SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway

PAPER
NUMBER
sp E 5544
Dallas, Texas 75206

THIS PRESENTATION IS SUBJECT ,TO CORRECTION

The Equation for Geopressure

Prediction from Well Logs

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023

By

Ben A. Eaton, Member SPE-AIME, Eaton Industries of Houston, Inc.

@Copyright 1975
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, to be held in Dallas, Texas, Sept. 28-0ct. 1, 1975. Permission to copy
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the pa:per is
presented. Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor
of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give proper.credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent
to the Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussions may be presented at the
above meeting and, with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two
SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT containing a spring and a fluid, they simulated

This study has resulted in the development
of four equations that may be used for the
prediction of geopressure magnitudes from well
log and drilling parameter data. Equations are
given for use with resistivity plots, conduc-
tivity plots, sonic travel-time plots, and
corrected "d" exponent plots. All equations
have the same theoretical basis.
the compaction of clay that contained water.
Overburden stress was simulated by a piston, as
in Fig. 1. It was shown that the overburden
stress, s, was supported by the stress in the
spring, ~, and the fluid pressure, p. Thus, the
long-accepted equation of equilibrium was
established.
s = 6 + p • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • (1)

INTRODUCTION If Fig. 1 and Eq. 1 are studied, it is obvious

In 1965, Hottman and Johnson 1 presented a
method for predicting geopressure magnitudes by
using resistivity and sonic log data. This
technique has received wide acceptance even
though the prediction charts were based only on
data concerning Tertiary age sediments in the
Gulf Coast area. It was specifically pointed
out that these techniques were applicable only
in areas where the generation of geopressures is
primarily the result of compaction in response
to the stress of overburden.
In 1972, this author presented a theory on
the effect of overburden stress gradients on
geopressure prediction techniques.2
Compaction caused by overburden stress was
described classically in a soil mechanics book
by Terzaghi and Peck in 1948.3 With a vessel
Referenc·es and illustrations at end of paper.
that if S is increased and the fluid is allowed
to escape, ~ must increase while p remains as
hydrostatic pressure. However, if the fluid
cannot escape, p must also increase as S is
increased.
Hubbert and Rubey4 published a comprehensivE
treatment of this theory as related to sedi-
mentary rock compaction. They showed that, as
the overburden stress is increased as a result
of burial, the porosity of a given rock is
decreased. Therefore, some fluid that 1.vas once
in the pores of a given formation was later
squeezed out by compaction. In many such cases,
there is no escape route for the fluid, and thus
the fluid becomes overpressured according to Eq.
1. This happens in many areas, and such
generated overpressured zones are often called
"abnormal" pressure zones or "geopressure" zones.
2 THE EQUATIONS FOR GEOPRESSURE PREDICTION FROM WELL WGS SPE 55U
Hottman and Johnson recognized the main Now, if we incorporate the theories of
significance of the preceding theory and Terzaghi and Peck3 and Hubbert and Rubey4 where-
developed a very useful relationship between by Eq. 1 is used, p/D is shown as follows:
electrical log properties and geopressures.
They reasoned that, since rocks are more Solve Eq. 1 (S = ~+ p) for p and divide all
resistive to electrical current than is forma- quantities by depth, D, obtaining:

. . .. . •
tion water, a well compacted shale containing
less water (because the water has escaped) is p/D = s/D - 6/D • • • • ( 6)
more resistive than a less compacted shale
containing more water (one in which the water or
has not escaped to the same degree). Also, they

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023

reasoned that a sequence of normally compacted p/D = f (s/D, 6 /D) • • • • • • (7)
sediments (in which water is free to escape)
should have a normally increasing resistivity If we combine Eq. 7 first with Eq. 4 and sepa-
trend. They substantiated this when they rately with Eq. 5, we find that the log param-
plotted resistivity from actual well logs. Any eters are functions of pjD, which in turn is a
resistivity decrease from the well established fnnction of s/D and cr/D.
normal trend indicates the presence of abnor-·
mally high-pressured zones. One empirical relationship was developed by
trial-and-error fitting of data, and it predicts
Empirical data from well tests and logs the abnormal pressure behavior data of Hottman
were used to develop a correlation of the pore and Johnson fairly well. The equation is:
pressure gradient as a function of the resistiv-
ity departure ratio (see Fig. 2). A similar ~bserved Rsh~ 1.5
idea was used in conjunction with similar empir-
ical data to develop a correlation of the pore
p/D = s/D - 0.535 ~ormal Rsh :J • • (8)
pressure gradient with sonic-log travel-time
departure from normal travel times (see Fig. 3). Eq. 8 reduces to the theoretical Eq. 6 when we
Note that in each correlation only one line is assume that the overburden stress gradient
drawn and the data points scatter considerably. equals 1.0 psi/ft, the resistivity ratio equals
Such a scatter indicates that the chances of 1.0 (normal pressure), and the normal pore
error in the pressure prediction magnitude are pressure gradient equals 0.465 psi/ft.
high when values are read from the line. Timko p/D = 1.0 - 0.535 (1) 1 •5
and Fertl5 have shown a different correlating
curve that more accurately predicts the magni- = 0.465 psi/ft •
tudes of geopressures in one localized area (see • • • ( 9)
Fig. 4). This author theorized in 1972 that
such scatter was caused primarily by differences djD is represented by the 0.535 term.
in overburden gradients.
In simple terms, normally compacted sedi-
ments have a matrix stress gradient equal to the
THE THEORY overburden gradient minus the normal pore pres-
sure gradient.
The log data and measured pressure data
correlations discussed above show that there is It was postulated then that p/D and s/D are
definitely a relationship between the two. the variables that control the log-derived
Equations of these correlations must be of the groups. In other words, the parameters derived
form: from log data are dependent variables primarily
p/D • f (Normal R8 h/Observed R8 h) • • • (2) controlled by the existing pore pressure gradi-
ents and overburden stress gradients. If this
is the case, correlations such as those
and developed by Hottman and Johnson should be
expanded to include the effect of overburden
p/D = f (Observed /1 tsh - Normal L. t sh) stress gradients. It could be argued that the
overburden stress gradient is constant for a
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (3) given area and therefore of no significance.
However, this is not true in areas where compac-
or tion and geopressures are caused by increasing
Normal Rsh overburden loads with deeper burial. Overburden
f (p/D) • • • • • • • • (4)
Observed Rsh stress gradients are functions of burial depth
in areas such as the Gulf Coast.
and
Overburden stresses and overburden stress
Observed ~ t sh - Normal D t sh = f (p /D) . gradients may be determined by any means whereby
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ( 5) the bulk densities of sediments from the surface
SPE 5544 BEN A. EATON j

to total depth are measured. Overburden stress

is related to bulk density by the following ( ($ /D) Normal=%- (p/D) Normal •• ( 11 )
equation:
S = /% gD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ( 10) It was also shown by Eq. 8 that for abnorma~
pressure situations, the matrix stress gradient
Bulk densities are determined easily by the use was approximated by:
of density logs. A cumulative averaging scheme 6
may be used to convert log bulk-density data to ( 6 /D) Abnormal
curves of overburden stress gradient vs depth.
Two such curves are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. ~bserved Rs~

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023

0.535 1.5 • • • • • • .(12)
Note that the overburden gradient is not
constant with depth. ~ormal Rsh j
To develop the empirical relationship The constant, 0.535, in Eq. 12 is really the
between the log resistivity parameter, the pore matrix stress gradient when S/D = 1.0, and (p/D)
pressure gradient, and the overburden stress normal = 0.465. Therefore, if the right-hand
gradient, we need considerable data of the side of Eq. 11 is substituted into Eq. 12,
following form: (1) log resistivity data, (2) replacing the 0.535 constant, then
measured pore pressures, and (3) log bulk-
density data. Similarly, we need sonic-log data ( c5 /D) Abnormal =
to develop the shale acoustic parameter correla-
tion as a function of pore pressure gradients Is
~ ~J
- (p/D) Norm:J (RnRo)l.S ' • • • ( 13)
and overburden stress gradients.
Such data were not available in 1972, but where Ro signifies the resistivity observed in
were thought to be available to several individ- a clean shale and Rn is the resistivity at the
uals within large oil companies. If such data same depth on the normal compaction trend line.
are available and are plotted on charts such as (p/D) normal simply means the average normal
those shown in Figs. 7 and 8, the theory says pressure gradient of formation waters in a given
that the points will fall along lines signifying area. This value usually ranges between O. 434
different overburden stress gradients similar to and 0.465 psi/ft of depth.
those shown.
If .values for any normal pressured situa-
The lines shown in Figs. 7 and 8 should be tion are used in Eq. 13 as was done in Eq. 9, thE
nearly correct, but this can be determined only result will be the same.
with experimental data. However, two points on
each curve are fixed. One point is the end Pore pressure gradients in any area can ther
representing normal pressure gradients (see Eq. be found using Eqs. 6 and 13. In fact, the two
9). The other end point of each curve should be equations may be combined to give
the extreme case in vahich the pore pressure
gradient equals the overburden stress gradient.
In this latter extreme, the matrix stress p/D = %- [}- (p/D)~ ~ 5
1. • • • (14)
approaches zero. Therefore, the curve must
approach the value of the overburden at some One should note that normal matrix stress (which
limiting log parameter value. equals the term in brackets above) is reduced
when abnormal pressures exist and is reflected
THE THEORETICAL-~RICAL PORE PRESSURE by (Ro~n) being less than one. The term,
PREDICTION EQUATIONS (Ro/Rn)1·5 (when it is less than 1.0), when
7 multiplied with the normal matrix stress (brack-
Recently, in 1974, Lane and Macpherson eted term in Eq. 14) results in the abnormal
published much data on this subject. The data matrix stress that is lower than normal. This
included: overburden stress gradients, log is exactly as it should behave in abnormal
resistivity data, measured pore pressure gradi- formation pressure situations.
ents, respective well depths for each point, and
the geologic age for each data set. These data The correct value of the exponent on the
were used to develop the pore pressure predic- resistivity-ratio term was a great question mark
tion equations that follow. until Eq. 14 was evaluated with much data.
If one reviews the preceding theory and This evaluation is shovm in Table No. 1,
especially Eqs. 1, 6, 8, and 9, it can be seen where the value of the exponent was varied from
that for normal pressure gradient situations the 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, to 1.5. Measured formation pres-
matrix stress gradient is given by: sure gradients, calculated formation pressure
gradients, and overburden stress gradients are
4 THE :muATIONS FOR GEDPRESSURE PREDICTION FROM WELL LOGS SPE 5544

also shown, as are the corresponding Ro/Rn

values. Results of the analysis shown in Table 1.2
No. 1 led this author to what is believed to be p/D 0.98 _ [98 _ .46~ U:~~)
an excellent pore pressure prediction equation.
The equation is
p
0. 98 - ( 0 • 515) (l. 00)
D
.98 - .515
Formation pressure gradient =
either normal or abnormal

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023

.465 psi/ft
(Psi/ft)

= 9.0 ppg equivalent which is normal.

s
D

Overburden _ Matrix stress gradient, At 17,500 ft of depth,

stress gradient either normal or abnormal
;:~~) 1.
2 2
(Psi/ft) (Psi/ft) ••• (15) (Ro/Rn) 1. • ( = 0.14

Note how this equation corresponds with Then,

the very basic Eq. 6 for any ·pressure situation )
in sedimentary rocks. p/D 0.98- (o.515 (.14)
In order to understand better how to use
Eq. 15 to predict formation pressures, the .98 - 0.072
following example is used.
Example Problem 1 = 0.908 psi/ft

The problem is to predict the pressure

gradients existing in the formations in a well = 17.46 ppg equivalent.
located in South Louisiana, a very troublesome
drilling area.
If one desires to use the direct conduc-
Solution tivity log values, rather than log resistivities,
Eq. 15 is transformed as follows:
1. Evaluate the electric log from top to
bottom for conductivity or resistivity values in
the clean shales. 2.
D= D- ~ LP
~~ - ( p/D n lJ (en) Co
1.20
• • • • •( 16)
2. Plot these resistivity values vs depth
as shown in Fig. 9. Recently, it has been found that if one calcu-
lates and plots the corrected d exponent from
3. Establish the normal compaction trend. drilling parameters, the resulting plot is very
Use experience and any known data to aid in similar to a log resistivity plot. Therefore,
drawing the normal line. the following equation was developed for geo-
pressure prediction from corrected d exponent
4. Calculate values at various depths for data.
(Ro/Rn) 1. 2.

5. Determine S/D from density data ~ • ~ {~ -(p/D)J (~~~) 1.20 • • .(l?)

6. Determine (p/D)n from known normal pres- Note the similarity between Eqs. 15 and 17.
sure gradients or water salinity data. In this
particular case, S/D = 0.9S psi/ft and (p/D)n = Also, it has recently been determined that
0.465 psi/ft. sonic-log data can be used to predict geo-
pressure ~agnitudes with the following equation:
7. Use Eq. 15 to calculate pressure
gradients of the various Ro points. At S,500 ft 3.0
of depth, for example, Ro = 1. 00 and Rn = 1. 00. • • • ( 1S)
Then,
SPE 5544 HEN A. EATON
Eq. 18 should be valid for the prediction of
geopressure magnitudes from seismic data also.
Each term of Fqs. 15 through 18 have units
of psi/ft.
CONCLUSION
The author concludes that Eqs. 15 through
18 are extremely accurate. Also concluded is
the fact that the accuracy of each equation's
ability to predict geopressure gradient magni-
tude depends on the quality of the input data.
The methods used to establish normal trends
varies as much as the number of people who do
it. Generally speaking, however, if the equa-
tion is used with knowledge and care, it will
predict geopressure gradient magnitudes within
less than 0.5 ppg equivalent.
NOMENCLATURE
C conductivity - millimhos
d corrected d exponent
D depth, ft
f function 2 Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1971) 923-933.
g acceleration of gravity, em/sec
p formation pressure, psi
R shale resistivity, ohm-m
S overburden stress, psi
t sonic travel time, microsec/ft
PB = average bulk density of sediments, gm/cc
() = rock matrix stress, psi
Subscript
C = corrected
sh shale
B = bulk
5
o observed
n = normal
REFERENCES
1. Hottman, C. E., and Johnson, R. K.: "Esti-
mation of Formation Pressures from Log-
Derived Shale Properties," J. Pet. Tech.
(June 1965) 717-722.
2. Eaton, B. A. : "A Theory on the Effect of
Overburden Stress on Geopressure Prediction
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023
From Well Logs," paper SPE 3719 presented at
SPE-AIME Abnormal Subsurface Pore Pressure
Symposium, Baton Rouge, La., May 15-16,
1972; J. Pet. Tech (Aug. 1972) 929-934·
3. Terzaghi, Karl, and Peck, R. B.: Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1948) 566.
4. Hubbert, M. King, and Rubey, W. W.: ''Role
of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Over-
thrust Faulting, Part I," Bull., GSA (Feb.
1959) 70.
5. Timko, D. J., Fertl, W. H.: ''Relationship
Between Hydrocarbon Accumulation and Gee-
pressure and Its Economic Significance," Q:_.
6. Eaton, Ben A. : "Fracture Gradient Predic-
tion and Its Application in Oilfield Opera-
tions," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1969) 1353-1360.
7. Lane, Robert A., and Macpherson, Louis A.:
"A Review of Geopressure Evaluation From
Well Logs - Louisiana Gulf Coast," SPE
Paper 5033 presented at the 49th Annual Fall
SPE-AIME Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 6-9,
1974.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023
TABLE NUMBER I
Pore Pressure Gradient Calculations Page 2
PORE PRESSURE GRADIENT CALCULATIONS

FPG ~ :)k

~
Psi ~
Rn
~
Rn
l.2
Ro
Rn
1.3
Ro
Rn
l.4
~
Rn
1.5
s
-D-
* Calculated'
FPG
Psi/Ft.
FPG

~
Pti ~
Rn
~
Rn
l.2
Ro
Rn
1.3
Ro
Rn
1.4
Ro
Rn
1.5
s
-D-
Calculated
FPG
Psi/Ft •
• 777 .570 .808 .547
.575 .810 .760 .937 .578 .582 .837 .794 .894 .553
• 745 .585 .780 .559
.739 .588 .766 .565
.343 .786 .756 ;570
.740 .400 .304 .954 .805 .582 .792 .739 .895 .577
.277 .819 .722 .585
.253 .830 • 706 .591
.508 .708 .756 .570
.717 .568 .479 .959 • 722 .565 • 792 .739 .895 .577
.454 • 735 .722 .585
.428 • 748 .706 .591
.924 .497 • 765 .566
.524 .918 .887 .891 .513 .553 .800 .748 .895 .573
.878 .517 .732 .580
.872 .520 .716 .587
.813 .545 .801
.574 .551
.842 • 798 .894 .552 .574 .831 .786 .895 .557
• 785 .557 .772 .563
.772 .567 I • 758 .569
.893 .511 I .651 .616
.479 .909 .886 .891 .514 .559 .700 .629
i .896 .625
.875 .519 .607 .634
.866 .522 .586 . 644
.835 .536
-'1 .885 .514
.523 .861 .823 .894 .541 .496 .903 .876 .894 .518
.811 I
.547 .867 .522
I
• 799 .551 I .858 .526

.559 '.816
• 784
• 767
.752
.895
.558
.565 '
I
I
.530 .800
• 765
• 748 .897
.567
.574
.572 .732 .581
I
.736 .579 .716 .588
.847 .531 I .580 .648
.574 .872 .835 .894 .536 .684 .636 .556 .900 .658
.824 .541 I .531 .669
.813 .545 I .507 .680

* DitTA F~oM REF£R£A>Ct: 7

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023
Pore Pressure Gradient Calculations Page 3
Pore Pressure Gradient Calculations Page 4

1.5 Calculated
FPG 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Calculated
FPG 1.2 1.3 1.4
_xg _s_ FPG
Psi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s FPG
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ft. Rn Rn Rn Rn Rn -D- Psi/Ft.
Ft. Rn Rn Rn Rn Rn D Psi/Ft.

.513 .910 .505

.889 .477 .917 .l:l93
.880 .894 .516 .907 .512
.501 .907 .886
.871 .520 .515
.862 .524 .878 .519
.702 .596
.803 .550 .548 • 745 .682 .905 .605
.511 .833 • 788 .894 .556 .662 .614
• 774 .562 .643 .622 I
.760 .568
.668 .611
.852 .526 .591 .714 .646 .905 .621
i

.514 .875 .841 .892 .533 .624 .631

.829 .538 .603 • 642
.818 .543
I .816 .543

L:J
.852 .528 .539 .844 .803 .888 .548
.513 .875 .841 .533 • 789 .554
.829 .538 .776 .560
.818 .543 I .818 .541
.906 .505 .562 .847 .806 .889 .547 I

.503 .921 .897 .892 .509 .792 .553

.892 .511 .780 .558
.884 .515
.832 .536
.886 .514 .549 .857 .818 .886 .542
.587 .904 .877 .894 .518 .806 .547
.868 .522 .794 .552
.859 .526
• 702 .607
.699 .598 .593 • 745 .682 .941 .616
.610 • 742 .678 .907 .607 .662 .626
.659 .616 .643 .635
.639 .625
.702 .607
.831 .540 .603 • 745 .682 .940 .616
.497 .857 .818 .907 .545 .662 .626
.806 .551 .643 .635
.557 I
.793
.744 .589
.884 .517 .608 .782 .726 .938 .598
.495 .902 .875 .910 ,'521 .709 .605
.866 .525 .692 .613
.857 .529

I .607 .750
.708
.688
.688
.938
.606
.615
.625
.633
.650
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023
Pore Pressure Gradient Calculations Page 6
Pore Pressure Gradient Calculations Page 5
FPG
Psi Ro Ro
1.2
Ro
1.3
Ro
1.4
_]£_
1.5
s
Calculated
FPG
FPG
Psi Ro _]£_
1.2
Ro
1.3
_]£_
1.4
_]£_
1.5
s
Calculated
FPG
I
Ft: an- an- an- an- Rn -D- Psi/Ft. Ft: an- Rn an- Rn Rn · -D-
Psi/T. I

• 708 .606 .789 .564 I

.615 .750 .688 .938 .615 .516 .821 .774 .935 .571
.668 .625 .759 .578
.650 .633 • 744 .585
.728 .594 .615 .647
.607 • 768 .710 .940 .603 .658 .667 .591 .937 .658
.691 .612 .567 .669
.673 .620 .545 .680 l
.558 .675 .668 .622 I
.68 .615 .532 .940 .687 .655 .714 .645 .938 .633 I
.506 • 700 .624 .643
.482 .711 .603 .653 I
I

.604 .653 .602 • 654

I

.678 .657 .579 .940 .665 .630 .655 .577 .940 .666
I

.555 .676 .553 .677

i

.532 • 687 .530 .688

.668 .622 .892 .515
.655 .714 .645 .937 .633 .493 .909 .883 .930 .519
.624 .642 .875 .523 I

.603 .652 .867 .527

.564 • 673 .715 • 598
.679 .621 .538 .942 .685 .566 .756 .695 .932 .607
.513 .697 .676 .616
.490 .708 .658 .625
.746 .586 .202 .828
.554 .783 • 728 .940 .594 .818 .264 .177 .920 .839
.710 .603 .155 .849
',693 .611 .136 .858
• 752 .582
.619 .788 .734 .935 .590
.716 .598
.700 .606
53 data pointa - 31-points on 1.2 ~I(Por.JGIIIT
.681 .615 7 poinp on 1. 3
.625 .726 .660 .936 .625 4 points on 1.4 11
.639 .635 10 points on 1.5 11
.618 .645
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023
.l.=l 0.465 <)..<I A= 0.465

STAGE A STAGE B STAGE C

~ PERFORATED PLATES
[==:J WATER

Fig. l - Schematic representation of shale compaction.3

RESERVOIR EQUIVALENT
RESERVOIR EQUIVALENT FPG MUD WEIGHT
FPG MUD WEIGHT psi /fl. lbs./gal.
psi /ft. lbs./gal
0.400
0.4

0.5 '\.
1\
~- - 10.0 0:500

\
- 100
-
0.6
- 12.0 -

"" """·
0.600
~· -

\
0.7 - 12.0
I "
- 14.0

- -
0.8 0.700
~~

\
- 16.0
-
~ r-- . . .
14.0

0.9
--
- 18.0
0.-800
-
1.0
1.0

fluid pressure gradient.

1.5 2.0 3.0
NORMAL· PRESSURED R(sh) I OBSERVED R(ah)

Fig. 2 - Shale resistivity parameter vs reservoir

4.0 5.0

0.900
1-\·"" ' .......
.......
-

-
-
16.0

17.0

..........
20 40 60
lltob(sh)-llln(sh) ,pa/ft.

Fig. 3 - Shale acoustic parameter vs reservoir fluid

pressure gradient.

a:
0 HOTTMAN 8 JOHNSON
> GULF COAST AVERAGE
a:
LIJ
Ul
LIJ
a:

NORMAL R(sh) I OBSERVED R(sh)

Fig. 4 - Shale resistivi~y parameter vs reservoir

fluid pressure gradient.~
 0
\
1\
\
I

\ 2 \
~
\ \
~
\

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023

::
\
.
0
0

- \ 2
I
0
0
2
I
:X:
10

\
:X:
1-
0..
LIJ
0 \
\
1-
0..
LIJ
c 12

14
\
16
\ \

\
18
\ \
20
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
\
1.00 1.05
10
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
OVERBURDEN STRESS GRADIENT- pai /ft.
0.95 1.0 1.05

OVERBURDEN STRESS GRADIENT- pai /ft. Fig. 6 - Overburden stress gradient - Santa Barbara
Fig. 5 - Composite overburden stress gradient for all Channel, Calif.
normally compacted Gulf coast formations.

0.4.----.---,---.--,-----,---,.---.---.--~~ 0.450

0.500 l
~~
a I0.0
~

..... ~

&
0.6
·~ 1-
:X:
12.0 c:>
c:> L;j
0.. 0.600
....

\~.\
~
a: 0.7 0
a
~
~ I 2.0
::;)
0
>
a:
14.0
:::E
1- ·: ~
z
\\\
LIJ 1-
en LIJ c:> :X:
LIJ 0.8 0.. c:>
..J
a:
~
.... L;j
16.0 a: 0.700 ~
5

~\~
0 0 0
LIJ >
a: I 4.0
::;)
0.9 :::E
LIJ
en 1-

\\[~
LIJ z
a: LIJ
..J

0.800
~
1.01.0 1.5 2.0 5
\~ - H e TTMAN a JOHN ON 0

•\\""c
LIJ
NORMAL R(ah) I OBSERVED R(ah) RVE I 6.0

~~
Fig. 7 - Shale resistivity parameter vs reservoir
fluid pressure gradient.
0.900

\~' ~ ..____ --
- s t 0=0.90

-stD p0.95 I 8.0

..........

1.000
0 20
S/D=I.O""" ~ ...........
40
41 ob(ah)- 41 n(ah)• fll/fl.
-- 60
I 9.0

Fig. 8 - Shale acoustic parameter vs reservoir

fluid pressure gradient.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/75FM/All-75FM/SPE-5544-MS/2063633/spe-5544-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 27 October 2023
0

"10

~
12
I
; M.~. US D

3 \ 11.8

4 \ 12.(

5 ~-
6
l..--5 \ :~:: :!; ~ I~
7 ' \. 17.
I
Lr"
8 "l '\. :~.:-18 . -1 .1

2 0 .I .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Rsh-Ohm-M

Fig. 9 - Short normal log - resistivity data -

South Louisiana wildcat.