URTeC: 165

Pore Pressure Estimation in Complex Lithologies: A Novel Approach

in Delaware Basin Wolfcamp
Andy Popielski, ConocoPhillips
Copyright 2019, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2019-165

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA,
22-24 July 2019.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract
submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the
accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is subject to corrections by
the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information
herein does not necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by
anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract

This paper describes a log-based pore pressure estimation method in unconventional reservoirs with
complex lithology, specifically acreage in the Delaware Basin Wolfcamp. The approach attempts to
remove lithological influences from sonic-log-dependent pressure predictions where significant lithology
changes occur through the stratigraphic column. The methods consist of a simple multi-component
inversion from basic wells logs to solve for primary mineral constituents in the formation. These mineral
concentrations are then used to assign average matrix properties for the generation of sonic and density
porosity. Taking the difference between sonic and density porosity attempts to remove the lithological
overprint on the sonic log response. The difference between sonic and density porosity is attributed to
fluid effects/pore pressure. Results compared to traditional methods show closer agreement to initial
flowback pressures and drilling data (recorded casing points and mud weights). This specific approach
has not been used to provide a qualitative or quantitative measure of overpressure to the author’s
knowledge. The approach, while applied in a local area, may have applicability outside the Delaware
basin in other unconventional, source-rock reservoirs.

Introduction
Many pore pressure prediction techniques have been developed over time (e.g. Eaton, 1975, Bowers,
1995) and more recently with adaptations for unconventional source-rock reservoirs (Couzens-Schultz, et
al., 2013, Yale, et al. 2018). Most pore pressure techniques assume shales are homogenous in composition
and logs respond to porosity which is controlled by compaction/pressure. Newer approaches have
addressed these assumptions due to the variable composition and complex burial history of source-shale
reservoirs. The specific approach presented here was developed in a localized area of the Delaware Basin
and is relatively simple and fit-for-purpose. It does not attempt to modify previous pore-pressure
prediction techniques, rather it is a data-driven log-based approach. Further work would be necessary to
verify that this technique could be of value outside the study area and that the approach is truly sensing
pore pressure and not a combination of changes in fluid type (light oil to gas in the interval of interest) or
organic content. Qualitatively the approach may provide guidance for the onset of overpressure in the area
of study. For a quantitative estimate, measured pressure is needed to scale results. The approach is
URTeC 165 2

essentially the same as estimating isolated porosity with sonic logs but subtracts sonic porosity from
density porosity rather than the density porosity minus sonic porosity.

Theory and/or Methods

Traditional techniques assume similarities in shale composition throughout the prediction interval,
however it is well known that source-rock shales are highly variable in both solid and fluid composition.
The approach presented here seeks to remove mineral influences on the sonic log with the assumption that
the sonic log is sensitive to the whole-rock volume and pore-pressure prediction is concerned with fluid
responses only.
The method utilizes a simple multi-component inversion (also known as multimin, etc.) from basic wells
logs to solve for primary mineral constituents in the formation. The study area contains a variety of log
and core, but most wells have only standard gamma ray, density, neutron, resistivity, and sonic logs
throughout the intervals of interest. This limits the allowable complexity in the mineral model. Three
main lithologic components are known to exist from XRD data: quartz, calcite, and clay (primarily illite).
Individual rock properties are shown in Table 1. The sonic log is not used in lithology determination to
limit any pore pressure effects from influencing the mineral estimate. Gamma ray is excluded because
total gamma ray response cannot be tied to individual minerals in a model. Also, the pore fluids were
assumed to be water and a light hydrocarbon for simplicity. It is important to note that a more complex
mineral model with kerogen and variable fluid components in the pore space was explored on a subset of
wells with richer datasets to support the simpler solution; solid component ratios were not appreciably
different between simpler and more complex models. The simpler approach was chosen as a way to focus
on the main solid components and omit the complexities and assumptions necessary for dealing with
kerogen, variable fluid densities in the column and other heavy components in small concentrations (i.e.
pyrite) With the simplified nature of the multimineral solution it is necessary to compare these results
back to core XRD data. Estimates of the solid components allow subsequent calculation of the average
acoustic and density properties of the solid components used to solve for density and sonic porosities
using equations 1-6 below. Water is assumed to be the pore fluid in the calculation of density and sonic
porosity. If the determination of minerals and their properties accurate, calculating density and sonic
porosity assuming the same fluid should give information which is more reflective of fluid and pressure
effects than the raw logs alone. The difference, ∆ϕ , is used to show where the fluid effect on the sonic log
is greater than the fluid effect on the density log. This suggests pressure, gas, or both are causing a change
since the sonic log is more sensitive to pressure/gas effects than density. ∆ϕ is then rescaled to
minimum/maximum observed pressures (in Figure 2) to provide a quantitative estimate of pore pressure
with depth. The porosity difference ∆ϕ is smoothed by averaging values at each sample-step over a 75 ft
window to remove noise and highlight trends. Parameters used for both the inversion and determination
of sonic and density porosity are shown in Table 1.

𝐷𝑇𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 = 𝑉𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑧 ∗ 𝐷𝑇𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑧 + 𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒 ∗ 𝐷𝑇𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒 + 𝑉𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 ∗ 𝐷𝑇𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 Eq. 1

𝐷𝑇 = 𝐷𝑇𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 (1 − ϕ) + 𝐷𝑇𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 ∗ ϕ Eq. 2
𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 = 𝑉𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑧 ∗ 𝜌𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑧 + 𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒 ∗ 𝜌𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒 + 𝑉𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 ∗ 𝜌𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 Eq. 3
𝜌 = 𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 (1 − ϕ) + 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 ∗ ϕ Eq. 4
∆ϕ = ϕ𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 − ϕ𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 Eq. 5
∆ϕ Eq. 6
𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 (𝑝𝑝𝑔) = ∗ (max 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒)
∆ϕ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 − ∆ϕ 𝑚𝑖𝑛
URTeC 165 3

Density Neutron Porosity U (b/cm3) Slowness, Slowness,

(g/cc) (Limestone, v/v) Compressional Shear (us/ft)
(us/ft)
Quartz 2.65 -0.032 5 56 88
Calcite 2.71 0 14.1 49 88
Illite 2.7** 0.35 11 70 120
Fluid (water) 1.04 1 0.79 189 300*
Light Hydrocarbon 0.6 0.95 0.11 N/A N/A
Table 1. Parameters for density porosity and sonic porosity calculations. * Estimated by trial and error, matching shear sonic porosity to density
porosity in low-shale intervals. **Estimated from core XRD and grain density data.

Results
The multimin result from logs was obtained from a commercial software package and compared to lab-
measured XRD as shown in Figure 1. An accurate estimate of major lithological components is crucial
establishing bulk rock-matrix properties for the determination of sonic- and density-porosity.

Figure 1. An example of the log-based mineralogical estimate compared to discrete core-based XRD data. Colors of mineralogical components
are matched for ease of comparison. Tracks show depth and GR to identify corresponding sections and compare the continuous log-based mineral
interpretation in Well 1 to the discrete XRD measurements in wells 2,3 and 4. Lithology is scaled from 0 to 100%, TOC is scaled from 0 to 5 %.
URTeC 165 4

Two complementary sets of data are shown to support the log-based approach: mud weights and flowing
bottomhole pressures from early-time production. These two data types are direct indications of the
pressure profile in the Wolfcamp and led to the log-based approach, which is much more of an indirect
indicator. Figure 2 shows flowing bottomhole pressures throughout the field. These pressures are mostly
estimated from surface pressures corrected to bottom hole conditions or, to a lesser extent, are directly
from downhole gauges. The map helps to show good coverage across the area and a clear and consistent
pressure profile regardless of areal scatter. Depletion effects are negligible for this pressure data. It is
important to note that hydrocarbon composition changes from a volatile oil to a gas condensate with depth
as shown to the right of the flowback pressures.

Figure 2. Aggregate of flowing bottomhole pressures from the field, combination of gauge data and surface pressures corrected to downhole
conditions. Dot color in map corresponds to formation.

Mud weight data has an interesting history with two separate drilling programs in the field of study: 1) in
the early 2000s targeting a deeper formation and 2) the present-day development program. Interestingly,
two different approaches were used. The present-day wells were designed based on a pressure profile
generated from a modified Eaton pore-pressure estimate. Recorded mud weights from the earlier drilling
are shown in the leftwards plot group in Figure 3. Even though drilling through tight rocks is often
underbalanced, the profile from the earlier drilling program shows low mud weight until the Wolfcamp C.
The Wolfcamp C is where recent flowing bottomhole pressures from production increase as shown in
Figure 2.The patterns from the previous program appear to give more insight into the true pressure profile
since they suggest that the pressure increases in the Wolfcamp C where flowing bottomhole pressures
also show a marked increase. It is unknown as to how the previous program established casing set points
and increased mud weights but it may have been observation- and experience-based. In any case, the low
URTeC 165 5

mud weights consistently used in the Wolfcamp B, centered around hydrostatic and all below 10 ppg, in
the earlier drilling program indicate that overpressure does increase rapidly in the Wolfcamp B as the
sonic log suggests. Figure 4 shows a cross-section of the subset of older wells with pore pressure
predictions and casing points. Casing set points in the older wells is always followed by an increased mud
weight and suggests the onset of significant overpressure. There is a clear correspondence between the
casing point and the increase in the orange-shaded curve, which is the log-based approach described in
the previous section. It is important to note the slowdown in the sonic log associated with the clay-rich
interval in the Wolfcamp B. The log-based technique suggests that the slow sonic response is primarily
due to the slower nature of the clay matrix in the Wolfcamp B. The technique previously used is the black
log in the same track as the orange-shaded log in Figure 4 and appears in the first three tracks of the
cross-section. This original pore-pressure estimate based on Eaton’s method shows an increase in the
Wolfcamp B and is likely responding to the slow clay rather than pressure and was probably the deciding
factor in casing shallower. The new method, which agrees with previous mud weights and current flowing
bottomhole pressures, suggests casing points can be moved deeper and thus allow for more favorable
drilling margins when drilling Wolfcamp C laterals.
Figure 3. Plot showing casing points and mud weights used in early drilling and later drilling of the same formation in the same area. The 2012-2018 design was most likely based on pore pressure
predictions from a sonic log.
 Figure 4. Log Plot of log-estimated pore pressure and supporting information. Track 1: Measured Depth, Track 2: Formation tops for Wolfcamp interval of interest, Track 3: Hole size/data quality,
Track 4: Gamma Ray, Track 5: Lithology from 3-solid-component multimin solution. Track 6: Compressional slowness sonic log. Track 7: Density porosity (red) and sonic porosity (blue). Track 8:
Pressure estimate from logs as described in this paper. Black log shown in first three wells is original estimate based on a modified Eaton approach. Red log with orange shading is the approach
described in this paper.
This section briefly addresses the question of whether gas is the dominant effect on the sonic log and
resultant pore pressure estimates. Figure 5 shows a single-well view of the stratigraphic section of
interest, mineral composition, and various logs and pressure estimates. The pore pressure estimate
describes above is shown as a black log in track 6. A shear sonic log was substituted for compressional to
determine sonic porosity in this well. Track 7 shows the shear version which should be unaffected by gas,
to compressional which is known to be affected by gas in track 6. Profiles differ between compressional
and shear derived estimates based on the method described in this paper. However, both indicate the ramp
in Wolfcamp C more strongly than the sonic log alone or conventional methods. This is evidence that the
increase in the pore pressure estimate in the Wolfcamp C is not exclusively a gas effect.

Figure 5. Log plot to compare the methods presented in this document with traditional methods. Log plot also shows the similarity of the results
using compressional sonic vs shear sonic to test the influence of possible fluid/gas effects on the pressure prediction. Track 1: True Vertical
Depth (ft). Track 2: Formation intervals. Track 3: Mineral components. Track 4: Sonic logs, compressional (pink) and shear (red). Track 5:
Density porosity (red) with shear sonic porosity (blue). Track 6: Pore pressure estimate using compressional sonic. Track 7: Pore pressure
estimate using shear sonic. Track 8: smoothed compressional sonic log. Track 9: Modified Eaton pore pressure.

Discussion
The log-based results are substantiated by two different forms of data, both bottomhole-corrected
production pressures and drilling mud weights. The log-based analysis is novel but simple in concept
assuming it is possible to generalize and estimate mineral constituents in formations of interest. The study
area is data-rich area with two periods of development which is approximately 40 square miles. It is
possible that this approach will not apply universally to other source rocks for one of two reasons: 1) the
complexity of the lithologic components and 2) the interrelationship of pressure/gas presence in this area
calls to question the method’s utility as a direct pressure indicator. The complexity of the formation of
interest is important to consider if applying outside the area of study in the Permian Delaware Basin
because other source rocks may be too lithologically complex to generalize or lump solid-rock
components. Other pore fluids also need to be considered because it is well known that sonic logs are
affected by gas and pressure. It is possible that the sonic log is responding more to the increased
concentration of gas than pressure, although the two are usually related.
URTeC 165 9

Conclusions
The findings in this paper result from a study undertaken to address drilling issues in the Wolfcamp shale
in Delaware basin. Previous sonic-based approaches in the same area did not appear to accurately reflect
measured and inferred pressure data (flowing bottomhole pressures and prior drilling/mud weight
observations). The sonic log by itself may not be sufficient in heterogeneous source rocks, especially in
the Delaware Basin Wolfcamp because of contrasting lithologies, i.e. slow clay atop faster carbonate. A
novel approach helped to supplement the utility of the sonic log by accounting for major rock components
and attributing the difference between sonic and density porosity to pressure. Due to the change in fluid
type with depth, pressure and gas content are probably related and gas content may be a confounding
factor. Fluid effect was tested in one well by using the shear log, which should be insensitive to fluid, and
appears to support observation from the compressional log. Given the complexities, assumptions, and
focused scope involved, additional study and data are needed to validate the method for other cases. In
data-rich areas such as the Permian basin it is the author’s opinion that this and other log-based
approaches should not serve as a quantitative answer to pore-pressure problems, but rather an
interpolation tool between data points for quantitative purposes and an indicator of the onset of
overpressure locally for qualitative purposes.

References
Bowers, G.L. 1995. Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure
Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction. SPE Drilling & Completion. SPE-27488-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/27488-PA
Couzens-Schultz, B.A., Axon, A., Azbel, K. et al. 2013. Pore Pressure Prediction in Unconventional
Resources. International Petroleum Technology Conference, 26-28 March, Beijing, China. IPTC-16849-
MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-16849-MS
Eaton, B. 1975. The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. Fall Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, 28 September-1 October, Dallas, Texas. SPE-5544-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/5544-MS
Serra, O. 1990. Schlumberger Element Mineral Rock Catalog.
Yale, David et al. 2018. Novel Pore Pressure Prediction Technique for Unconventional Reservoirs.
SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 23-25 July, Houston, Texas, USA.
URTEC-2901731-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2018-2901731