Chapter Two: Pore Pressure at Depth in

Sedimentary Basins

Topics
• Pore Pressure and the Overburden Stress
• Reservoir Compartmentalization
• Development of Overpressure
• Pore Pressure Measurement and Estimation
•Deviations from “Normal Compaction Trend (log)
•Calibrated Compaction trends (log and core)
•Empirical Vp, Vs (Seismic Vint with/without Core)
Definition of Pore Pressure

Figure 2.1 – pg.28

Overpressure at Depth

Monte Christo

Figure 2.2 – pg.30

Pore Pressure Variations with Location and Depth

c)

Figure 2.3 – pg.31

Variations in Pore Pressure Within Compartments,
Each With ~Hydrostatic Gradients

Figure 2.4 – pg.32

 Oil and Gas Production and
Coastal Subsidence

Golden Meadow Fault

Lapeyrouse
Field

(After Morton et al., 2002)

Gas Fields in Southern Louisiana

Figure 2.10b – pg.39

Severe Depletion Within Compartments

Figure 2.10a – pg.39

 South Eugene Island

Figure 2.5 – pg.33

Figure 2.6 – pg.34
 OI Sand

Figure 2.7 – pg.35

Variations of Pressure with Depth

Figure 2.8 a,b – pg.36

Production-Induced Pore Pressure Variations Within
Compartments
Overpressure at Depth – Gradients > δSv/δz?

Monte Christo

Figure 2.2 – pg.30

True Gradients vs. Apparent Gradients
 Mechanisms of Overpressure Generation
Disequilibrium Compaction
(compaction and
porosity loss due to
burial is faster than fluid
flow and pressure
equilibrium)
Tectonic Compression
(rapid increase in
tectonic loading)
Hydrocarbon column heights
(buoyancy of oil and gas)
Aquathermal Compaction
(temperature increase)
Mineral diagenesis
(dehydration reaction
such as smectite to
illite)
Hydrocarbon maturation
(volumetric expansion
of kerogen to oil/gas)
Figure 2.6 – pg.34
 Diffusion Times and Distances
Compaction Disequilibrium in Shales

(φβf + βr )ηl
l 2 2
τ= =
κ k
Equation 2.2 – pg. 41

log τ = 2 log l − log k − 16

Equation 2.3 – pg. 41
1-2 km distances

Perm
e
S hal 2001
M l.
GO n et a
o
Kw
Pore Pressure in Wells in a Field in the
Northern North Sea
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
2600 2600

A
Pore Pressure in Wells in a Field
in the Northern North Sea B
C
D
2800 E 2800

F
G
H
I
3000 J 3000
K
L

3200 3200

Hydrostatic
Pore Pressure
3400 Gradient 3400

3600 3600
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Pore Pressure (MPa)
Variations of Pressure in South Eugene Island

Figure 2.8 a,b – pg.36

Illustration of the Centroid Effect

Figure 2.12 – pg. 43

Shale Porosity as a Function of σv

Figure 2.13 – pg. 46

Comparison of Compaction Trends for Shales and Sands
 Estimating Pore Pressure 1.
Overpressure Results in Undercompaction
(Abnormally High Porosity) at Depth

Figure 2.14 – pg.48

Empirical Methods for Determining Shale Pore Pressure from Sonic Data

⎛⎜ 1 - ϕv ⎞
x

P = Sv - (Sv - P
p
sh
p
hydro
)⎝ 1- ϕn ⎠
where,
x is an empirical coefficient
ϕ v = porosity from shale travel time
ϕ n = porosity from normal trend

M. Traugott (unpublished)
Empirical Method for Determining Shale Pore Pressure from Resistivity Data

⎡ Sv ⎛ Sv Pphydro ⎞ ⎛ Ro ⎞ 1.2 ⎤
P =z
sh
−⎜ − ⎟
p ⎢z ⎝ z z ⎠ ⎝ Rn ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎣
where,
Ro = observed shale resistivity
Rn = expected resistivity from
normal trend

M. Traugott (unpublished)
Potential Problems with Using Compaction Trends

Figure 2.18a – pg. 54

Shale Compaction Trends-Mahakam Delta, Indonesia

Figure 2.18 b – pg. 54

GMI Joint Industry Project with Permedia Research Group

Joint Industry Project (JIP)

Pore Pressure Prediction Project

Develop an integrated system for pore

pressure prediction from seismic velocities,
basin modeling, and well log analysis.
Based on the 3D visualization and basin
modeling system of Permedia Research Group
and GMI’s workflow for seismic based pore
pressure prediction.

ƒ First workshop held October 29 in Houston with 
participation from 6 operators.
ƒ Exxon‐Mobil and Amerada Hess have 
committed to participate.
ƒ Planned start date Jan. 1, 2009

page 32