OTC-26028-MS

Pore Pressure Calculation Method for Deepwater Shallow Layers with Log
Data

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Song Deng, Honghai Fan, Yuyang Zhou, Ming Zhang, Jinge Liu, and Jun Niu, China University of Petroleum
(Beijing)

Copyright 2015, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 4 –7 May 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
Deepwater drilling practice faces numbers of geological hazards which happen in shallow area due to
abnormal pore pressure, and these phenomenon go worse, even affect the drilling process, combining with
shallow flow, shallow gas, and gas hydrate conditions. However, applicable pore pressure calculation
methods were not established in last decades.
Formation pore pressure change closely with SDT, especially the reaction more obvious mudstone
formation. In this paper, based on shallow soil attributes, two kinds of logging-based calculation methods
are put forward. One is a comprehensive interpretation method, in which porosity, shaliness and effective
stress are taken into account. The other is a multi-regression method with the consideration of P-wave
velocity, affected by shallow gas velocity and shallow flow velocity, and mathematical model is
established by multi-regression.
Two wells in Yingqiong basin are exampled to verify above two methods. Meanwhile, calculation
results are consistent with testing data, and geological hazards can be detected. Results shows that the
multi-regression method is more suitable for fast prediction, and the comprehensive interpretation method
is more accurate.
Pore pressure calculation in deepwater is different from the shallow case due to soil attributes. How to
accurately analyze it still has a long way to go. The methods proposed in this paper have been applied in
many wells in the South China Sea, and provide reasonable references to drilling practice.

Introduction
Geological disasters in deepwater shallow layers are the bottleneck of the further development of
deepwater drilling. Due to the shorter diagenetic time and deposition time of shallow formation in
deepwater areas, the bottom deepwater formation structure is usually soft and uncemented. Moreover, the
increasion of water depth and the narrow saftety mud window problem cause that we have to applicate
a more complex wellbore structure in order to adapt the potential geological hazards. At the same time,
the three major deepwater geological hazards (shallow flow, shallow gas, gas hydrate) resulted that the
formation pore pressure in deepwater shallow layers is notorious and unpredictable. Even if the existing
formation pore pressure prediction model development is mature, and numbers of prediction methods has
2 OTC-26028-MS

been established especially in land area, such as Eaton method put forward in 1972, the equivalent depth
method raised by Foster & Whalen in 1966, D index method presented by Jorden & Shirleyin 1966,
Natural gamma ray and deep resistivity method by Holbrook in 1987, Load model and unload method by
Bowers in 1995, and Simple and integrated interpretation method by Honghai Fan during 2000 to 2005,
the methods aimed at deepwater shallow layer formation pressure prediction is still not involved.
By studying the deepwater shallow layers formation pressure characteristics, this paper puts forward
to the integrated interpretation method and the shallow of deepwater pore pressure prediction model based

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

on multivariate regression method. Moreover, this paper establish the formation pore pressure prediction
model from different methods, then the results were comparing analysed.

Model
The effective stress theorem
The formation pore pressure prediction methods raised in the paper are based on the effective stress
theorem of Terzaghi which means in one depth, the formation pore pressure equal to The overburden
pressure minus the vertical effective stress. Its expression is as follows:
(1)

The formula shows that the key to calculate the formation pore pressure is the accurate calculation of
overburden pressure and vertical effective stress. Overburden pressure is the total gravitational pressure
caused by rock skeleton and interstitial fluid in the formation. It can be calculated by the integrating
formation volume density. However, the vertical effective stress is an indirect variable which require to
measue the rock mechanics or the physicochemical properties. Therefore, it is important to find out the
relationship between themechanics or physicochemical properties of rock and the vertical effective stress.
The overburden pressure
The practical application in different areas shows that the regression effect of index model is sometimes
not ideal and it is easy to cause greater error when it applicates. Fan Honghai put forward the following
linear - index regression model which can obtain good effect. The model is listed as follows:
(2)

(3)

Goi—Gradient of overburden pressure,

␳0—Average density of upper segment formation with no logging data,
h0—Depth of upper segment formation with no logging data,
␳w—Density of seawater,
hw—Depth of seewater,
⌬h—Depth interval,
␳bi—Discrete data of density.
To shallow layers, overburden pressure raises faster than the increase rate of the depth. Thus the
exponential model is viable, with the increase of the depth, the relationship between the overlying pressure
and strata depth is gradually close to linear. So the linear model is feasible. Shallow strata exponential
model plays a leading role, but the deep strata linear model is more important. When the local depth
reaches a certain extent, overlying pressure increases gradually slow down with the increase of the depth.
Until finally tends to a constant, the reason is the formation of compaction degree has reached maximum,
and the porosity of the rock close to zero at the moment.
OTC-26028-MS 3

Comprehensive interpretation method

Acoustic velocity in the strata is influenced by formation physical parameters such as the rock mineral
composition, strata temperature pressure condition, pore space, etc. Therefore, we can predict the
formation pore pressure as long as setting up the relationship between acoustic velocity and the vertical
effective stress. However, due to the various influence factors of acoustic velocity, most of the existing
theoretical model only considers the effect of single factor which cause the prediction result inefficiency.
Eberhart Phillips tested a large number of rock cores by indoor rock physics experiments in 1989 and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

pointed out that the major affecting factors of acoustic velocity are porosity, shale content and effective
stress. Then based on the experimental results, he concluded that the Empirical formula of the the Acoustic
p-wave velocity [72]. Honghai fan modified the empirical model into a universal computing model on the
basis of Eberhart Phillips’ research results in 2002. The model is as follows
(4)

␯p—Acoustic p-wave velocity

␸—porosity
Vsh—shale content
␴— effective stress
—Coefficient of the model
Comprehensive interpretation model considered more comprehensive, including the three main factors
influencing the acoustic velocity: porosity, shale content and effective stress. In this model, the effective
stress exists vertical effective stress. Thus it can avoid the problem that is hard to determine the effective
stress after primary sedimentary loading and unloading. In addition, the application of the model is not
subject to the limits of abnormal pressure formation mechanism, and it can not only be used to calculate
the abnormal pressure due to uncompaction, but also apply to the abnormal high pressure caused by fluid
expansion and other genetic mechanism.
Comprehensive interpretation method leaded to good results when it predicted pore pressure for
shale-sand formations. The mudstone in deepwater shallow strata can be viewed as the mudstone in the
integrated interpretation model. Therefore, the main influencing factors of acoustic velocity are also
porosity (containing cracks), shale content and effective stress. So comprehensive interpretation model
can be applied to calculate pore pressure in the deep shallow strata. Porosity, shale content, formation
density, measured formation pressure and relevant logging datas are needed in the process of modeling.
Detailed process is as followed:
1. Overburden pressure gradient can be obtained by regression fitting the scatter of density logging
data;
2. Calculate vertical effective stress: a method is to make subtraction between the measurements of
the overlying pressure and pore pressure, another way to calculate vertical effective stress is
according to the relation between the vertical effective stress and rock mechanics parameters
(poisson ratio, vertical and horizontal wave velocity, interval transit time and so on);
3. Determine the horizon and acquire the acoustic velocity by the logging information. The phe-
nomenon of false anomaly for acoustic velocity caused by caliper change can be eliminated by
refering to the caliper curve;
4. Acquire shale content data by GR-logging or SP-logging profile and get porosity section by
neutron-logging or density-logging data;
5. Get model coefficient(A0, A1, A2, A3, D) by regression fitting, and furthermore determine the
regression model of the region;
6. Substitute porosity of new well, shale content and p-wave velocity into comprehensive model,
4 OTC-26028-MS

calculate inverselyvertical effective stress for all the hole, and furthermore get pore pressure
profile for all the hole by the effective pressure theorem.
Process is as shown in the figure.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 1—Flow chart of geo-pressure determination by Comprehensive Explanation Method

Multi-regression method
When the pore fluid is oil or water, it has similar effect on P-wave velocity. Threfore, oil or water can be
viewed as liquid phase. So for the gas-liquid two-phase formation, it need to revise calculation model of
vertical effective stress. Since stratigraphic vertical effective stress and pore pressure affect P-wave
velocity jointly, we take P-wave velocity as the breakthrough point. And we establish the multiple
regression models combining the measured values and theoretical experience formula
Because stratigraphic vertical effective stress and pore pressure has effects on the P-wave velocity, we
can view the study for the P-wave velocity as the breakthrough point. And P-wave velocity in the deep
shallow strata is decided by rock skeleton and formation fluid. According to the empirical formula, it can
be expressed as
(5)

Therein,
␸- Formation porosity, zero dimension;
vp-Longitudinal wave velocity, km/s;
vm- P-wave velocity for rock skeleton, km/s;
vf- Formation fluid p-wave velocity, km/s.
OTC-26028-MS 5

The relationship between the main influencing factors can be expressed as

(6)

Therein,
␳m-Density of framework of rock, g/cm3;
␴- Density of vertical effective stress, g/cm3;
Vsh-Lithologic parameter (shale content), zero dimension.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

The relationship between the main influencing factors for vf can be expressed as:
(7)

Therein,
␳f- The density of the fluid, g/cm3;
Pp- Equivalent density of the formation pore pressure, g/cm3;
T-Fluid temperature, °C.
The indoor rock core experiments show that the realation between P-wave velocity and the influence
factors can be simulated by linear representation as:
(8)

(9)

Therein,
-model coefficients.
In conclusion, P-wave velocity equation for the shallow strata can be expressed as
(10)

The fluid density can be saturation weighted average for the deep shallow strata with shallow gas
(11)

Therein,
- Density of oil, gas, water, g/cm3;
- Saturation of oil, gas, water, meeting Sg ⫹ So ⫹ Sw ⫽ 1;
According to the analysis of relations between the formulas, we establish a multiple regression model
in the paper, specific calculation steps are as follows:
1. Determine the stratigraphic section through cutting logging data;
2. Conduct laboratory experiments to obtain density, vertical effective stress, porosity and shale
content of underground rocks, and measure the P-wave velocity, or geting vertical effective stress
in line with overburden pressure and pore pressure.
3. Record pressure, temperature, density, saturation, and the P-wave velocity by laboratory experi-
ments, in the course of oil production tes;
4. Based on the data, we can regress the modulus of matrix and ;
5. Bring P-wave velocity into model formula , it will get pore pressure prediction model .
6 OTC-26028-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 2—Flow chart of geo-pressure determination by multi-regression method

Case study

Description of oilfield
Yingqiong located in the South China Sea basin and the formation data shows that the finished drilling
depth and geological layering are different even in the same single well. The DF drilling zone target layer
is mainly Lingshui and the YC drilling zone target layer is are mainly second Yingge group, the sample
wells as shown in Table 1.

Table 1—The statistics of Yingqiong basin drilling target layer

Drilling target layer

Well number Major target layer Minor target layer

HK1 Huangliu formation Ying 2 member

YC1 Lingshui formation Sanya formation

In accordance with measured formation pressure which gets from Drill Stem Test, Oil Production Test
reports, we can sum up usage of the two well drilling fluids in the well area.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021
7

Figure 3—Eastern area drilling fluids usage

OTC-26028-MS
8 OTC-26028-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 4 —Yacheng area drilling fluids usage

As shown, between 0 and 2000m in the shallow strata, part of the layers of mud density are up to 1.25g
/ cm3, and the large fluctuations indicate that shallow strata has complicated geological conditions. We
shall calculate the formation of shallow seabed pressure accurate.
Results
The results of comprehensive interpretation method
In accordance with the Comprehensive Interpretation Method, we regress the target areas pore pressure
comprehensive calculation model:
(12)

Putting the porosity, shale content and P wave velocity data of the target wells into the Comprehensive
Interpretation Method, we can calculate vertical effective stress, then utilize effective stress theorem to
calculate the pore pressure. When the model is applied to the target well shallow strata, we compare the
the calculation result and measured formation pressure, shown in the following table and figure below.
The results show that the relative errors is less than 10% which meet the project requirements.

Table 2—Contrast of calculated geo-pressure and measured geo-pressure

Well number Depth(m) Measured geo-pressure (g/cm3) Calculated geo-pressure (g/cm3) Relative error (%)

HK1 616 1.12 1.17 5%

1150 1.03 1.00 3%
YC1 700 1.0 0.9 10%
900 0.96 0.85 11%
OTC-26028-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 5—Geo-pressure profile calculated by Comprehensive Explanation Method

The results of multiple regression model

According to multiple regression method, we record layer segments corresponding pressure, temperature,
density, saturation, and measure its compressional wave velocity, as shown in Table 3, Table 4

Table 3—Density, vertical effective stress and shale content of underground rocks
Wave velocity (km/s) Density (g/cm3) Effective stress (g/cm3) Shale content

6.02 2.51 0.60 0.53

6.22 2.54 0.75 0.64
6.42 2.57 1.09 0.36
6.15 2.61 1.54 0.45
6.15 2.63 1.49 0.55

Table 4 —Density, pressure and temperature of formation fluids

Wave velocity (km/s) Density (g/cc) Pressure (g/cc) Temperature (°C)

0.76 0.19 1.23 48

0.92 0.24 1.18 32
1.04 0.08 1.17 45
1.64 0.39 1.09 60
2.29 0.38 1.15 55

Using the above data, we regress an empirical model:

(13)
10 OTC-26028-MS

(14)

(15)

Putting the sonic speed, density, effective stress, shale content, fluid density, temperature, and pore
pressure measured data of adjacent wells into the empirical model, we will calculate vertical effective
stress profile, and then use the effective stress theorem to strike pore pressure profile.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

We apply the empirical model to HK1 wells and YC1 wells and juxtapose calculated and measured
values of the formation pressure, as shown in Table 5 and Figure 6. The results show that the relative
errors is less than 10%, in line with the project requirements.

Table 5—Contrast of calculated geo-pressure and measured geo-pressure

Well number ell number Depth(m) Measured geo-pressure (g/cm3) Calculated geo-pressure (g/cm3) Relative error (%)

HK1 616 1.12 1.15 3%

1150 1.03 1.07 5%
YC1 700 1.0 1.03 3%
900 0.96 1.07 9%

Figure 6 —Geo-pressure profile calculated by multiple regression method

As shownd above, the results of the two methods match the measured results well. The deepwater
shallow layer pressure are roughly varying from 1.0 g / cm3 to 1.2g / cm3. Too high pressure may appear
in HK1 upper horizon, there may be shallow gas or shallow flow, it should be noted during drilling to
prevent disasters.
OTC-26028-MS 11

Both methods are suitable for practical engineering. Comprehensive interpretation method is on the
basis of a large number of well data measured in this block. Tough the result is less accurate, it can be
widely used and adapted to different blocks. The multiple regression method is regreesed from the test
well log data, which is more specific and closer to the actual situation in the cell block area of the well.
Conclusions
1. In this paper, we apply general overburden pressure calculation method to solve the problem of

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/15OTC/All-15OTC/OTC-26028-MS/1361035/otc-26028-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

overburden pressure in deep water. After data processing, it has a higher accuracy.
2. In view of scarce shallow deepwater logging data and few pressure points that can be measured,
the multiple regression method is more convenient in solving pore pressure.
3. The example shows that the accuraty of comprehensive interpretation method based on the
coeffient of regression, the number of drilled well and the accuracy of logging data.
4. South China Sea region contains rich o&g reservoirs and we also face enormous challenges. The
method of calculating pore pressure is not completed in deepwater shallow layers and still need
further researches.

Acknowledgments
This paper is funded by the “National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science
and Technology of China”. The specific subject is “Software Development for Drilling Engineering” and
the accession number is 2011ZX05021-006.

References
Terzaghi. K, 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Eaton, B. A., 1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. Paper No. SPE 5544. Fall
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX.
Bowers, G. L, 1994. Pore Pressure Estimation from Velcoty Data: Accounting for Overpressure
Mechnisms besides Undercompaction. IADC/SPE paper 27488.
Dutta, N.C. 2002a. Deepwater Geohazard Prediction Using Prestack Inversion of Large Offset
P-Wave Data and Rock Model. The Leading Edge, February.
Marion, D., and Nur, A. 1991. Pore-filling material and its effect on velocity in rocks. Geophysics.
56:225–235.
FAN Honghai. The study on new method of formation pore pressure prediction [D]. Beijing: China
University of Petroleum Beijing, 2001
FAN Honghai, ZHANG Chuanjin. Determination and Regression of Overburden Pressure Gradient
[J]. Petroleum Drilling Technics. Vol.30 No.6, Dec. 2002.
T. Vanorio, C. Scotellaro, G. Mavko. The effect of chemical and physical processes on the acoustic
properties of carbonate rocks [J]. The Leading Edge, 2008(8): 1040 –1045.
F. HONGHAI, Y. ZHI, AND J. RONGYI. 2011. Estimating Sand-Shale Formation Pore Pressure.
Prtroleum Science and Technology, 29:2338 –2345.