UNIVERSITY OF KARBALA

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

PETROLEUM ENG. DEP

“seismic data to estimate

formation pressure”

A Report

Submitted to petroleum engineering department of university of

Karbala

By:-

Ali Mahmoud Ayal

Supervisor:

Dr.Abdul Kareem Alrubaiey

Evening study

Date

1/9/2020

1
Abstract

Pore pressure prediction before drilling is significant on ensuring drilling

safety, reasonable drilling mud density, and designing well profile. It can
also reduce the drilling cost and protect the hydrocarbon reservoir. With the
increasing quality of seismic data and widely application of new methods,
high-resolution seismic was used to reduce the uncertainty of the pore
pressure prediction . Pore pressure estimation is an important aspect of
exploration phase which helps the next stages of reservoir development
remarkably. An accurate pre-drill pore pressure prediction assists in an
appropriate mud weight selection and allows the casing program to be
optimized. the pore pressure prediction methods are introduced and pore
pressure of an Iranian gas reservoir is estimated by converting seismic
velocity to pore pressure. The results are then validated by comparing the
pressure data recorded during a well test program and the obtained results
from the model. There is an acceptable match between the compared
data. A quantitative predrill prediction of pore pressure is required when
drilling in overpressure formations, and can be obtained from elastic wave
velocities using a velocity-to-pore-pressure transform model calibrated with
laboratory measurements or offset well data.

Keywords :- Pore Pressure, elastic wave velocities, Eaton’s method,

Bowers method

2
Introduction
The pore pressure (𝑃p) may also be referred to as formation pressure and is
the fluid pressure within the pores of a soil or rock. Without a proper input
of the pore pressure an adjusted prediction becomes impossible to obtain for
any geomechanical model.

Figure 1 – Pressure plotted against depth Overpressure is the amount of Pp

in excess of hydrostatic pressure .

The pore pressure develops into a saturated formation as the sediment is

buried to greater and greater depth in a marine environment. The weight of
the overlying rocks increase, and the increasing stress acting at the grain
contacts leads to rearrangement of the grains, resulting in lower porosity
and permeability. If the rate of sedimentation is similar to the rate at which
fluid can be expelled from the pore space is maintained a normal pore
pressure gradient. Whereas if the rate of sedimentation exceeds the rate of
fluid expelling, or if dewatering is inhibited by the formation of seals during
burial, the pore fluid becomes overpressured and thus supports part of the

3
overburden load. Overpressure generated in this way is said to result from
disequilibrium compaction or undercompaction, this being the most
common mechanism for generating overpressure in deepwater sediments
{1}. The pore pressure may be measured by direct methods, common in
permeable layers, or by indirect methods through the interpretation of
drilling parameters, logs and seismic profiles. Formation pore pressure is
divided into the three categories normal, abnormal and subnormal formation
pressure. The term normal pressure describes the situation where formation
pressure is approximately equal to the theoretical hydrostatic pressure.
Abnormal (or overpressure) and subnormal pressures represent pressures of
respectively higher or lower values than this normal situation. The
overpressure may have three causes: related to stress mechanisms
(disequilibrium compaction or tectonic mechanisms); increment of fluid
volume (chemical or thermal processes); and flow of hydrocarbon fluids.
Each mechanisms that produces overpressures causes different porosity
values, so 𝑃p prediction must be performed on the basis of the mechanisms
that produced it.

Abnormal and subnormal formation pressures represent pressures of

respectively higher or lower values than this normal situation.

Figure -2 show hydrostatic stress

4
Theory

Pore pressure prediction

The pore pressure prediction methods have been developed in the recent
decades and many of them are based on the effective stress principle. Most
of these methods are empirical approaches that use data from logs, seismic
profiles and porosity determinations. {2}The traditional pore pressure
prediction methods are supported in relations between porosity, pore
pressure and effective stress and only take into account the undercompaction
mechanism as the cause of overpressure, which can lead to significant errors.
The traditional methods equate departures from the trend line of some
porosity-dependent measurement to an equivalent 𝑃p gradient and do not
Always provide reasonable results due to the lack of data in the input or an
inappropriate definition of the overpressure generating mechanism.

The pore pressure estimation methods can be classified into three groups:-
methods based onsedimentary basins models; methods using seismic data,
empirical models and rock physics models; methods that use logs data to
generate rock physics models.

Methods using seismic data

1-Eaton (1975) method {2}

2-Bowers (1995) method {1}

The pore pressure estimation from seismic velocities is based on the analysis
of seismic attributes: wave speed, transit time, the amplitude, the reflection
coefficients and the impedance. The seismic velocities in rocks increase
during compaction due to porosity reducing. Since any increasing in PP

5
above the normal hydrostatic gradient reduces the amount of compaction
that occurs, the seismic velocity can be used to Pp Prediction.

The Eaton´s method starts to plot the compaction trend in normal

conditions from the physical properties that are restricted, directly or
indirectly, by the porosity. This trend represents the normal conditions of
compactions with the increasing of overburden stress. The overburden stress
is a function of depth and is calculated from density logs or using the
Traugott’s equation (1997) or the empirical relationship from Gardner et al.
(1974). To use these equations is necessary to know the relationship between
the elastic wave velocities and the vertical effective stress.

Bowers (1995) method is an effective stress approach; the effective stress

is computed from the velocity and the result is subtracted from the
overburden stress to obtain the 𝑃!. This method accounts for excess pore
pressure generated by both under compaction and fluid expansion
mechanisms and presents two models, each corresponding to the respective
generating mechanism. To include multiple sources of overpressure, a pair
of velocity-to-effective stress relations are introduced. In this study we only

6
considered the under compaction mechanism, related to the non-decreasing
effective stress state. In this state, under increasing effective pressure,
sediments compact, and their sonic velocity goes up. The velocity-effective
stress relations for nondecreasing effective stress is referred to as the virgin
curve. According to Bowers (1995), under compaction is normally the
mechanism that causes overpressure at shallower depths,{3} where the
formations are soft, and the fluid expansion is the mechanism that generates
overpressure at deeper depths, in stiffer rocks.

Methods of evaluating abnormal pore pressures are separated in two

categories, prediction methods and detection methods.The prediction
methods normally use data obtained from seismic surveys, offset well logs
and well history.Detection methods traditionally use drilling parameters and
well log information obtained during the actual drilling of a well.

Note :-

Elastic wave velocities in rocks increase during loading due to reduction of

porosity and increased contact at grain boundaries. Since any increase in
pore pressure above the normal hydrostatic gradient reduces the amount of
compaction that occurs, elastic wave velocities may be used for pore
pressure prediction.

7
Seismic velocities VS Lab Measurements

Hoek triaxial cell (fitted to cylindrical specimens) were used, allowing the
application of two principal boundary stresses independently. Axial and
radial strains were measured directly on the sample using strain gauges,
which were mounted in a quarter Wheatstone bridge (strain measurements
accuracy was close to 10-6) and the correspondent registration’s equipment
Strain allowed data recorded {4}.

Figure 3 – Apparatus for the triaxial rock test with stress, strain, P-wave and
S-wave measurements .

8
P-wave and S-wave velocities were measured parallel to the major axis,
along diameters of the sample, using a pair of source-receiver piezoceramic
(PZT) transducers for each velocity, connected to a pulse generator and
receiver at frequencies of 55 kHz {5}. The sensors were installed on the
loading pistons of the triaxial cell and were developed from scratch for this
work.

Figure 4 – P-wave and S-wave transducers.

9
Because of the technical difficulty of using all the transducers in
simultaneous recording, were performed two cycles (followed by charge-
discharge) in each specimen, using the P-wave and the S-wave transducers
in each cycle. This methodology was possible due to the fact that triaxial
tests were always conducted in the elastic regime of the material. For each
test, a hydrostatic stress state was obtained in order to start the triaxial test
and then the axial stress was increased until the predefined value was
reached, keeping confining pressure constant. Four specimens were tested
for each confining pressure, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 16.0 MPa. All the
triaxial tests were carried out at a constant load rate (0.5 MPa/s).
Pore Pressure Analysis from 3-D Seismic Data

The interval velocity cube which is used for the pore pressure analysis. It is
used throughout in all the three wells in the form of interval velocity that we
extracted from the cube for corresponding three wells. We apply the basic
sequence pore pressure analysis for 3-D case and we use these cubes for the
calibration of wells {6}. 2-D section has been also generated for better
visualization of pore pressure variation within a particular depth interval.
The beauty of 3-D velocity cube is that in whole velocity cube we can
extract pore pressure at any point and we can go up to the last extent of the
data also its lateral resolution will be high.

Figure 5– P-wave velocity cube

10
I generated 2-D section of pore pressure cube which is shown in Fig. 6 {7}.
It is clearly showing high pressure zone within same range due to the
presence of source rock .

Fig. 6- Analysis of Pore pressure along a 2-D section generated from pore
pressure cube.

11
References

1 Bowers, G. L., 1995, Pore pressure estimation from velocity data:

Accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction: SPE
Drilling and Completions, June, 1– 19.

2- Eaton, B. A., 1968, Fracture gradient-prediction and its application in oil

field operations.

3- Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical soil mechanics: John Wiley and Sons.

4- TERZAGHI, K. & RICHART, F. E. (1952). “Stress in rock about

cavities”. Geotechnique.

5- http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com .

6- Sayers, C. M.; den Boer, L. D.; Nagy, Z. R. & Hooyman, P. J. (2006).

“Well- constrained seismic estimation of pore pressure with uncertainty”.

7- Hottman, C. E., and Johnson, R. K., 1965, Estimation of formation

pressures from log-derived shale properties.

12