SPE 128354
Pre - drill pore pressure prediction from 3-D seismic data in parts of the
Onshore Niger Delta basin.
Opara, A.I.1 and Onuoha, K. M.2
1
Department of Geosciences, Federal University of Technology, PMB 1526, Owerri, Nigeria.
2
Shell Chair, Department of Geology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu state, Nigeria.
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
rd
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 33 Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 3-5, 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee
following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the
Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage
of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not
be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Geopressured sedimentary formations
are common within the more prolific deeper
hydrocarbon reserves in the Niger Delta basin.
While overpressured zones could serve as tools
for hydrocarbon prospectivity evaluation, they
are significant safety concern to the driller. Pre-
drill pore pressure prediction using 3-D seismic
data was carried out in the Niger Delta basin to
predict subsurface pressure regimes and further
applied in the determination of hydrocarbon
column, reservoir continuity, fault seal and trap
integrity. Results revealed that overpressures in
the area are associated with simple rollover
structures bounded by growth faults, especially
at the hanging walls, while hydrostatic pressures
are often observed in areas with k-faults and
collapsed crested structures. The depth to top of
mild overpressures(<0.71psi/ft) in the basin
ranges from about 6000ftss to about 13000ft
subsea. Similarly, the depth to top of hard
overpressures(>0.71psi/ft) ranges from about
13000ftss to over 30000ftss(throughout the
Akata Formation).Post-depositional faulting is
believed to have controlled the configuration of
the overpressure surface and has played later
roles in modifying the present day depth to top
of overpressures.
Introduction
Nigeria is the largest oil producer in
Africa, the eleventh largest producer of crude oil
in the world and a member of the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In
2006, total Nigerian oil production, including
lease condensates, natural gas liquids and
refinery gain, averaged 2.45 million bbl/d (of
which 2.28 million bbl/d was crude oil). Nigeria’s
hopes of increasing its crude oil production to
four million bbl/d by 2010 can only be achieved if
deeper potential targets in deepwater offshore
and possibly beneath currently producing
intervals onshore should be focused on.
Exploration interest in the Niger Delta
has therefore moved to mainly deep prospects
onshore and deep/ultra deep prospects offshore.
The deep drilling campaign in the Niger delta
has demonstrated the need for a detailed
overpressure and trap integrity analysis as an
integral and required step in prospect appraisal.
This is because different trapping scenarios can
occur in which hydrocarbons are entirely lacking
in a structure or are contained as a single or
multi-phase in the respective hydropressured
and overpressured sections. Similarly, the risk of
dry or gas charged traps increases with depth
and overpressure magnitude. For instance,
AGIP has drilled over sixty exploration wells with
depths greater than 4500m(13123.36ft),
between 1979-2005 (Nwaufa et al, 2006). Table
1a shows some of the deepest exploration wells
drilled by Nigerian Agip Oil Company between
1970- 2005.Only two out of these deep wells
2 A.I. Opara and K.M. Onuoha SPE 128354

were normally pressured, while nine were over Delta (Akata- Agbada) Petroleum System(see
pressured. Similarly, table 1b shows some of the figure1). The primary source rock is the upper
deepest wells drilled by Shell Petroleum Akata Formation, the marine-shale facies of the
Development Company of Nigeria Limited. All of delta, with possible contribution from
these deep exploration wells drilled by SPDC interbedded marine shale of the lowermost
were overpressured. In most of these cases, the Agbada Formation. Oil is produced from
wells were either abandoned, drilled without sandstone facies within the Agbada Formation,
reaching the objective sequence, or drilling however, turbidite sand in the upper Akata
prolonged unnecessary to sometimes as long as Formation is a potential target in deep water
seven months leading to astronomical rise in offshore and possibly beneath currently
drilling cost. It should be noted that these producing intervals onshore(Turtle,1999).
problems were encountered despite the fact that
the latest drilling practices were applied to most
of the wells (Nwaufa et al,2006).
Safe exploitation of these deep
prospects and plays therefore would largely
depend on our ability to understand the controls
on top seal strength, overpressure generation/
distribution, and trap integrity, and then
confidently incorporating this knowledge into
prospect evaluation and well design. This is very
important considering the current campaign for
deeper wells, as the economic consequences of
exploitation in areas with an unspecified risk of
abnormal pressure profiles may range from
increased drilling costs due to hazards to
unrealized prospect potential. Optimized
planning practices will therefore impact not only Figure1: Regional structural elements of the
on the costs of drilling but also on the quality of Niger Delta basin.
the reservoir evaluation and productivity
assessment.
This work is aimed at predicting pre-drill The Tertiary section of the Niger delta is divided
pore pressures in OML X, Onshore Niger delta into three formations representing prograding
basin using 3-D seismic velocity data. depositional facies that are distinguished mostly
on the basis of sand-shale ratios. Sedimentary
Background geology deposits in the basin have been divided into
The onshore portion of the Niger delta three large-scale lithostratigraphic units: (1) the
province is delineated by the geology of basal Paleocene to Recent pro-delta facies of
southern Nigeria and south-western Cameroon. the Akata Formation, (2) Eocene to Recent,
The northern boundary is the Benin flank - an paralic facies of the Agbada Formation, and (3)
east-northeast trending hinge line south of the Oligocene-Recent, fluvial facies of the Benin
West African basement massif.The northeastern Formation(Evamyetal,1978;ShortandStauble,19
boundary is defined by outcrops of the 67;Whiteman,1982).These formation become
Cretaceous on the Abakaliki High and further progressively younger farther into the basin,
east-southeast by the Calabar flank - a hinge recording the long - term progradation of prog-
line bordering the adjacent Precambrian. The
province covers an area of 300000 km2 and
includes the geologic extent of the Tertiary Niger
3 Pre-Drill Pore Pressure Prediction From 3 – D Seismic Data SPE 128354

Table 1a: shows some of the deepest exploration wells drilled by Nigerian Agip Oil Company
between 1970- 2005 (After Nwaufa et al, 2006)

S/N WELL DEPTH( DURATION OF YEAR DEEP PORE REMARKS

O M) DRILLING (IN SPUDE TARGET PRESSURE
MONTHS) D RESULT GRADIENT
(PSI/FT)
1 A63 4771 1974 Gas/condensat 0.629 Overpressured
¼
4 e
2 B63 4710 1974 Gas/condensat 0.650 Overpressured
3 e
3 F63 4580 1978 Gas/oil 0.507 Normal pressured
2½
4 A62 5445 1980 Hydrocarbon 0.764 Overpressured
½
7 shows
5 B62 5001 1980 Oil/gas 0.890 Overpressured
9
6 G63 5025 1990 Oil/gas 0.511 Normal pressured
¾
4
7 C63 4745 1993 Oil/gas 0.69 Overpressured
5¼
8 D63 4990 1994 Oil 0.833 Overpressured
6
9 E63 5330 2002 Oil 0.807 Overpressured
¼
3
10 H63 4785 2003 Gas/condensat 0.942 Overpressured
¼
4 e

radation of depositional environments of the
Niger delta onto the Atlantic Ocean passive
margin. The stratigraphy of the Niger delta is
complicated by the syn-depositional collapse of
the clastic wedge as shales of the Akata
Formation mobilized under the load of
prograding deltaic Agbada and fluvial Benin
Formation deposits. A series of large-scale,
basinward-dipping listric normal faults formed as
underlying shales diapired upward. Blocks down
dropped across these faults filled with growth
strata, changed local depositional slopes, and
complicated sediment transport paths into the
basin.
Three major depositional cycles have
been identified within Tertiary Niger delta
deposits (Short and Stauble, 1967; Doust and
Omatsola, 1990). The first two, involving mainly
marine deposition, began with a middle
Cretaceous marine incursion and ended in a
major Paleocene marine transgression. The
second of these two cycles, starting in late
4 A.I. Opara and K.M. Onuoha SPE 128354

Table1b: Some deep exploration wells (“HPHT wells”) drilled by SPDC in the Niger Delta

S/NO WELL OML DEPTH PORE PRESSURE REMARKS

TVD(FT) GRADIENT(PSI/FT)

1 DE5 33 16277.5 0.8700 Overpressured

2 DG5 28 15977.5 0.7180 Overpressured

3 DNI 32 15287.7 0.8397 Overpressured

4 DA60 17 14616 0.8250 Overpressured

5 DO2 16 11550 0.8220 Overpressured

6 DK10 11 12500 0.8470 Overpressured

7 DA1 21 12228 0.8010 Overpressured

8 DK3 72 14090 0.8110 Overpressured

9 DK39 28 14587.926 0.7060 Overpressured

10 DS1 35 17082.639 0.8200 Overpressured

deformed much of the Niger delta clastic wedge

Paleocene to Eocene time, reflects the
progradation of a “true” delta, with an arcuate,
wave and tide - dominated coastline. These
sediments range in age from Eocene in the
north to Quaternary in the south (Doust and
Omatsola, 1990). Deposits of the last
depositional cycle have been divided into a
series of six depobelts (Doust and Omatsola,
1990) also called depocentres or
megasequences, separated by major syn-
sedimentary fault zones. These depobelts
formed when paths of sediment supply were
restricted by patterns of structural deformation,
focusing sediment accumulation into restricted
areas on the delta. Such depobelts changed
position over time as local accommodation was
filled and the locus of deposition shifted basin-
ward (Doust and Omatsola, 1990).Normal faults
triggered by the movement of deep-seated,
overpressured, ductile, marine shale have
(Doust and Omatsola,1989). Many of these
faults formed during delta progradation and
were syndepositional, affecting sediment
dispersal. Fault growth was also accompanied
by slope instability along the continental margin.
Faults flatten with depth onto a master
detachment plane near the top of the
overpressured marine shales at the base of the
Niger delta succession. Structural complexity in
local areas reflects the density and style of
faulting. Simple structures, such as flank and
crestal folds, occur along individual faults.
Hanging-wall rollover anticlines developed
because of listric-fault geometry and differential
loading of deltaic sediments above ductile
shales. More complex structures, cut by
swarms of faults with varying amounts of
throws, included collapsed-crest features with
domal shape and strongly opposing fault dips at
depth.
5 Pre-Drill Pore Pressure Prediction From 3 – D Seismic Data
Methodology
The approach used in this study is
inverse overpressure modeling using a
compaction model. Determining pore pressures
from seismic interval velocities is based on the
assumption that there is a consistent regional
relationship between acoustic velocity and
effective stress. Offset well data in over twenty-
five wells out of forty (40) wells, which include
exploration wells and sidetracks were used to
assess the reliability of the link between shale
acoustic velocities and pressure, and to
establish appropriate density and overburden
trends. Specifically, sonic logs, gamma ray and
density logs were used for calibration while
porosity, resistivity, spontaneous potential and
caliper were used for quality control and
lithologic correlation. Pressure data in the form
of repeat formation test (RFT) and mud weights
(Mwt) were also used, together with leak of Test
(LOT) data. Other datasets used include
checkshot data and temperature data.
Sonic log velocities corrected for cycle
skipping were used to predict pressures in the
offset wells and to compare with direct pressure
measurements, using the Tau Compaction
model. The standard model compaction trend
settings were adjusted where necessary to get
the most consistent match between predicted
pressure for shale acoustic velocity and actual
measured pressure from the well. This method
is purely empirical but has proven a valid
approach in the Baram delta, Gulf of Mexico and
the Niger delta basin(Krusi, 1994;Indrelid, 1997).
Firstly, sonic velocities are related to effective
stress by scaling the interval transit time as
Then tau is related to effective stress by
the relationship.
………… (2)
where = initial travel time, =vertical
effective stress, = tau, A and B are parameters
determined from the behaviour of the sonic log
data in the normally pressured zone where
effective stresses are known and, are lithology
dependent.
SPE 128354
Seismic interval velocities were then
extracted at proposed well locations and
calibrated. Detection of possible presence of
seismic velocity anisotropy was carried out by
plotting seismic velocity data with borehole sonic
log and checkshot data inverted to sonic
velocities. The trend of the seismic velocity plot
with respect to the borehole sonic was then
used to detect presence of anisotropy or poor
quality seismic data. Calibration functions (A&B)
generated in parts of the Niger Delta basin were
used with the seismic interval velocities
corrected for anisotropy to provide reliable pre–
drill subsurface pressure estimates using
velocity to pressure transform . For this study
the calibration parameters generated are as
follows: A=168.40 bars, B = 0.90, with standard
deviation (dA)= +/_22.61bars and correlation
coefficient (CC) = 0.964. Similarly, skempton
coefficient or poro - elastic coefficient value of
0.85 was used. The overburden and adjusted
model compaction setting were then used to
calculate the pressure, overpressure, vertical
effective stress and minimum effective stress at
the prospect location.
Application of geopressure studies to
hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation
Seismic attributes such as interval
velocity provide a means of assessing pressure
in the subsurface. This approach relies on the
fact that seismic velocity is primarily a function of
the porosity of the sediments, which is itself
dependent on the vertical effective stress
(compaction) that the rocks have undergone.
There are four main uses of this method which
include the following(Indrelid,1997) :
a) Reservoir continuity
Reservoir continuity can be assessed by
considering the variation in overpressure. This is
because for a continuous aquifer in a given
pressure cell, the pressures at different locations
are expected to lie along a hydrostatic gradient
from one another, and are hence equally
overpressured. Thus, if a horizon exhibits a
constant overpressure, this generally indicates a
hydraulically continuous unit such as a
connected reservoir. In contrast, a horizon which
6 A.I. Opara and K.M. Onuoha
exhibits large changes in overpressure laterally
is expected to be shaly.
b) Maximum hydrocarbon column
The height of a possible hydrocarbon column is
most commonly determined by the depth
difference between the top structure and the spill
point (spill point is the lowest closing contour on
a hydrocarbon trap capable of holding
hydrocarbons under gravitational equilibrium if
the formation is permeable). Figure3 shows the
standard procedure for estimating maximum
hydrocarbon column from pressure depth plot.
However, in some overpressured areas, the
extra pressure at the top of a hydrocarbon
column is enough to exceed the fracture
strength of the top seal, and cause breaching
and leakage from the trap. Hydrofracturing of the
top seal also has important implications for
supply of hydrocarbons to the shallower
reservoirs in some areas in the Niger delta
basin. Similarly, added pressure from the
hydrocarbon column may leave a very small
drilling margin.
Figure2: Diagram for estimation of the
maximum hydrocarbon column from
pressure-depth plot (after Indrelid, 1997).
c) Trap Integrity
To assess the risk of trap breaching and
hydrocarbon leakage, and also the likely
pressure on drilling into the reservoir, the effect
SPE 128354
of the hydrocarbon column can be calculated
from the predicted aquifer pressure. This
requires an estimate of the hydrocarbon
pressure gradient (i.e. hydrocarbon density), and
the depths of the top structure and spill point for
each reservoir level. The hydrocarbon column
pressure should leave the predicted aquifer
pressure curve and follow the hydrocarbon
gradient up to the spill point. If the pressure at
spill point is less than the minimum horizontal
stress (MHS) trend (taking into account the error
bars on the determination of the stress trend)
then the trap integrity is expected to be OK. If
the hydrocarbon column pressure crosses or
comes very close to (within a couple of hundred
psi or 20bar) the MHS trend, there is a very high
trap integrity risk.
d) Fault Sealing
Analysis of interpreted faults in terms of
pressure is best carried out using vertical
effective stress (VES) or overpressure plots
(where changes in pressure across a fault will
be more obvious).It is only possible to suggest
that a fault is sealing if there is a change in
pressure across the fault: a fault in a
hydrostatically pressured area will exhibit the
same pressure on either side of the fault,
whether or not it is sealing. In interpreting
sealing faults, it is important to bear in mind the
sealing mechanism. If the fault seals by
juxtaposition of sands against shales, then the
pressure difference should be correct. But a
cataclastic or clay smear fault seal can only
withstand a certain pressure difference – thus
not all faults which are associated with a change
in the pressure predicted from seismic are
necessarily sealing.
e) Pressure prediction
Pore pressure prediction is important
for both the exploration and exploitation of
hydrocarbons. In exploration for hydrocarbons,
knowledge of the pressure distribution is of vital
importance for the development of fluid
migration models, to study the effectiveness of
seals and also to rank prospects. Similarly,
during drilling, pressure prediction allows the
planning of the well in real time to control
7 Pre-Drill Pore Pressure Prediction From 3 – D Seismic Data SPE 128354

potentially dangerous abnormal pressures.

Pressure prediction from seismic requires two
main inputs: (a) the interval velocity field (b) the
relationship between velocity and pressure,
which can be calibrated using well log and
pressure data. As well as providing a pressure
prediction at a proposed well location, the
pressure field can be interpreted in terms of
pressure continuity and implications for trap risk.
In some cases, the pressure field may call into
question previous assumption for example,
extent of reservoirs, selection of rig etc.
Results Figure4:Cross-plot for the derivation of an
The fluid pressures in offset wells used appropriate density – velocity trend.
in the calibration process were predicted using
the calibration parameters A and B. This The seismic data used in this work is the
process was repeated in the wells not used in DMO velocity data shown in figure 5.
the calibration process for the purpose of
validation. The accuracy of this prediction is
noticed in the correlation of the predicted
pressures with the measured RFT data;see
figure 3.The sonic and density data in offset
wells were cross-plotted as shown in figure 4 to
obtain the relationship between the two and to
determine the approximate density-velocity
trend. This trend was used in the velocity to
pressure transformation process of the seismic
data to calculate the overburden pressure.
Figure5: Seismic section of the study area
showing intense faulting and structural
deformation

Figure6: Velocity analysis using medium

Figure 3: Shows pore pressure prediction smoothing showing velocity reversals in
in off-set wells using sonic velocities. overpressured sections
8 A.I. Opara and K.M. Onuoha
The 3-D seismic velocity data were
picked down to 6seconds at an average of 250
millisecond interval on a grid of about 24m x
24m.The seismic section revealed dense
faulting and structural deformation. Structural
interpretation of the seismic data of the area
revealed that the structural style is dominated by
growth faulted rollover anticlines with footwall
and hanging wall closures and collapsed crest
faults, associated with shale diapirs. The root
mean square (RMS) velocity data was converted
to interval velocity using appropriate (medium)
smoothing parameters as shown in figure 6
below. Note that the interval velocities are not
erratic but some significant velocity variations
can be observed. There is a major reversal in
velocity associated with top of overpressures
resulting from the influence of shale diapirs
below 2.5seconds. The analyzed seismic
velocity data which has been depth converted
were extracted at proposed well locations and
compared with the checkshot and sonic
velocities of offset wells for the purposes of
identifying the presence of anisotropy and bad
seismic data(Figure 7).However, it appears that
the data quality is good enough since no
considerable anisotropy effect was noticed. The
calibration parameters (A&B which relates the
vertical effective stress at any depth to the
porosity and density at the same depth) together
with the seismic velocities corrected for
anisotropy were used to predict the pore
pressure field of the area. Figures 8 shows the
pore pressure cubes of the study area
generated from seismic data giving a 3-D
visualization of the pressure field.
The predicted pressure cubes were then
interpreted as a backdrop to seismic data as
shown in figure 9 below. The purpose of this is
to predict the effects of trap integrity, reservoir
continuity, sealing faults and maximum
hydrocarbon column. Figures 9a-9d all exhibited
a very wide variation in predicted pressure
below 2.5seconds which indicates absence of
connected reservoirs in the overpressured
sections. Similarly, figure 9c showed distinct
changes across the faults in overpressured
section. This shows that the faults are sealing. A
bigger difference in the predicted pressure
SPE 128354
across a fault indicates a higher risk of fault seal
breakdown. Note that there are no visible
changes across the faults in the normally
pressured section. Similarly, In figure 9d, the
predicted MES at prospect A and B have the
same value of 9523- 11428psi while prospect C
has an MES of 3809– 5238psi (27.5 – 37.4Mpa).
This shows that prospects A and B have a much
lower risk of trap breaching than prospect C.
Similarly, this risk in prospect C is increased
even more by considering the effects of a
potential hydrocarbon column. The structures of
prospects A and B are low and hence a
relatively short hydrocarbon column (hence
small hydrocarbon buoyancy pressure) is
expected in contrast to prospect C which has a
higher relief. Filling the prospect with
hydrocarbons would result in an even smaller
minimum effective stress, and in all likelihood a
blown trap. Hence, prospect B is ranked highest
followed by A, while prospect C has the least
ranking.
Fluid pressures predicted from the
seismic velocity cube and extracted at well
locations are shown in figure 10 below. In Ah-
field (figure 10a), +500psi above hydrostatic
pressure (overpressure) is at about 6000ftss and
is taken to be the top of overpressure in the
area. The top of overpressure can be seen to
vary from 8000ftss in Oo-field, to 9000ftss at Og-
field and then 1100ftss at Is-field.
Finally, maximum hydrocarbon column
estimated from the predicted pressure depth
plots in figure 10 vary between 35ft to 350ft with
an average column of 55ft. This relatively short
hydrocarbon column is associated with the fact
that most of the reservoirs in the study area are
not filled to their synclinal spill points.
Interpretation and discussion
Pore pressure prediction and
interpretation in OML X, Onshore Niger delta
basin revealed that the onset of mild
overpressure(<0.71psi/ft) in the area to be about
6000ftss in Oo -field, 8000ftss around Ah -field,
9000ftss in Og-field and about 11000ftss at Is -
field. Analysis of seismic data revealed that very
high (hard overpressures nearing lithostatic
9 Pre-Drill Pore Pressure Prediction From 3 – D Seismic Data SPE 128354

pressures) ) are expected at deeper intervals

between 14000ft to over 30000ftss.

Figure 7: Seismic velocity data at well locations calibrated with checkshot and sonic velocity data

Figure 8a:3 –D Pore Pressure Cube Generated Figure 8b:3 -D Vertical Effective Stress Cube
Using Conventional Velocities Generated From Seismic Data Using DMO
Velocity

Figure 8d:3 – D Overpressure Cube Of The Study

Figure 8c:3 –D Minimum Horizontal Stress Area Generated From Seismic Velocity Data
(Trap Integrity) Cube Generated From Seismic
Data

Figure 8: Pore pressure cubes from seismic data generated using velocity to pressure transform.
10 A.I. Opara and K.M. Onuoha SPE 128354

Figure 9b:Predicted VES from seismic velocities overlaying

Figure 9a:Predicted fluid pressures overlaying the seismic
the seismic section of the study area showing sealing/non
section in the study area
sealing faults.

Figure 9d:Predicted minimum effective stress volume

Figure 9c:Predicted overpressure from seismic velocities
superimposed on the section section showing
overlaying the seismic section of the study area showing
integrity
sealing/non sealing faults.

Figure 9: Seismic generated pressure cubes interpreted as back-drop to seismic data for
interpreting reservoir continuity, maximum hydrocarbon column, sealing faults and trap integrity

Figure 10a:Fluid pressures predicted from Oo -

Figure 10b : Seismic predicted fluid pressure –
field from seismic velocity data
depth plot in Ah field.

Figure 10c : Seismic predicted fluid pressure depth plot in

Figure 10d: Seismic predicted fluid pressure – depth plot in
Og field.
Is field from averaged Seismic interval transit times data.

Figure10: Seismic predicted fluid pressure- depth plots in the study area.
11 Pre-Drill Pore Pressure Prediction From 3 – D Seismic Data
Distribution of overpressures shows a well-defined
trend with depth to top of overpressures increasing
towards the central part of the basin at a maximum
depth of about 13000ft (3940m). This variation in
the depth of top of overpressures within the area is
believed to be related to faulting and shale
diapirism with top of overpressure becoming
shallower with shale diapirism and deep with
sedimentation. Similarly, data acquired in deep
wells from across the concessions in the Niger
delta show no macro-structural trend.Rather,
overpressures were observed in areas with simple
rollovers, especially at the hanging walls, while
normal formation pressures were observed in
areas with k-faulting pattern and collapsed crest
structures. It is most likely that these fault patterns
have effect on the formation pressure, providing
relief to a potential pressure build-up (Nwaufa, et
al, 2006).Hanging wall fault closures are most
often sealing and therefore retains significant
columns of hydrocarbons often leading to high
minimum effective stress and fluid charging.
Similarly, late hydrocarbon generation and shale
diagenesis often leads to overpressures within
upthrown shales(Evamy,etal,1978).The
subsurface of the Niger delta basin is extensively
deformed by growth fault structures and roll over
anticlines (Weber and Daukoru, 1975; Evamy etal,
1978; Merki, 1972 Xiao and Suppe, 1992).
Hanging wall rollover anticlines developed
because of listric-fault geometry and differential
loading of deltaic sediments above ductile shales.
These growth faults are characterized by thicker
deposits in the downthrown (hanging wall) block
relative to the upthrown block. Here,
sedimentation is rapid on the hanging wall with
respect to the footwall leading to a thicker
sediment pile at the hanging wall. This rapid
sedimentation often leads to overpressuring
effects.
In addition, it was revealed that majority of
the overpressure situations occur between the
depth intervals of 6000ft to 13000ft(1820 and
3940m) falling largely within the Agbada
Formation. In the Niger delta basin, the
occurrence of overpressures is largely believed to
be associated with the undercompacted shales of
SPE 128354
the Akata Formation. However, previous studies
by Ichara and Avbovbo(1985); Obah(1989) and
Weber and Daukoru,1975,have shown that
overpressures in the Niger delta often occur at
depths shallower than Akata Formation.
Explaining this phenomenon, Weber and Daukoru
(1975), revealed that overpressures are
encountered in the Tertiary Niger delta as a result
of rapid loading of the undercompacted shales of
the Akata Formation by the sandy Agbada and
Benin Formations. The Akata Formation is in
contact with the sandy paralic Agbada sediment in
three different ways. In the first place, there is the
vertical transition from continuous marine shale
into paralic sediments. Secondly, there are lateral
facies transitions and interfingering of sand and
clay and thirdly Akata shale is in many places in
juxtaposition with Agbada paralic sediments
across faults. In each of these cases, fluids
expelled from the overpressured Akata shales
may inflate (charge) the pressures in the adjacent
sands. Similarly, most of the mild overpressures
within the Agbada Formation in the Niger delta are
as the result of undercompaction (possibly
chemical compaction disequilibrium) of the
interbedded marine shales of the lowermost
Agbada Formation. Consequently, overpressures
are often encountered before the Akata shale is
reached.
Conclusion
Finally, overpressures observed in rocks
within the Niger Delta owe its distribution not only
to the mechanisms but also to the re-distribution of
fluids during and after the generation of
overpressures, as a result of structure and
stratigraphy. Changes in formation relief, geometry
and faulting play major roles in pressure
distribution and re-distribution within the basin.
Overpressure in the Niger delta is not caused by
mechanisms associated with undercompaction
alone; there are other dominant mechanisms
especially thermal expansion mechanism (where
fluids charging resulting from aquathermal,
hydrocarbon generation and clay diagenesis all
working together) occurs. These mechanisms
seem to correlate with high pressures at great
12 A.I. Opara and K.M. Onuoha
depth. There seems to be a relationship between
high overpressures and thermal (fluid) expansion
mechanisms and in particular shale diagenesis
and hydrocarbon generation in the Niger delta
Basin (Opara, 2008).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Shell
Petroleum Development Company Limited
Portharcourt.The technical input and support of
Igbokwe Smart,Yakub Adepoju, Anowai
Charles,Gbenga Ogummekan, all of SPDC,
Portharcort are deeply appreciated.
References
Evamy , B.D., Harembourne,J., Kamerling,P.,
Knaap, W.A., Molley, F.A. and Rowlands, P.H.,
1978. Hydrocarbon habitat of the Tertiary Niger
Delta; AAPG bulletin; vol.62; pp 1 –39.
Doust, H., 1989.The Niger Delta hydrocarbon
potential, a major Tertiary Niger Delta Province;
Proceedings of KNGMG Sympossium, Coastal
Lowstands, Geology and Geotechnology,The
Hague, Kluvier Acad. Publ., Dordrecht; pp.22-25.
Doust, H. and Omatsola, E., 1990.Niger Delta, in
Edwards, J.D, and Santogrossi, P.A.,eds;
Divergent/passive Margin basins; AAPG Memoir
45; pp 239 –248.
Ichara, M.J., and A.A. Avbovbo, 1985.How to
handle abnormal pressures in Nigeria’s Niger
Delta area; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
vol.83, no.10;pp.122 –124
Indrelid, S.L., 1997. A guide to the prediction of
pressures from seismic velocities;SIEP-97-
5790,Unpublished Report; 166pp.
Krusi, H.R.,1994.Overpressure prediction; A
contribution towards safer drilling;Nigeria
Association of Petroleum Explorationists Bulletin,
vol.9; pp.86 –91.
Lupa,J., P.B. Flemings and S.Tennant., 2002.
Pressure and trap integrity in the deepwater Gulf
of Mexico;The Leading Edge; vol.21; pp 184- 187.
Merki, P.I., 1972.Structural geology of Cenozoic
Niger Delta, in First African Regional Geological
Conference 1970;Proceedings;Ibadan University
press; pp.251 –266.
Nwaufa,W.A.,Horsfall, D.E. and Ojo,C.A.,2005.
Advances in deep drilling in the Niger delta, 1970-
SPE 128354
200:NAOC Experience, NAPE Conference
Proceedings , August 2006,pp.5- 14.
Obah, B.,1989. Overpressure – A drilling hazard
in the Niger Delta; Erdol undkohle, Erdgas
Petrochemie; vol. 41, nos.9; pp 340 -343.
Opara,A.I.,2008.Overpressure and trap integrity
studies in parts of the Onshore Niger Delta
basin:Implications for hydrocarbon exploitation
and prospectivity; Unpublished Ph.D thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka;240pp.
Sayers, C.M., Johnson, G.M., and G. Denyer.,
2002.Pre -drill pore pressure prediction using
seismic data; Geophysics, vol. 67; pp 1286 -1292.
Shaker,S.S., 2002. Causes of disparity between
predicted and measured pore pressure; The
Leading Edge; vol. 50 ; pp 756 -760.
Short, K.C, and Stauble, A,J.,1967.Outline of the
geology of Niger Delta, AAPG Bulletin, vol.51
pp.761 –779.
Swarbrick,R.E.,andOsborne,M.J.,1998.Mechanis
ms that generate abnormal pressures: An
overview, in B.E.Law, G.F.Ulmishek, and V. Slain,
eds.,Abnormal pressures in hydrocarbon
environments; AAPG Memoir 70; pp.13 - 34
Tuttle,M.L.W.,Charpentier,R.RandBrownfield,
M.E.,1999.The Niger Delta Basin Petroleum
System:Niger Delta Province, Nigeria, Cameroon,
and Equatorial Guinea, Africa; Open- File Report
99-50-H,United States Geological Survey World
Energy Report, 4
Weakly, R.R., 1991. Use of surface seismic data
to predict formation pore pressure Worldwide;
SPE. 21752.
Weber, K.J, and Daukoru, E.M., 1975. Petroleum
geology of the Niger Delta, World Petroleum
Congress Proceedings,vol.2;pp.209 – 221.
Weber, K.J., G. Mandl. W.F Pillar., F. Lechner
and R.G. Precious., 1978. The role of faults in
hydrocarbon migration and trapping in Nigerian
growth fault structures; proceedings of the 10th