@

A Review of Geopressured Evaluation

From Well Logs Louisiana Gulf Coast
R. A. Lane, SPE-AIME, Shell Oil CO.
L, A. McPherson,* SPE-AIME, Shell Development Co.

Introduction
Since the beginning of geopressured drilling in the
Louisiana Gulf Coast, : empts have been made to
quantify log parameters as an aid in pressure prediction.
In 1965, Hottman and Johnson presented an empirical correlation relating Am.mal formation pressures to
departures from normal shale velocity and resistivity
trends observed in Gulf Coast formations. These relationships have been used widely for predicting younger
Tertiary abnormal pressures, although both sets of data
were obtained from Miocene-Oligocene sediments.
In recent years, other empirical but large] y undocumented resistivity relationships, based chiefly on
mud- weight observations, have been established and are
commonly used offshore. These account for local trend
anomalies wherein the Hottman and Johnson resistivity
relationship is not suitabi y accurate. Some of these erratic trends have been found to be systematic either in
kind or areal extent and, once recognized, can be interpreted. In 1972, while this study was in progress,
Eaton2 suggested that variations in overburden gradient
might be responsible for irregularities in departure
trends.
Since 1965, drilling activity has moved farther offshore into younger Pleisto-Pliocer.e sediments. With the
onset of production in these newer fields, some 50 additional pressure measurements in virgin geopre~sured reservoirs have become available. The density 1C6
has become the primary porosity log offshore, and the
*Now with

Shell

011 Co.. New Orleana,

La.

prevalence of density data provides a meand to calculate

overburden gradients in these fields. It is considered
timely to include the new data with those of Hottman
and Johnson. Resistivit y data are emphasized because
the resistivity device often is the only log run over sufficient intervals of borehole.

Pressure estimation
To estimate formation pressures from logs in the Gulf
Coast, the following information is necessary: (1) an
established normal log response trend in hydropressured
shales, (2) an observed departure from the normal
trend, and (3) an empirical relationship between this
trend departure and formation pressure gradient.
Hydropressured Trends
The first trends of sonic and. resistivity dztti for the
offshore Miocene-Oligocene
were presented
by
Hottman and Johnson. These trends are averages of
early observed data in the Louisiana Gulf Coast. However, since compaction trends probably depend not only
on depth but also on rate of compaction, cementation,
and overburden, these Miocene-O1igoccne data should
not necessarilyy apply to the Pleisto-Pliocene sediments
presently being explored. Fig. 1 shows the observed
normal pressure resistivity trends superimposed on an
age-correlation
dip section from Atchafalaya Bay
through Vermilion Block 321. Because of sediment
age, the Hottman and Johnson trends apply to Atchafalaya Bay and Eugene Island Block 100. However,

Recent Gulf Coast drilling experience and log data reveal irregularities in resistivity trends.
Anomalies caused by age boundaries, younger sediments, and other phenomena muy make
log relationdtips di~cult to apply. The geographic distribution and interpretation techniques
for some of these anomalies are presented. Resistivity-trend departurelpressure relationships
are examined.
SEPTEMBER, 1976

%3

examples indicate that this shift usually occurs at a

paleo-msrker and in proximate areas in the Gulf. They
also illustrate why paleo-markers should be included as
supplementary data on all pressure plots.
Pressure detection can be difficult when geopressured
initiate in the interval between normal trends, as in East
Cameron 185 (Fig. 5). However, this shift thickness
appears to be a fairly uniform 600 to 800 ft and the
resistivity ratio (shift) is almost constani at about 0.75.
Once recognized, transparent overlays can be constructed that define the onset of geopressured within the
transition zone between normal trends.

because of tie younger sediments encountered, some

deviation might be expected from Eugene Island Block
188 gulfward.
Note that the trend of Eugene Island Block 276 has a
resistivity shift at the paleo-marker at about 7,500 ft.
Note also that the normal-trend section at Ship Shoal
Block 274 is very short and that no obvious trend exists
at Vermilion
Block 321. Although other local
anomalies in other areas of the Gulf arc likely, the trend
situations found along the dip section are analyzed by
describing five general cases.
Case 1 Normal Miocene-Type Trends. These appear to be applicable near shore in Miocene sections
and in long Pliocene sections. Although some shallow
Pleistocene is present in these areas, geopressured occur
much deeper in the section. Discrepancies owing to
Pleistocene sediments are unimportant, as illustrated in
Fig. 2, and these trends are zimilar to the HottmanJohnson data.

Case 3 Long Pleistocene Sections With Pressures

Initiating at Pliocene Contact. An example of this is
Ship Shoal Block 230 field with the interpretation as
shown in Fig. 6. Although the normal section is very
short, the trend appears to be valid.
Case 4 Long Pleistocene Section With Observable
Trend Line and Pressures Initiating Within Pleistocene. An example of this is Ship Shoal Block 274 with
the interpretation as shown in Fig. 7.

case 2 Long Pleistocene Sections With Geopressured Within Pliocene. Fig. 3 shows resistivity, acoustic, and density data with percent sand from Eugene k.land Block 276 field. Note that one line could be drawn
through the ac{ ustic data to yield a normal-trend line.
However, the density and resistivity trends exhibit obvious departures at Paleo-Marker B (base Pleistocene)
and pressure data confirm that two normal trends are
actual] y present.
There appears to be a shale compaction or composition change at PaIeo-Marker B not associated with geopressured. This trend shift has been observed in tdl the
wells at Eugene Island Block 276 field. It rdso has been
observed at South Marsh Island Block 73 field (Fig. 4)
at a paleo-marker and in East Cameron Block 185 (Fig.
5, not as obvious), again at a paleo-marker. These three

Case 5 Long Pleistocene Section With Abnormally High Resistivities in Long, Normally Pt essured Shale Sections. Several fields, including South
Marsh Island Block 115, Eugene Island Block 331, and
Vermilion Block 321, appear to have this type of anomaly that makes normal-trend definition difficult to assess. Fig. 8 presents a data set from Vermilion Block
321. An example of this case has been investigated
more fully.
Investigatio~~ of Case 5. An apparently normal straightline acoustic trend is evident through the high-resistivity shale sections. These high-resistivity shaie anom-

PALEO

AT CHAFALAYA

El.

BAY

2,000

----.

4,000

6/200

8/300

BLK.

El.
ICQ

BLK.

----

---

El.
188

-----

9LK.

VER.

$.$.
276

CONTROL

EXTRAPOLATE

BLK.

274

8LK.

321

---

+----

10,000

12,000

14,000

16000

lls/Joo~

Fig. 1 Louisiana Gulf Coast approximate age-correlation dip section.

%4

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

RKISTIVITY

WADn

03PWALE0

(Q -m)
1

.4

x 1000

10

fLT I p S[C/fl)
15

20

70

100

MUDW.

P b (!#CC)

150 200

2.0

2I

22

23

24

10

25

12

[PPCI
14

Is

18

t.

4-

6-

a-

10-

1?-

14-

16-

Fig, 2 Trend interpretations, OCS-G 0798 lease, Eugene island Piock 100 field.

OfPTH/PALIO
x 1040

RfSISllVllY

SAND%
0

100

.4

h~ [p

(it-m)
7

10

15

20

70

s[c/fll

Ico

HODVI

~b (g/CC)

150 2W

?0

21

22

?3

24

10

25

12

IPPCI
14

16

18

2-

4-

s- A

,,,
1,

-0
8-

ITOP

?,

~:

-c
10-

MEA
BHP

12-

14-

16-

Fig. 3 Trend interpretations, OCS-G 0985 lease, Eugene Island Block 278 fieid.

DEPIH/PALIO
x 1000

ll[SISTIVilY

SABO%

100

(.Q -m)
1

10

AI (#
15

20

10

100

150

lluOWT. (PPC)

Pb (dCC)

SfC/ill
2@l

20

?1

22

t3

24

[0

2$

12

2-

4-A
s-

Y
B

8-

10-c
d

12.
-D
14-

MEA
BHP

14~

Fig. 4 Trend interpretations, OCS-G 1194 lease, South Marsh Island Block 73 field.

14

16

10

.+

OfPIHIML[O
IIMO

MSl, W?? (Q-m)

size%

100

AT (IL

?0

WOW.

#b (@!

SfC/fl)

100 150 2M

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

12

IW6)
14

16

I
A
101

12

14

FRoM

16t

PREV1OUS

WELLS

1111111

Fig. 5 Trend interpretations, OCS-G 2035 ieaae, East Cameron Biock 185 fieid.

OfPTHIPALfO

Rf$lSWll

MWD%

I 1040 100

.4

(0
7

-m)

10

AT (p
Is

20

70

100

Ullo w,

P b (91CC)

StC/fT)

(PPCI

1s0 Ml

4
A
3:
\
I

10-

12-

14-

la-

Fig. 6 Trend interpretations, OCS-G 1026 iease, Ship Shoal Biock 230 field.

OfPTH/PAlfO
I 1000

R151S11V11Y
(Q -m)

Wlo m

100

.4

10

AT ( P
Is

20

70

100

150 204

WI w

P&9/cc)

:fC/111

?0

?1

?2

23

?4

23

10

12

[PPCI
14

16

18

?-

$-

6-

1-

10-- A

12-

14-

I1-

Y66

Fig. 7 Wend interpretations, OCS-G 1043 lease, Ship Shoal Biock 274 fieid.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

..

OfPTH/MLfO

x 10(

RUISIIWTV

$Allo%

100

(~ -m)

Al

(p

12uam.

Ph (dd

SfC/Fl)

2.0 2 I

2;

23

24

10

25

12

(PP6)

14

10

12

14

16

Fig. 8 Trend interpretations, OCS-G 2088 lease, Vermilion Block 321.

alies, therefore, could be due to either salinity or to cl~y

conductivityy changes in the section. Clean shales are
rare in the Gulf Coast. Mineralogical analyses indicate
typical shales contain 30- to 50-percent quard fines.
These observations provide a basis for considering the
shales to be quite similar to very shaly sands and for
describing their conductivities by the Waxman-Smits3
equation:
Co=-&e

QD+C

w),

................ .(1)

whe~
Co= specified conductance of sand, 100-percent
saturated with aqueous salt solution
FR* = formation resistivity factcr for shaly sands
B,= equivalent conductance of clay-exchange
cations
Q= effective concentration of clay-exchange
cations
CW= specific conductance of aqueous electrolyte
solution.

tl

tical comparison
technique,
where an observed
abnormal-trend
value is compared with an equal
normal-trend value and the overburden between them is
used to calculate formation pressure, and the horizontal
comparison technique, where observed abnormal-trend
and extrapolated normal-trend values are compared at
the same depth and related empirically to formation
pressures.
All the data presented in this paper are derived from
the horizontal method, since the two parameters presented are ai the same depth and, hence, at appr@ximatel y the same temperature.
Pressure Gradient Relationships
Shale Resiativity Relationships. The resistivity pressure data of Hottrnan-Johnson can be replcmed on a coordinate scale as shown in Fig, 10. The relationship may
be expressed approximately by the equation

SWTEMBER,

1976

......... . .(2)

8.

Analyses were made of shale sidewall samples from

a well (smtth Marsh Island Block 115, Well A) similar
to the one shown in Fig. 8. Laboratory measurements
of QO and soluble chloride contents coupled ,vith
temperature-corrected
B values (as described by
Waxman and Thomas4) indicate that the anomalous resistivities are caused by changes in salinity and not
porosity or lithology. A comparison of observed log
values with laboratory-calculated resistivities (Eq. 1)
over the sampled intervals using laboratory data (supplied by Waxman) is shown in Fig. 9. They are in excellent agreement.
The Fig. 9 data also indicate that, in practice, the
normal-trend line should be drawn through the lowerresistivity (higher sand-shale ratio) sections as shown in
Fig. 8. Departures From Hydropreasured Trenda Related to
Geoprewures
Two techniques have been used in the past for compring departures from nonmal trends. These are the ver-

(1-* ) ,

gp=0.465+m

1
I

LOG

1~L

04

0s

10G

<Alc,>lkl

VAt Ut$
to.

m s? 1

SrDf - w~t; SAMPLE

C0t47AhNNA7E0
WIT nRr,,l NG MUD

VAIUE
s

06

-_

__x

07

08

09

10

11

RfSl$TIVIT V,lOMM -M)

(After
Fig.

w.-)

Shale resistivities vs depth, 0C8-G 2094 No. A,

South Marsh Island Block 115.
%7

where
gp = formation pressure gradient
m= slope
R$h~~= observed shale resistivity
R,hN = normal shale resistivity.
A least-squares fit of these data forced through (gP =
0.465 at R8hoEjR,M = 1.0) yields m = 0.592.
To investigate the validity of the resistivity relationship and review the more recent offshore Louisiana
data all reliable BHP data in virgin, geopressured reservoirs were collected. The results (shown in Table 1)
am plotted in Fig. 11. An unfmved least-squares fit of
the data yields m = 0.519. All new data were obtained
from short normal electric logs to facilitate comparison
with the Hottman and Johnson data.
An attempt was then made to incorporate overburden
gradient into the pressure-msistivity relationships to determine whether a correlation existed. Offshore overburden gradients wem determined chiefly from composite
density-log responses using a mean sea-level depth
damm. These are presented in Fig. 12. Because of a
scarcity of suitable density logs, onshore Louisiana
overburden gradients were more difficult to establish.
Gravimeter data for Cote Blanche Island and Iowa
fieldss were ultimately used but are confirmed by available derisity-log data. These overburden stresses were
applied to Johnsons pressure points (Table 2). Next, all
data points were grouped in three categories:

+.+++.~+-l

;7T?H-H

,.

,,-+1+..

-iJi-L!iQ

Fig. 10 Pressure-gradient/resistivity relationship of

Hottman and Johnson.

0,85< go s 0.90
0.90< go s 0,95
0.95 c go = 1.00,
where gO = overburden gradient.
Fig. 13 presents the dat~ and the least-squares-fit
lines through the du se groups. The relationships are
forced through the point where gP = 0.465 and resistivity ratio = 1.0. The standard deviations and coefficients
of determinations presented are for the unforced fits that
are very similar (see Table 3).

Lo

I--i-l!l

-1

.9

,8M-b*~

9m.

lns

95a

L-u

.8

.1

-t--

,6

i
m???
n~

.-j -

..-.
1
-+

1=

1
4
,,

I
.4

.6

I
.7

I
.a

.9

Ln

#,(Pw n.)

Ftg. 11 Presswe-gre..t&:istivity

%8

relationships --

~mm I

~mlffl

,9

b (~1~1 )

Fig. 12 Overburden gradients.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

The dependence of the trend departure data on overburden is obvious. The data for the younger (less dense)
sediments farther offshore show lower pressure gradients (for the same resistivity ratio) than those predicted by the Johnson trend. The results are in agreement with observed mud- weight requirements and other
drilling and production histories.
ShaIe Acoustic Travel-Time Relationships. To reevaluate Hottmans acoustic pressure relationship, the
acoustic data available offshore were collected (Table
4), but were found to be meager because (1) few acous-

tic logs are available ovsr entire sections, so normal

trends are diftlcult to establish, and (2) few bottom-hole
pressure analyses are available from wells with acoustic
logs since density logs are the primary porosity tools in
development programs.
Fig. 14 presents the acoustic relationships from recent offshore data together with Hottmans. They show
good agreement and augment considerably the soft
geopressured region of Hottrnans empirical trend.

Conclusions
1, Abnoimal pressure-resistivity trend departure rela-

TABLE 1 NEW OFRHORE

Field
Eugene Island
Block 18
Eugene Island
Block 100
Eugene Island
Block 276

Well
A
B

c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

Q
R
South Marsh Island
Block 73

Ship Shoal
Block 230
Ship Shoal
Block 274

s
T
u
J
x
Y
AZA
DB

cc
C)D

Ba: Marchand
Block 2

NN

00
West Cameron
Block 192
SEPTEMBER, 1976

Pp

Depth
- (ft)
19,605
12,500
13,020
9446
10,269
9,361
10,023
10,929
10,230
10,483
10,517
10,516
10,857
10,758
11,186
10,230
11,395
11,913
10,250
10,297
9,531
9,571
9,469
10,161
12417
12,345
13,023
12,<33
11,979
11,C25
6,50/
6,604
6,344
9,053
8,966
8,314
8,306
8,206
8,864
13,076
13,086
12,391
13,312
12,353
12,087
12,200
12,016
12,324
12,747
13,130
10,938
11,203
11,494

Pressure
.(psi)
6,213
9,280
9,345
4,953
5,892
4,488
5,250
6,107
5,872
6,097
6,126
5,944
6,002
6,181
6,258
5,073
6,048
8,155
5,139
5,282
4,839
4,907
4,763
5,984
7,580
6,131
6,449
5,936
6,564
6,989
3,509
3,710
3,484
5,372
5,410
5,055
5,043
5,047
5,380
8,903
8,689
8,120
9,035
6,644
7,487
7,631
6,197
8,104
8,350
8,278
5,398
6,337
9,397

PRESSURE-RESISTMTV

(P%)

R8~oBlRItN

0.575
0.740
0.717

0.810
0.400

0.524
0.57A
0.479
0.523
0.559
0.574
0.582
0.562
0.565
0.553
0.574
0.559
9.496
0.530
0.684
0.501
0,511
0.514
0.513
0.503
0.587
0.610
0.497
0.495
0.477
0.548
0.591
0.539
0.562
0.549
0.553
0.6!J3
0.608
0.607
0.615
0.607
0.680
0.678
0.655
0.679
0.554
0.619
0.625
0.516
0.658
0.655
0.630
0.493
0.566
0.816

0.918
0.842
0.308
0.861
0.816
0.872
0.837
0.792
0.792

0.568

U%
0.700
0.903
0.800
0.636
0.907
0.83:
0.875
0.875
0.921
0.904
0,742
0.857
0.902
0.917
0.745
0.714
0.844
0.8~7
0.857
0.745
0.745
i).762
0.750
0.750
0.768
0.615
0,657
0.714
0.621
0.763
0.788
0.726
0.821
0.667
0.714
0.655
0.903
0.756
0.264

DATA

(p%t)
0.937
0.954
C.959

Miocetie
Miocene
Miocene

0.891
0.894
0.891
0894
0.895
0.894
0.694
0.895
0.695
0.895
0.895
0.896
0.894
0.697
0.900
0.894
0.894
0.892
0.692
0.892
0.894
0.907
0.907
0.910
0.907
0.905
0.305
0.888
0.889
0.866
0941
0.940
0.938
0.938
0.936
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.937
0.942
0.940
0.935
0.936
0.935
0.937
0.338
0.940
0.930
0.932
0.920

Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocere
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocane
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
ITiocene
p!iocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pliocene
Pleistocene
Pleiswcene
Pleistocene
Pleistocene
Pleistocene
Pleistocene
Miocen~
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
l~iocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene
Miocene

TABLE 2 PRESSURE-RESISTIWfY

Depth
-__@_
12,400

Well

Field
Belle River
Chalkley

10,070

10,150
13,100
9,370
12,300
12,500
14,000
10,948
10,300
10,750
12,900
13,844
15,.353
12,600
12,800
11,750
14,550
11,070
11,900
13,600
10,000
10,600
12,700
13,500
13,950

D
E
Eugene Island
Block 100

:
H
I

Iowa

i
L
M
N
o

Kings Bayou
North Jeanerette
North Oesun

:
R
s
T
u
v
w

North Sabine Lake

South Chauvin
Vlterbo
West Lake Verret
Cameron Ph.

DATA FROM HOllMAN MD JO~SON

Pressura
(psi)
10,240
7,500
8,000
11,600
5,000
6,350
6,440
11,500
7,970
7,800
7,600
11,000
7,200
12,100
9,000
9,000
6,700
10,800
9,400
8,100
10,900
8,750
7,680
11,150
11,600
12,500

(P%)

(P%t)

RhoBIRdw

0.385

0.826
0.745
0.788
0.885
0.534
0.516
0.515
0.821
0.726
0.704
0.707
0.653
0.520
0.788
0.714
0.698
0.740
0.742
0.849
0.681
0.801
0.875
0.711
0.878
0.859
0.896

0.973
0,941
0.942
0.960
0.938
0.951
0.953
0.867
0.946
0.945
0.945
0.959
0.982
0.891
0.975
0.976
0.970
0.986
0.946
0.970
0.96U
0.941
0.964
0.958
0.963
0.966

0.588
0,513
0.238
0.870
0.870
0.769
0.417
0.562
0.521
0.565
0.303
0.908
0.435
0.625
0.568
0.625
9.540
0.256
0.588
0.426
0.312
0.625
0.357
0.400
0.364

Age

Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Miocene

Miocene
Miocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Miocene
Miocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Oligocene
Miocene
Miocene
Oligocene
Miocene
Oligocene?
Oligocene?
Oligocene?

:0

0.4

05
6

REV

:
.
g
1

07
R ELATIONSHIPOF

-H--H+Y-PRIH-H

HOTT . ,~

88

09
?

,,.

I
I

,7
*(PWfl

.9

10

Fig. 13 Pressure-gradient/resistivity relationships

all points.
970

,.

q-.@lN
(Kc /fT.)
Fig. 14 Pressure- radient/interval-transit-time
re7ationship.
IoURNALOFFETGOLEUM

TECHNOLOGY

TAELE 3 STANDARD DEVfAT~NS AND COEFFICtENTS OF DETERMINATIONS

FOR UNFORCED FtTS
Standard Deviation
Group

(psi/ft)

(ppg)

Johnsons data
Reeent offshore data
Combined data

0.0344
0.0281
0.0323
0.0303
0.0299
0.0382

0.661

0.65< g. s 0.90
0.90< go== 0.95
o.85<g, s 1.00

Coefficient ;!
Determination

Number of Points

0.9174
0.8367
0.9253
0.5224
0.9126
0.9?14

26
53
79
24
35
20

0.560
0.621
0.583
0.575
0.735

TABLE 4 NEW OFFS+DRE PRESSURE-ACOUSTIC DATA

Pressure

Field
Eugene lslaI,d
Block 276

_Well
A
B

Bay Marchand
Block 2

C
D
E

_Depth
9,531
9,463
10,161
13,076
13,312
13,086

tionships we dependent on overburden stress. The observed variance can account for significant changes in
pressure prediction from log plots.
2. Younger reeks (Pleisto-Pliocene) appear to be
generally less dense per equivalent depth than older
(Mio-Oligocene) sdrnents.
3. Normal resistivity trends offshore frequently show
reversals not associated with abnormal pressure. These
usually reflect major depositional boundaries, often occurring at the base of Pleistocene or some other prominent paleo-marker.
4. Gross water-salinity changes also account for
spurious resistivity anomalies. These usually occur in
low sand-shale ratio intervals. Acoustic and density logs
that are relatively unaffected by salinity change can
Original manuacripr received in Society of Petroleum
Engineers
office July 11,
1974. Paper accepted for publication
Oat, 16, 1974 Revised
manuecriDt
received May 28.1976.
Paper (WE 60S3) was first Dresentad at tha SPE-AIME
4Sfh
Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houeton. Oct. 6-9, 1974. @ Copyright
1976 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical.
and Petroleum
Engmeera. Inc.

(psi)
4,888
1,763
5,964
8,903
9,035
8,869

(p%ft)
0.514
0!503
0.587
0.680
0.879
0.678

A TOB- AT,q
@ec/ft)
5
3
1!
10
10

be used to recognize and resolve these anomalous

resistivities.
5. Within the limited field sampling available, some
of the resistivity anomalies (in Conclusions 3 and 4)
appear to occur in discrete geographic mess.
Refereneea
1. Hottman, C. E. artd Johnson, R. K.: Estimation of Formation
Pressures From Log-Derived Shale Prcpertiea, J. Per. Tech.

(June 1%5) 717-722 Trans., AIME, 234.

2. Eaton, B. A.: llte Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopreasure
Redcdon From Well Logs,* J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1972) 929-934.
3. Waxrnan, M. H. and Smite, L. J. M : Ekctricet Cmsductivities
in Oil-Bearing Sttaty Sands, Sot. Per. Eng. J. (June 196S) 10712Z Trans., AIME, 243.
4. Waxmarr, M. H. setdThomas, E. C.: E1ectricatConductivities in
Shaty Sands L lhe Relation Between H@ocarbon Saturation
and Resistivity Index. ft. The Temperature Coefficient of Ekctrical Conductivity, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1974) 2 13-22S; Trtms.,
AIME, 257.
5. Stuart, C. A.: Geopressured, Supplement to Proceedings of the
Second Symposium on Abnormal Subsurface Ressure, Baton
~T
Rouge, La., Jm. 1970.