10 - 41455 - IJAER - Ok 1503-1517

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 11, Number 2 (2016) pp 1503-1517
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
A Simple Model to Predicting Pore Pressure from Shear Wave Sensitivity

Analysis
Oluwatosin John ROTIMIa*, EfeogheneENAWORUa, Charles Y. ONUHa and Olumide Peter SOWANDEa
a
Petroleum Engineering Department, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria
*E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract turn depends on the amount of dissolved materials (salt) in

A successful seismicity alongside core analysis provides data the fluid (Storvollet al., 2005). Thus, pressure in the pore
for subsurface structural mapping, definition of lithology, spaces (pore pressure) is directly related to the fluid densityin
identification of the productive zones, description of their the pore spaces of the formation. According to Zhang (2011),
depths and thickness. Inadequate understanding of Pore pore pressure is by far one of the most valuabletools for
pressure of a formation is regarded as one of the major drilling plan and for geomechanical and geological
problems drillers face in the exploration area. This may be exploration. It varies from hydrostatic pressure. If the
amongst others, the pressure acting on the fluids in the pore pressure in the formation is lower or higher than the
spaces of the rock. Pore pressure can be normal, abnormal or hydrostatic pressure, it is abnormal. However, when the pore
subnormal. Shear waves is a secondary wave that travels pressure is higher than the normal pressure, it is
normal to the direction of propagation. Shear waves are slow overpressure. (Zhang, 2011).The fundamental theory of pore
and thus, get to the surface after primary wave. It is with this pressure prediction can be linked toTerzaghi‟s and Boit‟s
intrinsic property that this project was initiated and effective stress law (Biot, 1941; 1955; 1956;Terzaghi, 1996).
researched. The theory shows that pore pressure in the formation is an
Data was obtained from a major operator in Niger Delta. important variable for total stress and effective stress. The
Methods of this study are as follows: log description, overburden stress, alongside the vertical stress and pore
interpretation and analysis and evaluation of pore pressure pressure can be expressed mathematically as in equation 1.
using the petro-physical parameters, model development
using Domenico‟sequation as foundation and the shear wave … (1)
velocity estimation.
The result from this study, shows the importance of well logs
Where Pp = Pore pressure, σv = overburden stress, σe =
and shear wave velocity in the evaluation of pore pressure, it
vertical effective stress, α = Biot effective stress co-
also indicates where pressure can be encountered during
efficient). It is assumed that α = 1 in geopressure community.
drilling activities.
Prediction of pressure is mainly done by using time-migrated
seismic datawith well logs and geophysical data from local
Keywords : Shear wave, Pore pressure, Petrophysics, Wave
well. The method requires comprehensive analysis of
velocity, Lithology, Density
velocity on the seismic data, conditioning of the well data,
accompanied by calibration of the seismic data alongside the
well values and forecasting of the pressure of the fluid on the
INTRODUCTION
kind of grid that was picked on the seismic log data. The
Sedimentation processes lead to deposition of various kinds
final velocityisalso calibrated by implementing well control
of unconsolidated sediments in basins as formations. These
and a velocity effective stress transform is estimated
newly deposited sediments are known for loosely packed,
whichhonours the well and seismic datagotten from the
uncemented debris with high porosity and water content. As
control well locations.Overburdenpressure for the area of
sedimentation persists in subsiding basins, the older
prediction is estimated by integrating the data from the
sediments are progressively buried by younger sediments to
density log to extract a vertical stress versus depth
increasingly greater depths. Consequently, pore spaces begin
relationship (Huffman, et al., 2011).
to reduce and fluids are trapped in certain spaces in the
This can be described mathematically as presented in
formation. These fluids include oil, gas, water, etc. They
equation 2.
build a kind of pressure which they exert on the formation
known as Pore pressure (Duffaut, 2011). ………… (2)
Pore pressure is defined as the pressure of the fluids in the
Where z= depth, a = coefficient and b = exponent
pore spaces of the formation embedded in the earth.
Formation fluids which include gases (nitrogen, sulphur, Bowers (1995), equation (3) can then be used to make
hydrogen sulphide, methane, etc.) and liquids (oil and water) calibrations for velocity-effective stress. It is used for
effectively predicting stress and predicting fluid pressure.The
contain pressure which increases with depth. The rate of the
pressure increase (pore pressure gradient) depends on the vertical and effective stress will then be correlated to
fluid density in the pore spaces of the formation, which in
1503
estimate the pore pressure using Terzaghi‟s basic relationship connected to the surface which could be less or more
equation (Singh, 2010). hydrostatic. When the pore pressure is greater than
hydrostatic, the effective pressure is reduced and the velocity
……………….(3) is also reduced. In other words, pore pressure can be
predicted with low shear wave velocities. Over pressured
Where V= velocity obtained, Vo= stress velocity, A= a zones can be detected in a sedimentary sequence by their
coefficient and B= an exponent anomalously low velocities(Kao, 2010; Brahma, et al., 2013;
In compressive (P) waves, the medium vibrates in the Wair, et al., 2012), the response of this pore pressure is often
direction that the wave is propagated, while in shear (S) seen in many velocity and density logs as an increase in their
waves, the ground vibrates transversely to the direction that low frequency component with depth and causing them to
the wave travels. experience some block character (Storvoll et al., 2005).
The velocity of shear waves tells us a lot about the properties Clays are more compactible than sandstone (Rieke, et al.,
and the shear strength of the material(Crice, 2002).If the 1972; Uchida, 1984; Wolf and Chillingarian, 1975,
velocities of P and S waves are known with the density of the Bowers2002). The changes in the elastic properties (shear
materials in consideration, the elastic properties of the wave velocities) of formations are complex functions of both
material that relates the magnitude of the strain response to mechanical and chemical compaction process that
the applied stress can be easily deduced. Known elastic predominate at different depths as a result of changes in the
properties include; Young modulus (E) which is the ratio of pore pressure and temperature (Kao, 2010; Brahma, et al.,
the applied stress of the fractional extension of the sample 2013; Wair, et al., 2012).
length parallel to the tension; Shear modulus (G) which is the Terzaghi(1943) assumed that shear wave velocity increases
ratio of the applied stress to the distortion of the plane with increase in differential stress. Differential stress is the
originally perpendicular to the applied stress; Bulk modulus subtraction of pore pressure from the overburden pressure.
(K) which is the ratio of the confining pressure to the fraction Experimentally, this can be proven by obtaining water
reduction of the volume in response to hydrostatic pressure; saturated unconsolidated sand samples assuming near zero
Poisson ratio which is the ratio of the lateral strain to the contact at low differential stress which means pore pressure
longitudinal strain. They are presented in equations4 – 7. is either high or kept constant while overburden is low or
kept constant.Kao, (2010).
……………………… (4) Shear waves must be significantly small compared to the

cross sectional area of the medium which it is propagated,the
velocity is equal to the square root of the ratio of the shear
annulus (G), and a constant medium to density (ρ) of the
…………………………. (5)
medium as in equation 8.
………………..... (6) ………………………….. (8)
…………………….… (7) Twoempirical correlations that are often used to relate shear
wave velocity with pore pressure are Eaton‟s equation and
Where Vp = compressive wave velocity, Vs=shear wave Han and Batzle‟s correlation.
velocity, d=density and S= stress
Eaton’s equation
Shear waves travel slower than the P-waves and this is Eaton‟s (1975) equation is used to estimate pore pressures of
imbedded in the complex wave train somewhere after the different hole sections in a wellbore. It is often derived from
first arrival. In a normal refraction survey, identifying the P- stress and resistivity (both normal and measured resistivity
wave is easysince they arrive first in the record. However, in values) and presented in equation 9 with Ebrom et al., (2003)
a practical matter it is almost impossible to reliably pick a improvement (equation 10) that modified the equation and
shear wave out of a normal refraction record(Duffautet al., incorporated S-wave velocities from multicomponent seismic
2011; Wair, et al., 2012). Imbibing a seismic energy source surveys.
that generates most shear waves and use of vibration sensors
sensitive to shear waves is a potent remedy to this ……………. (9)
(multicomponent seismic) (Wair, et al., 2012).
The aim of this study is to predict the pore pressure of a Where Pp= Pore pressure, S = stress, Phyd= hydrostatic
formation through shear wave sensitivities which is directly pressure, R = normal resistivity,Rlog = measured resistivity
related to its velocity. Shear wave velocity increases with
depth and effective pressure. Effective pressure is related to ………………………(10)
the difference between the confining pressure and pore
pressure. Confining pressure is the pressure of the overlying
rock column. Effective pressure increases with increase in Where Vps.obv= Interval velocities under abnormally
confining pressure which leads to an increase in the velocity pressured conditions, Vps.n = Interval velocities under
of the wave. The pore pressure may be hydrostatic if it is normally pressured conditions, σn = effective stress under
1504
normally pressured conditions, σobv = effective stress under stress (vertical and horizontal compressive stress due to
abnormally pressured conditions gravitational loading and sideways „push‟, effective stress
The velocities can be gotten using layer-stripping approach and the pore pressure in the simplified equation14,(Kao,
through the correlation of P-wave and S-wave data. This 2010; Nygaard,et al., 2008; Sayers, et al., 2002).
correlation is determined when seismic reflection is correctly
flattened. However, this correlation can be gotten after ………………….. (14)
computing a series of interval velocities of both the P-wave
and S-wave(Kao, 2010; Brahma, et al., 2013; Ferguson and Where S is the total stress, σ is the effective stress and Pp is
Ebrom, 2008). the pore pressure. He continued by stating that the total
vertical stress (Sr) is derived from the overburden, combined
Han and Batzles’ correlation (2004) weight of the sediments and the contained fluids(Nygaard,et
Han and Batzle opined that there is a linear correlation al., 2008; Li, et al., 2012; Bourgoyne, et al.,1991; Ozkale
between shear wave velocity and compressional wave 2006; Saul and Lumley, 2013).
velocity shown in equation 11.
………………………….(11) METHODOLOGY
Data was generated from 5 wells (well36-3, well36-4,
In a research study of the Milk River formation of the well36-6, well36-7 and well36-9) offshore Niger Delta
western Canadian sedimentary basin, Vs was estimated using operated by a major company.Figure 1 shows the location of
a second poly-line equation presented in equation 12. the field and wells used.
….(12) EVALUATION OF POROSITY FROM LOG DATA

Porosity calculation is done by using Wyllie‟s equation/
In a situation where porosity (ɸ ) is included, equation (12) sonic (equation 15)
becomes equation 13.
………………….. (15)
…………….(13)
Where Δtfl = Transit time in pore fluid (depending on the
Vcl and φ can be estimated from well logs
depth), Δtma = Transit time in rock matrix and Δtlog = interval
transit time from the log track.
Study objectives are evaluation, quality control and
Equation 15 is known as the time average equation, which is
correlation of log data in order to correct sonic log and
good for clean compacted formations with intergranular
compute porosity; Estimation of shear wave velocity using
porosity containing fluids. Alternative methods employed the
Domenico‟sshear wave and compressional wave velocity
use of the total porosity log (denoted as PHIT) to get the data
equation; Prediction of pore pressure by correlation of shear
at each depth needed. This was used to validate porosities
wave velocity and porosity.
estimated from Wyllie‟s time average equation.
According toSwarbick (2002), the estimation of pore
pressure uses the Terzaghi stress relationship between total
Figure 1: Location of the wells on the field
1505
EVALUATION OF SHEAR WAVES USING Substitute equation (24) and equation (25) into equation (23)
POROSITY CALCULATED
This was done using a model developed by Domenico
(1977), known as Domenico‟s shear wave and compressional …………………….. (26)
wave velocity model.Equation 16 and 17 was the start up
model with the assumptions that some elastic parameters are Where …………..…. (27)
predicted from well logs and that the lithology has no Substitute equation (27) into equation (26) and collecting
structural elements (fault or fracture). like terms and reducing to the lowest term will give equation
28.
………………….…… (16)
………………..……….. (28)
……………………….. (17)
Where …………………….….. (29)
Where Vp = compressional wave velocity, V s = shear wave
velocity and ø = porosity Substitute equation (29) into equation (28) to give
Next, Compressive wave can be determined form the inverse

of sonic transit time for the log. Mathematically, this can be ………………… (30)
written as in equation 18.
Where Po = Pore pressure (psig), Vs = shear wave velocity
…………………………..……… (18) (ft/s) and h = depth (ft)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Where Vp = compressional wave velocity (ft/s) and Δtlog = Composite well logs which include gamma rays, resistivity,
transit time (µs/ft) sonic,and total porosity logs of five wells (well36-3, well36-
The shear wave velocity can then be computed from the 4, well36-6, well36-7, and well36-9) are correlated with
compressional wave velocity by using Greenberg and depth as presented in Figures 2 – 6.Analysis, interpretation
Castagna (1992) model which is shown in equation 19below. and result of well log data occurred under these categories;
This is for sand beds while equation 20 serves for shale beds. Lithology identification, Petrophysical analysis, Empirical
correlation of parameters.
……………. (19)
Lithology identification
…….…….. (20) On well 36-3, gamma ray log (track 3) shows the lithology is
more of a sandstone formation based on the baseline picked
DERIVATION OF THE MODEL FORPREDICTION for adequate discretization of the log track and was crossplot
OF PORE PRESSURE validated on track 7. The sonic log track (track 4) has high
Derivation of Pore pressure model begins with the use the interval transit time (200µs/ft - 250µs/ft) at the beginning
drilling engineering model (Bourgoyne,et al., 1991). This (zone 1) and decreased along in transition to zone 2. This
model relates pore pressure being proportional to density and indicates the time at which the acoustic wave travel in that
height (depth). This is presented in equations 21-30. formation is high due to the pore space within the grains of
the formation, and indication that the formation is more of
……………..…….. (21) sandstone (Figure 2). The Gamma ray log of zone 2 has
similar characteristics as zone 1. However, at the base of
zone 2, there is a transition in the lithology from sandstone
……………………………………(22) formation to shale formation. A corresponding sonic log
(track 4) signature shows a decrease in the transit time of the
Substitute equation (22) into equation (21) acoustic wave velocity. This means an increase in velocity
………………………(23) and a decrease in pore spaces with time.In zone 3, the
gamma ray log signatures deflect to the right meaning the
lithology is increasingly shale. The sonic log track has lower
Where ……………………… (24) interval transit time. This means the time at which the
acoustic wave travel in that formation is low due to lower
And ………………..….. (25) amount of pore spaces in the formation filled with gas
hydrocarbon.
1506
Figure 2: Well36-3 showing 7 tracks on the left. Crossplots of depth vs shear wave velocity (1), shear wave velocity and
porosity for pore pressure prediction (2) and Pore Pressure against Shear wave velocity (3)
Gamma ray signature of well 36-4, (zone 1) starts with a the left in zone 3, an indication of water zone.Gamma ray log
higher left deflection (Figure 3). Based on the baseline of well 36-6 starts with a well indurated lithology. This shale
picked, the deflection indicates that the lithology is more of constitutes zone 1. However, zone 2 and 3 have more of left
an unconsolidated formation which is a sandstone formation. deflection, meaning the formation at that zone is more of
However, from 2000ft – 2700ft, the gamma ray log track sandstone (Figure 4).
(track 3) deflects to the right indicating the base of zone 1 is Correlating this with sonic log, a gradual left deflection
shale or compacted formation. Correlating this with sonic log occurs typifying a porous/fluid hosting formation. Resistivity
track (track 4), there is more deflection to the right indicating log track had a higher deflection to the right from 2815ft –
velocity moving towards 200µs/ft. By implication, the 3256.5ft (located in zone 2). This indicates the presence of
formation at that depth is more porous and perhaps less little hydrocarbon validated by a high percentage of water
consolidated. The presence of hydrocarbon is inferred from saturation (87%). Well 36-7 has more unconsolidated
predominantly right resistivity logdeflection up to about formation; sandstone inferred from left gamma ray
2000ft. Zone 2, boasts of blocky interlayered alternating deflection(Figure5).
formations. The resistivity log track has more deflection to
1507
Sonic log signature is inconsistent, deflecting more to the zone 1 of well 36-9, the gamma ray log showed more right
right and slowly descending to the left due to the deflection. From the baseline picked, that region is shale.
unconsolidated nature of the formation. The resistivity log of From 3000ft – 4000ft (zone 2), there is more left
zone 1 deflects more to the right from 2713ft – 2945ft, an deflectionsindicating that the formation in the zone is
indication of hydrocarbon. From 3000ft -6000ft (zone 2), the unconsolidated sandstone. From 4000ft – 6000ft (zone 2),
resistivity log deflects mostly to the left; an indication of the gamma ray signatures became equal, which means that
fresh water bearing zone (high conductivity). zone is made up of both shale and sandstone formations
However, the latter part of zone 2 and all zone 3 (5000ft – (Figure 6). The sonic log track, on the other hand, had
9000ft), the deflection on the gamma ray were mostly equal deflections that descended from the right to the left, meaning
i.e. the formation region was made up of shale formation and that the formation is mostly porous and unconsolidated.
sandstone formation based on the baseline picked. However, Sandstone is inferred. Right deflection on resistivity log is
based on the deflection in the water saturation and porosity more prolific on zone 1 (2840ft – 3000ft). This is an
log, the formation in that zone is porous and fluid bearing. In indication of hydrocarbon at this depth.
Petrophysical properties also be inferred that in the porous zones of well 36-3, one of
Zone 1 of well 36-3 has higher resistivity showing that there the fluids in the pore spaces is water which contributes to
is hydrocarbon in the pore spaces of the formation. The pore pressure in that formation.
porosity log shows high deflection from zone 1 to zone 2. The effective porosity computed for well 36-4 at zones 1 and
However, there is porosity drop in that it deflected to the left, 2 was high ranging from 0.15-0.35. This shows that the
meaning the formation (transition between zone 1 and 2) has formation doesnot necessarily have many connected pores
low porosity and that the zone is unconsolidated. Water but probably many isolated pores due to the rapid
saturation log has some inference required for predicting the sedimentation process typical of the shelf environment
pore pressure. Where there is high resistivity (track 4), the (Figure3).Water saturation in zone 1is quite low (almost
water saturation is quite low; almost approaching zero approaching zero) with a corresponding low hydrocarbon
(Figure2). Conversely, where there is low resistivity (track saturation index. However, in zone 2, water saturation was
4), the resultant water saturation is quite high almost really high at almost 1. This shows that there are no
approaching 1 (Figure2). It can therefore be inferred that hydrocarbons in that zone.
water saturation is inversely proportional to resistivity. It can
1508
It also shows the zone is porous and water bearing. Average Estimation of Shear waves and Prediction of Pore
porosity value in zone 1 of well 36-6 is 0.19 making the pressure
lithology fairly porous compared to zone 2 with an average Shear waves was estimated using the model derived
of 0.33. However, the formation is quite porous with little fromDomenico‟sshear wave velocity formula;equation 30.
isolated pore spaces (Figure 4). Zone 1 is water From the graph (Figure 2), between the first 6000ft, shear
bearing,butSw decreases gradually to 0.7 in zone 2 (2900ft - wave computed is quite low i.e. between 3 – 4.9m/s(Table
3230ft). This means that there is irreducible hydrocarbon 1). This means that the formation has large pore spaces fluid
fluid in that zone that may or may not be productive. Also filled as seen in the resistivity log which could be methane
from 3300ft – 7000ft, the water saturation increased back to gas (shallow methane gas). However, between 6200ft –
1 an indication of water bearing lithology. 9000ft shear wave computed increased greatly from 4.2 m/s
From 2500ft – 4000ft (zone 2) of well 36-7, the porosity to about 17m/s meaning that the formation is highly
signatures were moderate and non-spurious. However, from compacted and consolidated. From the resistivity log, there is
6000ft – 7000ft, this signature read low than the zone above no much hydrocarbon and there are no much pore spaces in
it. This means that the zone between 2500ft – 4000ft is more that particular zone of the formation.
porous than the zone between 6000ft – 7000ft.Zone 1, up to From the function plot (Figure 3) between the first 4200ft in
2715ft is water bearing, but, Sw stands at an average value of well 36-4, shear wave calculated is also low i.e. between 3 –
0.58 in zone 2, an indication of a resistive fluid likely 5,5ft/s, meaning that the formation is porous and contain
hydrocarbon filling the pore spaces (Figure 5). fluid, likely gas(Table 2).However, between 4500ft – 5200ft
Average porosity in well 36-9 is 0.28. However, in zone 3, shear wave computed rose to between 4 – 6ft/s, to terminate
from 9000ft – 10000ft, porosity decreased to less than 0.1. at 7ft/s at depth 5300ft. The inference drawn is porous and
This reduction portrays an increase in density and slightly resistive. Between 2500ft – 2800ft (zone 2) of well
consolidation due to overburden pressure.Here water 36-6, the shear wave velocity is quite high in this shale
saturation reading is mostly approaching water filled formation (Table 3). Porosity log flags an average of
scenarios at about 1.For depths between 2840ft – 3000ft,Sw 0.17(Figure 4).
is significantly less than (about 0.0682). It means the
formation fluids existing at this shallow depth is hydrocarbon
(Figure 6).
1509
However, between the next 1600ft (zone 3) of well 36-7, the Pore Pressure Profiles (pressure gradient) of all wells
shear wave estimated in this location is low due to the
unconsolidated nature of the formation (Table 4). This
formation has average porosity of 0.19. On Table 4 and 5
(see appendix), the first 1500ft has shear wave velocity
between 3ft/s – 6ft/s. It shows formation of this zone is
appreciably porous at 20%(Figure5).
However, from 6000ft – 7000ft (zone 3), the shear wave
velocity estimated rose from 3.4ft/s to climax at 8.33ft/s.
This is an indication that formation of this zone has some
compacted layers with reduced porosity due the spreading of
the shear wave velocities calculated, meaning that some parts
of that zone do not have pore spaces but most of that region
is porous.The first 1700ft of well 36-9 from depth 3000ft,
has low shear wave velocity at 3.5ft/s.This indicates that the
formation in that zone is filled with pore spaces containing
fluids (Figure6).However, from depth 6000ft – 7000ft, the
shear wave rose to about 8ft/s (Table 6). This means that
formation is made up of both compacted and unconsolidated
formation. This also means the overall pattern of
sedimentation is interbedded sandstone and shale.
Prediction of Pore pressure

Prediction of pore pressure was done using the model Figure 7: Function plot showing the pore pressure profile
derived earlier (equation 30). The values computed for pore (pressure gradient) of all the 5 wells
pressure estimates can be seen in Table 1 on the Appendix
section. Correlation of porosity values at different depth, From Figure7, all the pore pressure values/profiles of all 5
shear wave velocity and pore pressure is presented in Figures wells have some similarity: they increase with depth.
2 – 6. However, pressure gradient curve in the most proximal well
36-3 designed as P1 has the least range of values of all the
wells. In P1, the highest range of values is about 1700ps/sqft
at depth 9000ft. Well 36-4 and 36-6 curves designated as P2
1510
and P3 have similar values but have higher range of values 5. Bowers, G.L., 2002."Detecting high
than P1. As seen on Figure 4.21, P2 and P3 appears as a line overpressure."The Leading Edge.Pp 174‐177.
because their values are similar, therefore P2 and P3 are 6. Chilingarian G. V. and Wolf K. H., 1975.
overlapping. The highest range of values for P2 and P3 is Compaction of Coarse-grained Sediments,
about 1800lb/sqft at depth 6000ft. Well 36-7 and 36-9 with Developments in Sedimentology 18 A. Elsevier
profiles P4 and P5 (overlapping) and most distal have the Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, Oxford, New
highest range of values of about 1900lb/sqft at depth 7000ft. York. ISBN 0 444 41152 6 pp., 233
The location of study wells affirms the variation observed to 7. Bourgoyne A.T. (Jr), Millheim K.K., Chenevert
be that of increasing pressure with depth and distance away M.E., Young F.S., (Jr.), 1991. Applied Drilling
from shore. Well 36-3 being the most proximal has a value Engineering, revised 2nd printing, pp. 246-250.
of 1700ps/sqft at 9000ft. This increased into the distal 8. Brahma Jwngsar, SircarAnirbid, Karmakar G.
environment up to well 36-9 where pore pressure increased P., 2013.Pre-drill pore pressure prediction using
to 1900ps/sqft in a shallower depth. seismic velocities data on flank and synclinal part of
Atharamura anticline in the Eastern Tripura, India.J
Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2013)3.Pp.93–103.
Conclusion DOI 10.1007/s13202-013-0055-0
From the previous chapter, which reports the analysis, results 9. Crice Doug, 2002. Borehole Shear-Wave Surveys
and discussion, it can be concluded that shear waves for Engineering Site Investigations. Geostuff.
alongside porosity can be used for the determination of some http://www.georadar.com/geostuff. Pp.1-14.
important subsurface formation parameters, identification of 10. Domenico, S.N., 1977.Elastic Properties of
hydrocarbon reservoirs and most of all, the degree of pore Unconsolidated porous sand reservoirs.Geophysics,
pressure in a particular well. The prediction of pore pressure 42(7).Pp.1339-1368.
before exploration is very vital as it provides the area at 11. Duffaut K., 2011. Stress sensitivity of elastic wave
which the pressure encountered is normal, abnormal or velocities in granular media. Norgesteknisk-
subnormal. This information is very important for drillers, to naturvitenskapeligeuniversitet 2011 (ISBN 978-82-
avoid kick or blowout on the rig, if not maintained or 471-2612-7) 102 s.
controlled.The aim of the log plot was to identify and DoktoravhandlingervedNTNU(2011:45) NTNU.
estimate the basic parameters needed to predict pore 12. Duffaut, K., Avseth P., and Landro M.,
pressure. This includes the porosity, the lithology, the water 2011.Stress and Fluid Sensitivity in two North Sea
saturation and the resistivity. The aim of the velocity – oil fields-comparing Rock Physics models with
porosity graph is to correlate the shear wave velocity Seismic observations. The Leading Edge, 30, pp 98
estimated and the porosity gotten from the log plot in order – 102.
to forecast the degree of overpressure in a particular well by 13. Eaton, B. A., 1975. The equation for Geopressure
depth. In addition, it is also to know how productive and prediction from well logs: SPE 5544.
producible a reservoir is before it is drilled and completed. 14. Ebrom, D., Heppard, P., Mueller, M., and
Thomsen, L., 2003. Pore pressure prediction from
S - wave, C -wave, and P - wave velocities: SEG,
Acknowledgement Expanded Abstracts, 22, No. 1, 1370–1373.
The authors appreciate the support of MOST-CASTEP for 15. Ferguson R.J., and Ebrom D., 2008. Overpressure
research grant and workstation provided. The operator of the prediction from PS seismic data. CREWES
field case study is well appreciated for release of data and Research Report - Volume 20. Pp. 1-10.
permissions. The inputs of anonymous reviewers are much 16. Greenberg, M., and Castagna., J., 1992. Shear
appreciated. wave velocity estimation in porous rocks:
Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification
and applications. Geophysical Prospecting, 40.
References Pp.195-209
17. Han De-hua, and Batzle Michael, 2004. Estimate
1. Biot, M., 1941.“General theory of three- Shear Velocity Based on Dry P-wave and Shear
dimensional consolidation.” Journal of Applied Modulus Relationship. SEG Int'l Exposition and
Physics, 12, 155–164. 74th Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado. Pp. 1-4.
2. Biot, M., 1955.“Theory of elasticity and 18. Huffman, Meyer, Gruenwald, Buitrago, Suarez,
consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid.” Diaz, Mariamunoz and Dessay, 2011. Recent
Journal of Applied Physics, 26, 182–185. Advances in Pore pressure Prediction in Complex
3. Biot, M., 1956.“Theory of deformation of a porous Geologic Environment. Onepetro. SPE-142211-MS.
viscoelastic anisotropic solid.” Journal of Applied http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/142211-MS. Pp. 8
Physics, 27(5), 459–467. 19. Kao, Jef C., 2010. Estimating Pore Pressure Using
4. Bowers G.L., 1995. Pore pressure estimation from Compressional and Shear wave Data From
velocity data: Accounting for overpressure Multicomponent Seismic Nodes in Atlantis Field,
mechanism besides undercompaction. SPE Drilling Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. 2010 SEG Annual
and Completions.Dallas USA. Meeting, Colorado.
1511
20. Li Shuling, Jeff George and Cary Purdy, Cenozoic sediments from the Norwegian Shelf:
2012.Pore-Pressure and Wellbore-Stability AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, p. 359 – 381.
Prediction to Increase Drilling Efficiency.Society of 26. Swarbrick, R.E., 2002.“Challenges of Porosity-
Petroleum Engineers.OnePetro. Based Pore Pressure Prediction,” CSEG
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144717-JPT Recorder.Issue 75.
21. NygaardRunar, MojtabaKarimi, GeirHareland, 27. Sayers C. M., Johnson, G. M., and Denyer G.,
and Hugh B. Munro, 2008.Pore-Pressure 2002.Predrill pore-pressure prediction using seismic
Prediction in OverconsolidatedShales.Society of data.GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 67, No. 4. Pp. 1286-1292
Petroleum Engineers.OnePetro. DOI - 28. Saul, M., and Lumley, D., 2013.A new velocity-
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/116619-MS pressure-compaction model for uncemented
22. OzkaleAslihan, 2006. Overpressure prediction by sediments.Geophysical Journal International, 193.
mean total stress estimate using well logs for Pp. 905-913.
compressional environments with strike – slip or 29. Terzaghi, 1943, 1996.Terzaghi Karl,
reserve faulting stress state. Unpublished Master‟s 1943.Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley &
Thesis, TAMU. Pp 172 Sons, Inc. Pp. 526
23. Rieke, H. H., Chillinger, G. V. and Mannon, R. 30. Uchida T., 1984.Properties of Pore Systems and
W., 1972.Application of petrography and statistics their Pore-Size Distributions in Reservoir
to the study of some petrophysical properties of Rocks.Journal of the Japanese Association for
carbonate reservoir rocks. In G. Chillinger et al., Petroleum Technology.Vol.49, no. 1.
eds., Oil and gas production from carbonate rocks, 31. Wair, B.R., DeJong, J.T and Shantz, T.,
p. 340- 354, Elsevier. 2012.Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave
24. Singh, Y. R., Metilda Pereira, R. K. Srivastava, Velocity Profiles.PEER Report 2012/08. Pacific
P. K. Paul, and R. Dasgupta, 2010. Regional Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Pressure Compartmentalisation Preview using Pore Headquarters at the University of California.Pp. 95.
Pressure Approach - A Case study from NE India. 32. Zhang Jincai, 2011. Pore pressure prediction from
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2010: well logs: methods, modifications and new
pp. 2217-2220. doi: 10.1190/1.3513288. approaches. Earth Science Reviews.Doi:
25. Storvoll, V., K. Bjørlykke, and N. H. Mondol, 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001. Vol. 108. Pp. 50 –
2005. Velocity-depth trends in Mesozoic and 63.
1512
Appendix
Table 1:Depth, porosity and estimated shear waves for well 36-3
DEPTH (FT) POROSITY(FRAC) SHEAR WAVES (FT/S) PORE PRESSURE (PSIG)

-2600 0.2447 4.550039745 488.6876892
-2800 0.3419 3.265955581 526.2790499
-3000 0.3382 3.30142179 563.8704106
-3200 0.3234 3.451339223 601.4617714
-3400 0.3194 3.494223699 639.0531321
-3600 0.3247 3.437627514 676.6444928
-3800 0.2349 4.737852265 714.2358535
-4000 0.335 3.332722334 751.8272142
-4200 0.254 4.385080203 789.4185749
-4400 0.34 3.28407225 827.0099356
-4600 0.35 3.190912282 864.6012963
-4800 0.2311 4.814916998 902.192657
-5000 0.3459 3.22846108 939.7840177
-5200 0.31 3.599323327 977.3753784
-5400 0.3317 3.365628785 1014.966739
-5600 0.35 3.190912282 1052.5581
-5800 0.2496 4.461608749 1090.149461
-6000 0.26 4.284857314 1127.740821
-6200 0.0981 11.17931737 1165.332182
-6400 0.2915 3.825796196 1202.923543
-6600 0.1 10.97213079 1240.514903
-6800 0.291 3.832313299 1278.106264
-7000 0.2482 4.486522039 1315.697625
-7200 0.245 4.544524984 1353.288986
-7400 0.2296 4.846031875 1390.880346
-7600 0.0917 11.93868768 1428.471707
-7800 0.097 11.30288337 1466.063068
-8000 0.1363 8.103025102 1503.654428
-8200 0.0835 13.07676716 1541.245789
-8400 0.1592 6.955612066 1578.83715
-8600 0.2654 4.198494756 1616.428511
-8800 0.2301 4.835615663 1654.019871
-9000 0.0627 17.24723742 1691.611232
1513
Table 2: Depth, porosity and estimated shear waves for well 36-4
DEPTH (FT) POROSITY (FRAC) SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY (FT/S) PORE PRESSURE (PSIG)
-2500 0.1979 5.612519511 469.8920089
-2600 0.1903 5.83373732 488.6876892
-2700 0.3497 3.193630113 507.4833696
-2800 0.3483 3.206374786 526.2790499
-2900 0.35 3.190912282 545.0747303
-3000 0.35 3.190912282 563.8704106
-3100 0.35 3.190912282 582.666091
-3200 0.2702 4.124599192 601.4617714
-3300 0.323 3.455580244 620.2574517
-3400 0.3486 3.203635229 639.0531321
-3500 0.35 3.190912282 657.8488124
-3600 0.189 5.873335644 676.6444928
-3700 0.35 3.190912282 695.4401731
-3800 0.2972 3.753038084 714.2358535
-3900 0.2125 5.231425171 733.0315338
-4000 0.35 3.190912282 751.8272142
-4100 0.35 3.190912282 770.6228945
-4200 0.337 3.313090351 789.4185749
-4300 0.2663 4.184438325 808.2142553
-4400 0.35 3.190912282 827.0099356
-4500 0.1636 6.771379276 845.805616
-4600 0.35 3.190912282 864.6012963
-4700 0.35 3.190912282 883.3969767
-4800 0.3355 3.327792559 902.192657
-4900 0.1447 7.640686042 920.9883374
-5000 0.2918 3.821896563 939.7840177
-5100 0.3422 3.26311331 958.5796981
-5200 0.2628 4.239637901 977.3753784
-5300 0.1553 7.127497386 996.1710588
-5400 0.288 3.871887003 1014.966739
-5500 0.3363 3.319935182 1033.76242
-5600 0.2853 3.908208684 1052.5581
-5700 0.1546 7.15925183 1071.35378
-5800 0.2764 4.032915039 1090.149461
-5900 0.2899 3.846729376 1108.945141
-6000 0.2229 4.990067271 1127.740821
1514
Table 3: Depth, porosity and shear wave velocity for well 36-6
-2500 0.1979 5.612519511 469.8920089
-2600 0.1903 5.83373732 488.6876892
-2700 0.3497 3.193630113 507.4833696
-2800 0.3483 3.206374786 526.2790499
-2900 0.35 3.190912282 545.0747303
-3000 0.35 3.190912282 563.8704106
-3100 0.35 3.190912282 582.666091
-3200 0.2702 4.124599192 601.4617714
-3300 0.323 3.455580244 620.2574517
-3400 0.3486 3.203635229 639.0531321
-3500 0.35 3.190912282 657.8488124
-3600 0.189 5.873335644 676.6444928
-3700 0.35 3.190912282 695.4401731
-3800 0.2972 3.753038084 714.2358535
-3900 0.2125 5.231425171 733.0315338
-4000 0.35 3.190912282 751.8272142
-4100 0.35 3.190912282 770.6228945
-4200 0.337 3.313090351 789.4185749
-4300 0.2663 4.184438325 808.2142553
-4400 0.35 3.190912282 827.0099356
-4500 0.1636 6.771379276 845.805616
-4600 0.35 3.190912282 864.6012963
-4700 0.35 3.190912282 883.3969767
-4800 0.3355 3.327792559 902.192657
-4900 0.1447 7.640686042 920.9883374
-5000 0.2918 3.821896563 939.7840177
-5100 0.3422 3.26311331 958.5796981
-5200 0.2628 4.239637901 977.3753784
-5300 0.1553 7.127497386 996.1710588
-5400 0.288 3.871887003 1014.966739
-5500 0.3363 3.319935182 1033.76242
-5600 0.2853 3.908208684 1052.5581
-5700 0.1546 7.15925183 1071.35378
-5800 0.2764 4.032915039 1090.149461
-5900 0.2899 3.846729376 1108.945141
-6000 0.2229 4.990067271 1127.740821
1515
Table 4: Depth, porosity and estimated shear wave velocity between 2500ft – 4000ftfor well 36-7
-2500 0.18 6.162948354 469.8920089
-2600 0.18 6.162948354 488.6876892
-2700 0.299 3.73063335 507.4833696
-2800 0.3484 3.20546108 526.2790499
-2900 0.35 3.190912282 545.0747303
-3000 0.2544 4.378253042 563.8704106
-3100 0.253 4.402241621 582.666091
-3200 0.3308 3.374716355 601.4617714
-3300 0.3391 3.292724166 620.2574517
-3400 0.35 3.190912282 639.0531321
-3500 0.265 4.204772417 657.8488124
-3600 0.35 3.190912282 676.6444928
-3700 0.2446 4.551880974 695.4401731
-3800 0.3314 3.368652532 714.2358535
-3900 0.3107 3.591279368 733.0315338
-4000 0.3172 3.518267549 751.8272142
Table 5: Depth, porosity and estimated shear wave velocity between 6000ft – 7000ftfor well 36-7
-6000 0.2449 4.546361751 1127.740821
-6100 0.1324 8.337251842 1146.536502
-6200 0.1811 6.12602833 1165.332182
-6300 0.2777 4.01420547 1184.127862
-6400 0.1745 6.354431104 1202.923543
-6500 0.1368 8.073944413 1221.719223
-6600 0.1279 8.624920327 1240.514903
-6700 0.2721 4.096062496 1259.310584
-6800 0.2866 3.890635784 1278.106264
-6900 0.1164 9.458983954 1296.901944
-7000 0.3223 3.463027164 1315.697625
1516
Table 6: Depth, porosity and shear wave velocity for well 36-7
-3000 0.3377 3.306273687 563.8704106
-3100 0.3398 3.285990966 582.666091
-3200 0.3425 3.260275982 601.4617714
-3300 0.3256 3.428198441 620.2574517
-3400 0.3373 3.310165485 639.0531321
-3500 0.3243 3.441834883 657.8488124
-3600 0.3449 3.237753763 676.6444928
-3700 0.3413 3.271655003 695.4401731
-3800 0.3476 3.212785344 714.2358535
-3900 0.2853 3.908208684 733.0315338
-4000 0.2854 3.906851289 751.8272142
-4100 0.35 3.190912282 770.6228945
-4200 0.3284 3.399191536 789.4185749
-4300 0.2844 3.920467822 808.2142553
-4400 0.3381 3.30239103 827.0099356
-4500 0.3383 3.300453119 845.805616
-4600 0.3332 3.350591111 864.6012963
-4700 0.1479 7.478139529 883.3969767
-4800 0.3418 3.266904105 902.192657
-4900 0.3174 3.51606808 920.9883374
-5000 0.2519 4.421274998 939.7840177
-5100 0.3091 3.609718662 958.5796981
-5200 0.3323 3.359597547 977.3753784
-5300 0.2776 4.015638503 996.1710588
-5400 0.1432 7.719337249 1014.966739
-5500 0.3138 3.556084069 1033.76242
-5600 0.1504 7.35588353 1052.5581
-5700 0.2434 4.574092523 1071.35378
-5800 0.309 3.610877407 1090.149461
-5900 0.1997 5.562561292 1108.945141
-6000 0.2983 3.739314442 1127.740821
-6100 0.2399 4.640132225 1146.536502
-6200 0.2322 4.792352173 1165.332182
-6300 0.2046 5.430963225 1184.127862
-6400 0.1785 6.214016958 1202.923543
-6500 0.2094 5.307951417 1221.719223
-6600 0.1251 8.814152709 1240.514903
-6700 0.2041 5.44410564 1259.310584
-6800 0.2864 3.893329014 1278.106264
-6900 0.1447 7.640686042 1296.901944
-7000 0.2753 4.048882974 1315.697625
1517

10 - 41455 - IJAER - Ok 1503-1517

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 - 41455 - IJAER - Ok 1503-1517

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 - 41455 - IJAER - Ok 1503-1517

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 11, Number 2 (2016) pp 1503-1517

© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

A Simple Model to Predicting Pore Pressure from Shear Wave Sensitivity

Abstract turn depends on the amount of dissolved materials (salt) in

……………………… (4) Shear waves must be significantly small compared to the

….(12) EVALUATION OF POROSITY FROM LOG DATA

Figure 1: Location of the wells on the field

Next, Compressive wave can be determined form the inverse

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Prediction of Pore pressure

DEPTH (FT) POROSITY(FRAC) SHEAR WAVES (FT/S) PORE PRESSURE (PSIG)

You might also like