Overpressure and mudrock AUTHORS

Agus M. Ramdhan
Department of Earth

compaction in the Lower Sciences, Durham University, South Road,
Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom; present
Kutai Basin, Indonesia: address: Department of Geology, Institut
Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung
A radical reappraisal 40132, Indonesia; agusmr1974@yahoo.com
Agus Ramdhan is a lecturer at the Department
Agus M. Ramdhan and Neil R. Goulty of Geology, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB),
Indonesia. He received his bachelor’s degree in
geology from ITB and his Ph.D. in geology
from Durham University, United Kingdom, where
ABSTRACT his studies were funded by a scholarship from
Total E&P Indonesie. His research interests are in
Lateral drainage and high temperatures in the shelfal area of overpressure and fluid flow in sedimentary
the Lower Kutai Basin provide an exceptional opportunity to basins.
study compaction of Miocene mudrocks and overpressure gen-
Neil R. Goulty
Department of Earth Sci-
eration. Previous workers agreed that the principal mechanism ences, Durham University, South Road, Durham
of overpressure generation is disequilibrium compaction, but DH1 3LE, United Kingdom;
sonic and resistivity logs in several fields display reversals at a n.r.goulty@durham.ac.uk
transition zone into high overpressure, indicating that over- Neil Goulty is a professor of applied geophysics
pressure is generated by unloading processes. The transition at Durham University. His principal research
zone coincides with the vitrinite reflectance threshold for gas interests are in geomechanical processes in sedi-
generation. Extreme overpressures in some wells are associated mentary basins, with current focus on the
with reversals on density logs too, interpreted to result from compaction of mudrocks and overpressure. He
received his B.A. degree in physics from the
opening cracks. University of Oxford and his Ph.D. in geophysics
The density-depth trends through the mudrocks are sim- from the University of Cambridge.
ilar in all wells and independent of overpressure until extreme
overpressures are encountered. This observation strongly sug-
gests that porosity reduction is controlled by chemical com- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
paction and that cementation has caused the mudrocks to be- We thank Total Indonesie for funding and data,
come overcompacted, relative to the prevailing effective stress, and Guillaume Smagghe, Alan Mitchell, and
at burial depths of approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) where the top Richard Swarbrick for discussions. However, the
authors’ views expressed here are not neces-
of overpressure is encountered. Hence, the Lower Kutai Basin
sarily those of Total Indonesie. We thank Christian
contains a unique reported example, to date, of a Neogene Hermanrud, Mark Tingay, and Richard Lahann
succession in which high overpressures are generated by un- for very constructive reviews.
loading processes with no contribution from disequilibrium The AAPG Editor thanks the following reviewers
compaction. for their work on this paper: Christian Hermanrud,
Density logs from the Peciko field have been used to derive Richard W. Lahann, and Mark Tingay.
the empirical porosity-depth trend f = 0.434e−0.164z for mud-
rocks in the depth range 6000 to 15,000 ft (1800 to 4600 m),
where z is depth in thousands of feet. The corresponding

Copyright ©2011. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received June 1, 2010; provisional acceptance September 14, 2010; revised manuscript
received December 9, 2010; final acceptance February 22, 2011.
DOI:10.1306/02221110094

AAPG Bulletin, v. 95, no. 10 (October 2011), pp. 1725–1744 1725

temperature range is 85 to 170°C, so this com-
paction curve applies for mudrocks in the chemi-
cal compaction regime, where no discrete smectite
is present.
INTRODUCTION
The Lower Kutai Basin is located around the
Mahakam Delta in eastern Kalimantan, Indonesia
(Figure 1). The basin is the second largest hydro-
carbon province in Indonesia after the Central Su-
matra Basin and the largest for gas production.
Geographically, it can be divided into three areas:
onshore, shelfal (shallow water), and offshore (deep
water). The onshore area and the shelfal area sur-
rounding the Mahakam Delta are mature areas for
hydrocarbon exploration and production. The shelfal
area includes fields located along three major anti-
clines lying parallel to the coast, known as the in-
ternal, median, and external axes, and is the main
focus of this study. The offshore area is still clas-
sified as an exploration area, so no wells have been
released yet. However, in recent years, there has
been an intensive exploration effort that has re-
sulted in some discoveries (Guritno et al., 2003).
The onshore, shelfal, and offshore areas have
related, but distinct, geologic settings (Figure 2).
The onshore area is dominated by sand-prone flu-
vial sedimentary rocks and is extensively uplifted
and eroded (Moss and Chambers, 1999; Chambers
et al., 2004). The shelfal area is dominated by in-
tercalated sandstone-mudrock deltaic sequences
sourced by the Mahakam River. With the excep-
tion of the immediate neighborhood of the Handil
field, where the Pliocene succession has been eroded
(Total Indonesie, 2003, personal communication),
sedimentation in the shelfal area appears to have
been continuous during the Neogene (Duval et al.,
1998), so the strata are at their maximum burial
depth at the present day. The offshore area is
dominated by marine muds and mudstones of Pli-
ocene age, which encase turbidite reservoirs sourced
from shelfal sediments (Guritno et al., 2003).
Rapid sedimentation and burial during the
Neogene was thought by previous researchers to
have generated overpressure by disequilibrium com-
1726 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
paction (Burrus et al., 1992; Bois et al., 1994;
Bates, 1996; Burrus, 1998). Bois et al. (1994) also
concluded that pore-pressure differences exist be-
tween sandstone and mudrock beds (pressure dis-
crepancies) in the shallower section. In this article,
we refute both of those hypotheses for the shelfal
area of the Lower Kutai Basin through analysis of
wireline-log, pressure, temperature, and hydrocar-
bon maturation data in the context of the geologic
setting.
In a previous article on a single field in the
shelfal area (Ramdhan and Goulty, 2010), we sug-
gested that overpressure has been generated by un-
loading processes, probably including gas genera-
tion and clay diagenesis. Here, we extend that initial
study to the whole of the shelfal area and just into
the northern part of the onshore area. We show
that overpressure has been generated by unloading
processes throughout the basin, with gas genera-
tion strongly implicated as a significant contrib-
utor, and that compaction of the mudrocks has
proceeded independently of effective stress so that
the mudrocks are overcompacted at the depths
where the top of overpressure is encountered. The
term “overcompacted” refers to a sediment or sedi-
mentary rock whose stress state lies inside the yield
envelope. Such a stress state may be brought about
by a reduction in effective stress or by a diagenetic
process that strengthens the rock matrix. We at-
tribute the cause of overcompaction in mudrocks
here to precipitation of quartz cement, resulting
primarily from clay mineral transformations.
We start with a brief review of the geology and
petroleum system in the Lower Kutai Basin. We
then describe current understanding of the ways in
which wireline logs respond to overpressure before
presenting the analysis of data from several wells.
Wireline-log, temperature, and hydrocarbon matu-
ration data are used to infer the primary mecha-
nisms of overpressure generation and the compac-
tion state of the mudrocks. In the discussion section,
we review the reasons why previous workers as-
sumed that disequilibrium compaction is the prin-
cipal mechanism of overpressure generation and, in
consequence, inferred that pressure discrepancies
exist between sandstones and mudrocks. We then
explain why we think both those hypotheses are

wrong. In our conclusions, we summarize the evi-
dence in support of our contentions that unloading
mechanisms are responsible for overpressure gen-
eration and that the mudrocks are overcompacted
at depths where overpressures are encountered.
GEOLOGY AND PETROLEUM SYSTEM IN
THE LOWER KUTAI BASIN
The development of the Lower Kutai Basin has
been summarized by Moss and Chambers (1999)
and Chambers et al. (2004). Basin formation was
initiated by rifting during the middle–late Eocene,
accompanied by synrift sedimentation. From the
late Eocene to the late Oligocene, deep-marine
sediments were deposited in the basin center and a
carbonate platform was developed along the basin
edge. In the late Oligocene to the early Miocene,
Figure 1. Geographical area of
the Lower Kutai Basin: onshore
area, shelfal area (internal, me-
dian, and external axes), and
deep-water area. The faults on-
shore have been mapped at
outcrop, and offshore, their lo-
cations within the Pleistocene
interval have been mapped from
seismic reflection data (Total
Indonesie, 2003, personal com-
munication). Locations of wells
referred to in this article are also
shown.
tectonic inversion with uplift and volcanism started
in central Kalimantan, with a second phase of ex-
tension in the area now recognized as the Lower
Kutai Basin. During the early Miocene, the Lower
Kutai Basin began to fill, with progradation and ag-
gradation of the proto-Mahakam deltaic sediments,
sourced by erosion of the uplifted strata in the hin-
terland, which has continued to the present day.
The major structural feature in the basin, the
Samarinda Anticlinorium, developed from the mid-
dle Miocene to the present. It consists of a series of
anticlines and synclines, with axes oriented north-
northeast-south-southwest (Figures 1, 2), and is a
consequence of continuous inversion (Chambers
et al., 2004). This anticlinorium is highly folded
and faulted on the onshore area, whereas dips are
gentle in the shelfal and offshore areas.
As a generalization, there have been two suc-
cessive sedimentation regimes in the Lower Kutai
Ramdhan and Goulty 1727
Figure 2. Schematic west-east geologic cross section of the Lower Kutai Basin (after Total Indonesie, 2003, personal communication)
and top of overpressure.

Basin: overall transgression during the Eocene and
Oligocene in association with tectonic rifting and
sagging and overall regression during the Neogene
in association with delta progradation and aggra-
dation (Allen and Chambers, 1998). In the north-
east, the Paleogene deposits vary from alluvial fans
to deep-marine mudrocks. In the east, around the
location of the present-day Mahakam Delta, they
are dominantly deep-marine mudrocks. A detailed
stratigraphic sequence of the Neogene section in
the shelfal area of Lower Kutai Basin (Figure 3)
shows that the onshore area has experienced uplift
and erosion, whereas in the shelfal area, sedimen-
tation has continued without interruption until the

Figure 3. Detailed stratigraphic sequence

of Neogene section in the shelfal area,
Lower Kutai Basin (modified from Duval
et al., 1998).

1728 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin

present day (Duval et al., 1998). The evolution
of the deltaic sedimentation system, from delta
plain to delta front, can be recognized clearly from
Figure 2. Duval et al. (1998) noted the eastward
movement of the carbonate shelf during the Mio-
cene and interpreted the deltaic system as progra-
dational throughout the Neogene. In the offshore
area, the strata are dominantly marine mudrocks
and turbidites. Consequently, the reservoirs there
are encased in a thick mudrock sequence (Figure 2).
Based on the basin sedimentation and stratig-
raphy, three petroleum systems are in the Lower
Kutai Basin: a Paleogene petroleum system, a Neo-
gene fluviodeltaic petroleum system, and a Neogene
deep offshore petroleum system. To date, hydro-
carbons have been produced in the Lower Kutai
Basin only from the Neogene fluviodeltaic system.
Plans have been made to develop the deep offshore
petroleum system soon. The data presented here
are mainly from the shelfal area, with a little from
the onshore area.
Paterson et al. (1997), Duval et al. (1998), and
Lambert et al. (2003) have analyzed the Neogene
fluviodeltaic petroleum system. The thick deltaic
succession is rich in type III organic matter of
continental higher plant origin concentrated in
organic mudrocks and coal beds. Total organic car-
bon values are about 65% in the coals and greater
than 20% in the organic mudrocks (Total Indonesie,
2003, personal communication). Both oil and gas
maturation thresholds correspond to vitrinite re-
flectance values of 0.6 to 0.9% (Lambert et al.,
2003). The main kitchens, with the thickest suc-
cessions of source rocks, are located in the synclinal
areas on either side of the internal and median axes.
The reservoirs are fluviodeltaic sandstones. Mud-
rocks deposited during marine flooding events
serve as seals for the hydrocarbon accumulations.
From basin modeling, Burrus et al. (1992) con-
cluded that migration of hydrocarbons occurred over
short distances, about 10 to 15 km (6.2 to 9.3 mi) at
the most. The hydrocarbon traps are both structural
(anticlines and faults) and stratigraphic, with sig-
nificant hydrodynamic elements in the structural
trapping. Lambert et al. (2003) have demonstrated
that in the Peciko and Tunu fields (Figure 1), the
hydrocarbon accumulations located on the flank
of the anticlinal structures are displaced from
structural crests by hydrodynamic flow.
WIRELINE-LOG RESPONSES TO OVERPRESSURE
Two distinct types of mechanism for generating
overpressure exist: disequilibrium compaction and
unloading (Bowers, 2001). The two types of mecha-
nism can be distinguished by wireline-log analysis.
Disequilibrium compaction occurs when fine-
grained sediment undergoing burial cannot dewater
fast enough for the pore fluid to remain hydrostatic
as the vertical and/or lateral stresses increase. Con-
sequently, the sediment becomes overpressured,
and its porosity is greater than it would be if the
pore pressure were hydrostatic. The circumstances
illustrated in Figure 4A, showing constant porosity
and pore pressure parallel to the lithostatic stress
below the top of overpressure, are predicated on a
series of simplistic assumptions, including uniform
lithology, no fluid escape, no change in temper-
ature, and no diagenesis. Nevertheless, lithostat-
parallel pore-pressure profiles associated with con-
stant porosity are commonly approximated in young
mud-rich successions undergoing rapid burial in
sedimentary basins and are generally considered to
be diagnostic of disequilibrium compaction (e.g.,
Swarbrick et al., 2002).
We use the term “unloading” here to refer to
any process that tends to reduce the effective stress.
Some authors prefer to restrict the use of unloading
to processes that reduce the confining stress, that is,
exhumation or reduction in tectonic compressive
stress. Neither of the latter processes is invoked as
a cause of overpressure in this article. Among the
geologic processes causing unloading, either by
increasing pore-fluid volume or by transferring the
load from the matrix to the pore fluid, are clay dia-
genetic processes such as smectite-illite transfor-
mation (Lahann, 2002), gas generation (Swarbrick
et al., 2002), and pressure transfer in tilted sand and
sandstone bodies (Yardley and Swarbrick, 2000).
Disequilibrium compaction differs from un-
loading processes because it does not cause effective
stress to decrease, but simply prevents the sediment
from compacting. Where overpressure increases
Ramdhan and Goulty 1729
Figure 4. Cartoons to show
the pressure-depth profile and
wireline-log responses anticipated
where overpressure is caused
by (A) disequilibrium compac-
0
tion and (B) unloading. The s v
symbol = vertical effective stress.

with depth because of unloading processes, sonic
and resistivity logs may show reversals in trend
through the mudrock beds toward higher transit
time and lower resistivity values, respectively, with-
out coincident reversals in density logs. Bowers and
Katsube (2002) explained this behavior by the
concept of storage and connecting pores. Unload-
ing can open flat “connecting pores” because they
are more flexible but has negligible effect on round
“storage pores” because they are mechanically stiff.
The connecting pores affect the transport proper-
ties, sonic velocity, and electrical conductivity, and
so their opening affects sonic and resistivity logs but
has negligible effect on density and neutron logs
(Hermanrud et al., 1998). Thus, if the sonic and
resistivity logs show reversals, but the density keeps
on increasing with increasing depth (Figure 4B), we
can conclude that the cause of overpressure is an
unloading process. Crossplots of density against
transit time (Bowers, 2001; Dutta, 2002; Katahara,
2006) or density against resistivity are also useful
to detect unloading because they emphasize graphi-
cally the reversals in sonic or resistivity logs without
coincident reversals in density logs.
OVERPRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
Overpressure is present throughout the Lower
Kutai Basin. The top of overpressure is generally
shallow (∼1.5 km [∼0.9 mi] below sea floor) in
the deep-water offshore area, deeper on the shelf
(∼3 km [∼1.9 mi] deep), and shallower again in the
onshore area (Figure 2). Stratigraphically, the top of
overpressure is in the Pliocene strata in the offshore
area, in the upper Miocene strata on the shelf, and
in the lower–middle Miocene strata onshore.
In almost every field in the shelfal area, the
depth of the top of overpressure varies and crosscuts
stratigraphic boundaries. The phenomenon leads to

1730 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin

Figure 5. Pressure-depth profile and wireline-log responses in mudrocks in the SS-4 well, Sisi field.
hydrodynamic trapping, with tilted gas-water con-
tacts, as identified in the Peciko field by Lambert
et al. (2003).
Several wells in the shelfal area penetrate into
the zone of hard overpressure, including B-11 at
Bekapai, H-9-B1 at Handil, TM-84 at Tambora,
and NLM-109X at Nilam (Figure 1). Most of the
other wells in the shelfal area terminated within
the transition zone to hard overpressure. Pore pres-
sures in the shelfal area are commonly hydrostatic
down to depths of 11,000 ft (3350 m) to 15,000 ft
(4550 m) and pass into a sharp transition zone
within 1000 ft (300 m) of the top of overpressure.
These wells that have reached the hard over-
pressure zone encountered pore pressures close
to the vertical stress there. For example, when well
B-11 was drilled through the transition zone at
Bekapai, the mud weight had to be increased by
about 2.1 ppg (0.27 g cm−3) at depth increments
of 300 ft (100 m).
WELL DATA
We have selected seven wells from different fields
to illustrate the overpressure distribution and the
state of mudrock compaction over the study area
and describe them below from east to west. All wells
are exploration wells that reach at least the depth
of the transition zone into hard overpressure, and
six of them have wireline-log suites that can be used
to analyze overpressuring mechanisms. Mudrock
beds were distinguished from more silty or sandy
intervals by crossplotting density against the dif-
ference between neutron porosity and the porosity
estimated from the density logs (Katahara, 2006).
To infer porosity from the density log, a matrix den-
sity of 2.75 g cm−3 and a fluid density of 1.05 g cm−3
were arbitrarily assumed. An arbitrary threshold
value of 0.18 was chosen (i.e., the difference be-
tween neutron and density porosity >0.18).
External Axis
On the external axis, all wells terminated in the
pressure transition zone. The SS-4 well in the Sisi
field is typical of the wells located on the external
axis (Figure 5). Clear reversals in the sonic and re-
sistivity responses in the mudrocks at depths about
11,000 ft (3350 m) exist, whereas the density-log
response increases slightly from about 2.5 g cm−3
at that depth to 2.6 g cm−3 at the total depth of
the well. These log responses comprise evidence
of unloading, confirmed by the density-sonic and
density-resistivity crossplots (Figure 6). The density-
resistivity crossplot shows particularly clear evidence
Ramdhan and Goulty 1731
Figure 6. Crossplots of density against
sonic transit time and resistivity in mud-
rocks in the SS-4 well, Sisi field. The illitic
line introduced by Dutta (2002) is shown
on the density-sonic crossplot for ref-
erence. This line is a compaction trend
followed by mudrocks of mixed clay li-
thology from the Gulf Coast of North
America, in which all the discrete smectite
has been transformed into mixed-layer
illite/smectite.
of unloading; less than 11,000 ft (3350 m), the re-
sistivity decreases substantially, although the den-
sity is fairly constant.
Median Axis
The B-11 well in the Bekapai field penetrates into
the zone of hard overpressure and has a complete
wireline-log suite. It encountered the pressure tran-
sition zone at a depth of 11,000 ft (3350 m). Un-
fortunately, the compaction trend in the mudrocks
down to 11,000 ft (3350 m) is not clearly defined
because of poor hole conditions caused by the use
of a water-based mud in a sandy environment, so
considerable scatter exists in the log responses above
that depth. Nevertheless, the wireline-log responses
(Figure 7) show clear reversals, about 11,000 ft
(3350 m) on the sonic and resistivity logs and at a
distinctly greater depth about 12,000 ft (3650 m)
on the density log. These log responses comprise
evidence of unloading, confirmed by density-sonic
1732 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
and density-resistivity crossplots (Figure 8). The
unloading trend on the density-sonic crossplot is
uncommonly strong. We interpret the cause of the
density reversal in the B-11 Bekapai well as the
opening of cracks because of the very high over-
pressure, that is, incipient hydrofracturing.
The NWP-9 well in the Peciko field encounters
the highest overpressure value measured in the
field. The pressure-depth profile (Figure 9) indicates
that the top of overpressure is at about 11,000 ft
(3350 m) depth, although a good repeat formation
tester (RFT) measurement shows 300 psi (2 MPa)
of overpressure in an isolated sandstone body at a
depth of 10,000 ft (3050 m). The top of the tran-
sition into hard overpressure is about 12,000 ft
(3650 m) depth, where reversals can be seen in the
trends of both the sonic and resistivity logs through
the mudrocks. The density log, by contrast, shows a
small increasing trend over the depth interval
11,000 to 12,500 ft (3350 to 3800 m), with a possible
hint of a reversal starting at 12,500 ft (3800 m).
Figure 7. Pressure-depth profile and wireline-log responses in mudrocks in the B-11 well, Bekapai field.

The sonic and resistivity log reversals, without an Wireline logs and the pressure-depth profile
associated reversal in the density log at the same from the TN-G6 well in the Tunu field are shown
depth, are clear evidence of unloading (Figure 10). in Figure 11. This well is typical of those drilled in

Figure 8. Crossplots of density against

sonic transit time and resistivity in mudrocks
in the B-11 well, Bekapai field.

Ramdhan and Goulty 1733

Figure 9. Pressure-depth profile and wireline-log responses in mudrocks in the NWP-9 well, Peciko field.

Figure 10. Crossplots of density against

sonic transit time and resistivity in mud-
rocks in the NWP-9 well, Peciko field.

1734 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin

Figure 11. Pressure-depth profile and wireline-log responses in mudrocks in the TN-G6 well, Tunu field.
the Tunu field in most respects, including the fact
that it terminates in the pressure transition zone.
No sonic log is available from this well. The re-
sistivity log contains a reversal at a depth just more
than 12,000 ft (3650 m), approximately corre-
sponding to the top of the pressure transition zone.
As for the other two wells from the median axis
described in this section, the density has reached
2.6 g cm−3 by the time the top of overpressure is
encountered. The density-log response continues
to increase down to 12,500 ft (3800 m), where a
hint of a reversal occurs. We infer, therefore, that
the cause of overpressure in this well is also an
unloading mechanism.
Internal Axis
The H-9-B1 well in the Handil field and the TM-84
well in the Tambora field both encounter the zone
of very high overpressures. The top of overpressure
is encountered at shallower depths in the Handil
field than in other fields on the internal axis pre-
sumably because of the recent uplift that has caused
erosion of the Pliocene succession (Total Indonesie,
2003, personal communication). In the H-9-B1 well,
the density log was only run in the overpressured
section, but sonic and resistivity logs were run over
a long interval (Figure 12). A clear reversal exists
on the sonic log about 9500 ft (2900 m), and less
clear reversals exist on the resistivity log, somewhere
between 8900 and 9500 ft (2700 and 2900 m),
and on the density log, about 10,000 ft (3050 m).
These log responses are evidences of unloading,
confirmed by the density-sonic crossplot (Figure 13).
The characteristics of the pressure-depth profile
and the wireline-log responses are very similar to
the B-11 well in the Bekapai field: the top of tran-
sition zone corresponds to the reversals on the sonic
and resistivity logs, and the density reversal is not
encountered until the pore pressure approaches the
lithostatic stress. Based on these correlations, we
again interpret the cause of overpressuring to be
unloading processes and the density reversal as being
caused by the opening of cracks.
For well TM-84 in the Tambora field, we only
have a relatively good-quality density log in the
overpressured section (Figure 14). Caving of the
borehole wall causes a scattering log response toward
low-density values, but many data points are about
2.6 g cm−3 at depths less than 11,000 ft (3350 m).
Based on this log response, with high density val-
ues that appear to increase slightly through a sharp
Ramdhan and Goulty 1735
Figure 12. Pressure-depth profile and wireline-log responses in mudrocks in the H-9-B1 well, Handil field.
transition zone to hard overpressure, we also in-
terpret the cause of overpressure in this well to be
an unloading mechanism.
Onshore Area
In the onshore area, the possible factors affecting
pore pressure in the onshore area are the rapid
sedimentation and burial during the early mid
Miocene, tectonic loading and shearing, uplift and
erosion, hydrocarbon generation, and clay diagen-
esis. The only wireline-log suites available to us for
analysis in the onshore area are from the Semberah
and Mutiara fields. We have chosen the Semberah
Figure 13. Crossplot of density against
sonic transit time in mudrocks in the
H-9-B1 well, Handil field.
1736 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
well (Figure 15) because the log quality is better,
but the responses are similar in both fields. The
pressure data indicate that the top of overpressure
is located somewhere in the range 7000–9000 ft
(2150–2750 m). From the depth of 9000 ft (2750 m)
down to about 11,000 ft (3350 m), the overpressure
trend converges gently with the lithostatic stress
profile. The top of the transition zone into very high
overpressure is located somewhere in the range
11,000–13,000 ft (3350–3950 m).
The wireline-log responses in the mudrocks
show reversals in the sonic, resistivity, and density
responses, but at different depths. The sonic and
resistivity reversals start at approximately ∼9000 ft
(∼2750 m) depth, whereas the density reversal

starts at approximately 10,500 ft (3200 m). The
density-sonic crossplot has considerable scatter,
yet nevertheless displays a clear unloading trend
(Figure 16), similar to those in the Bekapai and
Handil wells (Figures 8, 13). Based on these re-
sponses, we infer that the same unloading mecha-
nisms as on the shelf are active for overpressure
generation.
Farther west in the onshore area, overpressure
characteristics vary greatly between fields. The top
of overpressure in the onshore area is highly vari-
able, coming close to the surface in some wells.
Figure 15. Pressure-depth profile and wireline-log responses in mudrocks in the Semberah well.
Figure 14. Pressure-depth
profile and density-log response
in mudrocks in the TM-84 well,
Tambora field.
Bates (1996) has identified uplift as the reason for
the variable depths to the top of overpressure.
INTERPRETATION
In this section, we give our interpretation of the
state of compaction of the overpressured mudrocks
and of the mechanisms responsible for overpressure
generation. When presenting the well data in the
previous section, we repeatedly emphasized that the
density logs showed continuous increases in density
Ramdhan and Goulty 1737
Figure 16. Crossplot of density against
sonic transit time and resistivity in mudrocks
in the Semberah well.
to values at approximately 2.6 g cm−3 down to
depths below those where reversals are evident of
the sonic and resistivity logs. These values of den-
sity, in combination with the high geothermal gra-
dient in the basin, indicate that substantial chemical
compaction of the mudrocks has occurred. The re-
versals on the sonic and resistivity logs are diagnostic
of overpressure generation by unloading processes.
An interesting question is whether disequi-
librium compaction has made any contribution at
all to the overpressure or whether only unloading
processes have contributed. We address that ques-
tion first by considering the compaction state of the
mudrocks and then address the candidate unload-
ing mechanisms for overpressure generation.
The average surface temperature in the Lower
Kutai Basin is 30°C, and the average geothermal
gradient is about 0.009°C ft−1 (30°C km−1), giv-
ing an estimated temperature of 90°C at 6600 ft
(2000 m) depth. Discrete smectite tends to have
disappeared from argillaceous strata at depths where
this temperature is reached in sedimentary basins
1738 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
(Hower et al., 1976; Boles and Franks, 1979). Clauer
et al. (1999) investigated clay mineralogy in the
Tunu field on the median axis (Figure 1). At sam-
pling depths less than 7700 ft (2350 m), they found
that the clay fraction consists of mixed-layer illite/
smectite, kaolinite/dickite, detrital illite, and chlo-
rite. In the depth range 9000 to 14,000 ft (2750 to
4250 m), where the top of overpressure is reached
in most wells, ongoing illitization of mixed-layer
illite/smectite and the conversion of kaolinite to
illite are likely to occur (Bjørlykke, 1998). Both these
clay diagenetic reactions release quartz that is sub-
sequently precipitated as microcrystalline cement,
as observed by Thyberg et al. (2009). Some disso-
lution and reprecipitation of detrital quartz is also
likely to be occurring (Bjørkum, 1995).
At the depths where the top of overpressure is
encountered, the high density values in mudrocks,
approximately 2.6 g cm−3, suggest that chemical
compaction has occurred. These densities are com-
parable to the highest densities recorded at similar
depths in overcompacted Jurassic mudrocks on

the Halten Terrace, offshore Norway (Hermanrud
et al., 1998).
Composite density plots for mudrock beds in
16 exploration wells drilled in the Peciko field are
shown in Figure 17, without and with the data
points from the overpressured intervals in each
well. The density continues to increase smoothly
below the top of overpressure, although the vertical
effective stress has reached its maximum value at
the top of overpressure in each well. Thus, com-
paction appears to continue with increasing depth,
independent of the vertical effective stress. This plot
constitutes strong evidence for ongoing chemical
compaction below the top of overpressure and for
discounting disequilibrium compaction as a mecha-
nism that contributes to the generation of over-
pressure in this field. Given the high average den-
sity, in excess of 2.6 g cm−3, reached at the depths
where the overpressure transition zone is reached
in all wells, our preferred interpretation is that the
mudrocks in the overpressured intervals are over-
compacted as a result of diagenesis.
An exponential porosity-depth trend was fitted
to the density data of Figure 18 for mudrocks in the
depth interval 6000 to 15,000 ft (1800 to 4600 m):
f ¼ 0:434e0:164z ð1aÞ
Figure 17. Composite density
plot for mudrocks, defined by
the difference between neutron
and density porosities greater
than 0.18 in all the NWP wells,
Peciko Field: (A) for the hydro-
statically pressured intervals
only and (B) for all the density-
log data.
for z in thousands of feet or
f ¼ 0:434e0:538z ð1bÞ
for z in kilometers, where f is porosity. A matrix
density of 2.72 g cm−3 and a fluid density of 1.05 g
cm−3 were used to convert log-density values to
porosity. This porosity-depth trend is shifted to
lower porosity values, at each depth, than other
published porosity-depth trends established for
hydrostatically pressured mudrocks (Baldwin and
Butler, 1985; Hansen, 1996). The lower porosities
may be attributed to the higher temperatures in
the Lower Kutai Basin and onset of clay diagenesis
at shallower depths than in other basins containing
thick successions of Neogene mudrocks.
Two unloading mechanisms occur internally
within mudrocks that could be responsible for
overpressure generation, clay diagenesis, and gas
generation. It is also plausible that there is some
vertical pressure transfer from below associated with
opening cracks to cause the reversals in density logs
(e.g., Figure 7).
According to Lambert et al. (2003), gas gen-
eration starts in the Lower Kutai Basin at a vitrinite
reflectance of 0.6%. Vitrinite reflectance data in
Sisi, Peciko, Tunu, Handil, and Nilam fields are
Ramdhan and Goulty 1739

Figure 18. Best-fitting exponential-decay curve for porosity as
a function of depth, given by equation 1, derived from 16 density
logs in the Peciko field.
shown in Figure 19. In all fields, except the Tunu
field, the top of the transition zone into hard
overpressure, where sonic and resistivity logs dis-
play reversals, coincides with the vitrinite reflec-
tance threshold value of 0.6% for gas generation.
In the Tunu field, vitrinite reflectance values were
only measured in the hydrostatically pressured in-
tervals down to 14,000 ft (4250 m), and the com-
posite plot shows vitrinite reflectance values that
approach 0.6% at that depth, but do not exceed it.
Taken together, the vitrinite reflectance data suggest
a strong correlation between the top of the transi-
tion zone into hard overpressure and gas generation.
We do not have appropriate data to quantify
the amounts of fluid expansion caused by gas gen-
eration and clay diagenesis, but both processes are
plausibly responsible for overpressure generation.
Reversals on density logs may be caused by opening
cracks to permit vertical transmission of fluid, so
vertical pressure transfer may be a third mecha-
nism contributing to the observed overpressures,
but gas generation and diagenesis are likely to be
the primary processes responsible for generating the
fluid that is expelled from greater depths.
1740 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
DISCUSSION
Reviewing the reasons previous workers have con-
sidered the primary mechanism of overpressure
generation in the Lower Kutai Basin to be dis-
equilibrium compaction is instructive. By the early
1990s, disequilibrium compaction was well estab-
lished as a primary mechanism of overpressure
generation in Tertiary successions, following pre-
vious work on North American Gulf Coast wells
(Dickinson, 1953; Dickey et al., 1968). Thus,
during early exploration of the Lower Kutai Basin,
explorationists would have been expecting dis-
equilibrium compaction to have generated over-
pressure in rapidly buried Miocene successions.
Wherever reversals were observed on sonic logs,
they were attributed to enhanced porosities be-
cause of disequilibrium compaction (Burrus et al.,
1992; Bois et al., 1994; Bates, 1996).
Sonic logs were preferred for pore-pressure
prediction in mudrocks principally because they
are less influenced by poor hole conditions than
density and neutron logs (Bois et al., 1994). Where
good density logs were recorded, reversals on them
were also ascribed to disequilibrium compaction,
although the reductions in density did not match
the equivalent depths for the reductions in sonic
velocity. For example, near the base of the B-11
well at Bekapai (Figure 7), at a depth of 14,800 ft
(4500 m), the sonic transit time is 110 ms ft−1, the
same value as at 5000 ft (1500 m) depth. The
density log shows a reversal at 12,000 ft (3650 m)
from a maximum value greater than 2.6 g cm−3.
At 14,800 ft (4500 m), the density has reduced to
2.5 g cm−3 and was attributed by Burrus et al. (1992)
to disequilibrium compaction, although the den-
sity at 5000 ft (1500 m) is only 2.1 g cm−3. Clearly,
disequilibrium compaction does not provide a
satisfactory explanation for these observations; at
the very least, substantial chemical compaction is
indicated.
The sharp nature of the pressure transition
zones in several fields was not anticipated and also
influenced interpretation of the pore-pressure re-
gime. Several kicks and some internal blowouts
occurred in the early phase of exploration drilling in
the shelfal area of the Lower Kutai Basin. According
Figure 19. Pressure-depth profiles and vitrinite reflectance data from (A) the SS-4 well, Sisi field, external axis; (B) the PEC-1 well,
Peciko field, with a composite plot of vitrinite reflectance data from hydrostatically pressured sections of wells in the Tunu field, median
axis; and (C) the H-9-B1 well, Handil field, and the NLM-109X well, Nilam field, internal axis. Data from the NLM-109X well are taken from
Bates (1996).

Ramdhan and Goulty 1741

to Bois et al. (1994, p. 246), following a severe kick
in the Sisi-2b well, Sisi field, pore-pressure esti-
mates using the d exponent and indices from gas
shows were reconsidered. They wrote, “At this
time, it was realized how misleading were the
pressure measurements obtained in reservoirs. It
was thereafter decided to forbid their use for that
purpose.” They conducted a regional study of
mudrock pore pressures based on sonic logs and
confirmed what they thought were large discrep-
ancies between reservoir and mudrock pore pres-
sures. However, although Bois et al. (1994) rec-
ognized that the choice of the normal compaction
trend is of utmost importance, they extrapolated
the normal compaction trend from shallow depths,
where they were confident that mudrock pore
pressures were hydrostatic, either by “visual esti-
mation” or by calculated regression, in which they
used a simple exponential decay function for sonic
transit time:
Dtn ¼ Dt0 ecz
where c is a constant. The trend in equation 2
grossly underestimates the sonic transit time for
hydrostatically pressured mudrocks when extrap-
olated to large depths because Dtn becomes less
than the sonic transit time for the matrix. Conse-
quently, measured sonic velocities at depth are al-
ways less than those predicted for hydrostatically
pressured mudrocks by such incorrect normal com-
paction curves.
Bates (1996) only studied the onshore part of
the Lower Kutai Basin, including the Badak and
Nilam fields on the northern part of the internal
axis but not the Tambora and Handil fields located
on the present-day Mahakam Delta (Figure 1). He
considered the primary mechanism of overpressure
generation to be disequilibrium compaction because
of the basinwide distribution and scale of over-
pressuring. With the benefit of hindsight, this rea-
son seems unconvincing. He further claimed that
overpressuring is independent of hydrocarbon gen-
eration, temperature, geologic age, uplift, and tec-
tonic effects. Yet he partially contradicted himself
by explaining that where the top of overpressure
1742 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
is shallow, it is because of uplift. Furthermore,
the vitrinite reflectance data from Nilam field
(Figure 19) are taken from Bates (1996). Bates also
reported that in the lower Miocene, in the western
part of the basin, the anticlinal cores expose highly
sheared, very low density claystones that exhibit
evidence of rapid dewatering. We have no data to
confirm whether that is so, but the distribution of
overpressure onshore is no doubt more complex
than in the shelfal area, where our study is focused,
because of uplift.
A final point worth making in defense of pre-
vious workers is that most early exploration wells
terminated in the transition zone into hard over-
pressure. It now seems reasonable to suppose that
the hard overpressure zone is ubiquitous through-
out the basin, and overpressures in it are too high to
be explained by disequilibrium compaction.
The main reasons why we think that the dis-
equilibrium compaction interpretation is wrong,
at least for the shelfal area of the basin that we have
studied, are based on density behavior in the mud-
ð2Þ
rocks. The density logs do not display reversals at
the same depths as sonic and resistivity logs; where
density reversals have been observed, they are dis-
tinctly deeper. The composite density plot from
16 appraisal wells in the Peciko field (Figure 17)
shows that density continues to increase below the
top of overpressure, where the vertical effective
stress reaches its maximum value in each well.
Where density logs display reversals, the densities
are still very high in comparison with densities at
the same vertical effective stresses in hydrostati-
cally pressured mudrocks at shallower depths. For
example, the density is 2.6 g cm−3 at 12,600 ft
(3840 m) in well B-11, at Bekapai, where the ver-
tical effective stress is less than 500 psi (3 MPa),
and 2.5 g cm−3 at 10,500 ft (3200 m) depth in well
H-9-B1, at Handil, where the vertical effective
stress is even less.
We have also looked for, and failed to find, any
shoulder effect (O’Connor et al., 2008) on the sonic
logs above the transition zone into hard over-
pressure. If there really were pore-pressure dis-
crepancies between normally compacted mudrocks
and reservoirs at those depths, we would expect a
shoulder effect to be present.
CONCLUSIONS
The transition zone into hard overpressure is very
sharp in the shelfal area of the Kutai Basin. For six
of seven fields on the shelf for which pressure data
are available, the pore-pressure profile steps up
directly from hydrostatic pressure into the transi-
tion zone. The top of the transition zone into hard
overpressure, which is the top of overpressure in
most fields investigated, can be recognized from
sonic and resistivity reversals. Where density log
reversals are observed, they tend to be at distinctly
greater depths than the sonic and resistivity log
reversals, as shown clearly on crossplots. These log
responses imply that overpressure is generated by
unloading mechanisms. This interpretation contra-
dicts previous interpretations that overpressure in
the Lower Kutai Basin is primarily caused by dis-
equilibrium compaction and also contradicts the
notion that pore-pressure discrepancies exist be-
tween sandstones and mudrocks around the top of
overpressure.
Vitrinite reflectance data from five fields sug-
gest that the onset of gas generation coincides with
the top of overpressure. Thus, gas generation is im-
plicated as a principal mechanism of overpressure
generation, and it is reasonable to assume that on-
going clay diagenesis also contributes. In the shelfal
area, all the smectite originally deposited in the
overpressured mudrocks probably converted to
mixed-layer smectite-illite, whereas the mudrock
was still hydrostatically pressured. Nevertheless,
other chemical compaction processes are likely to
be active in the overpressured succession, including
illitization of mixed-layer smectite-illite, illitization
of kaolinite, and quartz dissolution and reprecip-
itation. Density-log reversals coincide with hard
overpressure, close to the lithostatic stress, which
may have caused opening of cracks to promote ver-
tical migration of pore fluids.
Density logs from 16 appraisal wells in the
Peciko field show that mudrock compaction con-
tinues below the top of overpressure, independent
of vertical effective stress. This observation is clear
evidence of ongoing chemical compaction and
shows that the mudrocks have become overcom-
pacted, with respect to their effective stress state,
before they reach burial depths of approximately
∼3 km (∼1.9 mi) where the top of overpressure is
encountered.
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, G. P., and J. L. C. Chambers, 1998, Sedimentation in
the modern and Miocene Mahakam Delta: Indonesian
Petroleum Association Field Trip Guide Book, 236 p.
Baldwin, B., and C. O. Butler, 1985, Compaction curves:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p. 622–626.
Bates, J. A., 1996, Overpressuring in the Kutai Basin: Distri-
bution, origins, and implications for the petroleum sys-
tem: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Convention of the
Indonesian Petroleum Association: Jakarta, IPA, p. 93–
115.
Bjørkum, P. A., 1995, How important is pressure in causing
dissolution of quartz in sandstones?: Journal of Sedimen-
tary Research, v. 66, p. 147–154.
Bjørlykke, K., 1998, Clay mineral diagenesis in sedimentary
basins: A key to the prediction of rock properties: Exam-
ples from the North Sea Basin: Clay Minerals, v. 33, p. 15–
34, doi:10.1180/000985598545390.
Bois, M., Y. Grosjean, and L. de Pazzis, 1994, Shale compac-
tion and abnormal pressure evaluation application to the
offshore Mahakam: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
Convention of the Indonesian Petroleum Association:
Jakarta, IPA, p. 245–259.
Boles, J. R., and S. G. Franks, 1979, Clay diagenesis in Wilcox
sandstones of southwest Texas: Implications of smectite
diagenesis on sandstone cementation: Journal of Sedi-
mentary Petrology, v. 49, p. 55–70.
Bowers, G. L., 2001, Determining an appropriate pore-pressure
estimation strategy: Offshore Technology Conference
Paper 13042, 14 p.
Bowers, G. L., and T. J. Katsube, 2002, The role of shale pore
structure on the sensitivity of wireline logs to overpres-
sure, in A. R. Huffman and G. L. Bowers, eds., Pressure
regimes in sedimentary basins and their prediction:
AAPG Memoir 76, p. 43–60.
Burrus, J., 1998, Overpressure models for clastic rocks, their
relation to hydrocarbon expulsion: A critical reevalua-
tion, in B. E. Law, G. F. Ulmishek, and V. I. Slavin,
eds., Abnormal pressures in hydrocarbon environments:
AAPG Memoir 70, p. 35–63.
Burrus, J., E. Brosse, G. Choppin de Janvry, Y. Grosjean, and
J. L. Oudin, 1992, Basin modeling in the Mahakam Delta
based on integrated two-dimensional model Temispack:
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Convention of the Indone-
sian Petroleum Association: Jakarta, IPA, p. 23–43.
Chambers, J. L. C., I. Carter, R. Cloke, J. Craig, S. J. Moss, and
D. W. Paterson, 2004, Thin-skinned and thick-skinned
inversion-related thrusting: A structural model for the
Kutai Basin, Kalimantan, Indonesia, in K. R. McClay,
ed., Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systems: AAPG
Memoir 82, p. 614–634.
Clauer, N., T. Rinckenbach, F. Weber, F. Sommer, S.
Ramdhan and Goulty 1743
 Chaudhuri, and J. R. O′Neil, 1999, Diagenetic evolution
of clay minerals in oil-bearing Neogene sandstones and as-
sociated shales, Mahakam Delta Basin, Indonesia: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 83, p. 62–87.
Dickey, P. A., C. R. Shriram, and W. R. Paine, 1968, Abnormal
pressures in deep wells of southwestern Louisiana: Science,
v. 160, p. 609–615, doi:10.1126/science.160.3828.609.
Dickinson, G., 1953, Geological aspects of abnormal reser-
voir pressures in Gulf Coast, Louisiana: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 37, p. 410–432.
Dutta, N. C., 2002, Deep-water geohazard prediction using
prestack inversion of large offset P-wave data and rock
model: The Leading Edge, v. 21, p. 193–198, doi:10
.1190/1.1452612.
Duval, B. C., C. Cassaigneau, G. Choppin de Janvry, B. Loiret,
M. Leo, Alibi, and Y. Grosjean, 1998, Impact of the pe-
troleum system approach to exploration and appraisal
efficiency in the Mahakam Delta: Proceedings of the
26th Annual Convention of the Indonesian Petroleum
Association: Jakarta, IPA, p. 277–290.
Guritno, E. L., L. Salvadori, M. Syaiful, I. Busono, A. Mortimer,
F. B. Hakim, J. Dunham, J. Decker, and S. Algar, 2003,
Deep-water Kutei Basin: A new petroleum system: Pro-
ceedings of the 29th Annual Convention of the Indone-
sian Petroleum Association: Jakarta, IPA, p. 1–22.
Hansen, S., 1996, A compaction trend for Cretaceous and
Tertiary shales on the Norwegian shelf based on sonic
transit times: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 2, p. 159–166,
doi:10.1144/petgeo.2.2.159.
Hermanrud, C., L. Wensaas, G. M. G. Teige, E. Vik, H. M.
Nordgård Bolås, and S. Hansen, 1998, Shale porosities
from well logs on Haltenbanken (offshore mid-Norway)
show no influence of overpressuring, in B. E. Law, G. F.
Ulmishek, and V. I. Slavin, eds., Abnormal pressures in
hydrocarbon environments: AAPG Memoir 70, p. 65–87.
Hower, J., E. V. Eslinger, M. E. Hower, and E. A. Perry,
1976, Mechanism of burial and metamorphism of argil-
laceous sediment: 1, Mineralogical and chemical evi-
dence: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87,
p. 725–737, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1976)87<725
:MOBMOA>2.0.CO;2.
Katahara, K., 2006, Overpressure and shale properties: Stress
unloading or smectite-illite transformation? (abs.): 76th
1744 Overpressure and Shale Compaction in the Lower Kutai Basin
Society of Exploration Geophysicists Annual Meeting,
Expanded Abstracts, v. 25, p. 1520–1524.
Lahann, R., 2002, Impact of smectite diagenesis on modeling
and compaction equilibrium, in A. R. Huffman and G. L.
Bowers, eds., Pressure regimes in sedimentary basins and
their prediction: AAPG Memoir 76, p. 61–72.
Lambert, B., B. C. Duval, Y. Grosjean, I. M. Umar, and P.
Zaugg, 2003, The Peciko case history: Impact of an
evolving geological model on the dramatic increase of
gas reserves in the Mahakam Delta, in M. T. Halbouty,
ed., Giant oil and gas field of the decade 1990–1999:
AAPG Memoir 78, p. 297–320.
Moss, S. J., and J. L. C. Chambers, 1999, Depositional mod-
eling and facies architecture of rift and inversion episodes
in the Kutai Basin, Kalimantan, Indonesia: Proceedings
of the 27th Annual Convention of the Indonesian Petro-
leum Association: Jakarta, IPA, p. 467–486.
O’Connor, S., R. Swarbrick, and D. Jones, 2008, Where has
all the pressure gone? Evidence from pressure reversals
and hydrodynamic flow: First Break, v. 26, no. 9, p. 55–
61.
Paterson, D. W., A. Bachtiar, J. A. Bates, J. A. Moon, and
R. C. Surdam, 1997, Petroleum system of the Kutei Ba-
sin, Kalimantan, Indonesia: Proceedings of the Petro-
leum Systems of Southeast Asia and Australasia Confer-
ence, Indonesian Petroleum Association: Jakarta, IPA,
p. 709–726.
Ramdhan, A. M., and N. R. Goulty, 2010, Overpressure gen-
erating mechanisms in the Peciko field, Lower Kutai Ba-
sin, Indonesia: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 16, p. 367–
376, doi:10.1144/1354-079309-027.
Swarbrick, R. E., M. J. Osborne, and G. S. Yardley, 2002,
Comparison of overpressure magnitude resulting from
the main generating mechanisms, in A. R. Huffman and
G. L. Bowers, eds., Pressure regimes in sedimentary ba-
sins and their prediction: AAPG Memoir 76, p. 1–12.
Thyberg, B., J. Jahren, T. Winje, K. Bjørlykke, and J. I. Faleide,
2009, From mud to shale: Rock stiffening by micro-
quartz cementation: First Break, v. 27, no. 2, p. 53–59.
Yardley, G. S., and R. E. Swarbrick, 2000, Lateral transfer:
A source of additional overpressure?: Marine and Petro-
leum Geology, v. 17, p. 523–537, doi:10.1016/S0264
-8172(00)00007-6.