The future of pore-pressure prediction using
geophysical methods
ALAN R. HUFFMAN, Conoco, Houston, Texas, U.S.
P redrill pressure prediction has his-
torically been done using very sim-
ple models and overly simplistic
estimates of the earth’s velocity field.
The methods usually incorporate a
locally calibrated set of curves for
pressure. The advent of the effective
stress concept and pressure predic-
tion methods that developed from
that concept have led to a much-
needed inclusion of fundamental
physics into the art of pressure pre-
diction. The use of effective stress
methods has become the standard for
pressure prediction. This technique
has many variants including the
Eaton method, the Bowers method,
and the Sperry Sun method.
Weaknesses remain due to (1)
limitations of the seismic velocities
themselves, (2) lack of understanding
of the basic causes of pressure, and
(3) effects of pressure on physical
properties (including velocity, den-
sity, and porosity) of rocks. The level
of sophistication used in pressure
prediction has improved steadily
over the last few years, and the future
looks even more promising. This
paper will discuss some critical chal-
lenges facing pore-pressure predic-
tion and some solutions on the
horizon.
Effective stress and loading path
dependency of pressure. One way to
think about abnormal pressure is to
recognize that the velocity of any rock
in the subsurface is a function of its
depositional and burial history.
Figure 1 shows a hypothetical load-
ing path for a rock in a clastic basin
in porosity-velocity-effective stress
space. The loading path starts at an
effective stress of zero, and the veloc-
ity increases and porosity decreases
until the material changes over from
a Wood’s Equation material to a
frame-bearing clastic rock that can
support an effective stress on the
grains. The Wood’s Equation portion
of the loading path occurs as the
material is initially deposited and
compacted near the surface. After
critical porosity is reached, the mate-
rial follows the primary compaction
Editor’s note: This paper is excerpted from
OTC13041 presented at the 2001 Offshore
Technology Conference.
Figure 1. 3-D diagram showing the loading history of a hypothetical shale
material in terms of effective stress, velocity, and porosity. The actual 3-D
normal compaction trend and unloading limbs are projected into the veloc-
ity-effective stress plane to the left.
curve. If allowed to compact nor-
mally with fluid draining out of the
pore spaces, a rock will continue up
the normal loading path. Both veloc-
ity and density depend on the effec-
tive stress on the grains bearing the
external load. If the fluid is prevented
from escaping, the rock has a lower
velocity and effective stress than
would be expected at normal pres-
sure conditions at a given depth of
burial. This is undercompaction or
compaction disequilibrium. The key
to understanding undercompaction
is to recognize that a rock under these
conditions still remains on the normal
compaction trend, but it is not as
compacted as it would be at that
depth of burial under normal hydro-
static pressure.
Unlike undercompaction, a rock
subjected to secondary pressure can-
not stay on the normal compaction
curve. When fluid is pumped into a
rock or expands within the pore
spaces in the rock, the compaction
process is arrested and the rock
begins to display a form of hystere-
sis behavior in velocity-effective
stress space. When this occurs, poros-
ity essentially doesn’t change except
for some minor elastic rebound.
Because there is essentially no poros-
ity change, the net effect is to flatten
out the velocity-effective stress trend
and produce an unloading trend that
differs from the compaction trend.
As effective stress decreases due to
higher fluid pressures at fixed over-
burden, velocity decreases in direct
relation to the stress change. Once a
rock is on an unloading path, the rock
doesn’t change porosity unless other
phenomena such as diagenesis or
cementation occur concurrently with
the pressure changes. For the rock to
begin compacting again, secondary
pressures must first bleed off or over-
burden must increase sufficiently by
additional sediment loading to coun-
terbalance the secondary fluid pres-
sures added to increase the effective
stress. In either case, the rock will
respond to the change in effective
stress and will move back up the
unloading path until it again contacts
the normal compaction curve. Once
effective stress has exceeded the
value at which unloading began, the
rock can begin to compact again. It is
important to recognize that the nor-
mal compaction curve is also the
maximum compaction, maximum
velocity, and minimum porosity that
a material can achieve at normal pres-
sure for a given effective stress.
FEBRUARY 2002 THE LEADING EDGE 199

Figure 2. An example of the range of possible maximum compaction stresses
that can result in the same velocity being tied to different effective stresses.
Figure 3. Comparison of conventional horizon-keyed velocity analysis with
seismic traces shown (top) and poststack inversion (bottom). Note the higher
resolution of the inversion results.
To properly predict pressure
ahead of the bit, it is important to
recognize the presence of two possi-
200 THE LEADING EDGE FEBRUARY 2002
ble pressure increase mechanisms
and it is essential to know the normal
compaction trend and also the max-
imum stress-velocity state achieved
before unloading began. For any
velocity (Figure 2), there are a range
of possible pressures that are a func-
tion of the normal trend, the maxi-
mum velocity attained by the rock,
and the unloading curve slope. In
practical terms, for any observed
velocity value, the minimum pres-
sure case is represented by the nor-
mal trend curve (equivalent depth of
burial) and the maximum pressure
case is represented by the greatest
reasonable maximum velocity on the
normal trend. It is imperative that
the pressure prediction expert be
aware of both causes of pressure and
recognize when and how to apply
unloading corrections. Figure 2a is
the velocity-depth plot used to pre-
dict pressure. Figure 2b is the veloc-
ity-effective stress plot used to show
the normal compaction trend and
unloading behavior. Point D in Figure
2a represents the velocity in the zone
being determined in the analysis, and
correlates to velocity D in Figure 2b.
Point A represents the maximum
loading case in which the material
has been completely unloaded from
the normal compaction state. Point B
represents the case where the veloc-
ity zone just above the unloaded
interval represents the maximum
compaction state. Point C represents
the equivalent depth point above the
unloaded zone (point D) that would
have to be used if the material dis-
played no unloading characteristics
in the zone.
It is generally recognized that
pressure can be predicted prior to
drilling using velocity analysis.
However, the level of understanding
of the various velocity tools and their
applicability to pressure prediction
is not always adequate to achieve the
best results. A standard approach for
pressure prediction is to use conven-
tional stacking velocity analysis and
convert the stacking velocities to
interval velocities via the Dix approx-
imation. Beyond this simple
approach to velocity analysis lies a
range of more sophisticated tech-
niques including horizon-keyed
velocity analysis, refraction and
reflection tomography, and inversion.
These techniques can increase the
accuracy of the velocity analysis but
require additional analysis and pro-
cessing. The question is which tech-
nique is appropriate for a given
situation. It is also important to rec-
ognize that geologic and interpreter
input are essential to good pressure
prediction.
Inversion in pressure prediction.
Poststack inversion is one alternative
to conventional velocity analysis that
provides higher resolution by invert-
ing for impedance from the reflec-
tion strength. Poststack inversion
allows the analyst to separate the seis-
mic wavelet from the reflection series
represented by the geologic forma-
tions, and results in an estimate of
residual impedance for each layer
(Figure 3).
Prestack inversion can estimate
P-wave velocity, shear-wave veloc-
ity, and density simultaneously by
using near-offset reflectivity and AVO
behavior of each reflection. This
allows the user to estimate the over-
burden and effective stress from the
same data set. Resolution limits for
prestack inversion are approximately
at the tuning thickness of individual
formations, so that pressure data can
be generated for layers on the order
of 100-200 ft at moderate depths in
clastic basins (Figure 4). The biggest
drawback to prestack inversion at
this time is its extreme sensivity to
data quality. A robust inversion
requires data relatively uncontami-
nated by multiples and noise, and lie
in areas of little structural complex-
ity. In addition, the resolution and
accuracy of prestack inversion are
only as good as the quality of the
reflection events in the data. If there
are pressure cells that do not have
reflections associated with them, no
velocity or reflection-amplitude tech-
nique including inversion will iden-
tify those zones.
Prestack inversion will allow iso- Figure 4. Prestack inversion results for the seismic line in Figure 3. Note the
lation of velocities for individual sand differences in the P-wave (top) and Poisson’s ratio (bottom) results from the
packages so that the user can deter- inversion.
mine where disequilibrium may exist
between the sand-bearing formations interface and allow a more robust velocity with changes at low effective
and massive shales, and isolate the estimate of the vertical velocity and stresses is greater than P-wave vari-
velocity and density effect of hydro- density field. ation, which may provide additional
carbon-bearing reservoirs on the data and greater sensitivity for pres-
velocity field around them. At pre- Pressure prediction using multi- sure prediction. Shear-wave data will
sent, most methods lump these component data. Recent develop- also be valuable when gas chimneys
effects into thicker stratigraphic inter- ments in multicomponent seismic distort compressional-wave velocity
vals that have a single velocity acquisition and processing suggest data and prevent robust velocity
attached to them and hide the effect. that use of this new technology will analysis. Shear-wave data will also
These errors can cause predictions increase dramatically in the future. provide a second measurement of
that overestimate or underestimate This growth in multicomponent tech- pore pressure in cases where hydro-
pressures significantly (Figure 5). nology will create an opportunity to carbons in a reservoir distort the com-
In the future, prestack inversion utilize mode-converted and direct pressional wave velocity field. The
may allow the user to compensate shear-wave velocities for pressure fact that shear waves are much less
for the effects of anisotropy using the prediction. Shear velocities provide affected by fluid variations will per-
initial velocity analysis and well data another type of velocity data for pres- mit pressure prediction to be per-
as constraints. At present, anisotropy sure prediction that may turn out to formed without worrying about how
is ignored in nearly all pressure be particularly valuable for shallow, to correct for Gassmann effects in the
analysis. In the future, prestack inver- grossly undercompacted sediments reservoir as must be done for com-
sion will be able to separate the and for zones of severe unloading in pressional wave data.
anisotropy effect from the isotropic which effective stress drops to near
Zoeppritz reflectivity effects at the zero. The variation of the shear-wave Overburden prediction using grav-

FEBRUARY 2002 THE LEADING EDGE 201

 ity data. A limitation on robust pres-
sure prediction is that the density
data used to constrain the overbur-
den and fracture gradient are usu-
ally from 1-2 wells in the best
circumstances.
One method for determining den-
sities in the subsurface that has
recently come into its own is gravity
inversion. Recent developments have
revealed that gravity inversion using
conventional gravity data and full
tensor gradiometry data can con-
strain the density field in 3-D quite
accurately for pressure prediction.
Figure 6 shows a model example of
Figure 5. Comparison of velocity data from stacking velocity analysis (dashed how critical gravity inversion results
line on left panel) and prestack inversion with the low-frequency component can be to a robust pressure analysis
from stacking velocities (solid line) in a hydrocarbon-bearing zone with in areas where subsalt wells are to be
interbedded shales. Note the temporal averaging in the stacking velocity drilled. The final density model from
analysis that prevents the gas-bearing zones from being isolated in the pres- the inversion including the predicted
sure analysis on the right panel. anomalous salt bodies is integrated
to get an overburden estimate. Note
how the overburden stress decreases
under the salt due to the effect of the
lighter densities in the anomalous
body. In many cases, a well drilled in
the basin adjacent to the salt body
might be used to predict the over-
burden gradient in planning for a
subsalt well. If that approach is taken
and the analyst does not correct for
the density effect of the salt body, the
well will be grossly overbalanced
when it drills out of the salt.

Pressure prediction in basin and

prospect analysis. Today, only a
handful of companies use seismic-
based pressure prediction as an end
constraint in basin analysis and mod-
eling. Pressure prediction at the basin
scale can be very powerful in (1)
determining where source rocks are
actively maturing, (2) determining
where large-scale fluid migration is
occurring in a basin, (3) predicting the
behavior of large regional faults and
structures, (4) identifying the pres-
ence of secondary-pressured areas,
(5) constraining the porosity model,
and (6) evaluating the integrity of
vertical seals in the basin. Such a case
is shown in Figure 7.
It is important to note that large-
scale exploration already makes rou-
tine use of seismic velocity data for
time-depth conversion, but very few
people use these data for determin-
ing pressure and using this as an end
constraint on basin models. This is
truly ironic as it is one of the basin-
Figure 6. 2-D gravity model for salt bodies imbedded in sediment showing wide parameters that we can mea-
(top) the calculated tensor gravity fields and magnetic fields over anomalous sure directly from seismic data. It
salt bodies, (middle) the final density model with the salt bodies, and (bot- should also be possible to work the
tom) the overburden stress estimated by integrating the density function at inverse problem and go backward,
each vertical location in the model. using the pressure prediction as the

202 THE LEADING EDGE FEBRUARY 2002

 Figure 8. Velocity versus effective
stress plot showing normal com-
paction and unloading curves for
clastic and carbonate materials and
the relative differences in their sen-
sitivity. Note the large difference
between points A and B for clastic
rocks compared to the difference
between A’ and B’ for carbonates.
Also note the larger contrast
between the unloading paths in
clastic rocks versus carbonates.

space to allow a robust calibration.

Figure 7. Example of an interpreted seismic line (top) and the resulting hori-
However, other rocks such as carbon-
zon-keyed pressure prediction showing the sealing behavior of faults and
ates are not as forgiving as clastic rocks.
pressure compartmentalization (bottom). Note the two faults on the far left
Carbonates in particular have a very
that show fault seal failure in the deep section (red) and compare this to the
flat velocity-effective stress gradient
major fault in the center that acts as a pressure barrier between the red and
so that there is very little velocity sen-
yellow pressure isobars. The fault on the far right also appears to be a conduit
sitivity to changes in pressure in these
for pressure pumping from deep in the section.
rocks (Figure 8). Furthermore, the
hysteresis effect related to unloading
starting point, from current condi- and other factors on pressure pre- in carbonates produces virtually no
tions to the start of basin formation. diction. velocity change, which allows car-
This approach would be similar to A merger of hydrogeologic meth- bonates to sustain severe secondary
current technology for palinspastic ods with pressure prediction could pressure conditions with very little
reconstruction used routinely by dramatically improve our ability to velocity change. At present, most
structural geologists, but would understand the hydrocarbon system workers use the encasing shales to
require the added complexity of at both basin and prospect scale. Such infer the pressures in the carbonates,
reverse-engineering the basin loading an understanding would undoubt- but this has proven very dangerous
history and compaction processes. edly improve exploration results by in many cases.
At the prospect scale, pressure eliminating areas where migration Pressure prediction in the presence of
prediction as currently applied can be and hydrocarbon charging are not velocity anisotropy. There are
used to (1) constrain the porosity and viable. The combination of robust anisotropic migration and velocity
pressure regimes surrounding accu- effective stress methods, prestack analysis programs available to han-
mulations of hydrocarbons, (2) deter- inversion, and advanced hydrogeo- dle this issue. In the real world of
mine the sealing characteristics of logic modeling may allow pressure clastic basins, anisotropy most com-
faults, (3) evaluate vertical and lateral prediction to become a routine part monly occurs as transverse isotropy
pressure seal properties, (4) evaluate of geophysical prospect evaluation. (TI), but can sometimes occur as full
the risk of structural effects on pres- anisotropy where the velocity varies
sure in reservoirs, and (5) determine Future challenges for pressure pre- in all three dimensions. Full
the production drive mechanism for diction. There are still many issues to anisotropy can be fracture-induced,
a given reservoir based on its location be addressed in pressure prediction. stress-induced, and lithologically
relative to pressure. If prestack inver- These issues have been viewed in the induced, singly or in combination.
sion is used at the prospect scale in past as secondary concerns that were Distinguishing which type is operat-
pressure prediction, it may be possi- not critical to the analysis but are now ing can be important for pressure and
ble to (1) isolate the pressure behav- becoming primary issues as we refine fracture gradient prediction. Once
ior of specific reservoirs and our methods for pressure prediction. anisotropy is identified, the issue
determine the centroid effect in them, Pressure prediction in nonclastic rocks. becomes one of determining the
(2) identify cases where sands are not Presently, the methods employed in cause, and then how to correct for it
in pressure equilibrium with encas- the industry work fairly well for clas- or use it properly in pressure work.
ing shales, and (3) isolate and under- tic rocks because the normal com- In most young Tertiary basins that
stand localized effects such as paction trend has a sufficiently large pressure prediction is applied to, the
cementation, nonclastic rock units gradient in velocity-effective stress cause of anisotropy is usually a mix-

FEBRUARY 2002 THE LEADING EDGE 203


Figure 9. Models for stress regimes in basins showing the three principal
stress orientations and their effect on fracture orientation. Note that all
stresses are positive so that true tensile stresses are not observed in nature.
ture of thin-bed anisotropy, intrinsic
shale anisotropy, and other forms.
Unfortunately, nearly all algo-
rithms available today are designed to
ignore anisotropy or handle one form
of anisotropy (TI) in which the veloc-
ity field varies between the vertical
and horizontal but not with azimuth.
TI requires two additional parameters
to accurately produce vertical velocity
as a function of depth from seismic
moveout. Estimates of one parameter
can be made from the seismic data and
used to improve the seismic image.
However, the moveout is insensitive
to the vertical velocity. Well data are
needed to produce an accurate depth
prediction. TI is one of several com-
plications that can be handled if well
data are available for calibration.
Velocity anisotropy related to frac-
turing presents an additional problem
because it is not easily transposed into
velocities that can be used for pres-
sure prediction. In this sense, fractures
are analogous to the problem caused
by nonclastic rocks and hydrocarbons
because it is an effect that must be
removed from the velocity field before
a pressure prediction can be per-
formed. In theory, if a single set of ori-
204 THE LEADING EDGE FEBRUARY 2002
ented fractures exist in a formation, it
should be possible to do a velocity
analysis parallel to the fractures and
get a velocity result that will not
include the influence of the fractures.
However, this is rarely the case in real
rocks. In practice, it is also very diffi-
cult to assure a priori that data are
acquired in a way that will meet this
criterion for velocity analysis.
Stress state of basins and its effect on
pressure prediction. Large deviatoric or
differential stresses in tectonically
active areas can cause significant vari-
ation in horizontal stresses, and hence
in fracture gradient, that can have a
critical impact on the accuracy of a
pressure prediction. The effects of the
stress field are observed on the veloc-
ity field through stress-induced
anisotropy and the fracture. To con-
sider these effects, we must look at
simple models for the three dominant
types of basin settings and their resul-
tant stress fields (Figure 9). It is impor-
tant to recognize that the fracture
gradient is usually controlled by the
minimum principal stress, while the
overburden is tied more closely to the
mean stress.
In an extensional basin, the min-
imum principal stress is horizontal
and the maximum principal stress is
vertical. The magnitude of the dif-
ferential stress in extensional basins
is usually small and the values of
intermediate and minimum princi-
pal stresses are usually close. In this
case, the stress-induced maximum
velocity will be vertical and stress-
induced minimum velocity will be
horizontal. This presents a significant
problem in that the stress-induced
anisotropy will offset some other
forms of anisotropy acting in these
basins as defined above. The degree
of stress-induced velocity anisotropy
in this type of basin is usually suffi-
ciently small that it is within the mea-
surement error of the velocity
analysis methods, and thus not a sig-
nificant problem in pressure predic-
tion. It is also offset by the presence
of anisotropy (TI) that tends to occur
in shale-prone basins. Fracture gra-
dients in extensional basins are usu-
ally slightly less than the overburden.
In a compressional basin the maxi-
mum principal stress is horizontal.
The magnitude of the differential
stress in compressional basins is sig-
nificantly larger than in extensional
basins due to the fact that rocks tend
to be stronger in compression and
thus will support larger compres-
sional loads. In this case, the stress-
induced maximum velocity will be
horizontal and stress-induced mini-
mum velocity will be vertical. The
degree of stress-induced velocity
anisotropy in this type of basin can
be significant and much larger than
the measurement error of the veloc-
ity analysis methods. Fracture gradi-
ents in compressional basins can
actually be greater than the overbur-
den calculated. This can result in an
overly conservative estimate of the
fracture gradient. In a strike-slip or
listric basin, the maximum and min-
imum principal stresses are both hor-
izontal and the intermediate
principal stress is vertical. The mag-
nitude of the differential stress in
listric basins can also be significantly
larger than in extensional basins. In
this case, both the stress-induced
maximum velocity and the stress-
induced minimum velocity will be
horizontal. The degree of stress-
induced velocity anisotropy in this
type of basin can also be significant.
This requires that the subsurface be
sampled with a range of azimuths.
Fracture gradients in listric basins can
vary over a wide range.
Structural hyperpressuring in reser-
voirs. The centroid effect can be sig-
FEBRUARY 2002 THE LEADING EDGE 0000
nificant enough to cause seal failures
and serious drilling problems if it is not
recognized predrill. The use of inver-
sion may give a significant advantage
by allowing us to isolate the seismic
behavior of a reservoir and evaluate it
in detail as a function of structural
position. However, this requires suffi-
cient knowledge of the physics of the
process and its effect on the reservoir
and sealing rocks. It also requires a
good knowledge or definition of the
reservoir geometry.
For water-bearing reservoirs, two
factors must be considered in dealing
with structural hyperpressuring. The
first factor is the possibility that the
degree of compaction may change
from the top to the bottom of the reser-
voir and the centroid pressure profile
in the velocity data may be magnified
by the vertical change in compaction
state of the reservoir. The second fac-
tor is the possibility that the reservoir
has been breached by a fault or other
conduit that allows fluids to escape
from or recharge into the reservoir. In
this case, it is possible that the cen-
troid position in the reservoir may be
shifted significantly. For hydrocarbon-
bearing reservoirs, the effect of the
hydrocarbons on the velocity field
must also be taken into account in esti-
mating reservoir pressures.
Recent work in deepwater drilling
hazards suggests that shallow water
flows (SWF) are the result of structural
hyperpressuring. These shallow sands
usually occur within a few thousand
feet of the mudline in rapidly deposit-
ing basins, and exhibit pore pressures
close to fracture gradient and near zero
effective stresses. They are probably
the most significant hazard currently
facing deepwater drilling and should
be studied in the context of pressure
prediction.
Identifying the top of secondary pres-
sure zones. A most difficult issue in
pressure prediction is knowing how to
identify the correct maximum veloc-
ity-effective stress point for a velocity
reversal attributed to secondary pres-
sure. The technique for handling a
velocity reversal requires that the max-
imum compaction state be known to
estimate the correct unloading path
for the interval. The selection of this
maximum velocity will determine
density and porosity in the unloaded
interval, as well as the pressure
attained for a given velocity.
This issue can be addressed in part
by density data. If unloading is pre-
sent, compaction will be arrested by
the secondary pressure. In that case,
density should not continue to increase
and porosity should not continue to flow induced by sediment loading” by
decrease with depth. In the absence of Stump et al. (in Overpressures in Petroleum
unusual diagenetic alteration or Exploration, Bulletin of Centre Rech. Elf
cementation, the density of the for- Explor. Prod, (1998) Memoir 22, Elf EP
mation will give a good indication of Editions, 83. “Use of seal, structural, and
the maximum compaction achieved centroid information in pore pressure
by the rocks. In general, if the velocity prediction” by Heppard and Traugott
reverses and the density also (abstract for 1998 AADE Forum on
decreases, this most likely indicates Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins
and Their Prediction). L E
undercompaction as the cause. If the
velocity decreases and the density and Corresponding author: alan.r.huffman@
porosity remain the same, secondary usa.conoco.com
pressure is likely to be the cause.
Conclusions. The future of pressure
prediction will see dramatic changes
in the purpose for which we use the
technique, the types of data used, and
the types of analyses employed to get
more detailed high-resolution velocity
data. Pressure prediction will become
part of the holistic discipline of basin
analysis and will determine the pre-
sent pressure state of a basin as a con-
trol on both forward and inverse basin
modeling. Pressure prediction will also
be used at the subregional-to-prospect
scale to determine critical aspects
about the hydrocarbon migration and
trapping process, fault leak/seal, and
source maturation.
In spite of these new technologies
and techniques for improving esti-
mates of velocity and density, we will
still be forced to cope with our lack of
understanding of the nature of pres-
sure and fluid movement in shale-
dominated basins, and the various
physical processes that cause pressure.
Future research will have to focus on
these basic physical processes, so that
we can properly interpret the data that
we are becoming so masterful at
acquiring in large quantities.
Suggested reading. “Pore-pressure esti-
mation from velocity data: Accounting
for overpressure mechanisms besides
undercompaction” by Bowers (1994
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in
Dallas, Texas). “Predicting pore pressure
from porosity and velocity” by Moose
and Swart (extended abstract for 1998
AADE Forum on Pressure Regimes in
Sedimentary Basins and Their
Prediction). “Shallow water flow pre-
diction from seismic analysis of multi-
component seismic data” by Huffman
and Castagna (OTC 2000 Proceedings).
“Joint 3-D inversion of gravity, magnetic,
and tensor gravity fields for imaging salt
formations in the deepwater Gulf of
Mexico” by Jorgensen and Kisabeth
(SEG 2000 Expanded Abstracts). “Pressure
differences between overpressured
sands and bounding shales of the
Eugene Island 330 Field (Offshore
Louisiana) with implications for fluid
FEBRUARY 2002 THE LEADING EDGE 205