URTeC: 2904084

Using Traditional Methods to Predict Pore Pressure in Devonian Black

Shale Basins of North East British Columbia

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Sam Green*1, Joel Loeffler1, Shona Clarke2, David Thurston2
1. Ikon Science, 2. Nexen Energy ULC
Copyright 2018, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2018-2904084

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018.

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

In unconventional resource plays, pore pressure plays a critical role in the ability to predict both areas of high
overpressure and fracture behavior for the exploitation of these plays. Traditional pore pressure prediction focusses
exclusively on clay-rich shales and assumes that all shales have a porosity/effective stress relationship that can be
used to link the mechanical compaction of the rock to the pore pressure via the vertical stress (overburden). Shales
in unconventional plays have variable clay contents, are uplifted, are affected by chemical processes and diagenetic
alteration of the elastic properties such that porosity is not relatable to effective stress.

This paper presents a case study showing that traditional pore pressure prediction techniques can be adapted to
predict pore pressure in an unconventional play by using a newly defined Pressure Reference Trend (PRT) in-lieu of
a Normal Compaction Trend (NCT) as used in conventional, or traditional, pore pressure prediction. The PRT is not
linked to the expected compaction behavior of the rock (as inferred from an NCT) but it is simply an empirical depth
trend from which the pore pressure can be predicted using industry standard formulae. Rather than constraining the
surface and matrix value for an NCT using sensible geological parameters, the final position of the PRT in velocity-
depth space is a function of the measured pressure, to which the trend is calibrated, combined with a lateral shift
towards higher velocity/density due to tectonic uplift, secondary compaction, and chemical diagenesis that has
occurred over the geological history of the basin.

Introduction

Traditional pore pressure prediction typically assumes that all the shales are geologically young with low
temperatures, are at their maximum burial depth, and have a demonstrable porosity/effective stress relationship
where disequilibrium compaction is the mechanism of pressure generation (e.g., Osborne & Swarbrick, 1997). The
critical assumption underpinning traditional pore pressure prediction is that the variations observed in specific
wireline data (Vp, Vs, Rho, Neutron, Resistivity) are varying solely due to changes in porosity, and that the porosity
is controlled by the pore pressure. High pore fluid pressure results in a high porosity rock as the pore fluid was
unable to escape during further sedimentation and compaction; hence the fluid is trapped within the rock preserving
high porosity. The follow-on assumption is that the wireline log response can be converted into pore pressure using
traditional methods (Eaton Ratio method (Eaton, 1975); Equivalent Depth Method (Foster & Whalen, 1966); Vp-
Effective Stress method (Bowers, 1994)) into a magnitude of pore pressure via a relationship between vertical stress
(overburden), pore pressure, and the vertical effective stress (Terzaghi, 1943).

Shales in unconventional plays are (or were) at high temperature leading to diagenetic alteration of the mineralogy,
are often dramatically uplifted, and have been affected by chemical processes in addition to mechanical compaction
such that porosity may not be solely relatable to effective stress. Furthermore, the link between pore pressure and
log response may be further disrupted by the presence of organic material (high TOC) or free gas in the pore space,
and whilst these challenges are not unique to unconventional plays they are more likely to be present. An increase in
URTeC 2904084 2

TOC has been shown to significantly lower the magnitudes of velocity and density (Passey et al., 1990). Gas in the
pore space has a similar slowing effect on the Vp data, although whilst the TOC effect has a linear relationship with
log response the gas effect is not as straight forward to correct for due to the non-linear effect of gas saturation. Slow
velocity (either due to TOC or to free gas in the pores) and low density are typically attributed to an increase in pore
pressure, as they imply high porosity, so this effect needs to be removed from log data in order to correctly predict
pore pressure. The actual presence of higher pore pressure can lead to “sweet spot” preservation and even natural
fracturing that can enhance production without the need for artificial stimulation hence the need for an accurate pore

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

pressure prediction method/workflow. It is because of the disconnect between the measured elastic response
(porosity) from pore pressure as per a simple mechanical compaction model that has resulted in the presumption that
pore pressure prediction cannot be performed in unconventional plays.

Overview of Pore Pressure Prediction in Unconventional Plays

In spite of the issues described above, it can still be possible to derive a relationship between wireline data and the
pressure magnitude; a brief summary of prior work is given here. Ebrom et al. (2003) demonstrated a relationship
between Vs and pore pressure which circumvents the effect of gas on the Vp data. The work was undertaken in a
conventional play (offshore Trinidad) but within a gas chimney and used the Eaton Ratio approach with a modified
exponent and a traditionally defined Normal Compaction Trend (Figure 1).

More recently, Zhang and Wieseneck (2011) presented a case study from the Haynesville and Bossier plays in the
southern United States where they were able to link direct pressure data (kicks and/or DFIT-type data) to velocity. In
this example, a pseudo-Vp was computed from measured Vs using a calibrated Castagna approach to avoid the
slowing effect of gas on measured Vp. This approach was further modified by Couzens-Shultz et al. (2013) who
showed that Vs data could be used to predict pore pressure in the same unconventional plays without needing to use
the Castagna approach to derive a pseudo-Vp.

In both the Zhang and Wieseneck (2011) and Couzens-Shultz et al. (2013) studies the method of pore pressure
prediction was the velocity-effective stress cross-plot method (Bowers, 1994) as the authors had access to large
datasets which suit that technique. The theory that supports the Bowers approach is a normal compaction approach
but as it is a direct correlation of measured velocity and measured pore pressure it can be used to derive an empirical
pore pressure relationship independent of the intrinsic geological constraint of the Eaton Ratio and Equivalent Depth
methods and, therefore, is more suitable to unconventional plays (e.g., Rauch-Davies et al. 2018). In the case study
presented here the data are more sparse hence the need to use the Eaton Ratio and Equivalent Depth methods which
are dependent on some form of a normal compaction trend.

Pressure Reference Trend (PRT) Method

As stated previously, two of the most common methods for pore pressure prediction in conventional plays are the
Eaton Ratio method and the Equivalent Depth method (EDM). The two methods both attempt to predict the vertical
effective stress, which can then be subtracted from the vertical stress (overburden) to estimate the pore pressure. The
vertical effective stress is the grain-to-grain contact stress, the component of the total vertical stress that the rock
framework supports as opposed the to the pore fluid pressure. Both methods require a normal compaction trend
(NCT) to be derived before a pressure prediction can be made.

Normally compacted shales are by definition shales that are normally pressured. The common shape of the NCT is a
typical porosity-depth profile where the rate of porosity decline with increasing depth (and effective stress) is most
rapid in the shallow section and slows down as the porosity declines and the rock becomes more resistant to grain
collapse, grain rearrangement, and other processes during mechanical compaction (Figure 1; upper images). Where
the porosity reduction with depth no longer follows the NCT then the process is termed disequilibrium compaction,
or undercompaction, (Figure 1; lower images). The NCT can be constrained geologically using realistic surface and
matrix parameters, for example a velocity close to that of water at the surface and a matrix velocity that is 90-95%
of the grain velocity of the dominant clay mineralogy. However, the same constraints cannot be applied in
unconventional plays as the porosity is not solely linked to mechanical compaction.

By combining the depth-trend approach of the Eaton Ratio and Equivalent Depth methods with the empirical
relationship intrinsic to the velocity-effective stress method this study presents a new concept for pore pressure
URTeC 2904084 3

prediction in unconventional plays; the pressure reference trend (PRT) method. The PRT is not linked to the
expected compaction behavior of the rock (as inferred from an NCT) but it is simply an empirical depth trend from
which the pore pressure can be predicted using industry standard formulae. Rather than constraining the surface and
matrix value for the depth trend (NCT) using sensible geological parameters the PRT is iterated until the predicted
pressures match a series of data from offset wells. Furthermore, a few wells are excluded to be used as blind test
wells to verify the applicability of the PRT as a predictive tool. It would not be possible to exclude some wells from
the velocity-effective stress method in this case study as the minimal well coverage would result in too few data

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

from which to derive a significant best-fit line.

Figure 1: A series of cartoons demonstrating normal compaction behavior (upper images) and disequilibrium compaction behavior (lower
images). From left to right the images show the pressure-depth plot, the porosity-depth, and the porosity-effective stress plots for each
compaction type.

Figure 2 shows an example of a multi-layer Pressure Reference Trend (PRT) in which the PRT for each stratigraphic
package has been calibrated to offset wells. By comparison to Figure 1, it is clear that the shape of the PRT is not the
same as an NCT and from Figure 2 the PRT clearly does not intercept the surface at velocity similar to water. In
fact, the shape of the PRT is steep with minimal curvature and is closer to the shape of the NCT at depth. The shape
of the PRT is due to the uplift the basin has undergone, whereby the shallow part of the NCT that would show
significant curvature is no longer present due to erosion, and what is left is similar to the deep portion of the NCT
(e.g. Ware & Turner, 2002). The final difference between the PRT and NCT is that the PRT will have been shifted
URTeC 2904084 4

laterally towards higher velocity/density, and possibly rotated, from where the uplifted NCT would plot due to the
secondary compaction and chemical diagenesis that has occurred disconnecting the porosity from the effective
stress. The final position of the PRT in velocity-depth space is a function of the measured pressure, to which the
trend is calibrated, over the zone(s) of interest. The trend is then extrapolated from surface to a matrix intercept
which may not be geologically sensible, i.e. may be outside the bounds of the elastic properties of the rock, but
allow the PRT to be effective over the zone of interest whilst conforming to an typical decay function which is
standard to most software that perform pore pressure analysis.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 2: An example of a Pressure Reference Trend (PRT) for the Liard Basin. In this example several PRTs have been developed for different
stratigraphic sections.

Study Area

The data in this study were taken from two wells in the Liard Basin, straddling the boundaries of the North-West
Territories (NWT), the Yukon, and northeastern British Columbia, Canada; within the Western Canada Sedimentary
Basin (WCSB). The WCSB is a vast sedimentary basin underlying western Canada from southwestern Manitoba,
through southern Saskatchewan, Alberta and northeastern British Columbia. It consists of a significant wedge of
sedimentary rock that extends from in front of the Rocky Mountains (~6 kilometres or 3.7 miles thick) in the west
and thins to zero at the Canadian Shield in the east (Mossop and Shetsen, 1994).

The Liard Basin itself is structurally complex; located in a recess along the Cordilleran Deformation Front and
bounded to the east by the Bovie Structure. The recess exists where the orientation of deformation in Cordillera
shifts and changes character from a narrow fold and thrust belt with significant shortening in the south to much
URTeC 2904084 5

broader deformation to the North in the Mackenzie Mountains (personal communication Southwest Research
Institute research team including D.A. Ferrill, 2015). The basin is characterized by a thick sedimentary wedge and
the development of extremely high pressures and significant overpressure. The sedimentary wedge from Devonian
to surface (Figure 3) is 4 to 6 kilometres thick, thinning to the east, with multiple significant unconformities. These
include the present day Pre-Quaternary surface (~2 kilometres erosion since 60 Ma) and the Pre-Cretaceous
Unconformity (which may have had as much as 1 to 3 kilometres of erosion from 145 Ma to about 119 Ma; personal
communication with M.E. McMechan, 2015) (Figure 4).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 3: Liard Basin Stratigraphic Cartoon, derived from Mossop and Shetsen, 1994; Monahan, 2000; CoreLabs Stratigraphic Chart and internal
correlation.

While there has been limited exploration in the Liard Basin, significant shale gas discoveries from 2012 to 2016
have been made in the Exshaw Formation and the upper member of the Besa River Formation (Figure 1). The
Exshaw Formation is composed of black, biogenic silica-rich shale and the upper member of the Besa River
Formation is composed of interlaminated black, biogenic silica-rich shale with fine carbonate material. The reservoir
package is contained by clay rich shales of the Banff Formation above and undifferentiated Besa River Formation
below. According to the Energy Briefing Note produced for the National Energy Board in March 2016, the
unconventional potential in the Liard Basin for the Exshaw/Besa River Formations is estimated at 1213 Tcf (34365
billion m3) in place with the potential for 219 Tcf (6196 billion m3) of marketable gas (reasonable confidence
expected numbers).
URTeC 2904084 6

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 4: Burial and tectonic overview of the Liard Basin from key well A-67-D/94-O-13, modified after Wright et al., 1994 and personal
communication with M. E. McMechan, 2015.

Results

Despite both basins containing similar stratigraphy, that in a traditional setting would allow the use of a common
NCT, the significant variation in present day depth below surface and the varying pressure regimes between the two
areas means separate PRTs are required. The final model is a set of Pressure Reference Trends (PRTs) where each
stratigraphic package required a bespoke trend line although occasionally one PRT was suitable to more than one
stratigraphic package. Both observations above are an illustration of the variation to conventional workflows that is
needed when undertaking pore pressure prediction in unconventional plays, i.e. depth trends for pressure prediction
are calibrated empirically rather than relying on a geological framework. As with building an NCT model a Vshale
cut-off was applied to focus on the clay-rich material; in this study the cut-off was 0.7.

Below are two examples from wells in North East British Columbia, the two wells (Well A and Well B) show a
calibration well and a blind test well from the Liard Basin. In all the examples, there are three pore pressure
predictions shown; two are based on the Vp log using the Eaton Ratio method (purple) and the Equivalent Depth
method (blue) and the other is based on the density data using the Equivalent Depth method (red). The reason there
is no Eaton Ratio result from density is due to the lack of quantified Eaton exponent for density as that was never
presented in the original research (Eaton, 1975). The use of multiple methods and log types is crucial to
understanding the uncertainty in the magnitude of the predicted pressure and to make an assessment of which log
type presents the most viable proxy for pore pressure. Resistivity is another commonly used log type for pressure
prediction but the log signal was too noisy to observe viable pressure trends.

The first well (Well A; Figure 5) is an offset well used as part of the PRT calibration process. The results shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show a close degree of agreement between each pore pressure curve and match the static
mudweight used while drilling the well as well as the production test taken at ~3700m. This well shows that the
wireline data (both Vp and Rho) can be easily translated into a meaningful pore pressure curve with minimal
uncertainty and with a clear depth trend predicted for the deep, overpressured intervals.
URTeC 2904084 7

The next example (Well B; Figure 7 & Figure 8) is a well that was excluded from the PRT calibration process and
was used to blind test the model. There is overpressure (pressure above hydrostatic) predicted from the density log
in the shallow section but this is due to detrimental effects on density log from washout which can be seen on the
caliper log. The Vp log did not suffer from the same hole problems. This well is interesting because the mudweight
used to drill the well indicates a much lower overpressure than in Well A, implying that the in-situ pore pressure was
much lower. However, the production test taken at the base of this well reveals that the overpressure is much higher

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

than the mudweight suggests. This shows that wells can be drilled underbalanced without experiencing overly
detrimental wellbore stability problems, especially in the vertical wellbores which all three examples are. More
importantly, mudweight cannot be assumed as a proxy for pore pressure as it can severely underpredict the
magnitude, which will have a significant impact on the accuracy of any subsequent geomechanical model.

The predicted pore pressure from the PRT for Well B is shown in the same blue, red, and purple curves as shown for
Well A. The critical observation is that the predicted pressures are on trend with the production test taken in the
well, i.e., the PRT accurately predicts the in-situ pore pressure as measured in the well (Figure 8). The accuracy of
the PRT is critical in this area as it gives confidence in the magnitude of the predicted pore pressure and allows doe
a more accurate hydraulic fracturing plan (geomechanical model) to be derived. This leads to more efficient
fracturing and more cost effective wells. Interestingly, other wells close by did experience higher mudweights and
drilling events (gases, flows) which were on trend for the deep pore pressure data point (Figure 9). The additional
data from these offset wells (Wells X & Y) show that the mudweight in Well B is actually anomalous and that the
predicted pressures are more accurate in the context of all the data.

Conclusions

This paper presents a case study showing that traditional pore pressure prediction techniques (Eaton Ratio and
Equivalent Depth methods) can be adapted to predict pore pressure in an unconventional play, such as the Devonian
Black Shales of North East British Columbia, by using a newly defined Pressure Reference Trend (PRT) in-lieu of a
Normal Compaction Trend (NCT) as used in conventional, or traditional, pore pressure prediction.

The PRT is not linked to the expected compaction behavior of the rock (as inferred from an NCT) but it is simply an
empirical depth trend from which the pore pressure can be predicted using industry standard formulae. Rather than
constraining the surface and matrix value for an NCT using sensible geological parameters, the final position of the
PRT in velocity-depth space is a function of the measured pressure, to which the trend is calibrated, combined with a
lateral shift towards higher velocity/density due to tectonic uplift, secondary compaction, and chemical diagenesis
that has occurred over the geological history of the basin.

The advantages of using traditional pore pressure prediction techniques is that they are standard to most industry
software, they work better than other techniques (e.g., Bowers) in areas with less data, they work with industry
standard logs (e.g., Vp, Rho. Although not shown in this paper, the PRT model was also used to generate a regional
2D line of pore pressure that can be used to characterize inter-well regions for future exploration and exploitation of
the resources in the basin.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Nexen Energy ULC, CNOOC Limited, and IGBC for supporting this work through
provision of the data and permission to present these results.
URTeC 2904084 8

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 5: An example of a pressure prediction for Well A (an offset well) from the Liard Basin which was used to calibrate the PRT for this area.
The predicted pressures match the mudweights and the production test (red circle) taken in this well. The highlighted intervals represent the clay-
rich sections, derived from the Vshale log and a cut-off of 0.7.

Figure 6: The deep interval from Figure 5 is shown to highlight the accuracy of the model to the DFIT pore pressure and the stability of the
density-based pressure prediction compared to the velocity-based predictions. The highlighted intervals represent the clay-rich sections, derived
from the Vshale log and a cut-off of 0.7.
URTeC 2904084 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 7: An example of a pressure prediction for Well B (a blind test well) from the Liard Basin which was used to test the PRT for this area.
The predicted pressures do not match the mudweights but they do match DFIT taken in this well. Note that the DFIT is much higher magnitude
than the mudweight. The highlighted intervals represent the clay-rich sections, derived from the Vshale log and a cut-off of 0.7.

Figure 8: The deep interval from Figure 7 is shown to highlight the accuracy of the model to the DFIT pore pressure and the stability of the
density-based pressure prediction compared to the velocity-based predictions. The highlighted intervals represent the clay-rich sections, derived
from the Vshale log and a cut-off of 0.7.
URTeC 2904084 10

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Figure 9: An example of the pressure prediction for Well B (a blind test well) with the mudweights, DFITs and drilling events from two local
wells shown. The additional data from the offset wells (Wells X & Y) show that the mudweight in Well B is actually anomalous and that the
predicted pressures are more accurate in the context of all the data. The highlighted intervals represent the clay-rich sections, derived from the
Vshale log and a cut-off of 0.7.

References

Bowers, G. L., 1994, (IADC/SPE 27488) Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity Data Accounting for
Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, pp. 515–
530.

Castagna, J. P., Batzle, M. L. and Eastwood, R. L., 1985, Relationships between compressional-wave in elastic
silicate, Geophysics, 50 (4), pp. 571–581.

Core Laboratories Stratigraphy Chart, URL < https://landman.ca/pdf/CORELAB.pdf > [April 2017].

Couzens-Schultz, B. A., Axon, A., Azbel, K., Hansen, K. S., Haugland, M., Sarker, R., Tichelaar, B., Wieseneck, J.
B., Wilhelm, R., Zhang, J. and Zhang, Z., 2013, (IPTC 16849) Pore Pressure Prediction in Unconventional
Resources, International Petroleum Technology Conference.

Eaton, B. A., 1975, (SPE 5544) The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs, Fall Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME.

Ebrom, D., Heppard, P., Mueller, M. and Thomsen, L., 2003, Pore pressure prediction from S‐wave, C‐wave, and P‐
wave velocities, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2003, pp. 1370–1373.
URTeC 2904084 11

Energy Briefing Note, March 2016, URL < http://data.geology.gov.yk.ca/Reference/DownloadProduct/40652 >

[April 2017].

Foster, J. B. and Whalen, H. E., 1966, Estimation of Formation Pressures From Electrical Surveys-Offshore
Louisiana, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 18 (2), pp. 165–171.

Monahan, P., 2000, Stratigraphy and Potential Hydrocarbon Bearing Objectives of the Mississippian to Lower

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECONF/proceedings-pdf/18URTC/1-18URTC/D013S005R003/1186174/urtec-2904084-ms.pdf/1 by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 03 March 2021

Cretaceous Strata in the Eastern Liard Basin Area; BC Ministry of Energy, Special Report, URL <
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-gas-oil/petroleum-
geoscience/petroleum-open-files/pgof-2000-1/pgof2000-1_report.pdf > [April 2017].

Mossop, G.D. and Shetsen, I., comp. (1994): Geological atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin; Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council,
http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/atlas.html, Date Accessed: 29th March 2018.

Osborne, M. J. and Swarbrick, R. E., 1997, Mechanisms for Generating Overpressure in Sedimentary Basins: A
Reevaluation, AAPG Bulletin, 81 (6), pp. 1023–1041.

Passey, Q. R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J. B., Moretti, F. J. and Stroud, J. D., 1990, A Practical Model for Organic
Richness from Porosity and Resistivity Logs, AAPG Bulletin, 74 (12), pp. 1777–1794.

Rauch-Davies, M., Smith, S., Schmicker, R, Green, S., Meyer, J., 2018, (URTeC 2888832) Predicting pore-pressure
from on-shore seismic data in the Delaware Basin, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference.

Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Ware, P. D. and Turner, J. P., 2002, Sonic velocity analysis of the Tertiary denudation of the Irish Sea basin, In
Dore, A. G., Cartwright, J. A., Stoker, M. S., Turner, J. P., and White, N. (eds) Exhumation of the North Atlantic
Margin: Timing, Mechanisms and Implications for Petroleum Exploration. Geological Society of London, Special
Publications: 196, pp. 355–370.

Wright, G.N., M. E. McMechan, and D. E. G. Potter, 1994, Chapter 3 – Structure and architecture of the western
Canada Sedimentary Basin. In G. D. Mossop and I. Shetson (eds.), Geological Atlas of the Western Candara
Sedimentary Basin. Calgary, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council, p. 24-40.

Zhang, J. and Wieseneck, J., 2011, (SPE 145964) Challenges and Surprises of Abnormal Pore Pressures in Shale
Gas Formations, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.