An introduction to velocity-based pore-pressure estimation

COLIN M. SAYERS, Schlumberger Data and Consulting Services, Houston, USA

bnormal pore pressures are encountered worldwide,

often resulting in drilling problems such as kicks, blowouts, borehole instability, stuck pipe, and lost circulation.
Because of this, a quantitative predrill prediction of pore
pressure is required for the safe and economic drilling of
wells in overpressured formations. In this paper, the basic
concepts used in pore-pressure prediction are defined, and
the way in which pore pressure can be estimated using
velocity measurements is explained. A predrill estimate of
pore pressure can be obtained from seismic velocities using
a velocity-to-pore-pressure transform calibrated with offset
well data. However, velocities obtained from processing
seismic reflection data often lack the spatial resolution
needed for accurate pore-pressure prediction, due to
assumptions such as layered media and hyperbolic moveout. In the following paper in this section, Chopra and
Huffman review the available methods of velocity model
building and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
each. Once suitable velocities are obtained, a velocity-topore-pressure transform is required. This article provides
the rock physics basis underlying such transforms.

Figure 1. In normally
pressured sediments, the
pore pressure equals the
hydrostatic pressure of a
column of formation water
extending to the surface.

Sediment compaction. Following deposition in the marine

environment, sediments are initially unconsolidated and
have a high porosity and permeability. As a result, the water
in the pore space is in pressure communication with the surface, and the weight of the solid phase is supported at the
grain contacts and has no influence on the pressure in the
fluid (Bourgoyne et al., 1986). The pore pressure p in the fluid
is then given by the hydrostatic pressure of a column of formation water extending to the surface (Figure 1). Sediments
in which the pore pressure is approximately equal to the
hydrostatic pressure are said to be normally pressured, the normal pressure at depth h below the sea surface being given
by

where g is the acceleration due to gravity, and fluid(z) is the

fluid density at depth z.
As the sediment is buried to greater and greater depth,
the weight of the overlying rocks increases, 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 exceeds the rate at which fluid
can be expelled from the pore space, or if dewatering is inhibited by the formation of seals during burial, the pore fluid
becomes overpressured and thus supports part of the 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.
For the purposes of illustration, the total vertical stress
S is assumed to be given by the combined weight of the rock
matrix and the fluids in the pore space overlying the interval of interest:

where (z) is the density at depth z below the surface, and

g is the acceleration due to gravity. Part of this load is sup1496

THE LEADING EDGE

DECEMBER 2006

Figure 2. Porosity versus depth curves obtained using the relation of

Aplin et al. (1995) assuming a grain density of 2.65 g/cc and a fluid
density of 1.05 g/cc for * = 0.5, * = 100 kPa and various values of
the compaction coefficient .

ported by the fluid pressure p, while the remainder is supported by the rock matrix and is referred to as the effective
stress defined by:

Uniaxial strain measurements on unconsolidated sediments have shown that the void ratio e defined by e=/(1) decreases linearly with increase in the logarithm of the
vertical effective stress:

where e* is the void ratio at a chosen effective stress *, and

is the compression coefficient (Aplin et al., 1995). This equation may be rewritten as

(1)

Figure 3. Porosity/effective stress relation implied by Traugotts relation

compared with the prediction of the power law given by Equation 3.

This equation allows the vertical effective stress to be

estimated given a measurement of porosity or density. The
pore pressure is then given by the difference between the
total vertical stress and the vertical effective stress.
Starting from Equation 1, Aplin et al. (1995) have derived
a relation describing porosity/depth trends in a horizontally
stratified sequence of normally pressured, gravitationally
compacted sediments. Figure 2 shows the prediction of this
relation for the case in which is assumed to be independent of depth. The vertical effective stress at any depth is
then given by Equation 1.
In drilling applications, the pressure and overburden gradient, defined as pressure and vertical stress divided by true
vertical depth (TVD) below the kelly bushing (KB), are more
frequently used than are pressure and vertical stress, and
are often expressed in pounds per gallon (ppg) where 1
psi/ft = 19.25 ppg =2.31 g/cc. Thus the overburden gradient (OBG) can be written as (Traugott, 1997)

where W is water depth, D is true vertical depth, A is the

air gap (vertical distance between KB and sea surface), sea
is the seawater density, and avg is the average sediment density between the sea bottom and the depth of interest.
Various empirical relations for the overburden gradient
have been used. An example is the expression given by
Traugott (1997) in which the average sediment density
between the sea bottom and the depth of interest is approximated by the expression

where avg has units of ppg, and D, W, and A have units of

ft.
Since
Figure 4. Density and porosity versus depth below the mudline implied
by Traugotts relation compared with the prediction of the power law
given by Equation 3.

it follows that this equation corresponds to a sediment density that varies with depth z below sea bottom as
where 0 is the density at the mudline. Assuming a grain
density s and fluid density f the porosity may be calculated from this equation using the relation
(2)
Figure 3 plots porosity as a function of effective stress
using Traugotts equation and a grain density of 2.65 g/cc
and fluid density of 1.05 g/cc together with a best fit of a
porosity/effective stress relation of the form
(3)

Figure 5. Velocity versus porosity obtained from Gardners relation compared with the data presented by Issler (1992) for offshore wells in the
Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin, Northern Canada.

where c is a critical porosity above which the effective

stress is zero, and max is the effective stress corresponding
to =0 in Equation 3. It is seen that the power law given by
Equation 3 is in good agreement with the porosity/effective stress relation implied by Traugotts relation.
Figure 4 compares the variation of density and porosity
versus depth below mudline given by Traugotts relation
with the prediction of Equation 3. Good agreement is seen.
DECEMBER 2006

THE LEADING EDGE

1497

Traugotts expression shown in Figure 4. It is seen that the

velocity versus effective stress relation that results agrees
well with the relation
(4)
proposed by Bowers (1995).
Equation 4 allows the effective stress to be determined
from velocity measurements using the relation:

Figure 6. Velocity versus effective stress relation obtained by Traugotts

relation with Gardners expression compared with the Bowers relation
given by Equation 4.

The pore pressure p can then be determined as the difference between the total vertical stress S and the vertical
effective stress .
Several other velocity/effective stress relations exist in
the literature, and several of these are discussed by Gutierrez
et al. in this issue of TLE. The most widely used approach
in the industry is the method of Eaton (1975) which estimates the vertical component of the effective stress from
the seismic velocity v, via the relation:

Normal and vNormal in this equation are the vertical effective

stress and seismic velocity expected if the sediment is normally pressured, while n is an exponent that describes the
sensitivity of velocity to effective stress. The pore pressure
is then given by:

To use Eatons method, the deviation of the measured

velocity from that of normally pressured sediments vNormal
must be estimated. Usually, a suitable parameterized expression for vNormal is chosen, and the parameters are obtained
by fitting to the shallow velocities assuming that the shallow sediments are normally pressured. However, overpressure often begins at shallow depths thus invalidating
this approach. The assumption that shallow sediments are
normally pressured is also unnecessary, because the parameters defining vNormal may be determined by an inversion
of existing pressure data, as pointed out by Sayers et al.
(2002). Consider, for purposes of illustration, the simple linear variation of vNormal with depth given by:
Figure 7. Constant n slice through the 3D space with axes v0, k, and n
showing contours of prms defined in the text for n=3.

Pore pressure estimation from velocity. A relation between

velocity and effective stress can be obtained from the previous equations relating porosity to effective stress given a
relation between velocity and porosity. A suitable relation
is Gardners relation (1974) between density and velocity:

which allows velocity to be calculated from porosity using

Equation 2. Figure 5 compares the velocity versus porosity
prediction from Gardners relation, using the parameters
given by Castagna et al. (1993) for shales, with the data presented by Issler (1992) for offshore wells in the BeaufortMackenzie Basin, Northern Canada.
Figure 6 shows the velocity versus effective stress implied
by Gardners equation, with the same parameters as before,
and the porosity/effective stress relation implied by
1498

THE LEADING EDGE

DECEMBER 2006

where z is depth measured from the seafloor and v0 is the

velocity of sediments at the seafloor. Typical values of the
vertical velocity gradient k lie in the range 0.6 to 1 s-1 (Xu et
al., 1993). To predict pore pressure the parameters v0, k, and
Eaton exponent n must be determined. Using a 3D gridbased method (Sayers et al., 2002), the numeric ranges of
parameters v0, k, and n may be determined via root-meansquare (rms) analysis of the residuals p = pmeas - ppred:

where ppred is the predicted pore pressure, pmeas is the measured pore pressure, and N is the number of pore pressure
measurements. Figure 7, for example, shows a slice at a constant value of n=3 through the 3D space with axes v0, k, and
n. Given an estimate of the error in the pressure measurements
used to calibrate the transform, the region of parameter space
consistent with the data can be identified, thus allowing a pre-

diction of pore pressure with uncertainty to be made. A similar approach may be used to determine the parameters v0, A,
and B in Bowers relation.
Discussion. While disequilibrium compaction or undercompaction is the most common mechanism for generating overpressure in deepwater sediments, several other overpressure
mechanisms may also occur. Several of these are described
below.
Clay diagenesis. The smectite-to-illite transformation that
occurs as the mixed-layer clay systems in the Gulf of Mexico
undergo burial depends strongly on the time-temperature
history of the sediment and causes reordering of the clay
platelets and redistribution of effective stress (Dutta, 2002).
Dutta (1988) incorporates the time-dependent temperature
history by use of an effective stress/porosity relation of the
form:

been presented by Stump et al. (1998), and is discussed further by Dutta and Khazanehdari (2006) in this issue of TLE.
Conclusion. Several commonly used terms in the pore-pressure-prediction literature have been defined, and various
mechanisms that result in overpressure have been discussed.
Disequilibrium compaction or undercompaction is the most
common source of overpressure in young, rapidly buried
sediments, and it is shown how velocity versus effective
stress methods arise naturally by coupling the change in
porosity with increasing effective stress with the porosity
dependence of velocity. In any particular application, additional mechanisms such as clay diagenesis, unloading, and
lateral transport may also play a role in causing overpressure to occur, and an appropriate velocity-to-pore pressure
transform based on a careful analysis of offset well data
together with fit-for-purpose seismic velocities at the proposed drilling location is required for a reliable estimate of

where 0 is a constant, e is the void ratio

defined earlier, A(T) is a polynomial in
temperature T, and B(t) is a diagenetic
integral depending on time (and temperature) that describes the smectite to
illite conversion. Given a relation
between velocity and porosity, this
equation leads to a velocity/effective
stress relation that depends on the timedependent temperature history of the
sediment.
Unloading. Unloading refers to a
decrease in effective stress acting on the
rock frame, as may occur if the pore
pressure increases in a sediment at a
fixed depth. Such an increase in pore
pressure may occur, for example, due to
temperature increase, clay dewatering
or conversion of kerogen to lower molecular weight hydrocarbons. As shown
in Figure 8, sediments follow a different path on unloading than on loading
(Bowers, 1995), and this difference in
the velocity/effective stress relation
needs to be taken into account if unloading occurs. As illustrated in Figure 8b,
the velocity may drop significantly
upon unloading, while the density
changes by only a small amount. A
velocity/density crossplot may therefore help to distinguish between loading and unloading.
Lateral transfer. While the pore pressure within an impermeable shale can
increase with increasing depth at a rate
that is greater than the hydrostatic gradient, pore pressures within a dipping
permeable layer follow the hydrostatic
gradient (Figure 9). As a result, flow
occurs from the deeper overpressured
shales into the sand and from the sand
into the shallower shales. As a result of
this lateral transfer the sand transmits
pore pressure updip (Yardley and
Swarbrick, 2000), and this can lead to
kicks when drilling into the crest of a
dipping sand. A method for calculating
the pressure within a dipping sand has
DECEMBER 2006

THE LEADING EDGE

1499

Figure 9. Overpressure resulting from lateral transfer.

Figure 8. Variation of porosity (a) and velocity (b) with effective stress
upon loading and unloading.

pore pressure. Uncertainty in the prediction can be reduced

by updating the velocity-to-pore pressure transform using
data acquired while drilling as described by Malinverno et
al. (2004).
Suggested reading. Assessment of , the compression coefficient of mudstones and its relationship with detailed lithology
by Aplin et al. (Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1995). Applied
Drilling Engineering by Bourgoyne et al. (SPE, 1986). Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for pore pressure mechanisms besides undercompaction by Bowers (SPE
Drilling and Completion, 1995). Rock physicsThe link
between rock properties and AVO response by Castagna et al.
(in J. P. Castagna and M. M. Backus, eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity Theory and practice of AVO analysis: Investigations in
Geophysics, SEG). Velocity determination for pore pressure

1500

THE LEADING EDGE

DECEMBER 2006

prediction by Chopra and Huffman (TLE, 2006). Fluid flow

in low permeable porous media by Dutta (in Migration of
Hydrocarbons in Sedimentary Basins, Editions Technip, 1988).
Geopressure prediction using seismic data: current status and
the road ahead by Dutta (GEOPHYSICS, 2002). Estimation of
formation fluid pressure using high-resolution velocity from
inversion of seismic data and rock physics model based on compaction and burial diagenesis of shales by Dutta and
Khazanehdari (TLE, 2006). The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs by Eaton (SPE paper 5544, 1975).
Formation velocity and densitythe diagnostic basis for stratigraphic traps by Gardner et al. (GEOPHYSICS, 1974). Calibration
and ranking of pore pressure prediction models by Gutierrez
et al. (TLE, 2006). A new approach to shale compaction and
stratigraphic restoration, Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin and
Mackenzie Corridor, Northern Canada by Issler (AAPG
Bulletin, 1992). Integrating Diverse Measurements to Predict
Pore Pressure With Uncertainties While Drilling by Malinverno
et al. (SPE paper 90001, 2004). Predrill pore pressure prediction using seismic data by Sayers et al. (GEOPHYSICS, 2002).
Pressure differences between overpressured sands and bounding shales of the Eugene Island 330 field (Offshore Louisiana,
USA) with implications for fluid flow induced by sediment loading: Overpressures in Petroleum Exploration by Stump et al.
(Bull. Centre Rech, Elf Explor. Prod., Mem, 1998). Pore/fracture pressure determinations in deep water by Traugott (World
Oil, Deepwater Technology Special Supplement, 1997). Some effects
of velocity variation on AVO and its interpretation by Xu et
al. (GEOPHYSICS, 1993). Lateral transfer: a source of additional
overpressure? by Yardley and Swarbrick (Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 2000). TLE
Corresponding author: csayers@houston.oilfield.slb.com