Factors Necessary to Define a Pressure Seal: Reply1
David Deming2
INTRODUCTION
In my paper on pressure seals, I sought to quanti-
fy the physical parameters that are necessary to
define a pressure seal, and to obtain an order-of-
magnitude estimate of the length of time for which
a pressure seal could maintain anomalous pressures.
He and Corrigan (1995) believe that my estimates
are too low by one to two orders of magnitude and
attribute this error to an “inappropriate formulation
of the problem” and a “poor choice of bulk com-
pressibilities.” In this reply I show that He and
Corrigan’s model is no more representative than the
one I used, and that my original choice of bulk com-
pressibilities is appropriate. I do not agree with the
conclusions of He and Corrigan (1995), and believe
that they are based on tendentious assumptions.
MODELS
In Deming (1994) I sought to understand the
fundamental physics that govern the dissipation of
excess pressures by applying some highly idealized
models. As I stated (Deming, 1994, p. 1005),
“Although these highly simplified models cannot
adequately represent the geologic complexity of
sedimentary basins, they allow for an exposition of
the essential physics that govern the dissipation of
excess pressure and reveal the factors that are
important in defining pressure seals.” One of my
primary results was to show that the physical fac-
tors necessary to define a pressure seal are thick-
ness, time, and permeability. I furthermore showed
that the time during which a seal may maintain
hydraulic segregation is proportional to the square
of the seal thickness and inversely proportional to
its permeability. Calculations by He and Corrigan
reveal the same physical dependence, and thus
confirm my results.
1Manuscript
received November 4, 1994; final acceptance March 9, 1995.
2School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma 73019-0628.
Acknowledgment is made to the Donors of the Petroleum Research
Fund, administered by the American Chemical Society, for the partial support
of this research. This research was also supported in part by National
Science Foundation Grant EAR-9219886.
AAPG Bulletin, V. 79, No. 7 (July 1995), P. 1079–1081.
In addition to obtaining an understanding of the
essential physics involved, my second goal was to
obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of the perme-
ability needed for a geologic unit to function as a
pressure seal over a given period of time. An order-of-
magnitude estimate implies an inherent uncertain-
ty of a factor of 10. As I stated (Deming, 1994,
p. 1007), “This result may vary, perhaps by as much
as a factor of 10, due to uncertainties in the value
used for rock compressibility. . . and simplifying
assumptions inherent in an idealized model.” Because
the permeability of potential seal lithology (shales)
varies by eight orders of magnitude (∼10–15–10–23
m2) (Neuzil, 1994), restricting this range to one order
of magnitude represented a considerable advance.
He and Corrigan (1995) differ from my results in
obtaining an estimate of the time over which a seal
may confine a pressure transient. He and Corrigan
(1995) estimate this time as
t = 1.0 × L2/D (1)
where L is seal thickness [same as z used in
Deming (1994)] and D is hydraulic diffusivity. I esti-
mated the time required to be
t = 0.25 × L2/D (2)
These estimates differ for two main reasons.
One reason is that the models start with different
initial conditions. Although He and Corrigan
(1995) characterize my model as inappropriate,
they do not consider that their initial condition is
physically unreasonable. He and Corrigan’s initial
condition is full excess pressure everywhere in the
seal. This condition could not be reached or even
approximated in the Earth unless the laws of
nature were temporarily suspended so as to allow
excess pressure to build up in the seal without any
leakage. In contrast, the initial condition I chose is
zero excess pressure in the seal, an initial condi-
tion that could be physically approximated by the
sudden development of excess pressure in the
compartment below the seal. He and Corrigan’s
choice of an initial condition of constant pressure
in the seal results in an exaggerated estimate of the
time necessary to dissipate the excess pressure, as
much of the excess pressure that must be lost
1079
1080 Discussion and Reply
would never be found in nature. He and Corrigan’s
initial condition is not even consistent with their
own definition of an idealized seal. Figure 1d from
He and Corrigan (1995) shows an initial condition
of a linear pressure gradient in an idealized seal,
similar to the data reported by Hunt (1990).
However, He and Corrigan (1995) used the initial
condition shown in their Figure 1c. He and
Corrigan’s choice of this initial condition appears
to be tendentious, as Carslaw and Jaeger (1959,
p. 98) give a solution for the more realistic initial
condition of a linear profile on the same page as
the solution adopted by He and Corrigan.
A second reason that estimates by He and
Corrigan (1995) differ from mine is that I calculat-
ed the time required for the excess pressure to first
broach the seal, whereas He and Corrigan calculat-
ed the time required for more than 90% of the
excess pressure in the compartment below the seal
to dissipate. If slightly different and equally arbi-
trary criteria are applied to the model of He and
Corrigan, an estimate is obtained that is essentially
identical to the one I derived in Deming (1994). For
example, if a more realistic initial condition of a lin-
ear excess pressure profile is used in He and
Corrigan’s model, the time required for about two-
thirds of the excess pressure to dissipate is
(Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, p. 98)
t = 0.4 × L2/D (3)
an estimate hardly different from the one I obtained
in Deming (1994) (equation 2). In short, if He and
Corrigan (1995) had adopted a more realistic initial
condition and a more relaxed definition of the
degree to which excess pressure must dissipate
before the pressure seal can be said to have failed,
they would have obtained an estimate that differs
from mine by a factor of 1.6, not a factor of 4.
BULK COMPRESSIBILITY
In Deming (1994) I used a value for bulk rock
compressibility of 10–9 Pa–1, based upon a consider-
ation that the laboratory data compiled for shales
ranged from 10 –9 to 10 –10 Pa –1 , and estimates
derived from porosity-depth trends at 3-km depth
were in the range of ∼10 –8 to 10 –9 Pa –1 (Neuzil,
1986, p. 1176). In contrast, He and Corrigan (1995)
believe that a better choice for α would have been
10–8 Pa–1, on the rationale that I should have calcu-
lated the end-case extreme instead of the most likely
scenario.
If it is understood that we are dealing with an
isotropic parameter as appropriate for a one-
dimensional analysis, the bulk compressibility
of a saturated porous medium (α) is defined
α = –(dV/V) / dσe (4)
where V is the volume of a saturated porous medi-
um, and dV is the change in volume that takes place
in response to a change in effective stress dσe. Thus,
α describes only the mechanical behavior of a satu-
rated porous medium in response to stress changes.
However, porosity changes with depth and time not
only as a result of mechanical compaction, but also
as a result of chemical diagenetic changes. Thus,
estimates of α derived from porosity-depth relation-
ships are likely too large. As Neuzil (1986, p. 1176)
states, “The effective long-term compressibilities
computed in this fashion may be too large because
the porosity changes in situ can also reflect extrane-
ous effects such as diagenesis and horizontal strain.”
If He and Corrigan’s (1995) goal was to estimate the
absolute limit of sealing efficiency, then they were
probably correct to use a value of 10 –8 Pa –1 .
However, I sought to estimate the likely time that a
layer could effectively confine a pressure or head
transient, and therefore chose 10–9 Pa–1 as a repre-
sentative choice for shale. I stand by this choice.
DISCUSSION
He and Corrigan’s remarks concerning the elu-
sive concept of pressure seals and the general use-
fulness of the concept are really comments on
Hunt’s (1990) paper. I have never been an advocate
of the concept of pressure seals, elusive or other-
wise. In Deming (1994) I simply applied a mathe-
matical analysis to a concept introduced in the
paper by Hunt (1990).
In addition to the problem of finding rock units
whose permeability is low enough to act as seals,
there are several other difficulties with the concept
of pressure seals. One of these difficulties is the
formidable task of finding a geologic feature that
could function as a lateral seal. Hunt (1990) suggests
that faults may act as lateral seals, but faults tend to
be alternately invoked in the literature as either bar-
riers or conduits for flow as suits the convenience of
the situation. I might also note that the very exis-
tence of a linear pressure gradient in a seal as shown
by Hunt (1990) belies the claim of a material with
zero permeability. If a seal is totally impermeable,
there must be a discontinuity in pressure immediate-
ly below the top of the seal. Fluid pressure above the
seal may be hydrostatic, but the fluid pressure imme-
diately below the top must reflect the weight of
both the overlying fluid and rock matrix.
What I implied in Deming (1994) but perhaps did
not adequately discuss is the assumption of the
validity of Darcy’s Law. That is, fluid movement
through a porous medium occurs in response to any
head gradient, no matter how small, and there are

no complicating factors such as capillary forces.
This assumption followed from Hunt’s (1990, p. 2)
original definition of a pressure seal which stated
that the “. . . term does not refer to capillary seals . . . .”
REFERENCES CITED
Carslaw, H. S., and J. C. Jaeger, 1959, Conduction of heat in solids,
2d ed.: London, Oxford University Press, 510 p.
Deming 1081
Deming, D., 1994, Factors necessary to define a pressure seal:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1005–1009.
He, Z., and J. Corrigan, 1995, Factors necessary to define a pressure
seal: discussion: AAPG Bulletin, v. 79, p. 1075–1078.
Hunt, J. M., 1990, Generation and migration of petroleum from
abnormally pressured fluid compartments: AAPG Bulletin, v. 72,
p. 1–12.
Neuzil, C. E., 1986, Groundwater flow in low-permeability envi-
ronments: Water Resources Research, v. 22, p. 1163–1195.
Neuzil, C. E., 1994, How permeable are clays and shales?: Water
Resources Research, v. 30, p. 145–150.