SPE 150835

Pore Pressure Prediction in Carbonate Reservoirs

V. Atashbari, M.Tingay, Australian School of Petroleum

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Mexico City, Mexico, 1618 April 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Knowledge of pore fluid pressure is essential for safe drilling and efficient reservoir modelling. An accurate estimation of pore
pressure allows for more efficient selection of casing points and a reliable mud weight design. Current commonly used methods of pore pressure prediction are based on the difference between a normal trend in sonic wave velocity, formation resistivity factor (FRF), or d-exponent (a function of drilling parameters) and the observed value of these parameters in overpressured zones. The majority of the techniques are based on shale behaviour, which typically exhibits a strong relationship
between porosity and pore fluid pressure. However, carbonate rocks are stiffer and may contain over-pressures without any
associated influence on porosity. Indeed, the application of common pore pressure prediction methods to carbonate rocks can
yield large and potentially dangerous errors, even suggesting absences or decrease in abnormal pressure in zones of high magnitude over-pressure. In some cases, the hypothesises which been in the conventional methods seems to be flawed in some
cases where pore pressure decreases by depth.
In this research, a new method for effective stress calculation has been obtained using the compressibility attribute of reservoir
rocks. In the case of over-pressure generation by undercompaction (as occurs in most clastic over-pressured sequences), pore
pressure is dependent on the changes in pore space, which is a function of rock and pore compressibility. In simple terms, pore
space decreases while the formation under goes compaction, and this imposes pressure on the fluid which fills the pores. Carbonate reservoirs in two fields in Iran have been investigated to establish pore fluid pressure generation mechanisms, and to
attempt new methods for pore pressure prediction in carbonate rocks.
Introduction
The body of earth is under a mechanically equilibrium, unless any perturbation arises in the stress components. We use the
concept of Terzaghi[1] in his approach to soil mechanics which is valid for rock mass whereas indicates that A body of soil is
in a state of plastic equilibrium if every part of it is on the verge of This means that the moment of rotation with respect to all
dimensions must set to zero.
It is obvious that the stress in the underground alters physical behaviour of the rock, even the drillability and associated parameters (such as penetration rate). In theory, highly stressed formation would be easier to drill since the breaking threshold
becomes lower and as Comb[2] reported, rate of penetration would be higher. However, drilling operation is not such a simple
operation and high pore pressure could cause more friction between the formation and bit or making problem such as kicks or
borehole breakouts. There are also more notable complications in carbonated sediments in which existence of calcium carbonate in the pore space can strengthen the grain-grain contact and/or cause an apparent compaction in the well logs including
high effective stress and lower pore pressure[3]. Moreover, precipitation of calcium carbonate in the pores will reduce pore
space and can impose excess pore pressure in sealed environments.

SPE 150835

This research has tried to discover the main over-pressure generation mechanism, which helps understanding and thinking
of further pore pressure prediction methods.
Pore Pressure Generation
Normally, the pore space in the depositional sequences of the rocks is filled by fluid which might be water, oil, or gas. In
shallow depths, where there is permeation from the buried deposits to the earth surface, the fluid pressure would remain under
balance. One of the main hypotheses in the investigation of pore pressure is considering water to fill the underground pore
space. Thus, the normal hydrostatic is assumed to vary from 0.433 psi/ft for fresh water[4] to 0.44 psi/ft for saltwater[5, 6]. If
the fluid is different type in the majority of the sequences (such as oil), that gradient needs to be adapted for new circumstances. Bruce et al[7] indicated that this gradient may be 0.1 - 0.2 psi/ft for gas and 0.25 - 0.4 for oil. They also declared the gradient to be 0.433 psi/ft for pure water, but is usually 0.45 - 0.465 for formation waters (e.g. 0.465 psi/ft formation pressure gradient has been reported in Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana[8]). Eaton[9, 10] has used 0.465 and considered the range of
0.433~0.465 psi/ft as the hydrostatic pressure gradient in his works. According to the overall n middle east, especially in the
study area, Iran, normal underground water pressure gradient is 0.464 psi/ft.
First, we overview the major possible mechanisms of over-pressure generation mechanisms and then will investigate their
occurrence in carbonates:
a) Loading
As Gretener summarizes from Dickinson[11] and Hubbert and Rubey[12], rapid application of an external load onto a porous system increases the pore pressure. According to the stresses applied, loading can be defined in two types: Sedimentary
and Tectonic. Sedimentary loading can be recognised with a sharp increase in the geothermal gradient[13]. Tectonic loading
also generates over-pressure if the formation fluid has no way out. When the lateral stress exceeds vertical (overburden), the
formation is most likely to go under bending or faulting process.
As Giles[14] has indicates from Yassir & Bell[15], horizontal stresses in passive margins become more isotropic with
depth. Shi et al.[16] also considered all possible causes of over-pressure, and then pointed out the mechanical overloading to
be the main mechanism under normal geological conditions. Despite the undercompaction, early oil migration, dolomitization,
and hydrothermal alteration are known to affect porosity-depth relationships indeed [17].
Concurrently, the process of compaction consisted of several stages as Waples and Couples [18] divided the process of porosity loss is here into four sequential steps:
(1) A load is applied to the system of sediment+pore fluid. In many cases, this load will be the addition of new sediment at
the top of the stratigraphic column.
(2) The framework of grains deforms (yields), leading to a (slight) reduction in pore volume. This step includes simple
grain re-arrangement and 'true' distortional strain.
(3) The contained pore fluid(s) experiences a pressure increase due to the reduction in pore space. This step results in a net
transfer of some of the applied load from the framework grains to the pore fluid.
(4) The now (slightly) over-pressured pore fluid flows to sites with lower potential energy (for example, the surface), if
possible.
Waples[19] believes that Goultys equation which relates the porosity loss to the effective stress does not describe the slow
step in which the over-pressure generates and develops. The process of compaction in a sealed porous media, with the presence of fluid which carries a part of the stress, would be slower than the case of free fluid expulsion. This is what highlights
the role of pore fluid in the porosity loss and forms the over-pressure generation mechanism named disequilibrium compaction.
b) Clay Diagenesis
!"#$%%&%'(%)*+#$&,-.#-&.%&)-$&/$%'0)&12&*&#-$3.#*0&/$*#).1+4&,-1%$&5/16'#)&.%&31/$&710'3.+1'%&)-*+&)-$&/$*#)*+)%4&
#*+&($&)-$&%1'/#$&12&17$/85/$%%'/$&.+&*&%$*0$6&51/1'%&3$6.*9&:+$&12&)-$&31%)&#1331+&#*%$%4&.%&;3$#).)$&)1&<00.)$&)/*+%8
21/3*).1+&(=&,-.#-&,*)$/&.%&5/16'#$6&*%&*&(=85/16'#)9&<+&*&%.350.%).#&.00'%)/*).1+4&)-$&5/1#$%%&>1$%&'+6$/&)-$&21001,.+>&
/$*#).1+&*+6&%13$&$"#$%%&,*)$/&.%&($.+>&>$+$/*)$6&*%&)-$&(=85/16'#)?&
;3$#).)$&@&A0@B&@&C@&D&<00.)$&@&;.@E&&&&&&& &

&

&

!F'*).1+&G&&HIJK&

SPE 150835

Smectite dehydration involves three stages of dewatering whereas the first two stages occur at depths of 0.5-1.5 km[21]
which generally have hydrostatic connection to the surface and no over-pressure to be generated. Third stage occurs at depths
of 3-5 km and has the capability of generating over-pressure ranging from 7 to 100 psi approximately[21].
In a normal depositional conditions which suits most of the fields, over-pressure which can be generated by this transformation has the value of around 100 psi as Swabrick et al investigated [21]. Lahann[22] showed a remarkable difference between the pressure below the top of the clay transition and what could be predicted and related this to the applied a smectite
compaction profile to obtain more accurate predictions. The other chemical process which has been reported that Feldspar
dissolution controls the formation of Kaolinite or Illite if temperature conditions are less or up to 120 C respectively[23].
c)

Other Chemical Reaction

Chemical compaction is explained by thermodynamic principles in terms of a gradient in chemical potential along grain
contacts that drives diffusion of dissolved material into the pore fluid. Driving force for diffusion is also a gradient in chemical
potential.[24]. Secondary porosity is most common in sandstones that have undergone relatively long lasting, deep burial and
have lost their primary porosity[25], thus this mechanism seems to be more important in deeper buried sediments rather than
shallow depths. Sheldon et al[24] noted that the process must ultimately be driven by the difference in stress between grain
contact and pore, because this is the only way in which a gradient in chemical potential, and thus a driving force for diffusion,
can be maintained. Meanwhile, Walderhaug et al[26] challenged this by demonstrating the existence of driving force for aqueous silica diffusion within the clay-induced dissolution quartz cementation model. However, this mechanism doesnt have major role in over-pressure generation, whereas Swabrick et al [21] using the data from Osborne et al [27] evaluated the overpressure potential from this mechanism to vary between 7.0 and 200 psi.
The other chemical reaction which generates over-pressure is hydrate dissolution. Gas hydrates are ice-like compounds
containing gas (usually methane) that is trapped by a cage of water molecules under high pressure and low temperature. A
large portion of gas hydrate bearing sediment is occupied by hydrate that is surrounded by a soil matrix. Gas hydrate dissociation can cause pore water pressure increase in gas hydrate bearing sediments, which results in the decrease of effective
stress[28]. This process has been explained by Sultan [29] whereas he pointed out that due to a temperature and pressure increase, hydrates may dissociate at the top of the hydrate occurrence zone in order to ensure a chemical equilibrium with the
surrounding bulk water. After him, the subject has been more investigated by Xu et al[30] and Sultans comments[31] on their
findings. As Xu et al[30] illustrated in the figure 1, excess pore pressure resulting from dissociation of gas hydrates in confined
space can be as high as several tens of megapascals. In the areas with a tight margin between hydrostatic and lithostatic pressure, this excess pressure would enough to overcome the lithostatic pressure.

Figure 1- Excess pore pressure caused by dissociation of gas hydrates (initially 20% of pore space) is in confined, initially gasfree pore space plotted as a function of the initial pore pressure and the amount of dissociated gas hydrate expressed as the
volume fraction of pore space [30]

SPE 150835

Sultan [31] has also noted that the amount of the pore pressure generated by the hydrate dissolution and dissociation depends 1) on the temperature increase rate and 2) on the ratio of thermal diffusivity to hydraulic diffusivity.
As another chemical processes with the potential of causing over-pressure, transition of gypsum to anhydrite (CaSO4 x
2H2O to CaSO4) in which there is a total volume change of about 50% with the expulsion of water. Normally this change occurs at about 40C, at relatively shallow depths.[32]
Conversely, pressures may be generated by the change from a high density porous rock to a lower density, less porous
rock. A good example of this is dedolomitization. Under the right conditions dolomite (CaMgCO3) will turn into calcite (CaCO3). Since calcite crystals occupy more space than dolomite, with the absence of fractures, they will tend to squeeze out any
remaining pore fluids. Such a condition should only occur when the connate water is replaced by a fresher fluid (which can
also rehydrate gypsum). This process is probably restricted to near surface sediments.[32]
d) Tectonics (Lateral Stress Related Parameters)
Tectonic forces deform the rock and alter the property distribution over the formation. Due to the poor documentation and
study literature on the rock undergoing lateral stress, the magnitude of exerted over-pressure is poorly known[21]. The pressure can be diffused along the extensive inclined permeable aquifers by water and enhance the pore pressure at structural
crests. This process is then termed lateral transfer[33]. This process requires a top seal and high permeability by itself to create
excess pressure in the upper elevations of the layer. But can contribute the over-pressure generation along the other processes.
Goulty[34] has indicated that porosity changes not only by vertical effective stress, but is a function of mean effective
stress which engages three principal stresses in the region. His analysis was for the area in which the maximum stress was vertical. On the other hand, Fault Pumping could generate over-pressure in the porous media in such a way that the formation acts
like a heart and tends to pump fluid from one location to another.
The phase before thrusting, can also induce pore pressure in a sealed media. In the foreland basins of active mountain
building thrust belts, the horizontal stresses can reach twice the overburden before faulting occurs, any of that stress which acts
directly on the pore fluids must necessarily cause excess pressure. The Qum oilfield in Iran is one of the best examples of
pressure in the base of a thrust[35]. Lateral transfer as a main over-pressure generation mechanism have been reported by
Henning et al[36] in Papua New Guinea, and Yardley and Swarbrick[37] in North Sea.
e)

Kerogen Transformation

The volume of hydrocarbon changes during the process in which kerogen transforms to oil or gas, and during the process
of oil cracking to gas [21]. The magnitude of this volumetric change depends upon the kerogen type, abundance of organic
matter, temperature history, and rock permeability. However, these processes may be self-limiting in a sealed system because
buildup of pressure could inhibit further organic metamorphism[38]. Swabrick et al [21] has calculated over-pressure potential
by Kerogen Transformation ranging between 70 and 6000 psi. According to their evaluation, Gas Generation could lead to
over-pressure less than 1000 psi indeed. Osborne and Swabrick[38] also stated the role of reduction in solid/fluid ratio during
the kerogen maturation which reduces the pore space (by hydrocarbon extraction from source rock).Tingay et al[39] observed
an over-pressure magnitude of 1250 psi (0.14 psi/ft) caused by gas generation in the gulf of Thailand.
f)

Aquathermal Pressuring

A fluid will see an increase in the volume when the temperature goes up, while it could be due to the changes in the water
composition (i.e. the amount of dissolved solids) or fluid dilatation. Despite the fact that pure aquathermal pressuring occurs
when the formation is heated in a constant depth [40] and this will not happen in real world, this mechanism may add up the
overall pressure which caused by loading. Osborn and Swabrick believed that fluids volume increases associated with
aquathermal expansion and clay dehydration are too small to generate significant over-pressure unless perfect sealing occurs
[38]. Moreover, the rate of volume change caused by aquathermal expansion, produces approximately 100 psi over-pressure
under a typical range of basin conditions[21].
For the sequences which the hydrocarbon is migrated from the other formations, thermal evolution cant be considered as a
main source of the pressure generation. It gets more complicated when we note that the hydrocarbon has been generated in
lower sequences (with higher temperature gradient) and now is in upper elevation (lower temperature gradient). Thus pressure

SPE 150835

lowering, must be expected also. As Luo and Vasseur [41] concluded, in practical geopressure studies, the pressuring effect of
aquathermal factor could be neglected.
g) Hydrology
Hydraulic Head and Buoyancy Force are phenomena can also create over-pressure in the underground formations. By definition, Hydraulic head or piezometric head is a specific measurement of water pressure above a geodetic datum [42]. For instance, hydraulic head in the depth of 2000m, could be around 2900 psi.
Hydrocarbon buoyancy has the potential of over-pressure generation by knowing the fluid contacts and associated gradients in the flied. A simple example in North sea has been demonstrated by Osborne and Swabrick[38] showing 607 psi overpressure resulting from the differences between density of water, oil and gas.

Figure 2- Diagram illustrating the maximum pressures that would be generated by hydrocarbon buoyancy in Field A (Scale of
pressure has been manipulated).

Gas Bubbles generation (in the case of two fluids with different densities) also imposes excess pressure on top of the denser fluid while the lighter one transports the hydrostatic pressure (by the quantity of !gh) from the bottom of the system to top.
This increase in pressure has been named advective over-pressure by Sahagian and Proussevitch [43]. The effect of this
mechanism needs more investigation in terms of the compressibility of gas and surrounding fluid, as well as solubility of gas
in liquid.
h) Osmosis
Osmosis is The process by which molecules of water or another solvent tend to pass through a semi-permeable membrane
into a region of greater solute concentration, so as to make the concentrations on the two sides of the membrane more nearly
equal [44]. Subsequently, in the case of existing a clay membrane, passage of both cations and anions through pores of the
compacted membrane would be inhibited due to The resultant positive and negative layers [45]. If shale acts as semipermeable membrane between different aquifers (different in salinity), the osmotic pressure can generate excess pressure in
the pores which could reach values of several thousand psi. The main controlling parameters in the osmotic process are the
concentration of soluble particles and capacity of membrane in exchanging the ions. Osborne and Swabrick [38] theoretically
evaluated the maximum osmotic pressure which could be generated in North Sea area to be 435 psi. Moreover, Neuzil [46]
reported Calculated equilibrium osmotic pressures that could be generated by Pierre Shale in central South Dakota, USA to be
at 10% porosity which is 2900 psi. Osborne and Swabrick [38] also revealed the result of direct measurement in shale cores

SPE 150835

from Bradley [47] showing osmotic pressure being only 24 psi. This supports the conclusion that osmotic process can not be
a major source of over-pressure in sedimentary basins.
In summation, the following table has the record of the some examples of significant observed or modelled over-pressure
caused by abovementioned mechanisms:
Table 1 Observed Over-pressure magnitude of several mechanisms
Mechanism
Compaction Disequilibrium
Tectonics - Faulting
Tectonics (Lateral
Stress Related Parameters)
Gas Generation from
Oil
Buoyancy
Osmosis

Pore Pressure (psi)

0.99 psi/ft
0.99 psi/ft
0.79
Psi/ft
0.7 psi/ft
148 psi
4 psi

Over-pressure
(psi)
0.44 psi/ft
0.52 psi/ft

Pore Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.99 psi/ft
0.99 psi/ft

Location/Formation

Reported By:

Field B of This
study west of Iran
Alborz field, central
Iran

Morley[48], Hieller[32]

0.79 psi/ft
0.37 psi/ft
0.14 psi/ft
0.1 psi/ft

0.7 psi/ft
0.65 psi/ft

Papua New Guinea

Henning et al
[36]

Gulf of Thailand

Tingay et al[39]

North Sea

Osborne and
Swabrick [38]
Bradley [47]

Over-pressure Generation in Carbonates

Abnormal pore pressure generation differs from field to field due to particular depositional circumstances and geological
conditions. Even two adjacent fields in the same basin can get under different mechanisms of hydrodynamics. Although, according to the broad overview of regional reported evidences, it is possible to categorize the main causing parameters.
Looking back on the enormous investigations of the pore pressure generation mechanism, would point the significance of
the compaction disequilibrium in generating the majority of the over-pressure magnitude. Accordingly, Mann and
Machenzie[49] realized that the compaction disequilibrium is the predominant cause of most large over-pressures observed in
sediments. Hence, they concluded that the variation in pore pressure can be obtained by concentrating on the compaction disequilibrium while the other processes could be ignored. This has been the dominant conclusion in subject literature as well (i.e.
[21, 38, 49]). Although this is usually correct, but one must note the specific conditions in which chemical reactions causse a
huge amount of pore pressure, such as Bowers[50] who considered a fairly rigid, well-compacted rock matrix that can adequately constrain the pore fluid and concluded that fluid expansion is more likely to be an important source of over-pressure at
deeper depths, where rocks are stiffer. He never ignored the compaction, but tried to highlight the role of fluid expansion. As
another examples, kerogen conversion has been reported as the main over-pressure mechanism in Alborz field, Central Iran by
Gretener[51] but many other researches claimed tectonics to be the main causing parameter in that (such as Morley et al[48] or
Hillier[32]).
So it seems that vertical stress and (overburden pressure) cant be the sole cause of over-pressure, but in the areas with the
dominant undercompaction mechanism, this approach with some considerations still explains the basin and predicts pore pressure. But this concept still needs more studies. As an example, Weller [52] stated that there is no consistent relation between
porosity and depth of burial in carbonates. He challenged the compaction of the limestones to have less evidence while initial
porosity of calcareous sediments is more than sand. This might be due to lack of broken fossils in the limestone he observed,
but as Shinn et al[53] showed, carbonate sediments could get through a large amount of compaction while the shells and fossils remain preserved. They reported a compression of 75% for carbonate wackestone under the pressure of 7,937 psi acted on
the core sample for 3 weeks. Even for the porosity-based studies, it must be noted that Experimental, observational, and geochemical data show that porosity loss through burial diagenesis results from both physical and chemical (post-diagenesis)
compaction and from cementation[17, 54]. Even in the process of undercompaction which denotes a close dependency of the
porosity on sedimentation and in carbonates, other porosity lost reasons must be noted. Qiuguo et al [54] believed that postdiagenesis does not directly reflect compaction. Therefore conventional pore pressure methods using normal compaction trend
would be useless. It should be noted that the amount of over-pressure generated by undercompaction depends upon the relative
compressibility of the rock matrix and the pore fluid whereas undercompaction will typically generate the greatest overpressure at shallower depths, where formations are still soft[50]. Although the quantity of the pressure imposed on the fluid in
hard rock (deeper formations with higher bulks modulus, less compressibility) is less than shallower formations, if the seal
provides an isolated media, pore pressure can increase by significant amounts. On the other hand, all processes which lead to
compaction must be investigated regarding the depositional time and condition to find out the exact Fluid Retention Depth

SPE 150835

(FRD), where the over-pressure begins to generate. Indeed, as Waples et al[18] stated, porosity reduction (or the term mostly
used, compaction) is not a direct consequence of effective stress but also fluid expulsion as well. Thus, a precise coupled model must be used for the modelling.
Based on the geological and depositional conditions, other mechanisms of pore pressure generation can be ignored in the
carbonate sediments. For instance, since the reservoirs are sealed, there is no connectivity to the surface fluid and hydraulic
head cannot be a mechanism, or as Yardley et al[37] reported, lateral transfer does not act as the main over-pressure mechanism.
Some examples of over-pressure observation are shown in the following table:

Field

Table 2- Over-pressure observations in carbonate sediments

Location

Formation

Qum Limestone

Alborz

Central Iran

Kenkiyak

Kazakhstan

Carboniferous
Limestone

Field B
of this
studywest of
Iran
Several
Fields in
North
Sea

Southwest
Iran

Gachsaran Chalk

North Sea

Chalk

Main Mechanism of
Over-pressure Generation
Kerogen/Hydrocarbon
Transformation
Tectonic - Thrust

Fluid
Pressure
(psi)

Overpressure
(psi)

Other Contributing
Mechanisms

Reported by

Mutual influence of
hydrocarbon generation from source rock,
undercompaction,
basement uplift (tectonic)
Disequilibrium Compaction

11,603

7350

4230

Field Owner [57]

Disequilibrium Compaction

7200

1450 (up to
2900)

Jaspen [58]

Gretener [51]
8000

4000

trap timingmigration[48]

Hillier [32], Tabari

[55], Morley et al
[48]
Yefei et al [56]

Methods for Pore Pressure Prediction:

In the early stages of pore pressure prediction, Eaton[9] developed his technique by comparing the normal and observed
quantities for resistivity and sonic wave travel time, each by considering a practical correlation constant. He stated that the
pore pressure gradient is a function of ratio between the normal and observed amounts. Then he proposed the following relations as the accurate approach to pore pressure:
!

!!
!

!!
!

!!
!

! ! !!!! &
!!

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&I&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&B

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&E

Where P is the pore pressure, D is the depth, "v is the vertical (overburden) stress, Pn is the normal hydrostatic pressure, Ro
and Rn are the observed and normal resistivity respectively. Eatons method has had relations using the drilling parameters (the
exponential constant to be set on 1.20) and the sonic wave travel time as below:
!

!!
!

!!
!

!!
!

!!! !
!!!

! &&

Using the same terms as previous equation, he introduced #Tn and #To as the normal and observed travel time respectively. This technique requires accurate estimation of normal trends in the key parameters (to obtain the normal value) as well as
trial and error approach to find the best fit for the exponential constant which has been assumed to be 1.5, 1.2 and 3 for resistivity, drilling parameters and sonic wave travel time formulas.
Eatons concept has been considered in other techniques using the d-exponent and. The method compares the observed and
normal trend of this parameter. D-exponent is a function of rate of penetration (R), weight on bit (W), torque (N) and bit diameter (Db) defined by this equation[59]:
!!

!
!
!"#
!"#
!"#!! ! !
!" !"

!"#!!

&&

&

SPE 150835

Rehm and McClendon[60] introduced a modified d-exponent including mud weight:

!!

!
!"!
!"!
!"#
!"! !

!"#

!"!

!"!"#!

!& &

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&L

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&M

Where MWn is normal mud weight gradient for the area and MWact. is the equivalent circulating density or mud weight in
use.
Bower incorporated Eatons idea for vertical stress and unloading curve (obtaining effective vertical stress) to calculate the
pore pressure which is the difference between these two values. He proposed an empirical relation as follow:
!!" !

!!!"""
!

&

Where "vc is the effective vertical stress at which the sonic velocity intersects the virgin (normal) compaction curve, A and
B to be found from fitting data. Same as Eaton, Bowers old and revised method[61] also uses the normal trend combined with
equivalent depth technique.
Qiuguo et al[54] used a method based on relationship between the ratio of compressional and shear wave velocity and effective stress, Poissons ratio and vertical effective stress. Their method is based on the phenomena has been reported by
Gregory[62] in figure 3, with a concept by which sonic shear wave (Vs) is more sensitive to the pore fluid pressure than primary wave (Vp).

Figure 3 Effects of fluid saturation and confining pressure on P-wave and S-wave velocities found in suite of consolidated sedimentary rocks. [54]

Martinez [63] has proposed a method using the hypothesis that Formation pressures are assumed to be proportional to the
compressional velocity as follows:
!! ! !!

!"!"#$ !!"!

!"!"#$ !!"!"#"

!!!!!!

!F'*).1+&N

!" ! !!!"#!!! !!
! ! !!!! ! ! ! !

Where Pp is pore pressure in psi, "v is overburden pressure in psi, Vpmax and Vpmin are the velocity of the compressional
wave for grain (matrix) and pore fluid respectively. Vpi is the recorded velocity and can be either in m/s or ft/s. !i is the average bulk density in g/cm3 and Z is depth in feet.
The methods abovementioned have been used by local adjustments in different geographic areas, but not always with desired outcomes, especially in carbonate formations. Comparison of main methods as well as the other existing methods including the case studies and error statistics have been conducted before (for example see Gutierrez et al[64]). Between the existing
options, there are still two methods in the literature pretending to have solution for complicated carbonate rock types:

SPE 150835

Weakly[65] used Eatons concept, but using the sonic wave velocity trends with respect to gamma ray responses in shaley
direction (the peaks in the gamma ray as the lithology changing index) to obtain particular normal compaction trend, NCT, for
each formation.
Holbrook[66] also proposed a method for naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR) as below:
!!"" ! !!"# !! ! !!!!

!F'*).1+&O

Where the two in situ stress/strain coefficients "max and $ are physically meaningful constants. They are natural compaction resistance properties of the individual minerals, so called compaction resistance sedimentary rock properties[67]. is the
porosity. Holbrook claimed that "max and $ being 12,000 psi and 13.00 will work with limestone.

Discussion on the conventional methods:

The idea of most techniques for pore pressure prediction has been developed based on the soil consolidation theory which
the describing mechanism was proposed by Karl Terzaghi. First, he showed that the results of an unconfined compression test
on a perfectly undisturbed sample are approximately the same as those of a consolidated-undrained test performed on the same
sample[1]. To study the compaction, weve used plasticity theory to model the deformations caused by overburden stress. As
Giles et al.[14] discussed, there is possibility to use this theory for some kind of sands which behave plastic like under low
stress, like Sandstones without quartz, particularly mudstone clasts and intergranular clays. Since the condition in which the
moderate type of the carbonate basins deposits can be categorized as deep / under high stress zone, then the deformation type
would be plastic. As they also discuss, the creeping and deformation in the rock samples are mostly mechanical process rather
than being chemical (solution). Moreover, deformation can be studied in terms of pore and solid phase (grain+matrix) changes
such a way that it can be divided into two main parameters: hard and soft portion of the poroelastic medium as Liu et al.
[68] used it for their conceptual study. This division has been used by Berryman[69] and Mavko et al [70] as well.
The equation which Terzaghis equation introduced for effective stress in soil is:
!!"" ! !! ! !!! &

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&P&

Where Pp is Pore Pressure, "v the vertical stress (overburden stress), and $ the Biots Poroelastic constant. $ is defined
as the ratio of the fluid volume gained (or lost) in a material element to the volume change of that element, when the pore
pressure is allowed to return to its initial state[71] and is considered to be 1 in routine calculations which implies the same
amount of volumetric change as the amount of produced fluid (if the rock is not sealed). It means that all the imposed stress
will be released by the exiting fluid from the pores. This is not true, because the stress will change the amount of Biots constant and this becomes more important for the sealed porous media. Simple case analysis will show a notable variation potential of variable $. For instance, every 0.1% change in $, will result 0.87% difference in "eff. Consequently, 8.7% increase in the
effective stress, if elastic constant decreases by 10%.
To show the outcome of such simplifications of the equations by ignoring Biots constant, we went of some well-known
equations:
Biots constant can be achieved by the following relation introduced in several works [71, 72]:
!! ! !

!!

!F'*).1+&GJ

!!

Where Cr and Cb are the compressibility of rock matrix and bulk frame respectively and $ is called the Biots poroelastic
constant. Both compressibilities vary by changing the stress (i.e. confining pressure).
Matrix compressibility can be obtained by this relation as VanGolf [73] mentioned in his book :
!! !

!!!

!! & &

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GG&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GI&

Substituting equation Equation 11 in 10, $ can be defined as a function of porosity:

!! ! !

!!!

& &

10

SPE 150835

This relation means that, as shown in figure 4, for the porosities more than 50%, the Biots constant will have negative value.

"#$%
"%

-%

&#$%
&%

!&#$%
!"%
!"#$%

&%

&#"%

&#'%

&#(%

&#)%

&#$%

&#*%

&#+%

&#,%

./0/1234%
Figure 4 results of equation 6, Biots constant as a function of porosity.

The reason for this error is where we neglect $ in the calculations. Moreover, Vangolf considers this relation between the
compressibility of pore and bulk frame:
!

!! ! !! &
!

&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GB&

&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GE

&

&

&

Where Cp and Cb are the compressibility of pore and bulk frame, and % is the porosity. In fact, this relation must be as follows:
!! !!

!!
!

&

&

The missing factor is $ which has significant role in realizing the physical behaviour of the porous media.
Indeed, for the porosity based techniques of pore pressure prediction, the geology of the basin and depositional environment have a great control on the porosity evolution versus depth. Concordantly, sandstones, shales and carbonates may have
totally different porosity vs. depth trends. Normal trend is required to estimate the porosity loss of the rock mass in the formation against the loading stress. The majority of the depth related functions are of the exponential form, and sometimes, same
relation is used for the sandstone and carbonates ( i.e. [74-78]) regardless the difference in the nature and depositional environment. one of the most used relations is this equation proposed by Giles et al[14] to define Normal Compaction Trend as a
function of initial porosity and effective stress (can be construed as mean effective stress),:
! ! !! !!!!!!!""!
!

&& &

!!"" ! !!! ! !! ! !! !&&

!

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GL&

!F'*).1+&GM&

Where 0 is the initial stress, "eff is effective stress, and Cp is the pore compressibility, "v is vertical overburden stress, "H
and "h are maximum and minimum horizontal stresses respectively. Effective stress which is used here, or the one which
Goulty[34] used in his work, is based on Terzaghis equation, considering hydrostatic pressure to be the pore pressure and then
extract it from total stress. Meanwhile, another problem in studying real compaction arises when one tries to find out the mean
effective stress which leads to rock compression.
New Method
All over-pressure generation mechanisms could generate over-pressure if the conditions, main factors which are seal and
time, are in the favour. Considering the seal to exist during the later stages of deposition, it must be a matter of time to figure
out whether a particular mechanism leads to over-pressure as analysis expected or not. Over-pressure generation seems to be a

SPE 150835

11

young phenomenon. Since fluid pressure in the old sediments cant be preserved for long time, the depositional environment
should be studied in a short period of geological time, i.e. 5 million years.
We started out analysis by simple definitions. Zimmerman [79] has introduce four sets of compressibilities for two independent volumes and two pressures; weve select both of them. In these equations, first subscript of variables indicates the
relevant volume change, and the second subscript indicates the pressure which varies.
!!" !

!! !!!

!!! !!! !
!
!! !!!
!!! !!!

!!" !

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GN&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GO&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&GP&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&IJ&

&& &

&

&

&

!!

&

&

The superscript i is for the initial state of the media (before compression). b and p denote bulk and pore. Combining
those two equations together will give us the following relation:
!!" !"!

!!! !

!!"

&& &

We assumed the infinitesimally small and equal size of increments for all independent variables (pore pressure and confining pressure), so differentiation could result in:
&!!! !

!!" !"!
!!"

&&&

Bulk frame and pore compressibilities are known from special core analysis (SCAL), but since the test is taken by keeping
pore pressure as constant, the term in denominator (Cbp) is unknown. We tried to find relations to fix this. Zimmerman[79]
demonstrated the relation between the bulk compressibility due to pore and confining pressure.
!!" ! !!" ! !!

!F'*).1+&IG

&

Where Cr is matrix compressibility. We use the compressibility of the matrix which has been demonstrated by Vangolf[73]
!! !

!!!"
!!!

&&

&

&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&II&

Where % is the porosity. Putting all together, we define the pressure difference which is imposed to the porous media as a
function of the compressibility and porosity.
!!! !

!!!!!!!" !"!

!F'*).1+&IB

!!! !!" !!!!"

We add an exponential constant to this equation to correlate it for different geological fields and propose the following
equation to predict the pore pressure using compressibilities:
!! !

!!!!!!! !!""!

!!! !! !!!!

& &

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&IE&

&

&

&

!F'*).1+&IL

Where Pp is pore pressure, fractional % is porosity, Cb is bulk compressibility in psi-1, Cp is pore compressibility in psi-1, "eff
is the effective overburden pressure (overburden pressure-hydrostatic pressure) in psi, and & is empirical constant ranging
from 0.9 to 1.0.
Concurrently, one can solve equation 23 for porosity to obtain the normal porosity of the formation. Porosity can be
achieved from:
!!

!!" !!! !!!" !!"

!!" !!! !!!" !!! !!!" !!"

&

Along our above our new approach, it must be noted that Giles equation (equation 15) for porosity prediction, works fairly
well in carbonates as we evaluated, with around more than 90% accuracy.

12

SPE 150835

The results of compressibility method are discrete values, since the core data are in some specific depth intervals. But if
other methods utilize the approach by good estimation of rock properties from seismic or well log data, it will consequently
provide better understanding of the reservoir.
Case Study - Iranian Carbonate Reservoir
Filed A
Filed A is located in southwest of Iran, with two oil bearing sequences: Ilam and Fahliyan reservoirs. The formation which
weve studied, Fahliyan, is conformably overlain by Gadvan Formation and underlain by the Hith and Surmeh formations in
the subsurface and outcrop sections, respectively and towards to Southwest of Khuzestan, this carbonate dominated formation
changes to shaly Garu Formation[80]. The formation, of Lower Cretaceous Neocomian age, is mostly composed by Limestone. Shale streaks are present in very limited amount, mainly within the upper part of the reservoir. The reservoir is capped
by the shale layers of the Lower Gadvan Fm. Fahliyan formation in this field has about 880 m thickness.
The reservoir in this formation has no gas cap and around 270 m of hydrocarbon column.
Like the other anticlines in Zagros folding zone, the orientation of maximum horizontal stress "Hmax is in NE-SW direction and minimum horizontal stress in the direction of NW-SE.
Fahliyan is a limestone formation in uppermost JurassicCretaceous; Tithonian to Hauterivian which consists of massive
gray to brown oolitic or pelletal limestone resting disconformably upon Jurassic strata [81]. The formation has been explained
briefly by James and Wynd [82] in 1965. In field A, Fahliyan is on top of Garu formation and under the Gadvan formation
with a discontinuous boundary. Fahliyan formation also has outcrops in different locations in southwest and central Iran. The
porosity of formation decreases by moving from Khuzestan (southwest) towards Lorestan (Central Iran)[83].

Figure 5- Sequential schematic diagrams showing evolution of the Zagros proforeland basin in response to Zagros tectonic
events. Dashed line is a reference line showing axis of the forebulge. Large arrows show the direction of forebulge migration.
[81]

Oil and gas field in this region are the product of Zagros folding, as a result of Arabian plates movement towards Eurasian
plate with the maximum horizontal stress in Southwest-Northeast direction. A schematic of the depositional environment has
been illustrated below:

SPE 150835

13

Figure 6- Subdivisions of the Zagros orogenic belt. Abbreviations: AD Arak depression; DR Dezful recess; EAF East Anatolian Fault; FS Fars salient; GKD Gav Khooni depression; KR Karkuk recess; LS Lorestan salient; MAC Makran accretionary
complex; MFF Mountain front flexure; MZT Main Zagros Thrust; OL Oman Line; PTC-CCS Paleo-Tethyan continentcontinent collisional suture; SD Sirjan depression; SRRB Saveh-Rafsanjan retroforeland basin; SSZ Sanandaj-Sirjan zone;
ZTZ Zagros thrust zone; UDMA UrumiehDokhtar magmatic assemblage; ZDF Zagros deformational front; ZFTB Zagros
fold-thrust belt; ZIZ Zagros imbricate zone; ZS Zagros suture. Hydrocarbon fields of the region, oil in green and gas in red, are
shown. [84]

The porosity caused by dolomitization, intergranular porosity, dissolution porosity, and cracks after stylolitization controlled the permeability and pay zone characteristics in Fahliyan formation. This has been studied by Kavoosi et al [85]. The
quality of reservoir is controlled by secondary porosities due to dolomitization and Stylolitization. Other types of porosities
occupied by later cementations had no contribution in reservoir quality.[86]Fahliyan has totally variable porosity and permeability over the wide range of its existence, but in average, it has lower permeability than Ilam and Sarvak formations. I field A,
it shows better quality and the permeability ranges between 30 and 45 md.

Figure 7 (A) Field view of the Fahliyan Formation at type section; brecciation in the basal portion is the sedimentological evidence of subaerial exposure; (B) limestone outcroups at the top of the Fahliyan Formation (type section) [87]

Pore Pressure in field A (Fahliyan Limestone):

Field A has the around 3000 psi over-pressure magnitude in average.
The over-pressure is not due to kerogen transformation, while the source rock is not the same as in the reservoir.

14

SPE 150835

The amount of clay minerals within the Fahliyan formation of field A are negligible, so chemical reaction of clay diagenesis can't be a cause of over-pressure in this field.
Osmotic pressure mostly is not a major mechanism in hydrocarbon reservoirs, and here, due to the lack of membrane layers (or sub-layers), it is out of consideration.
Over-pressure generated by the buoyancy effect can reach up to 90 psi in the wells spotted the crest, as shown in figure 2.
According to Rabbanis [88] study on the samples, in this field, Kerogen type II has been formed in Garu formation in
lower Cretaceous, which is also a carbonate formation. Garu is in lower elevation where the temperature would be higher than
Fahliyan according the temperature gradient. Thus, kerogen transformation cannot be a over-pressure generation mechanism in
Darquain field.
As shown in the following graph, Average Temperature gradient from GL to 3900m is 2.3 C/100m and from 3900 to
4400m is 6 C/100m. The maximum temperature difference in this field occurs in the wells drilled in the crest, where the temperature difference between top of the formation and water-oil contact is 12 degrees centigrade. This is from the time in which
the seal can be existed. Theoretical pressure which generated by this process could be estimated by Barker[89] diagram. Although it results significant amount of pressure in calculation, but many conditions, one of the most important is the seal, need
to be present to let the aquthermal expansion cause over-pressure. On the other hand, the effect of this temperature has been
seen in the thermal metamorphism processes (such as kerogen transformation which is a function of the kerogen nature and the
temperature) in the fluid. So as Osborne and Swabrick[38] stated, aquathermal expansion is unlikely to be a major overpressure mechanism. Addition to this, we know that the oil has been formed in lower formations which has had higher temperature and migrated to Fahliyan formation which has lower temperature. This cant induce over-pressure due to the contraction
of the liquid.
We evaluated the pore pressure in field A by equation 24 and setting ' to 0.97. the following graphs are the outcome of the
calculation where follows the real field observations.

Figure 8- Field A pore pressure prediction. ! is set to 0.97

SPE 150835

15

Field B:
The next case study, Field B, is located in the west of Iran, with oil reservoir in Sarvak formation (Middle Cretaceous). In
the existing well, Sarvak formation had a thickness of 637 meters, mainly consisted of Limestone (Mudstone, Wackestone,
Packstone and Grainstone), Calcerous Dolomite, Dolomite, Marl and Shale. 85% of the formation is Limestone, 10% Marl,
and the rest from other rock types. Field B is also a part of the structures resulted from the Zagros folding (figure 6),
Sarvak formation has several outcrops in different location in Iran, one is in the areas near the field B, in Lorestan. Sarvak
formation is divided into upper and lower sections (Lower Sarvak has been divided into six lithostratigraphic units as well).
The sequences can be distinguished clearly in the following outcrop images:

Figure 9 a) A succession of the Bangestan Group from Upper Sarvak to Ilam Formations in Lurestan Area, SW Iran[90] B) Typical submarine incision between upper and lower Sarvak Formation[91]

Pore Pressure in field B (Sarvak Limestone):

Pore pressure in Sarvak formation has two behaviours whereas in upper Sarvak, 2300 psi overpressyre has been observed,
while in lower Sarvak, it is only to 530 psi (23% of the upper section).
Same as the previous case in field A, Over-pressure is not due to kerogen transformation, while the source rock is not the
same as in the reservoir.
Consequently, clay diagenesis did not cause the over-pressure of Sarvak formation in field B, since a few traces of clay
minerals have been detected.
Osmotic pressure in this field also, is out of consideration due to the lack of such membranes.
Over-pressure generated by the buoyancy effect can reach up to 130 psi in the wells spotted the crest.
Three sets of cores have been collected from the limestone intervals and based on the studies on them, Sargelu formation,
Garau formation and Ahmadi member (Early Cenomanian member of Sarvak formation are nominated to be The source rock
for Sarvak formation in this area [92, 93]. Thus, kerogen transformation cannot be a over-pressure generation mechanism here.
Temparature varies between 100 and 125 degrees Celsius from the top of formation to the end. Same case as field A, since
oil has been formed in lower formations which has had higher temperature and migrated to Sarvak formation which has lower
temperature, over-pressure cannot be generated by aquathermal mechanism.

16

SPE 150835

Figure 10- Field A pore pressure prediction. ! is set to 0.99

Conclusion
This research focused on the compression mechanism of the compaction and based on the broad overview of the overpressure mechanisms around the world and two case studies, has concluded that the main over-pressure generation mechanism
is undercompaction disequilibrium in carbonate sediments. Since sealed porous media contains pore fluid which cannot escape
from, over-pressure will be generated and the magnitude is controlled by the compressibility attribute of the rock and fluid.
An analysis based on the definition of compressibility and its implications as porosity loss due to principal stresses has
been provided which helps the reservoir modellers for better understanding and evaluating the reservoir properties. A correlation constant has been defined to adjust the result of the calculation with the field data.
This method of pore pressure prediction is based on the detected values of rock bulk and pore compressibility which are
obtained from special core analysis and limited to the areas in which the cores are available. Since this type of data are not
available in all wells, further researches may improve the techniques by estimating compressibilities from well logs or other
kind of in hand information, such as what has been done by Khatchikian[94] to drive pore-volume compressibility from well
logs.
Nomenclature:
A
B
Cb
Cbc
Cbp
Cp
Cr

= Constant From Fitting Data

=
Constant From Fitting Data
=
Rock Bulk Compressibility
=
Bulk Compressibility versus Confining Pressure
=
Bulk Compressibility versus Pore Pressure
=
Pore Compressibility
=
Rock Matrix Compressibility

SPE 150835

D
d
Db
Mwact
Mwn
N

0
Pc
Pn
Pp
R
Rn
Ro
Vb
Vp
Vpi
Vpmax
Vpmin
Vs
W
Z
!1
"
#tn
#to
$eff
$H
$h

17

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Depth
D-Exponent
Bit Diameter
Equivalent Circulating Mud Weight
Normal Mud Weight Gradient
Torque
Porosity
Initial Porosity
Confining Pressure
Normal Hydrostatic Pressure
Pore Pressure
Rate Of Penetration
Normal Resistivity
Observed Resistivity
Bulk Volume
Compressional Wave Velocity
Recorded Compressional Wave Velocity
Compressional Wave Velocity For Rock Grains
Compressional Wave Velocity For Rock Pores
Shear Wave Vlocity
Weight On Bit
Depth
Physically Constants
Correlation Constant
Normal Travel Time
Observed Travel Time
Effective Stress
Maximum Horizontal Stress
Minimum Horizontal Stress

18

SPE 150835

$max
$v
$vc

=
=
=

References:

Compaction Resistance
Vertical (Overburden) Stress
Effective Vertical Stress At Which The Sonic Velocity Intersects Normal Compaction Curve

Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 1967: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Comb, G., PREDICTION CIF PORE PRESSURE FROM PENETRATION RATE, in 43rd Annual Fall Meetingof the Societyof
Petroleum Engineers of AIME. 1968: Houston, Texas.
3.
Halliburton, Drillworks.
4.
Crain, E.R.R. Crain's Petrophysical Handbook.
[cited 2011 23/12/2011]; Available from: 5336788999#16:;'&&&#<:38"&!
60:11=0:#53>.
5.
Pore Pressure Gradient, in Wikipedia. 2011.
6.
Barree and Associates, GOHFER. 2011.
7.
Bruce, B. and G. Bowers, Pore Pressure Terminology. The Leading Eadge, 2002.
8.
Dickey, P.A., C.R. Shriram, and W.R. Paine, Abnormal Pressure in Deep Wells of Southern Lousiana. 1968.
9.
Eaton, B.A., The Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology,
1972(08).
10.
Eaton, B.A., The Equation for Geopressured Prediction from Well Logs, in 50thAnnualFall Meetingof the Societyof Petroleum
Engineers of AIME. 1975: Dallas, Texas.
11.
Dickinson, G., Geological Aspects of Abnormal Reservoir Pressure in Gulf Coast Luisiana. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin. 1953.
12.
Hubbert, M.K. and W.W. Rubey, Role Of Fluid Pressure In Mechanics Of Overthrust Faulting. 1961: The Geological Society of
America, Inc.
13.
Jones, P.H., Hydrodynamics of Geopressuredin the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1969.
14.
Giles, M.R., S.L. Indrelid, and D.M.D. James, Compaction - The Great Unknown in Basin Modelling. Geological society, London,
Special Publications, 1998. 141.
15.
Yassir, N.A. and J.S. Bell, Relationships between pore pressure, stresses, and present-day geodynamics in the Scotian Shelf,
offshore Eastern Canada. AAPG Bulletin, 1994. 78(12): p. 1863-1880.
16.
shi, Y. and C.-Y. Wang, Pore Pressure Generation in Sedimentary Basins: Overloading Versus Aquathermal. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 1986. 91(B2): p. 10.
17.
Scholle, P.A. and R.B. Halley, Burial diagenesis: Out of sight, out of mind! SHORT COURSES IN GEOLOGY, 1989. 4.
18.
Waples, D.W. and G.D. Couples, Some thoughts on porosity reduction rock mechanics, over-pressure and fluid flow.
Geological society, London, Special Publications, 1998. 141(1): p. 73-81.
19.
Waples, D.W., Mechanisms for generating over-pressure in sedimentary basins: A reevaluation: Discussion. AAPG Bulletin,
2001. 85(12): p. 2118.
20.
HOWER, J., et al., Mechanism of burial metamorphism of argillaceous sediment: 1. Mineralogical and chemical evidence.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1976. 87(5): p. 725-737.
21.
Swarbrick, R.E., M.J. Osborne, and G.S. Yardley, Comparison of Over-pressure Magnitude Resulting from the Main Generating
Mechanisms, in Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction
A. Huffman and G. Bowers, Editors. 2002, American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
22.
Lahann, R., Impact of Smectite Diagenesis on Compaction Modeling and Compaction Equilibrium, in Pressure Regimes in
Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction, A. Huffman and G. Bowers, Editors. 2002, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. p. 61-72.
23.
Meunier, A., B. Velde, and B. Velde, Illite: origins, evolution, and metamorphism. 2004.
24.
Sheldon, H.A., et al., An Analysis of the Roles of Stress, Temperature, and pH in Chemical Compaction of Sandstones. Journal of
Sedimentary Research, 2003. 73(1): p. 64-71.
25.
SCHMIDT, V. and D.A. MCDONALD, THE ROLE OF SECONDARY POROSITY IN THE COURSE OF SANDSTONE
DIAGENESIS, in Aspects of Diagenesis. 1979, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology). p. 175-207.
26.
Walderhaug, O., E.H. Oelkers, and P.A. Bjrkum, An Analysis of the Roles of Stress, Temperature, and pH in Chemical
Compaction of Sandstones: Discussion. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2004. 74(3): p. 447-449.
27.
Osborne, M.J. and R.E. Swarbrick, Diagenesis in North Sea HPHT clastic reservoirs consequences for porosity and over-pressure
prediction. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1999. 16.
28.
Park, S.-S., Prediction of excess pore pressure due to dissociation of gas hydrate within sandy soils. International Journal of the
Physical Sciences, 2011. 6(5): p. 971-974.
29.
Sultan, N., et al., Effect of gas hydrates melting on seafloor slope instability. Marine Geology, 2004. 213: p. 379-401.
30.
Xu, W. and L.N. Germanovich, Excess pore pressure resulting from methane hydrate dissociation in marine sediments: A
theoretical approach. J. Geophys. Res., 2006. 111(B1): p. B01104.
31.
Sultan, N., Comment on Excess pore pressure resulting from methane hydrate dissociation in marine sediments: A theoretical
approach by Wenyue Xu and Leonid N. Germanovich. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth, 2007.
32.
Hillier, I., Origins of Abnormal Pressure, in Baker Hughes INTEQ Pore Pressure manual.
1.
2.

SPE 150835

33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.

19

Yardleya, G.S. and R.E. Swarbrick, Lateral transfer: a source of additional over-pressure? Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2000.
17.
Goulty, N.R., Relationships Between Porosity and Effective Stress in Shales. First Break (European Association of Geoscientists
and Engineers), 1998. 16(12).
Hughes, B. and I.P.P. manual, Origins of Abnormal Pressure.
Henning, A., et al., Pore-Pressure Estimation in an Active Thrust Region and Its Impact on Exploration and Drilling, in Pressure
Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction, A.R. Huffman and G.L. Bowers, Editors. 2002. p. 89-105.
Yardley, G.S. and R.E. Swarbrick, Lateral transfer: a source of additional over-pressure? Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2000.
17.
Osborne, M.J. and R.E. Swarbrick, Mechanisms for generating over-pressure in sedimentary basins; a reevaluation. AAPG
Bulletin, 1997. 81(6): p. 1023-1041.
Tingay, M., et al., Over-pressures in the Northern Malay Basin: Part 1 - Origin and Distribution, in International Petroleum
Technology Conference. 2011: Bangkok, Thailand.
Gretener, P.E., Pore Pressure: Fundamentals, General Ramification and Implications for Structural Geology.
Luo, X. and G. Vasseur, Contributions of compaction and aquathermal pressuring to geopressure and the influence of
environmental conditions. AAPG Bulletin, 1992. 76(10): p. 1550-1559.
contributors, W., Hydraulic head, in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2011.
Sahagian, D.L. and A.A. Proussevitch, Bubbles in volcanic systems. Nature, 1992. 359(6395): p. 485-485.
Dictionary, O.E., "osmosis, n.": Oxford University Press.
Marine, I.W. and S.J. Fritz, Osmotic model to explain anomalous hydraulic heads. Water Resour. Res., 1981. 17(1): p. 73-82.
Neuzil, C.E., Osmotic generation of 'anomalous' fluid pressures in geological environments. Nature, 2000. 403(6766): p. 182-184.
Bradley, J.S., Abnormal formation pressure. AAPG Bulletin, 1975. 59(6): p. 957-973.
Morley, C.K., et al., Impact of structural history and style on the petroleum system of the Central Basin in the Saveh-Qom area,
Iran, in GEO 2008. 2008.
Mann, D.M. and A.S. Mackenzie, Prediction of pore fluid pressures in sedimentary basins. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1990.
7(1): p. 55-65.
Bowers, G.L., Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity Data: Accounting for Over-pressure Mechanisms Besides
Undercompaction. SPE Drilling & Completion, 1995. 10(2): p. 89-95.
Gretener, P.E., Another Look at Alborz Nr.5 in Central Iran. Bulletin der Vereinigung Schewiz. Petroleum-Geologen undIngenieure, 1982.
Weller, J.M., Compaction of sediments. AAPG Bulletin, 1959. 43(2): p. 273-310.
Shinn, E.A., et al., Limestone compaction: An enigma. Geology, 1977. 5(1): p. 21-24.
Qiuguo, L., et al., Abnormal Pressure Detection and Wellbore Stability Evaluation in Carbonate Formations of East Sichuan,
China, in IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. 2000: New Orleans, Louisiana.
Tabari, K., Application of Rock-Eval6 in Detection Seepage of Yortshah Gas Storage. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2010.
8(10): p. 1193-1199.
Yefei, C., et al., Genesis and Prediction for Over-pressure Carbonate Reservoir-Case study of Kenkiyak Sub-salt Carbonate
Reservoir in Kazakhstan, in nternational Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China. 2010: Beijing, China.
Final Well Report. 2006, National Iranian Oil Company.
Japsen, P., Regional Velocity-Depth Anomalies, North Sea Chalk: A Record of Over-pressure and Neogene Uplift and Erosion1.
AAPG Bulletin, 1998. 82(11): p. 20312074.
Jorden, J.R. and O.J. Shirley, Application of Drilling Performance Data to Over-pressure Detection. JOURNAL OF
PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY, 1966: p. 1387-1394.
Rehm, B. and R. McClendon, Measurement of Formation Pressure from Drilling Data, in Fall Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME. 1971, 1971 Copyright 1971, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers,
Inc.: New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bowers, G.L., Determining an Appropriate Pore-Pressure Estimation Strategy, in 2001 Offshore Technology Conference. 2001:
Houston, Texas.
Gregory, a.R., Fluid Saturation Effects on Dynamic Properties of Sedimentary Rocks. GEOPHYSICS,, 1976. 41(5): p. 895-921.
Martinez, R.D., Deterministic Estimation of Porosity And Formation Pressure From Seismic Data. 1985.
Gutierrez, M.A., N.R. Branusdorf, and B.A. Couzens, Calibration and ranking of pore-pressure prediction models. The Leading
Edge, 2006: p. 1516-1523.
Weakley, R.R., Determination Of Formation Pore Pressures In Carbonate Environments From Sonic Logs, in Annual Technical
Meeting. 1990, Petroleum Society of Canada: Calgary, Alberta.
Holbrook, P.W., D.A. Maggiori, and R. Hensley, Real-Time Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient Evaluation in All Sedimentary
Lithologies. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1995(12).
Holbrook, P., THE USE OF PETROPHYSICAL DATA FOR WELL PLANNING, DRILLING SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY, in
SPWLA 37th Annual Logging Symposium. 1996, Society of Petrophysicists & Well Log Analysts.
Liu, H.-H., J. Rutqvist, and J. Berryman, On therelationshipbetweenstressandelasticstrainforporous and fracturedrock.
International Journalof RockMechanics&MiningSciences, 2009. 46.
Berryman, J.G., Estimates and rigorous bounds on pore-fluid enhanced shear modulus in poroelastic media with hard and soft
anisotropy. International Journal of Damage Mechanics, 2005.
Mavko, G. and D. Jizba, Estimating grain-scale fluid effects on velocity dispersion in rocks. GEOPHYSICS,, 1991. 56.
Detournay, E. and A.H.-D. Cheng, Fundamentals of Poroelasticity, in Emmanuel Detournay and Alexander H.-D. Cheng, C.
Fairhurst, Editor. 1993, Pergamon Press. p. 113-171.

20

SPE 150835

72.

Klimentos, T., et al., Experimental Determination of the Biot Elastic Constant: Applications in Formation Evaluation (sonic
Porosity, Rock Strength, Earth Stresses, and Sanding Predictions). SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 1998.
VanGolf-Racht, T.D., Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir Engineering. Developments in Petroleum Science. 1982, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY.
Amthor, o.E., E.W. Mountjoy, and H.G. Machel, Regional-Scale Porosity and Permeability Variations in Upper Devonian Leduc
Buildups: Implications for Reservoir Development and Prediction in Carbonates. AAPG Bulletin, 1994. 78(10).
Brown, A., Porosity Variation in Carbonates as a Function of Depth: Mississippian Madison Group, Williston Basin. AAPG
Special Volumes, 1997. 69.
Budd, D.A., Permeability Loss with Depth in the Cenozoic Carbonate Platform of West-Central Florida. AAPG Bulletin, 2001.
85(7): p. 1253-1272.
Goldhammer, R.K., Compaction and decompaction algorithms for sedimentary carbonates. Journal of Sedimentary Research,
1997. 67(1): p. 26-35.
Schmoker, J.W. and R.B. Halley, Carbonate porosity versus depth; a predictable relation for South Florida. AAPG Bulletin,
1982. 66(12): p. 2561-2570.
Zimmerman, R.W., Compressibility of Sandstones. Development in Petroleum Science. Vol. 29. 1991, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Mosadegh, H. and M.P.N. Shirazi, Algal Biozonation of Fahliyan Formation (Neocomian) in the Zagros Basin, Iran. Geophysical
Research Abstracts, 2009. 11.
Alavi, M., Regional Stratigraphy Of The Zagros Fold-Thrust Belt Of Iran And Its Proforeland Evolution. American Journal of
Science, 2004. 304: p. 1-20.
James, G.A. and J.G. Wynd, Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian Oil Consortium Agreement Area. AAPG Bulletin, 1965.
49(12): p. 2182-2245.
Motiei, H., Geology of Iran and Zagros Stratigraphy. 1382.
Alavi, M., Structures of the Zagros fold-thrust belt in Iran. American Journal of Science, 2007. 307(9): p. 1064-1095.
Kavoosi, M.A., A.M. Jamali, and A. Feizi, The Relation of Diagenetic Processes with Sequence Stratigraphy of Fahliyan
Formation in MAnsoori, Ab-e-Teymoor, and Ahwaz Fields (Translation from Persian), in 26th Conference Geoscience of Iran.
2008.
Sabouhi, M., et al., Facies Analysis of Fahliyan Formation in North Dezful Embayment, Southwest Iran: Implications for Porosity
Distribution. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2009. 11.
Adabi, M.H., M.A. Salehi, and A. Ghabeishavi, Depositional environment, sequence stratigraphy and geochemistry of Lower
Cretaceous carbonates (Fahliyan Formation), south-west Iran. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2010. 39(3): p. 148-160.
Rabbani, A., Petroleum Geochemistry of Fahliyan Reservoir in Darquain Fieldvol.20/no.71-C//Fall 2009-Winter 2010
International Journal of Science and Technology, 2009. 20(71).
Barker, C., Aquathermal Pressuring; Role of Temperature in Development of Abnormal-Pressure Zones. AAPG Bulletin, 1972.
56(10): p. 2068-2071.
Taghavi, A.A., A succession of the Bangestan Group from Upper Sarvak to Ilam Formations in Lurestan Area, SW Iran. , U.
Formation_Ali, Editor. 2006.
Ghobeishavi, A., Typical submarine incision between upper and lower Sarvak Formation, T.i. betweenULSarvak_AliGhobishavi2, Editor. 2008.
Badics, B., 3D BASIN MODELLING IN INTERNATIONAL AND HUNGARIAN CASE STUDIES, in FFI DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL AND APPLIED GEOLOGY. 2010, ETVS LORND UNIVERSITY.
Bordenave, M.L. The Middle Cretaceous to Early Miocene Petroleum System in the Zagros Domain of Iran, and its Prospect
Evaluation. in AAPG Annual Meeting. 2002. Houston, Texas.
Khatchikian, A., Deriving Reservoir Pore-Volume Compressibility From Well Logs. SPE Advanced Technology Series, 1996(05).

73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.