Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity
Data: Accounting for Overpressure
Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction
Glenn L. Bowers,* Exxon Production Research Co.
Summary
A new method for estimating pore pressure from formation sonic velocity
data is presented. Unlike previous techniques, this method accounts for
excess pressure generated by both undercompaction, and fluid expansion
mechanisms such as aquathermal pressuring, hydrocarbon maturation, clay
diagenesis, and charging from other zones.
The method is an effective stress approach; the effective stress is
computed from the velocity, and the result is subtracted from the over-
burden stress to obtain pore pressure. To include multiple sources of
overpressure, a pair of velocity-vs.-effective-stress relations are
introduced. One relation accounts for normal pressure and overpressure
caused by undercompaction. The second is applied inside velocity reversal
zones caused by fluid expansion mechanisms.
Example applications of the method are presented from the U.S. gulf
coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Central North Sea. Some other pore
pressure estimation approaches are also examined to demonstrate how
these techniques have unknowingly accounted for overpressure
mechanisms other than undercompaction.
It is also explained how velocity-vs.-effective-stress data can be used to
identify the general cause of overpressure in an area. For instance, the
empirical correlation of Hottman and Johnson indicates that overpressure
along the U.S. gulf coast cannot be due only to undercompaction.
Introduction
Numerous methods have been developed for estimating pore fluid pressure
from geophysical data, and the list continues to grow. Empirical
approaches equate departures from the normal trend line of some porosity-
dependent measurement to an equivalent pore pressure gradient. Recent
methods have followed the more fundamental effective stress approach
pioneered by Foster and Whalen,1 Ham,2 and Eaton.3
All current pore pressure estimation methods fail to formally take into
account the cause of overpressure. It will be demonstrated that this can
lead to significant errors. For a given velocity at a given depth, the pore
pressure can vary by 4 lbm/gal or more, depending upon how the excess
pressure was generated.
This paper presents a method for estimating pore pressure from sonic
velocity data that systematically accounts for the cause of pressure. When
applied to wireline sonic logs, it is preferable to only use shale data to
minimize the effects of lithology changes. However, the method is also
applicable for pre-drill predictions from seismic interval velocities.
The paper begins with a review of fundamental aspects of shale com-
paction behavior that form the foundation of this method. This is followed
by a discussion of how different causes of overpressure affect the sonic
velocity. Some current pore pressure estimation methods are then
examined in light of these concepts. The new method is then described,
and example applications are presented and discussed.
Compaction Behavior
Non-Decreasing Effective Stress States. Under increasing effective
pressure, sediments compact, and their sonic velocity goes up. At the limit,
their porosity approaches zero, and their sonic velocity approaches the
value for the sediment grains. Borrowing terminolo-
*Now with Applied Mechanics Technologies.
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 10.1994. Revised manuscript
received Nov. 30,1994. Paper accepted tor publication Feb. 27,1995. Paper (SPE
27488) first presented at the 1994 IAOC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas. Feb.
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995
15-18.
gy from soil mechanics, the velocity-effective stress relation for non-
decreasing effective stress states will be referred to as the virgin curve.
Fig. la plots shale virgin curve data derived from well log and RFT
measurements from the Gulf of Mexico slope, and shows an estimate of
the complete virgin curve.
Effective Stress Reductions. Much (but not all) of the porosity loss/
velocity gain that occurs during compaction is permanent. As a result, the
sonic velocity will not go down the virgin curve when the effective stress
is reduced (unloading). The velocity will track a different, faster velocity-
vs.-effective-stress relation that will be called the unloading curve. If the
effective stress is subsequently increased, the velocity will follow the
unloading curve back to the virgin curve.
Fig. lb illustrates unloading behavior with laboratory velocity-effective
stress data for Cotton Valley shale (Tosaya4). The velocities measured at
effective stresses below the maximum in-situ stress state must be on an
unloading curve. For-comparison, the virgin curve for the Gulf of Mexico
sediments is replotted in Fig. 1 b.
Overpressure Causes/Effects
Normal Pressure. During burial under normal pressure conditions, the
effective stress continually increases with depth. Consequently, normal
trend velocity-vs.-effective-stress data follow a virgin curve.
Undercompaction. Overpressure most commonly occurs when pore fluid
trapped by low permeability is squeezed by the weight of newly deposited
sediments. This overpressuring process is referred to as undercompaction
or compaction disequilibrium.
Undercompaction cannot cause the effective stress to decrease.
Therefore, the virgin curve also applies for formations overpres-sured by
undercompaction. The most undercompaction can do is "freeze" the
effective stress in time, which would cause the velocity to become fixed on
the virgin curve. On a velocity/depth plot, this would appear as a velocity
plateau.
Fig. 2 illustrates undercompaction overpressure in the Gulf of Mexico.
Pore pressure, sonic velocity, and stress information are shown in Figs. 2a,
2b, and 2c, respectively. Fig. 2d plots velocity-vs.-effective- stress data
determined at RFT locations. It can be seen that all of data in Fig. 2d
appear to lie on a virgin curve, and that the points below 7200 ft are
approaching a fixed point.
Fluid Expansion. Overpressure can also be generated by fluid expansion
mechanisms such as heating,5-6 hydrocarbon maturation,7 charging from
other zones,8 and expulsion/expansion of intergranu-lar water during clay
diagenesis.910 Here, excess pressure results from the rock matrix
constraining the pore fluid as the fluid tries to increase in volume.
Unlike undercompaction, fluid expansion can cause the pore pressure to
increase at a faster rate than the overburden stress. This forces the effective
stress to decrease as burial continues, which produces a velocity reversal
(see Fig. 3b). Velocities inside the reversal will track an unloading
curve(s), while velocities outside the reversal will remain on a virgin
curve.
Fig. 3 illustrates this with data from an Indonesian well. Pore pressure,
velocity, and stress data are displayed in Fig. 3a, 3b, and 3c, respectively,
while Fig. 3d compares velocity-vs-effective-stress data from inside (open
circles) and outside (solid circles) the velocity reversal. The start of the
reversal coincides with the top of overpressure at approximately 6350 ft.
It can be seen in Fig. 3d that the velocities from inside the reversal track
a much faster trend. This suggests that fluid expansion mecha-
1
 Virgin Curve

_i_____■ '_______i_____i_____i___
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Effective Stress

(ksi)

a)

b)
Fig. 1—Shale
compaction
behavior: (a)
virgin curve
and (b)
unloading
curve.

Pore Pressure (ppg)

i ■—r \
Velocity (ktt/s)

Stress (ksi)
\
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 5
7.5 10 12.5 15 0
\
2 4 6 8 10
—I i 1 i i—
-1 1 1
• HFT's Overburden
Stress

Estimated
Effective
Pore \
•\
Stress
Pressure

I
\
>-Mudweight r*

.\
Used
' ^— Normal \ Trend

\
10 \

Pore
\ Pressure

\
a) \ c)

\
\
b)

F
i
g
.

2 SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995

 12
—
U
n
d
2 11 10 ? 9
e
r
c
o
m
p
.2 " ? 8 a
c
t
i
o
n

o
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
—
G
u
l
f

o
f

M
e
x
i
c
o
.

Effective Stress (ksi) 1 2

3 4
I Vmax —.
Unloading ^- Curve
\. 6649^ 6543'________j/

B036>' y^5789'
°6950'
i
^4780'

/ m 3649'

I Virgin / • Outside
Curve Reversal
° Inside Reversal

d)

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995 3

 v Virgin Curve
10 This assumes that the overpressure data are on a virgin curve. If fluid
_4 i8 ?2
f expansion has driven the data onto an unloading curve, as in Fig. 3, the
Pore Pressure • 9- Vmaxtor Wed *1
9° effective stress will be overestimated, and the pore pressure will be
15ppg oi5-17ppg
9 ooo««> J underestimated, as Magara observed.
?6
______l_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Effective Stress (ksi) Fig. 5—Fluid expansion
"0
_l_ _l overpressure, central North Sea.
_
Plumley13 discussed unloading caused by fluid expansion overpressure,
and presented a U.S. gulf coast example of its occurrence. He compared
porosities from Pore
an overpressured and normally
Pressure • 8-13 pressured
ppg O 14-18 ppg interval having
.Virgin Curve
the same effective stresses. The porosity in the overpressured zone was
12.5 half the value in normal pressure (17.6% vs. 38%). Plumley concluded this
was because the high pressure zone had undergone unloading. Berg and
Habeck14 came up with a similar conclusion using density log data from a
south Texas well.

Velocity Reversal Without Unloading. Not all velocity reversals are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4
Effective Stress (ksi) Effective Stress (ksi)
a) b)
Fig. 4—Fluid expansion overpressure, Gulf of Mexico.
nisms contributed to the overpressure inside the reversal. Note the
similarity between the unloading curve in Fig. 3d and the trend followed
by the Cotton Valley shale data in Fig. lb.
Fig. 3d also demonstrates the importance of accounting for the cause of
overpressure when estimating pore pressures. The virgin curve would
overestimate the effective stress at 6950 ft by 1700 psi, which means the
pore pressure would be underestimated by the same amount. This would
correspond to a 4.7 lbm/gal error in the equivalent mudweight prediction.
Fig. 4 present further evidence of unloading. Fig. 4a shows velocity-
effective stress data derived from RFT and well log measurements along
the Gulf of Mexico slope. The data are divided into two groups according
to the magnitude of overpressure. Solid circles are in the 9 to 15 lbm/gal
equivalent mudweight range, while the open circles are in "hard"
overpressure. Contrary to what might be expected, the higher pressure data
tend to have faster velocities. As Fig. 4b indicates, a possible explanation
is that most of these data are from formations that have undergone some
unloading. Similar trends are evident in the Central North Sea velocity-
vs.-effective-stress data plotted in Fig. S.
Others have also reported evidence of unloading caused by high
pressure. Magara1' found that the Equivalent Depth method under-
predicted the pore pressure data of Hottman and Johnson.12 The equivalent
depth method2 equates the effective stress in an over-pressured zone to
that in a normally pressure interval with the same velocity (see Fig. 6).
5 6 7
caused by fluid expansion mechanisms. The velocity will also drop across
the transition from a normally pressured sand/shale sequence to a massive
undercompacted shale. If fluid expansion is not the cause, the velocity-vs.-
effective-stress data from the reversal will follow a virgin curve.
Determining the Cause of Overpressure In Velocity Reversals.
A reliable way has not been found to determine from velocity data alone
whether a reversal was caused by undercompaction or fluid expansion.
However, some general guidelines can be offered on the geologic
conditions that are conducive to each of these causes of pressure (Miller
and Luk6).
The amount of overpressure generated by undercompaction depends
upon the relative compressibility of the rock matrix and the pore fluid.
They act like two springs in parallel. If the rock matrix is much more
compressible, increases in overburden stress will be carried primarily by
the pore fluid. If the rock matrix is much less compressible, then it will
bear most of the overburden. Therefore, undercompaction will typically
generate the greatest
overpressure
at shallower
depths, where
formations are soft.

'Equvialcnt Dtpth'

V y
•

\
10
\\
*
_ v— _ _ _ _

Sonic —v —
log
\
»

Normal Trand

7.5 10
Velocity (KWs)

Fig. 6—Case where equivalent depth method works—Gulf of Mexico. Fig. 7—Case where equivalent depth method fails—offshore In-
donesia.

4 SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995

 12
Pore Pressure (ppg)
Effective Stress (ksi) 2 3 4
—i r —i 1 1
— Vmax—v /

O Pressure Tests H&J

8>

Solution

Inside

Reversal

•#> •>
Equv. Depth

G^"*—_ Solution

Inside
r °
/
Reversal

/Assumed^ O Inside Reversal

(Pressure Tests}

• Outside Reversal

Normal

Trend (Normal Trend)

c)

Fig. 8—U.S. gulf coast application of the Hottman & Johnson and equivalent depth methods.

On the other hand, the activity of many fluid expansion mechanisms
increases with temperature, and therefore depth. To be a strong source of
overpressure, fluid expansion also requires a fairly rigid, well-compacted
rock matrix that can adequately constrain the pore fluid. Consequently,
fluid expansion is more likely to be an important source of overpressure at
deeper depths, in stiffer rocks.
The only sure way to determine the cause of overpressure in a velocity
reversal is with measured pore pressures. One way is to plot velocity-vs.-
effective-stress data from inside and outside the reversal, as in Fig. 3d. The
reversal data will track a much faster trend if fluid expansion mechanisms
were active.
Another approach is to compare measured pore pressures with those
computed with the equivalent depth method. The equivalent depth method
will underestimate pore pressure caused by fluid expansion. Figs. 6 and 7
present cases where the equivalent depth method works and fails.
Cementation. Unloading may not be the only reason that velocity reversal
data deviate from the virgin curve; cementation could also be a factor.
From the standpoint of pore pressure estimation, this is inconsequential.
What counts is that the separate trend tracked by the reversal data be
recognized and accounted for.
However, cementation does complicate diagnosing the cause of
overpressure within a reversal. Even with petrographic analyses, it can be
difficult to sort out the relative effects of unloading and cementation. What
can be said is that cementation is conducive to fluid expansion
overpressure, because it increases the rock matrix's constraint of the pore
fluid. Consequently, while local geologic conditions must be considered,
there is reason to believe that undercompaction is generally not the sole
source of overpressure when velocity reversal data diverge significantly
from the virgin curve.
Pore Pressure (ppg) 10 12
14 16 1B
15
Current Pore Pressure Estimation Methods
Most pore pressure estimation methods claim to only be applicable for
overpressure caused by undercompaction. However, it turns out that many
current pore pressure estimation methods are (unknowingly) predicting
fluid expansion overpressure. To illustrate this, two popular techniques are
examined
Hottman and Johnson. The Hottman and Johnson (H&J) method
empirically correlates departures from the velocity normal trend line to an
equivalent pore pressure gradient.12 Empirical correlations have no inherent

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995 5

 10
bias towards one particular overpressure mechanism. They simply reflect
whatever the dominant cause of overpressure is in the area in which they
were developed. For their U.S. gulf coast correlation, H&J assumed this
was undercompaction. If this is true, then the Equivalent Depth and H&J
methods should give similar results. As a test, both approaches were
o
applied to shale sonic log data from H&J's original paper12 (Well "R"). Fig.
Vmax
8a shows the velocities, while Fig. 8b compares the estimated pore
pressures with bottomhole pressure measurements.
It can be seen that the equivalent depth method underpredicts the
pressure, while the H&J correlation performs well. This has two possible
c)
implications. First, because the Equivalent Depth method failed, this
suggests that fluid expansion is an important source of overpressure.
Second, because the H&J method worked, H&J's Gulf Coast correlation
appears to have fluid expansion "built" into it.
As further evidence, Fig. 8c plots velocity-vs.-effective-stress data from
the well. Solid circles are from the normal trend line. Eaton's U.S. gulf
coast overburden stress curve15 and a normal pressure gradient of 0.465
psi/ft were used to estimate effective stresses at these points. Open circles
are from the three pressure tests inside
Effective Stress (ksi)
Original Eaton Equation
V V*
( -a
¥nnrm /
)

v = err1'3

Revised Eaton Equation .5

t - o-norm(JL_j
x "norm7

O Pressure Tests
Fig. 9—U.S. gulf coast application of the Eaton and equivalent depth methods.

6 SPE Drilling & Completion. June 1995

the velocity reversal. The faster trend tracked by the reversal data is
characteristic of unloading.
The solid line in Fig. 8c is the velocity-vs.-effective-stress path defined
by H&J's pore pressure estimates inside the reversal. This curve clearly
deviates from the normal pressure data, which again suggests the H&J
Gulf Coast correlation is biased towards fluid expansion overpressure.
This also means that this correlation will overestimate the pore pressure at
wells where undercompaction truly is the dominant cause of overpressure,
as in Fig. 2.
Eaton. Original Eaton Method. Eaton's method3 is an effective stress
approach, with the effective stress, o, computed from the equation:
Here v is the measured velocity, and onorm and vnorm are the values the
effective stress and velocity should have under normal pressure conditions.
Eq. 1 implies that normally pressured and overpressured formations both
follow a virgin curve relation of the form:
v = Co/3.............................................................................................(2)
Consequently, Eaton's method should underestimate fluid expansion
overpressure.
The velocity normal trend line is usually assumed to be a straight line
on a plot of log(vnorm) vs. depth. However, according to Eq. 1, v and v norm
should both satisfy Eq. 2. Therefore, to be consistent, vnorm should
actually be calculated from Eq. 2 using onorm values determined from the
overburden stress and normal pore pressure profiles. If this were done, the
normal trend line would not be a semilog straight line.
Fig. 9a compares H&J's semi-log normal trend for Well R (dot-dashed
curve) with one analytically computed from Eq. 2 (solid line). The
parameter C = 564 was obtained by fitting Eq. 2 through the normal trend
velocity-effective stress data in Fig. 9c. It can be seen that the semi-log
normal trend line is faster than the analytical solution below the top of
overpressure. By overestimating vnorm, the semi-log normal trend will make
Eq. 1 predict lower effective stresses, and therefore higher pore pressures
than Eq. 2. This will generally be true. However, unless unreasonably
large values are assumed for vnorm, Eq. 1 will still underestimate fluid
expansion overpressure.
This is the case with the Eaton pore pressure estimates for Well R,
which are plotted as a solid line in Fig. 9b. The dot-dashed line is the
equivalent depth solution. It can be seen that both methods fall well short
of the measured pressures in the velocity reversal. The velocity-effective
stress data in Fig. 9c explain why. Even with the semi-log normal trend
line, the Eaton solution inside the reversal remains close to the virgin
curve defined by Eq. 2.
Modified Eaton Method. If the Eaton pore pressure estimates are too
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995
low, Eq. 1 can be adjusted to yield lower effective stresses. One way is to
increase vnorm by shifting and rotating the normal trend line (Weakley16).
Another, simpler alternative, is to raise the exponent in Eq. 1. Either way,
the net effect is the same; it allows the original Eaton virgin curve relation
to be transformed into an unloading curve.
For example, by raising the exponent from 3 to 5, the revised Eaton
solution (dotted line in Fig. 9b) is able to closely match the Well R
pressure data. As Fig. 9c shows, this is because the higher exponent has
allowed Eaton's equation to simulate an unloading curve.
New Method
Overview. The new method is an effective stress approach that employs
virgin and unloading curve relations to account for both undercompaction
and fluid expansion overpressure. Effective stresses outside of velocity
reversal zones are computed from the virgin curve. Inside a velocity
reversal, offset well data are used to decide which equation is appropriate.
For rank wildcats, the pore pressure can be computed both ways to
establish lower and upper bounds on the pressure. The unloading curve
will always yield higher pore pressure estimates.
Virgin Curve. Over stress ranges of practical interest, it has been found
that the virgin curve for shale, as shown in Fig. la, can be adequately
represented by the following equation:
v = 5000 + AoB...................................................................................(3)
where v is velocity (ft/s), o is effective stress (psi), and A and B are
parameters calibrated with offset velocity-vs-effective-stress data.
Unloading Curve. The unloading curve is defined by the empirical
relation:
v = 5000 +AIomax(o/omi»)<"U)]B.........................................................(4)
where A and B are as before, U is a third parameter, and
( x ^ . .y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/B
0m ax= (5 )
Here, amax and vmax are estimates of the effective stress and velocity at the
onset of unloading.
In the absence of major lithology changes, v max is usually set equal to
the velocity at the start of the velocity reversal. This assumes that all
formations within the reversal at one time passed through the same
maximum stress state. While this generally may not be true, using the
velocity at the start of the reversal for vmax has been found to work
satisfactorily.
7
 Pore Pressure (ppg) 10 12
14 16 18

O Pressure Tests

Estimated
T Pore
^ Pressure

Fig. 12—U.S. gulf coast

application of new
method.

The generally
unloading lie on
parameter multiple
U is a unloading
measure curves
of how (see Fig.
plastic the 5).
sediment However,
is (see by
Fig. 10). substitutin
U = 1 g Eq. 3
implies no into Eq. 4,
permanent the
deformati unloading
on, be- curve can
cause the be recast
unloading into a
curve form that
reduces to normalize
the virgin s multiple
curve. U well
= oo unloading
corre- data onto
sponds to a single
completel curve:
y (6)
irreversibl (
e o
deformati
on, since /
v = vmax f°r
o
all values
of m
effective
stress less M

than omax. )
1°
practice,
U
=
typically
ranges
between 3
and 8. (
o
Solving
for U. V

While
c
virgin
curve data /
track a
single o
curve,
m
unloading
data from a
multiple
wells will x
 vs.-
)
effective-
u stress data
from the
, normal
pressure
interval
w above
10000 ft
h
(see Fig.
e 12c). A
normal
r pressure
e gradient
of 0.465
l/B psi/ft, and
v Eaton's (7)
- U.S. gulf
5 coast
0
overburde
0
n stress
0
curve
\
A were used
to
/ estimate
effective
As the stresses
insert in along the
Fig. 11 normal
illustrates, trend. The
ovc is the normal
stress at trend line
which the in Fig.
current 12a was
velocity v calculated
intersects from the
the virgin virgin
curve. curve
Fig. 11 relation.
shows the Pore
normal- pressures
ized inside the
version of velocity
the reversal
unloading were
data in computed
Fig. 5. from the
unloading
Example curve
Applicatio relation,
ns with U =
U.S. Gulf 3.13. This
Coast. is a
Fig. 12 regional
shows an unloading
applicatio parameter
n of the determine
new d from
method to U.S. gulf
Hottman coast and
and Gulf of
Johnson's Mexico
Well R. data. Fig.
The virgin 12b
curve compares
parameter the
s (A = pressure
4.4567, B estimates
= 0.8168) with the
were measured
determine values.
d by The
fitting accuracy
velocity- achieved
SPE Drilling & 9
Completion, June 1995
is similar nearly
to that for 1400 ft of
the water in
Hottman the Gulf
& of
Johnson Mexico.
U.S. gulf Fig. 13a
coast plots the
correlatio sonic log
n. data, and
Fig. a normal
12c trend line
compares analyticall
the virgin y
curve and computed
unloading from Eq.
curve 3. There
relations are a
with number of
velocity- small
effective velocity
stress data reversals
from above
inside and 9700 ft,
outside and one
the rever- major
sal. Also reversal
shown is between
the 9700 ft
velocity- and TD.
vs.- Because
effective- all of the
stress path shallower
defined reversals
by H&J's are very
pore weak,
pressure they were
estimates not
inside the considere
reversal. d to be
As can be due to
seen, the fluid
new expansion
method's .
unloading Within
curve is the large
very close reversal,
to H&J's the
stress velocity at
path. first drops
Their at a rate
divergenc similar to
e is due to that in the
the smaller
Hottman reversals.
and However,
Johnson at 10200
normal ft, the
trend line slope
exponenti steepens
ally significant
increasing ly. This
with slope
depth. break was
interprete
Deepwate d to be the
r Gulf of onset of
Mexico. fluid
The next expansion
example overpress
is from a ure.
well Therefore,
drilled in in the
unloading a value of
relation, 3.13 was
vmax was assumed
assumed for the
to be the unloading
velocity at parameter
10200 ft, U.
not the Regional
peak virgin
velocity at curve
9700 ft. parameter
Where the s,
velocities determine
near TD d from
are above wells in
the value water
at 10200 depths
ft, the between
virgin 600 and
curve was 1500 ft
used to were used
compute for A and
effective B, with A
stresses. =
As in 28.3711,
the U.S. B =
gulf coast 0.6207.
example,

Fig. high
13b plots pressure/h
the pore igh
pressure temperatu
data. re (HPHT)
Open well in the
circles are Central
pore pres- North Sea.
sures Fig. 14a
determine shows the
d from sonic log
RFT data, and
measurem three
ents. The separate
dotted line normal
shows the trends;
mudweigh
one for
ts that
the Ter-
were used,
tiary
while the
shales
solid line
above
is the
9000 ft (A
estimated
= 2.8746,
pore
pressure. B =
It can be 0.9037),
seen that another
the new for the
method is chalk (A =
able to 802.1, B =
track both 0.3215),
the rise in and a third
pressure, for all
and the other
pressure formation
regression s above
. and below
the chalk
Central (A =
North 8.116, B =
Sea. The 0.8002).
final Overpr
example is essure
from a above the
SPE Drilling & 11
Completion, June 1995
chalk is methods
primarily that rely
due to on a
undercom normal
paction, trend line.
while This
below the would
chalk, include
fluid empirical
expansion correlatio
mechanis ns, the
ms appear equivalent
to be depth, and
important. Eaton
This is methods.
evident Near
from the the top
velocity- and
effective bottom of
stress data the chalk,
in Fig. 5. velocity
The 8 to changes
13 lbm/gal due to
group pore
(solid pressure
circles) are
includes obscured
forma- by those
tions from due to
above and lithology.
below the Significan
chalk. All t
of the data variations
in the 14 in sonic
to 18 properties
lbm/gal also occur
range within the
(open chalk.
circles) Conseque
are from ntly, pore
Jurassic pressure
formation estimates
s below in and
the X- near the
unconfor chalk are
mity. A fit not
of the considere
normalize d reliable.
d Central To
North Sea compensat
unloading e for
data in lithology
Fig. 11 effects,
yielded U the
=4.48. following
There approach
are was used.
essentially Above the
no chalk,
normally pore
pressured pressures
shale estimated
intervals down to
along this the onset
well. of the
Conseque rapid
ntly, it velocity
would be rise at
very 9800 ft
difficult to were
apply pore honored.
pressure Pore
estimation pressures
computed compares
below the the
X- estimated
unconfor pressures
mity were with
also mudweigh
assumed ts used
to be during
valid. The drilling,
estimates and RFT
on either data. It
side of the can be
chalk seen that
were then outside
connected the chalk,
with the pore
straight pressure
lines to estimates
the pore are in
pressure good
calculated agreement
at the first with the
major measured
velocity values.
peak However,
within the within the
chalk. chalk, as
Litholo was
gy effects discussed
also made above, the
it prediction
necessary s are
to use a essentially
different a guess.
criterion
for Conclusio
picking ns
vmax for Based on
the clastic the
formation literature,
s below there
the X- appear to
unconfor- be some
mity. The misconcep
velocity at tions
the start of about
the fluid
reversal expansion
could not as a
be used, source of
because overpress
this point ure. First,
is in the it occurs
chalk. more
From pore frequently
pressure than is
hindcasts generally
at other assumed.
Central For
North Sea instance,
wells, it underco
was mpaction
decided to is often
set vmax cited as
equal to the cause
the normal of
trend overpress
velocity at ure along
the X- the U.S.
unconfor gulf coast.
mity. However,
Fig. velocity-
14b vs.-
SPE Drilling & 13
Completion, June 1995
effective- It consists
stress data of two key
from this elements:
area in- 1) a pair
dicate that of
fluid velocity-
expansion vs.-
mechanis effective-
ms are an stress
important relations
factor. that ac-
The count for
second overpress
misconcep ure
tion is that mechanis
fluid ms
expansion besides
overpress undercom
ure cannot paction,
be and 2) a
estimated procedure
from for
geophysic determini
al data. It ng when
can. In each
fact, a relation
number of should be
current used. Both
pore elements
pressure are
estimation equally
methods important.
have been
doing so Nomencla
without ture
realizing o
it.
Failure =
to account
for the e
absence or f
presence f
of fluid e
expansion c
overpress t
ure can i
lead to v
large e
errors in
the v
estimated e
pore r
pressure. t
Therefore, i
it is
c
important
a
to have a
l
systematic
approach
s
for
t
estimating
r
pore
e
pressure
s
due to
s
both
,
undercom
paction
and fluid p
expansion. s
Such an i
approach ,
has been
presented. m
 / param
L eter ovc
t =
2 effecti
ve
v vertica
l stress
= at
which
the
s
sonic
o
velocit
n
y
i
interse
c cts the
virgin
v curve,
e psi,
l m/Lt2
o °norm
c =

i effecti
t ve
y vertica
, l stress
for
f normal
t pore
/ pressu
s re, psi,
e m/Lt2
v norm
c =
,
so
ni
L
c
/
ve
t lo
°max = effective cit
vertic y
al fo
stress r
at the no
onset r
of m
unloa al
ding, po
psi, re
m/Lt2 pr
vmax es
=
su
sonic re,
veloc ft/
ity at se
the c,
onset L/
of t
unlo C
adin =
g, pa
ft/sec ra
. L/t m
A,B et
= er
virgi in
n Ea
curv to
e n's
para im
mete pli
rs ed
U= vi
unload rg
ing in
curve cu
SPE Drilling & 15
Completion, June 1995
 rv 2.Ham, H.
e H.: "A
rel Method
of
ati
Estimati
on ng
Formati
Acknowle on
dgments Pressure
The s From
Gulf
author
Coast
thanks Well
Exxon Logs,"
Productio Trans.,
n Gulf
Research Coast
Co. for Assn. of
permissio Geol.
Soc,
n to
16.185-
publish 197.
this paper. 3.Eaton,
Data for B. A.:
the "The
deepwater Equatio
Gulf of n for
Geopres
Mexico
sure
example Predicti
were on from
provided Well
by Exxon Logs,"
Exploratio SPE
n Co., 5544.
while the 4.Tosaya,
C. A.: "
Central Acoustic
North Sea al
well data Properti
were es of
received Clay
from Shell Bearing
Rocks ,"
E&P
Ph.D.
U.K., and Disserta
Esso E&P tion,
U.K. The Stanfor
interpretat d U.,
ions of Palo
these data Alto.
CA
are those
(1982).
of the
author and
5.Barker.
C:
not of the "Aquat
organizati hermal
ons Pressuri
furnishing ng—
the data. Role of
Temper
ature in
Reference
Devel-
s
opment
1.Foster, of
J. B, Abnorm
and al
Whalen, Pressure
J. E.: Zones,"
"Estima AAPG,
tion of 56,
Formati 2068-
on 2071.
Pressure 6.Miller,
s From T. W.
Electric and
al Luk, C.
Surveys H.:
Offshor "Contri
e butions
Louisian of
a," JPT Compac
(Feb. tion and
1966), Aqua-
165. thermal
 Pressuri 1254.
ng to 10. Bruce,
Geopres C. H.:
sure and "Smect
the ite
Influenc Dehydr
e of ation-
Environ Its
mental Relatio
Conditio n to
ns: Structu
Discussi ral
on," Develo
AAPG pment
Bull. and
(Nov Hydroc
1993) arbon
77, No. Accum
II, ulation
2006- in
2010. Northe
7.Spencer rn Gulf
, C. W.: of
"Hydro Mexico
carbon Basin,"
Generat AAPG
ion as a Bull.
Mechani (June
sm for 1984)
Over- 68, No.
pressuri 6, 673-
ng in 683.
Rocky ll.Magara,
Mountai K.:
n "Impor
Region, tance of
" AAPG Aquath
Bull. ermal
(April Pressur
1987) ing
71, No. Effect
4, 368- in Gulf
388. Coast,"
8.Fertl, AAPG
W. H.: Bull.
Abnorm (Oct.
al 1975)
Formati 59. No.
on 10.
Pressure 2037-
s. 2045.
Elsevier 12. Hottm
Scientifi an. C.
c Pub- E. and
lishing Johnso
Compan n, R.
y, New K.:
York "Estim
City ation of
(1976) Format
21. ion
9.Powers, Pressur
M. C.: es from
"Fluid- Log-
Release Derive
Mechani d Shale
sms in Proper
Compac ties,"
ting JPT
Marine (iune
Mu- 1965)
drocks 717.
and 13. Pluml
Their ey, W.
Importa J.:
nce in "Abno
Oil rmally
Explora High
tion," Fluid
AAPG Pressur
Bull. e:
(July Survey
1967)51, of
No. 7, Some
1240- Basic
SPE Drilling & 17
Completion, June 1995
 Princip of Applied
les," Mechanics
AAPG Technologi
Bull. es in
(March Houston,
, 1980) which
64. No. provides
3, 414- consulting
430. services in
14. Berg, abnormal
R. R. pore
and pressure,
Habeck wellbore
, MR: stability,
"Abno
wellbore
rmal
fracturing,
Pressur
and
es in
general
the
rock
Lower
mechanics
Vick-
. He
sburg,
McAlle previously
n spent 12
Ranch years at
Field, Exxon
South Production
Texas," Research
Trans., Co., where
Gulf he
Coast performed
Assoc. research
Geol. in these
Soc. same
(1982) areas. He
32, holds BS
247- and MS
253. degrees in
15. Eaton mechanica
, B. A.: l
"The engineerin
Effect g from the
of U. of
Overbu Akron, and
rden a PhD
Stress degree in
on theoretical
Geopre and ap-
ssure plied
Predic- mechanics
tion
from the
from
U. of
Well
Illinois.
Logs,"
JPT
(Aug,.
1972,
929.
16. Weakl
ey, R.
R.:
"Use of
Surface
Seismic
Data
To
Predict
Format
ion
Pore
Pressur
e (Sand
Shale
Deposit
ional
Enviro
nments
)," SPE
18713.
SPEDC

Glenn L.
Bowers is
president