Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October 2000.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The accurate prediction of pore pressures and fracture
gradients has become almost essential to the drilling of deep
wells with higher than normal pore pressures. Drilling costs
and problems can be reduced substantially by the early
recognition of abnormally high pore pressures.
Two new methods have been developed from well logs
that can be applied universally to the determination of pore
pressures and fracture gradient. The first method uses the
principle of compaction concept where the porosity varies
exponentially with vertical stress, and the second method uses
the power-law relationship. Acoustic logs obtained from five
wells in Ouargla and Garet El Bouib fields are used to validate
the two methods.
The computed pressures matched the measured pressures
obtained from repeated formation tests (RFT). The deviation
between the first method and RFT varies from 3% to 6%,
while, the deviation for the second method varies from 1% to
3%. The acoustic log predicts fluid pressure within an
accuracy of 0.05 psi/ft. The standard deviations for the first
method and the second method are 0.04 psi/ft and 0.02 psi/ft
respectively. The analysis also shows that there are two
overpressured zones in the well studied, which accurately
matched the actual sequence of events while drilling the wells.
The developed methodologies are illustrated and validated
with several examples from the Hassi Messaoud field in
Algeria.
Introduction and Literature Review
An important parameter for well planning is the
knowledge about the formation pore pressure. The detection of
abnormally high formation pressure, or overpressured zones,
provides valuable information for exploration and exploitation
purposes. This is essentially true or common in all Algerian oil
fields. Overpressured sediments are generally caused by a
sequence of events wherein water becomes trapped by faults
or non-permeable barriers in sediments at depths. In a
normally pressured formation the water was forced out by
normal increases in overburden pressure
1
.
Abnormal pressure
is also caused by the release of water into the pore system
during clay diagenesis (smectite/illite transformation) and
other mechanisms. High formation pressures are due to major
changes in the behavior of subsurface rock. In overpressured
shales, which contain pressured water, density is lower and
porosity is higher than normal.
Formation pressure can be the major factor affecting the
success of drilling operations. If pressure is not properly
evaluated, it can lead to drilling problems such as lost
circulation, blowouts, stuck pipe, hole instability, and
excessive costs. Unfortunately, formation pressures can be
very difficult to quantify precisely where unusual, or
abnormal, pressures exist. The complete well planning
process, with few exceptions, is predicted on knowledge of
formation pressures. The pressure is the foundation for many
segments of the well plan. If proper attention is not given to
formation pressure predictions, the other technical portions of
the well plan may be inadequate.
Many authors
2,3
have outlined procedures for estimating
formation pressure using data obtained from electrical and
acoustical surveys. Also some author, namely Hubbert and
Willis
4
, Matthews and Kelly
5
,
and Eaton
6
have outlined
procedures for estimating fracture pressure. Knowledge of
these two parameters (formation pressure and fracture
pressure) is extremely important in planning and drilling
future wells.
The purpose of this paper is to present new methods to
estimate formation pore pressure and show how they may be
used to enhance the interpretation process.
Objectives of this Study
Knowledge of the occurrence of overpressures, and
pressure-depth relationship in a geologic province, is very
important because it leads to improvement in drilling
operations, casing programs, completion methods, and
SPE 63263
New Methods for Estimating of Formation Pressures and Fracture Gradients from Well
Logs
A. Draou, Sonatrach, PED, Algeria and S. O. Osisanya, SPE, The University of Oklahoma
2 A. DRAOU AND S. O. OSISANYA SPE 63263
reservoir evaluations. This study is concerned with the
estimation of formation pressure, and fracture pressure from
acoustic logs from five wells in the Ouargla (district 4, block
438) and Garet El Bouib (district 6, block 426) in the Hassi
Messaoud oil field in Algeria.
The specific objectives are:
1. To develop analytical equations for estimating formation
pressures,
2. To validate the equations with available acoustic well log
data,
3. To compare the results from (2) with measured values of
formation pressure from repeated formation tester (RFT),
and
4. To use the result from (2) and (3) to determine the mud
densities for planning future wells.
DISCUSSION
Origin of Abnormal Pressures
The origin of abnormal pressures has been discussed by
numerous researchers
3,8-11
and several theories, well
summarized by Watts
10
in 1948, have been advanced to
explain such pressures. While the origin of abnormal pressures
is not understood completely, several mechanisms that tend to
cause abnormal pressures have been identified in sedimentary
basins. These mechanisms are generally classified as: (1)
compaction effects, (2) diagenetic effects, (3) differential
density effects, and (4) fluid migration effects.
Methods for Detecting and Estimating Abnormal
Pressures
Techniques for detecting and estimating abnormal
formation pressure often are classified as: (1) predictive
methods (from offset well data, or seismic data), (2)
measurement while drilling method (MWD), and (3) post
drilling method (from well logs). Clearly, pore pressures can be
estimated by using direct or indirect method. Direct pressure
measurements are done using downhole pressure bombs, drill
stems tests (DST), and repeated formation tests (RFT). Indirect
methods utilize well logging and drilling data to estimate
pressures
Direct measurements are rarely used because of the
difficulty in locating permeable zones in overpressured sections,
risk of differential pipe sticking, and high cost of rig time and
tools. Indirect methods are mostly used and built on concepts of
compaction and porosity. The ability to measure certain
porosity-dependent parameters (formation resistivity, seismic
travel times, drilling parameters, etc.) can help detect and
estimate geopressures.
Fundamental Concepts for Estimating Pore Pressure
The fundamental concepts used for estimating pore
pressure are a knowledge of overburden pressure, effective
pressure, and a porosity-dependent parameter. An additional
parameter, the equivalent parameter, the equivalent mud density
(EMD) is combined with pore pressure to design drilling fluid
density.
Figure 1 shows a pore surrounded by rock, in which the
local weight of the overburden acts in a downward direction and
is supported by the formation pore pressure and the strength of
the rock frame. The difference between the pressure exerted by
the overburden
ob
and the pore pressure P
p
is the vertical rock
frame stress
v
:

v =

ob
- P
p
(1)
Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of state of stress
underground. Thus, it is apparent that when formation pressure
become higher than normal, vertical stress become lower than
normal. For example, under normal conditions,
ob
/D =1.0
psi/ft, P
p
/D =0.48 and
v
/D = 0.52 psi/ft where D is depth in
feet. But if P
p
/D = 0.65 psi/ft, and
ob
/D = 1.0 psi/ft then
v
/D
becomes 0.35 psi/ft. This is entirely consistent with the previous
conclusion that when formation (or fluid) pressures are
abnormal, the fluid is supporting a portion of the weight of the
overburden: thus, the rock frame stress is proportionately
reduced.
Equivalent density concept: This is concerned with the
maximum mud density a formation at a given depth will
withstand without fracturing during normal drilling operations.

e
= P
p
/(0.052D) (2)
Acoustic or Sonic Method
The sonic logging tool measures the sound wave transit
time in a vertical direction in the vicinity of the borehole, that
is to say the reciprocal of the longitudinal sonic velocity in the
formation. The porosity of a formation can be obtained from
well logs such as sonic and density. Their responses depend
on formation porosity, fluid and matrix density. A commonly
used linear relationship for estimating porosity from acoustic
measurements (based on laboratory measurements of acoustic
velocity and porosity in porous rocks and other materials) was
proposed by Wyllie et al
11,12
. The equation commonly referred
to as the Wyllie time-average equation, is expressed as:
( )
m ll p
v v v

+ =
1 1
(3)
or in terms of transit times, as
t = t
fl
+ (1-)t
m
(4)
Porosity is obtained using the following formula:
= (t - t
m
)/( t
fl
-t
m
) (5)
Porosity and Vertical Stress
Intuitively, it is apparent that porosity will decrease with
depth for a rock of uniform type and composition. This is
simply the result of compaction and expulsion of water.
Hubbert and Rubey
13
showed that for a given clay there exist
for each value of porosity () some value of effective
SPE 63263 NEW METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF FORMATION PRESSURE FROM WELL LOGS 3
compressive stress (
v
) which the clay can support without
further compaction. This can expressed as = (
v
).
Hubbert and Rubey derived the following equation for the
relationship between porosity and vertical stress.
=
i
exp(-K
v
) (6)
where,
= shale porosity

i
= porosity of shale at the surface
K = porosity decline constant

v
= vertical stress
Two methods are presented for determining abnormal
formation from acoustic log. The methods are:
1. The compaction concept method, and
2. The power-law relationship method.
Compaction Concept Method
From Eq. 6 the relationship between the porosity and
vertical stress for a normally pressured shale formation can be
written as follows:

n
=
i
exp(-K
v
) (7)
where n is a subscript denoting normal formation pressure. If
the formation is abnormally pressured the porosity is given as:

a
=
i
exp(-K(
ob
-P
p
) (8)
where,

ob
= overburden stress
Pp = pore pressure
Willies equation, Eq. 4 can be simplified and reduced to:
t = m + b (9)
where m =t
fl
-t
m
and b = t
m
In normal compaction:
t
n
= m
n
+ b (10)
Under abnormal pressure conditions:
t
a
= m
a
+ b (11)
Substituting Eqs.7 and 8 into Eqs.10 and Eq.11 gives:
t
n
= m
i
exp(-K
v
) (12)
t
a
= m
i
exp(-K(
ob
-P
p
)) (13)
Subtracting Eq.12 from Eq. 13 and assuming that b is constant
gives:
t
a
- t
n
= m
i
[exp(-K(
ob
- P
p
) exp(-K
v
)] (14)
In terms of gradients:
t
a
- t
n
= m
i
[exp(-K(1.0D-G
p
D)-exp(-KD)] (15)
where,
G
p
= abnormal pore pressure gradient
= vertical stress gradient
Taking logarithms of both sides and rearranging, gives:
G
p
= 1+1/(KD) ln[((t
a
- t
n
)/ m
i
)+exp(-KD)] (16)
Appendix A show how to determine m,
i
, K.
Power Law Relationship Method
A plot of depth versus transit time can be expressed as
t = a x b
D
(17)
where,
a = intercept of the log-log plot
b = slope of the log-log plot
Under normal pressure conditions, Eq. 17 can be written as:
t
n
= a x b
D
(18)
Under abnormal pressure conditions, Eq. 17 can be written as
t
a
= a x b
De
(19)
where,
De
=
equivalent depth
Subtracting Eq. 18 from Eq. 19 gives
D D
n a
ab ab t t
e
= (20)
Taking common logarithms of both sides and simplifying
gives
b D b
a
t t
e
D n a
log log =

+

(21)

p
e
P D
D

=
* 0 . 1
(22)
Equation 22 is derived in Appendix B.
Substituting Eq. 22 into Eq. 21 gives:

+

=

D n a
p
b
a
t t
b
P D
log *
log
1
* 0 . 1

4 A. DRAOU AND S. O. OSISANYA SPE 63263

+

+ =
D n a
p
b
a
t t
b
P D log *
log
* 0 . 1

(23)

+

=
D n a
p
b
a
t t
b
D P log *
log
* 0 . 1

(24)
where,
G
p
= P
pr
/D = abnormal pressure gradient, psi/ft
D = depth of interest, ft
t
a
= abnormal transit time, sec/ft
t
n
= normal transit time, sec/ft
b = slope
a = the intercept
Procedure for Estimating Formation Pressure
Figure 2 illustrates that the travel time decreases (velocity
increases) with increasing burial depth. This indicates that
porosity decreases as a function of depth. This trend represents
the normal compaction trend as a function of burial depth,
and the fluid pressures exhibited within normal trend will be
hydrostatic.
If an interval of abnormal compaction is penetrated, the
plot of travel time versus depth will diverge from the normal
compaction trend. If overpressured formations are
encountered, the normal trend line will diverge toward
abnormally high transit times for a given burial depth, since
the porosity is higher. The amount of divergence of a given
point from the established normal compaction trend is
related to the observed pressure in adjacent shale formation
13
.
Figure 3 shows a generalized sonic log plot showing normal ,
transition, and abnormal zone.
The following procedures are developed for estimating
formation pressure. The procedure is divided into two: (1) the
compaction concept procedure and (2) power-law relationship
procedure.
Procedure for Compaction Concept Method:
1. Plot depth (D) versus transit time (t), Fig. 3
2. Determine
i
using multi-regression analysis.
3. Calculate
sh
4. Plot t versus
sh
5. Determine the slope m from step 4.
6. Perform regression analysis of data to determine the trend
line equation
7. From the trend line determine t
n
and t
ab
8. Calculate the difference between t
n
and t
ab
(i.e. t
ab
-
t
n
)
9. Calculate formation pore pressure, G
p
,
10. Calculate mud density .
Procedure for Power-Law Relationship Method:
1. Plot depth (D) versus transit time (t), Fig. 3
2. Perform regression analysis of data to determine the
equation of the trend.
3. From the trend line determine t
n
and t
ab
4. Calculate the difference between t
n
and t
ab
(i.e. t
ab
-
t
n
)
5. Calculate formation pore pressure, G
p
, .
6. Calculate mud density from .
APPLICATIONS
Knowledge of the pore pressure is of considerable value
because it provides the means for improving drilling operations
and designing better casing programs. From data gathered from
well logs, it is possible to predict the probable pressure profile
that will be encountered while drilling.
Example
In order to validate and illustrate the use of the developed
methods to estimate pore pressure from shale properties, log
data from a well in Ouargla (district 4, block 438) in the Hassi
Messaoud oil field, Algeria was selected. Observed shale travel
times are plotted against depth in Fig. 4 for well A. The
deviation of observed points from the normal compaction
occurs at approximately 5000ft and 8000ft and designated the
top of overpressured formation. Figure 5 shows profile of pore
pressure after computation using the second method.
Table 1 shows the comparison between the mud density
used in the field and the computed density.using the model
equations Table 2 shows the comparison between measured
pressures using repeated formation tests (RFT) and computed
pressures using the two procedures. Excellent agreement is
observed between the estimated and the measured pressures.
CONCLUSION
1. Two new methods have been developed from well logs
that can be applied universally to the determination of
pore pressure and fracture gradient. The first method uses
the principle of compaction concept where the porosity
varies exponentially with vertical stress, and the second
method uses the power-law relationship.
2. Acoustic log methods have an accuracy of fluid pressure
prediction of 0.05 psi/ft.
3. The computed pressures matched the pressures obtained
from repeated formation tests (RFT). The deviation
between the first method and RFT varies from 3% to 6%,
while, the deviation for the second method varies from
1% to 3%.
4. The analysis also shows that there are two overpressured
zones in the well studied, which accurately matched the
actual sequence of events while drilling the wells.
5. Pore pressure calculations based upon the interval transit
time curve showed that the well could have been drilled
with mud weight slightly less than those used in depth
between 8000 ft and 11000 ft which could have resulted
in some cost savings..
6. Using these methods/methodologies and field data, the
same methods can be developed for other areas.
SPE 63263 NEW METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF FORMATION PRESSURE FROM WELL LOGS 5
NOMENCLATURE
P
pr
= pore pressure, psi
P
ff
= fracture pressure, psi
D = depth, ft
D
e
= equivalent depth, ft
K
i
=stress ratio, %
K = porosity decline constant, %
t = interval transit time, s/ft
Gf = pore pressure gradient, psi/ft
Fg = fracture gradient, psi/ft
t
ma
= matrix transit time, s/ft
G
ob
= overburden gradient, psi/ft
t
shn
= normal interval transit time, s/ft
t
sha
= abnormal transit time, s/ft
F = formation factor
C
w
= water conductivity, 10e
-3
.m/.m
2
C
0
=formation conductivity, 10e
-3
.m/.m
2
C
oa
= abnormal conductivity, 10e
-3
.m/.m
2
C
on
= normal conductivity, 10e
-3
.m/.m
2
Greek Symbols
= vertical stress gradient, psi/ft
= normal pressure gradient, psi/ft
= Poisons ratio, %

sh0
= surface porosity, %

b
= bulk density, lbm/gal

e
= equivalent mud density, lbm/gal

m
= mud density, lbm/gal

ff
= fracture mud density, lbm/gal

sh
= shale porosity, %

v
= vertical stress, psi

h
= horizontal stress, psi

ob
= overburden stress, psi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Sonatrach, Algeria for
providing the financial support for The University of
Oklahoma Graduate Program in Petroleum Engineering in
Algeria. Special thanks to the technical staff of Sonatrach-
PED, CRD, and Exploration for their valuable suggestions and
input. Thanks are extended to IAP and INH for permission to
use their facilities and to Sonatrach-DRH for assisting with the
management of the project. We also extend our thanks to
Sonatrach and the School of Petroleum and Geological
Engineering, University of Oklahoma for encouragement and
permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Bilgeri, D. and Ademeno, E.B.: Predicting Abnormally
Pressured Sedimentary Rock," Geophysical Prospecting
(Oct. 1982) 30, N. 5, 608-21.
2. Hottman, C.E. and Johnson, R.K.: Estimation of
Formation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties,
J.P.T. (June, 1965) 717-722.
3. Wallace, W. E.: Abnormal Subsurface Pressure
Measured From Conductivity or Resistivity Logs,
presented to Society of Professional Well Log Analysts,
Lafayette, La. (March 8, 1965).
4. Hubert, M. King and Willis, D. G. : Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing, Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 153-
166
5. Matthews, W. R. and Kelly, John: How to Predict
Formation Pressure and Fracture Gradient from Electric
and Sonic Logs, Oil and Gas J. (feb.20, 1967) 92.
6. Eaton, Ben. A.: Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its
Application in Oilfield Operations, J.P.T (October, 1969)
1353-1360.
7. Dickinson, G.: Geological Aspects of Abnormal
Reservoir Pressure in Gulf Coast Louisiana, Bull.,
AAPG (Feb., 1953) 37, N. 2, 410-432.
8. Myers, R.L.: Dynamic Phenomena of Sediments
Compaction in Matagorda County, Texas, MS Thesis, U.
of Houston, Houston, Tex. (Aug., 1963).
9. Thomeer, J. H. M. A. and Boateman, J. A.: Increasing
Occurrence of Abnormally High Reservoirs Pressures in
Boreholes, and drilling Problems Resulting therefrom,
Bull AAPG (Oct., 1961) 45, No. 10, 1721-1730.
10. Watts, E. V.: Some Aspects of High Pressures in the D-7
Zone of the Ventura Avenue Field, Trans., AIME (1948)
174, 191.
11. Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., and Gardener, G.H.F.:
Elastic Wave Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous
Media, Geophysics (1956) 21, pp. 41-70.
12. Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., and Gardener, G.H.F.:
An Experimental Investigation of Factors Affecting
Elastic Waves Velocities in Porous Media, Geophysics
(1958) 23, pp. 459-493.
13. Hubbert, M. K. and Rubey, W. W.: Role of Fluid
Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting, Part 1,
Bull., GSA (Feb., 1959) 70
14. Hottman, C.E. and Johnson, R.K.: Estimation of
Formation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties,
J.P.T. (June, 1965) 717-722.
APPENDIX A
The values of K, m, and
i
are determined as follow:
From the plot porosity versus depth:
=
i
exp(-KD) A-1
Assuming that
b a t
ma
+ = * A-2
Substituting for t
ma
in the Wyllie equation and rearranging
gives
b t a a b t
f
+ + =
2
( )
2
a b t a b t
f
+ + = A-3
Let ( ) b t a c
f
+ = , then Eq. A-3 becomes
6 A. DRAOU AND S. O. OSISANYA SPE 63263
2
a c b t + = A-4
2.19
Substituting Eq.A-1 into Eq.A-4 gives:
( ) ( ) KD a KD c b t 2 exp exp
2
0 0
+ = (A-5)
Eq.A-5 can be arranged in order to solve for porosity as
follows:
Let X = exp.(-K*D), (c*
0
) = C; (a*
2
0
) = A, and B = b,
then
2
* * X A X C B t + + = A-6
Using multi-regressions analysis (EXCEL Solver), the values
of B, C, A, and K are obtained by varying K between 0.01
and 1.0*10
-8
. The porosity
o
is obtained from the value of C
or A as follow:
C c =
0
* , A-7
A a =
2
0
* A-8
Let d be defined as = t
f
-b:
( ) C d a = +
0
* A-9
Rearranging Eq.A-8 and Eq.A-9 results in
0 * *
0
2
0
= + A C d A-10
From this equation he value of
i
is determined.
APPENDIX B
The principle of equivalent depth method states that every
point A in an undercompacted clay is associated with a
normally compacted point B. The compaction at point A is
identical to that at point B. Using Terzaghis effective stress
concept:
p v ob
P + = B-1
The matrix stress
v
transmitted by grain to grain contact is
identical at A and B. That is to say that:
P
ar
=
oab
-
va
B-2
P
br
=
oab
-
va
B-3
In terms of gradient, the above equations can be written as
follows:
e vb va
D * = = B-4
Substituting Eq. B-4 into Eq. B-3 results in

p
e
P D
D

=
* 0 , 1
B-5
SPE 63263 NEW METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF FORMATION PRESSURE FROM WELL LOGS 7
Table 1 - Comparison between used density while drilling and computed density
Depth Range (ft)
Range of
m
While Drilling
(lbm/gal)
Depth Range (ft)
m
computed (lbm/gal)
0-1470 10 0-5240 9.23
1470-8360 10-11.6 5240-8200 11.1-11.53
8360-10988 16.7-17 8200-11152 11.13-15.32
10988-12136 12.5 11152-12136 11.4-12.22
Table 2 - Comparison between measured pressures and computed pressures
Depth (ft)
Measured
Pressure Pm
(psi)
First
Method
P1 (psi)
Second
Method P2
(psi)
(P1-Pm)/Pm (P2-Pm)/Pm
10496 6950 6796 7152 0.03 0.03
10988 6961 6784 7176 0.03 0.03
11316 7149 6784 7190 0.06 0.01
Figure 1 A simplified diagram of state of stress underground
P
p

ob

hv

h
+P
p

v
8 A. DRAOU AND S. O. OSISANYA SPE 63263
Figure 2 A generalized plot of shale travel time versus depth for normal compaction
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 10 100 1000
Shale interval transit time (sec/ft)
B
u
r
i
a
l

d
e
p
t
h


(
f
t
)
SPE 63263 NEW METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF FORMATION PRESSURE FROM WELL LOGS 9
Figure 3 A generalized sonic log plot showing normal, transition,
and abnormal zones
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1 10 100 1000
Shale interval transit time (sec/ft)
D
e
p
t
h


(
f
t
)
Normal compaction
Transition zone
abnormal zone
10 A. DRAOU AND S. O. OSISANYA SPE 63263
y = -6910Ln(x) + 37042
y = 2004.8Ln(x) - 4000.5
y = 1573.4Ln(x) + 1159.9
y = -4068.6Ln(x) + 29283
y = -7360.7Ln(x) + 40503
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
10 100 1000
Shale interval transit time (sec/ft)
D
e
p
t
h


(
f
t
)
Figure 4 Shale interval transit time depth plot
SPE 63263 NEW METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF FORMATION PRESSURE FROM WELL LOGS 11
Figure 5 Formation pore pressure profile
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Formation Pore Pressure (psi)
D
e
p
t
h


(
f
t
)