The pressure gradient is found to be much greater in shales
than in the sandstone reservoirs (up to 2 Ibm/gal [240 kg/m 3 ] -
0.23 specific gravity-in this example), which is in agreement with
the pressure regressions predicted by theoretical shale compaction
models. 25
Empirical correlations are built on the basis of pressure-gradient
measurements in sandstone reservoirs plotted vs. shale resistivity
ratios. 10 the event of a pressure regression, such a correlation may
185

·7800
·7900 Y
+
MW
= -8000
~
-..
.r:
Q,
Q
-8100 +~
J
-8200
1+ WFT'SI - 1+
-8300 . •
11 12 13 14 15 16
Pore Pressure Gradient, Ibm/gal
Fig. 6-Preasure evaluation, Texas gulf coast example.
provide accurate reservoir pressure but will underestimate shale
pore pressure. Possibly, some shales are being drilled very close
to balanced, or even underbalanced, conditions, while conventional
pressure indicators show sufficient overbalance. Consequently, drill-
ing problems may occur in long shale sections or a kick can be
taken in a thin permeable streak embedded in the overpressured
shale. (This may have been the case in the North Sea well.) Pres-
sure regressions could also explain some of the borehole stability
problems encountered during drilling of overpressured shales..
Example 3-0ffshore Egypt. Fig. 7 shows pressure regression
phenomena. To obtain these regression profIles, however, the model
must be run as close as possible to the reservoir bed so that the
pressure-gradient drop can be observed. To run the model close
to the reservoir bed, the minimum gamma ray value that "separates"
shales from other lithologies is lowered. This operation should be
performed manually and with great caution; the operator should
constantly verify the consistency of the results. The risk of encoun-
tering a shaly sand always exists. If one is encountered, the model
should not be used. Correlation of the gamma ray with other logs,
including resistivity and normalized ROP, helps to identify lithol-
ogy changes.
The model's output for this exploration well also shows a good
agreement with the five pressure measurements recorded between
10,000 and 13,200 ft [3050 and 4025 m]. In addition to this match,
the mud program reveals an increase in MW at about 11,400 ft
[3475 m] following the observation of gas-cut mud. The pressure
increase associated with this event could have been predicted with
the new model. Shortly after, MW was increased by another 0.4
Ibm/gal [48 kg/m 3 ] (0.05 specific gravity) upon penetration of the
reservoir, probably to avoid swabbing problems. Lower in the well,
the model shows underbalance in the shale from about 14,800 ft
[4510 m].
Although the scale does not provide the resolution observed in
Example 2 (a ratio of roughly 1: 10 exists between the two logs),
it is probably more suitable for pore-pressure evaluation purposes.
Local variations in shale resistivity can be caused by factors other
than shale porosity, including those related to measurement errors,
186
-10000 +------------,
+, MW
""'
-12000 +
~
=
"
-.
z:
Q
Q,
+
+
-14000
WFT'S!
-1 ~OOO +--.,..--T"'"""---.,----,-.......---1
13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5
Pore Pressure Gradient, Ibm/gal
Fig. 7-Pore-pressure evaluation, offshore Egypt example.
and averages over lO-ft [3-m] intervals are probably more repre-
sentative of true pore-pressure conditions than isolated data points.
Example 4-0ffshore Louisiana. Fig. 8 shows some ofthe prob-
lems the crew experienced during drilling of this well. Notice that
the MW was always raised after a problem occurred (gas-cut mud,
kicks, and high torque). Obviously, the conventional interpretation
methods used on the rig during drilling operations were unable to
predict the increases in pore pressure, even though the correlations
used had been developed with data acquired offshore Louisiana.
Fig. 8 also shows the pressure estimate provided by the new
method. The agreement obtained between measured and calculated
pressure gradients in the bottom reservoirs is excellent. Also, the
model is able to predict each problem encountered during drilling.
In view of the model's performance over the entire section, the dis-
crepancy observed at about 7,100 ft [2160 m] can reasonably be
attributed to the pressure measurement itself.
Conclusions
Effective stress is the key factor in pore-pressure evaluation. When
dealing with undercompacted shales, shale porosity can be used to
estimate effective vertical stress explicitly on the basis of such
petrophysical measurements as resistivity. At this stage, conclu-
sions Can be drawn only from the experience acquired with the
resistivity-based implementation of the explicit pore-pressure eval-
uation concept. Plans are under way for development of additional
petrophysical modules to estimate shale porosity from alternative
measurements, and similar conclusions are expected.
1. The main advantage of the new technique is that it requires
no trend line to detect overpressures and no empirical correlations
to estimate their magnitude. Although calibration may be required,
the technique is suitable for exploration drilling.
2. The main advantage over similar real-time pore-pressure eval-
uation methods is that the relationships are derived analytically and
the calibration coefficients introduced have a physical meaning.
3. Field cases studied indicate that the method is more accurate
than conventional techniques. The performance of the model as it
stands is remarkable, considering the limited data available for the
SPE Drilling Engineering. September 1991
 -4000
1+ WFT's I

-
-
J:

c
a .
CI)
+ drilling problems

-8000

kick

8 10 12 14 16 18
Pore Pressure Gradient, Ibm/gal

Fig. a-Drilling history and pore-pressure evaluation, Louisiana gUlf coast example.

determination of the four calibration coefficients needed (G, cf>" Rw = resistivity of saturating water
Ie' and r). R wb = bound-water resistivity
4. The modular approach provides sufficient flexibility to accom- T = formation temperature, OF
modate developments in shale-porosity determination or shale- ex = poroelastic coefficient
compaction theory. (3 = regression coefficient
The effective stress concept is a very powerful petrophysical eval- /' = regression coefficient
uation tool whose potential is only beginning to be realized. For Ui = principal stress in i direction
instance, effective vertical stress can be related to petrophysical U ei = effective stress in i direction
parameters such as permeability. 26 Shale porosity is still required cf> = formation porosity
to access effective vertical stress, which should be perceived as a cf>r = residual porosity
general-purpose evaluation tool. 27 Beyond pore-pressure evalua-
tion in undercompacted shales, the ultimate goal is the development Subscripts
of a direct effective stress estimation technique applicable to a wide V = vertical
variety of geological environments and integrated to geophysical 1,2 = stress conditions
interpretation.
AcknOWledgments
Nomenclature We express our appreciation to Total CFP and the Louisiana State
a = tortuosity coefficient U. (LSU) Mineral Research lnst. for their financial support. Special
Cwb = bound-water conductivity thanks are extended to the faculty and staff of the LSU Dept. of
F = shale formation factor Petroleum Engineering for their support and cooperation and to the
G = geometrical factor individuals who made field data available.
Ie = compression index
m = cementation exponent References
Pp = pore pressure 1. HOllmann, C.E. and Johnson, R.K.: "Estimation of Formation Pres-
r = void ratio sures From Log-Derived Shale Properties," lPTOune 1965) 717-22.
2. Jorden, J.B. and Shirley, O.J.: "Application of Drilling Performance
ri = void ratio for reference stress state
Data to Overpressure Detection," lPT(Nov. 1966) 1387-94.
R o = resistivity of saturated porous medium 3. Eaton, B.A.: "The Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopressure Pre-
Rshcor = corrected shale resistivity diction From Well Logs," IPT (Aug. 1972) 929-34.

SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991 187


Jean-Loul. Allx-
ant Is an associate
research petrophys-
Icist at Shell Re-
search In RIJswiJk,
The Netherlands.
He has been In-
volved In the lab-
oratory's seismic-
interpretation reo
search program
Allxant Desbrandes and Is currently
working on pore-
pressure evaluation. He holds a PhD degree In petroleum en-
gineering from Louisiana State U. (LSU) In Baton Rouge and
graduated from the Inst. Industrlel du Nord and Ecole Natl.
Superleure du Petrole & des Moteurs, both In France. Robert
De.brande. is a professor of petroleum engineering at LSU.
He teaches and researches petrophysics, well logging, for-
mation evaluation, measurement while drilling, logging while
drilling, and production logging. He previously taught for 2
years at the U. of Houston and 24 years at the French Petro·
leum School and worked 11 years at Schlumberger (In South
America and Houston.) He holds a BS degree In mechanical
engineering from Ecole Natl. des Arts & Metiers and MS and
Dr.Sc. degrees In physics from the U. of Lyon, France. He
also wrote the Encyclopedia of Well Logging.
4. Eaton, B.A.: "The Equation for Geopressure Prediction From Well
Logs," paper SPE 5544 presented at the 197~ SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1.
5. Alixant, J.-L. and Desbrandes, R.: "Real-Time Pore Pressure Evalu-
ation Options," paper presented at the 1989 IntI. Well Control Sym-
posium, Baton Rouge, LA, Nov. 27-29.
6. Terzaghi, K.: Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New
York City (1943).
7. Foster, J.B. and Whalen, H.E.: "Estimation of Formation Pressures
From Electrical Surveys-Offshore Louisiana," JPT (Feb. 1966)
165-71.
8. Holbrook, P.W. and Hauck, M.L.: "A Petrophysical/Mechanical Math-
ematical Model for Real-Time Wellsite Pore-Pressure/Fracture-Gradient
Prediction," paper SPE 16666 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
9. Bryant, T.: "A Dual Shale Pore Pressure Detection Technique, " paper
SPE 18714 presented at the 1989 SPEIIADC Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, Feb. 28-March 3.
10. Rasmus, J. and Voisin, B.: "A Framework To Estimate Pore Pressures
in Real-Time," Proc., 1990 Measurement~ While-Drilling Symposium,
Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge, LA (Feb. 26-27) 159-80.
188
11. Jorden, J.R. and Campbell, F.L.: Well Logging lI-ElectricandAcoustic
Logging, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1986) 10, 30.
12. Waxman, M.H. and Smits, L.J.M.: "Electrical Conductivity in Oil-
Bearing Shaly Sands," SPEJ (June 1968) 107-22; Trans., AIME, 243.
13. Simandoux, P.: "Mesures dielectriques en milieu poreux. Application
it la mesure des saturations en eau. Etude du comportement des massifs
argileux," Rev. Inst. F~ais Ntrole (1963) 18, 193-215 (supplement).
14. Chapman, D.L.: "A Contribution to the Theory of Electrocapillarity, "
Phil. Mag. J. Sci. (1913) Series 6, 25, No.6, 475.
15. Gouy, G.: "Sur la constitution de la charge electrique it la surface d'un
electrolyte," J. Phys. lheor. Appl. (1910) Series 4, 9.
16. Fricke, H.: "A Mathematical Treatment of the Electrical Conductivity
and Capacity of Disperse Systems," Physical Review (1924) 24,575-87.
17. Perez-Rosales, C.: "Generalization of Maxwell Equation for Formation
Factor," paper SPE 5502 presented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1.
18. Clavier, C., Coates, G., and Dumanoir, J.: "Theoretical and Experimen-
tal Bases for the Dual-Water Model for Interpretation of Shaly Sands,"
SPEJ (April 1984) 153-68.
19. Arps, J.J.: "The Effect of Temperature on the Density and Electrical
Resistivity of Sodium Chloride Solutions," JPT (Oct. 1953) 17-20.
20. Athy, L.F.: "Density, Porosity, and Compaction of Sedimentary
Rocks," AAPG Bulletin (1930) 14, 1-24.
21. Rubey, W.W. and Hubbert, M.K.: "Role of Fluid Pressuring in the
Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting," G&t Bulletin (1959) 70,167-206.
22. PerIoff, W.H. and Baron, W.: Soil Mechanics Principles and Applica-
tions, John Wiley & Sons, New York City (1976) Chap. 5, 196-257.
23. Biot, M.A.: "General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation,"
J. Appl. Phys. (1941) 12, 155-64.
24. Roegiers, J.-e.: "Elements of Rock Mechanics," Reservoir Stimulation,
M.J. Economides and K.G. Nolte (eds.), Schlumberger Educational
Services, Houston (1987) Chap. 2.
25. Smith, J.E.: "The Dynamics of Shale Compaction and Evolution of
Pore-Fluid Pressures," Mathematical Geology (1971) 3, No.3, 239--63.
26. Alixant, J.-L. and Constant, W.D.: "Correlation of Gulf Coast Shale
Permeability and Resistivity: Application to Disposal Well Integrity
Tests," Fluid/Panicle SeparationJ. (March 1990) 3, No. 1,19-28.
27. Alixant, J.-L.: "Real-Time Effective Stress Evaluation in Shales: Pore
Pressure and Permeability Estimation," PhD dissertation, Louisiana
State U., Baton Rouge, LA (1989).
51 Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
°P (OP _ 32)/ 1. 8 °C
Ibm/gal x 1.198 264 E+02 kg/m 3
mho x 1.0* E+OO S
• Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 24, 1989. Paper accepted for publication
May 16, 1991. Revised manuscript received March 15, 1991. Paper (SPE 19336) first
presented at the 1989 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, WV, Oct. 24-27.
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991