Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate

reservoirs: Current status, challenges and way ahead
Zizhen Wang a, b, *, Ruihe Wang a, **
a
School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Huadong), Qingdao 266580, China
b
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2W2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reliable prediction of pore pressure (PP) is critically important to petroleum engineering at different
Received 10 July 2015 stages. Currently PP prediction in carbonate reservoir is still far from satisfaction, and there is no specific
Received in revised form method widely accepted. This paper discussed the current status, challenges, and way ahead of the PP
21 August 2015
prediction in carbonate reservoirs, and focused on the geophysical models related to the prediction,
Accepted 17 September 2015
Available online xxx
aiming to provide a valuable reference and promote its developments. With better understandings of the
complicated physical properties resulting from the complex pore system and heterogeneity, PP predic-
tion in carbonates with more confidence and higher resolution can be acquired.
Keywords:
Carbonate reservoirs
© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Pore pressure
Effective stress
Geophysical models

1. Introduction
Pore pressure (PP) is defined as the pressure of fluids within the
porous rock (Sayers, 2006). Reliable prediction of PP is critically
important to petroleum engineering at different stages (explora-
tion, drilling, and production). It is the basic data for the casing
program optimization and the design of the drilling fluid density.
And satisfactory PP prediction helps to reduce the risks of drilling
incidents and protect the pay formation, which provides an
important guarantee for the safe, scientific, and efficient drilling
works (Dutta, 2002; Zoback, 2007). Carbonate reservoirs contain
nearly 60% of the world total oil and gas reserves (Chopra et al.,
2005). But carbonate rocks display significant heterogeneity at
different scales (Sayers and Latimer, 2008), which results in great
uncertainties in PP prediction and challenges the oil and gas
exploration.
For clastic sedimentary rocks, the disequilibrium compaction is
the main mechanism and origin of abnormal PP (Chen and Guan,
2000). Rocks with different compactions directly have different
densities and porosities, and such differences can be reflected from
* Corresponding author. School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of
Petroleum (Huadong), Qingdao 266580, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wzzhprince@gmail.com (Z. Wang), wangrh@upc.edu.cn
(R. Wang).
their rock physics properties, such as sonic velocity (or transit
time), electronic resistivity, etc., which is the bases for the predic-
tion of undercompaction-induced abnormal PP (Chopra and
Huffman, 2006). Unfortunately, the effects of chemical process
and cementation post diagenesis on porosity is more important
than the mechanical compaction in most carbonate rocks, so the
conventional PP prediction methods implicitly or explicitly using
the normal compaction trend fail to give reliable results (Wang
et al., 2014). Currently, the PP prediction for carbonate reservoir is
still not properly solved, which puts our industry activities, espe-
cially drilling and completion, at great risk, and constrains the ef-
ficiency of exploration and production in carbonate reservoirs.
Generally speaking, PP prediction based on elastic wave data
includes the following steps (Dutta, 2002): (1) Acquire and process
the elastic wave data (seismic reflection and sonic logging); (2)
Choose a proper geophysical model that links elastic wave attri-
butes (velocity, attenuation, etc.) to either effective stress (PE) or
PP; (3) Calculate PE or PP using the processed data. Therefore, the
geophysical model and acquiring proper data set are two key
contents of PP prediction, which are also the main sources of errors
and uncertainties in the prediction (Dutta, 2002). Chopra and
Huffman (2006), and Dutta (2002) have given good reviews on
how to acquire and process the elastic wave data to make them
adequate for PP prediction. In this paper, we will focus on the
geophysical models of carbonate rocks related to PP prediction,
aiming to provide a valuable reference for PP prediction in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
1875-5100/© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
2 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8
carbonates and promote its developments.
2. The current status of pore pressure prediction
There are no widely accepted methods for PP prediction in
carbonate reservoirs. The existing methods and theories in the PP
prediction community are almost all based on the shale properties.
Although these methods are not the proper way to predict PP in
carbonates and may probably lead to dangerous errors, they are still
used in the field practice of carbonate reservoirs. Therefore, these
models basically about PP prediction in shales are reviewed in this
part, especially in Section 2.1 and 2.2. Section 2.3 is mainly about
the current attempts of PP prediction by some new ideas in car-
bonate reservoirs.
Methods for PP prediction can be classified into two categories.
First is the direct prediction method. PP is directly related to the
measured physical quantities, which is the most simple and old
style, such as cross-plots and overlays (Pennebaker, 1968), and
Fillippone's (1982) method. The others are effective stress method
which is the most popular nowadays. According to the Terzaghi's
(1943) effective stress principle, the effective stress can be calcu-
lated by:
PE ¼ PO  a$PP
where, PE is the effective stress, PO is the overburden pressure, PP is
pore pressure, and a is the effective stress coefficient which is less
than 1. The overburden pressure can be satisfactorily estimated
either by empirically regional relations (e.g. Traugott, 1997), or from
the density logging data by (Chen and Guan, 2000; Dutta, 2002):
Zh
PO ¼ g rðzÞdz
0
where, g [9.8 N/kg] is the gravity acceleration, r [kg/m3] is the rock
bulk density at the depth z [m]. Therefore, the key issue of PP
prediction is how to calculate PE properly. It should be noted that
the differential pressure (confining pressure minus PP) used in rock
physics experiments is not the same as the concept of PE. For
detailed discussion on this difference, readers are directed to
Hofmann et al. (2005). Currently, geophysical models used to
calculate PE can be mainly divided into three types: porosity-PE
relations, velocity-PE relations, and elastic moduli-PE relations.
2.1. Porosity-PE relations
In the normal compaction process, the rock matrix (grains)
deforms due to the increasing load of accumulated sediments,
resulting in the decrease of pore volume (Swarbrick and Osborne,
1998). Researchers investigated the porosity-PE relation in shales
under normal compaction. Among these works, the followings are
famous and widely used:
Terzaghi (1943):
f ¼ 1  f0 PEC=4:606
Athy (1930) and Dutta (1983):
f ¼ f0 eK$PE
Dutta (1988):
f
PE ¼ PE0 e1f bðTÞ
Palciauskas and Domenico (1989):
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
f ¼ 1  f0 eb$PE (6)
where, f is the porosity, f0 is the porosity at the mudline, and C, K,
PE0, b are empirical coefficients. The corresponding PE can be
calculated once the porosity is known according to any one equa-
tion from (3) to (6), and then PP can be calculated according to
Equation (1). Therefore, all physical properties, such as acoustic
velocity (or transmit time), electronic resistivity, density and so on,
that can reflect the changes of porosity can be used for PP predic-
tion. This calculation clue for PE is shown in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 1, this kind of method is limited to predict
abnormal PP dominantly generated from disequilibrium compac-
tion because the normal compaction trend is applied. In field
application, normal trend between rock physical properties and PE
is directly developed by eliminating porosity through mathematical
derivation, which can help to reduce uncertainty in porosity
interpretation and is more convenient for practice. The amount of
abnormal PP is related to the amount of measured properties
deviated from the normal trend (Fig. 2), such as effective depth
method (Foster and Whalen, 1966; Ham, 1966) and Eaton's (1975)
model.
Recently, Researchers made some innovative extensions in
Eaton's model when addressing practical problems in field appli-
(1)
cations. For example, Ebrom et al. (2003), and Kumar et al. (2006)
used PS-wave velocity (the arithmetic square root of the product
of P-wave velocity and S-wave velocity) in the Eaton's model, and
discussed the variation of Eaton's coefficient with depths. Ke et al.
(2009) addressed Eaton's coefficient as a random variable, inves-
tigated the distribution characteristic of Eaton's coefficient, and
developed a PP prediction method with credibility based on Eaton's
model.
(2) In fact, similar exponential relation between the porosity and
the burial depth as Equation (4) also exists. By combing these two
kinds of relations, Zhang (2011) proposed a new PP prediction
model dependent on the depth:
(3)
(4)
(5)
Fig. 1. Relations used for effective stress calculation based on equilibrium compaction.
 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8
Fig. 2. Schematic for pore pressure prediction based on normal compaction trend.
ln f0  ln f
PP ¼ PO  ðPO  PPn Þ
cz
where PPn [psi] is the corresponding hydrostatic pressure, and c [1/
m] is the compaction constant. For Equation (7), the normal
compaction trend line of porosity is not a constant, but a function of
depth (Zhang, 2011).
For clastic sedimentary formation, porosity-PE relations can give
satisfactory predictions based on the normal compaction trend
(Tang et al., 2011). However, PP prediction methods based on
porosity-PE relations also have obvious limitations (Fan, 2003; Ai
et al., 2007): (1) it is not suitable for the prediction of abnormal
PP generated beyond disequilibrium compaction; (2) the normal
compaction trend should be established in shales, and it is some-
what subjective and empirical in the practice.
2.2. Velocity-PE relations
In order to break through the restrictions of porosity-PE re-
lations which describes the effect of compaction, researchers try to
directly link the formation velocity to PE. One of these models was
developed by Bowers (1995). He gave a set of velocity-PE relations
considering loading and unloading effects based on the drilling
data in the Gulf of Mexico (Bowers, 1995):
8
> vloading ¼ 5000 þ A$PEB
>
<
"  1=U #B
PE
>
> relation can be used for PP prediction. This method is based on
: vunloading ¼ 5000 þ A PEmax
PEmax
where, v [ft/s] is the velocity; A, B, U, PEmax are empirical parame-
ters. For this equation, the unit of PE is psi. Soleymani and Riahi
(2012) used calibrated Bowers' equations with estimated rock ve-
locities from processing of 3-D seismic data to predict PP at one of
the Iranian southwest oil fields, and they obtained results with
acceptable accuracy. Similar to Bower's method, Miller introduced a
parameter “maximum velocity depth” to control whether unload-
ing has occurred or not (Zhang et al., 2008; Zhang, 2011).
Another velocity-PE model was proposed by Shell. They intro-
duced a “Tau” variable (t) into the relation (Lopez et al., 2004;
Gutierrez et al., 2006; Zhang, 2013):
 B
C  Dt
PE ¼ AtB ¼ A
Dt  D
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
3
where, A and B are fitting constants, Dt is the P-wave transit time
from reflection seismic or sonic logging; C is the mudline transit
time; D is the transit time of the rock matrix.
Some researchers considered the factors (e.g. PE, clay volume,
temperature) influencing the velocity except porosity, and built
integrative velocity models based on the experiment results in the
form of:
v ¼ f ðf; PE; Vsh ; T; /Þ (10)
Among these models, two famous models are:
Phillips et al. (1989):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  
v ¼ a0  a1 f  a2 Vsh þ a3 PE  e16:7PE (11)
Ge et al. (2001) and Singh et al. (2006):
v ¼ a0  a1 f  a2 Vsh þ a3 ea4 $PE (12)
where, a0, a1, a2, a3, a4 are fitting parameters, which are related to
the lithology; Vsh is clay content. Although these integrative ve-
locity models considered many factors influencing the velocity and
(7)
can be used for PP or PE calculation for different mechanisms of
abnormal PP, they at the same time introduced so many fitting
parameters. It seems hard to gain reliable pre-drill PP predictions
when the porosity and the clay content data are unavailable. It
should be noted that these integrative velocity models are all
developed in sandstones, and we are unaware of any publications
of similar models in carbonate rocks.
2.3. Elastic moduli-PE relations
It is known that the dynamic elastic moduli can be calculated
based on the density and velocities by (Mavko et al., 2009):
 
4
K ¼ r v2p  v2s (13)
3
m ¼ rv2s (14)
1v2  v2
p s
g ¼ 22 (15)
vp  v2s
where, r is the density; vp and vs are the P- and S-wave velocities,
respectively; m is the shear modulus, K is the bulk modulus, and g is
the Poisson's ratio. The density and velocities can be obtained from
reflection seismic and well logs. Therefore, the elastic moduli-PE
(8)
purely mechanics, so it is not restricted to the mechanisms of
abnormal PP.
Many experimental observations (Dvorkin et al., 1999; Dutta,
2002) indicated that the Poisson's ratio and the ratio of P-wave
velocity to S-wave velocity (vp/vs) of gas saturated rocks decrease
with decreasing PE, and that the opposite is true for liquid (e.g.
water, oil) saturated rocks (Fig. 3). Therefore, Dutta et al. (2002)
recommended the Poisson's ratio and the vp/vs as indicators of PP
in carbonate reservoirs.
Li et al. (2000) and Liu et al. (2005) developed an empirically
exponential relation between Poisson's ratio and effective stress
based on the logging data in Northeast Sichuan, China:
PE ¼ aebg (16)
(9) where, a and b are fitting parameters. Li et al. (2000) also developed
similar exponential relation between vp/vs and PE. In order to
4 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8

2.4. Case study

After the above summary of PP prediction methods and models,

Fig. 3. The change of Poisson's ratio with effective pressure (after Dutta, 2002).
amplify the “physical property” contrast between gas reservoirs
and surrounding rocks, Zhu et al. (2009) defined generalized
Poisson's ratio after the Equation (15) as
C v2  v2
g¼ 2 p s
(17)
v2p  v2s
The amplifying parameter C is related to rock properties, which
is larger than 1 in gas reservoir, and equal to 1 for surrounding
rocks. Based on the generalized Poisson's ratio, they gained
acceptable PP predictions in a case study of a carbonate gas reser-
voir in eastern Sichuan, China. Atashbari and Tingay (2012) pro-
posed a semi-empirical equation for PP prediction using the
compressibility (the reciprocal of bulk modulus) attribute of
reservoir rocks:
here we give an example of PP prediction of a carbonate gas well in
the Puguang Gas Field, northeast Sichuan, China. This is a produc-
tion well with vertical depth of 4420 m. The formations with depth
larger than 3370 m are mainly carbonates. The PP calculation is
based on the traditional logging data (GR, DT, and Density). We use
the data of 5 offset wells to fit for the Eaton exponent and pa-
rameters in Bowers' model. For the Eaton's method, the normal
compaction trend line is selected as ln(Dtn) ¼ 0.1221z þ 4.2911
(the unit of Dtn is ms/ft, and the unit of depth is km), and the Eaton
exponent is 2.66. The Bowers' velocity-PE relation is fitted as
vp ¼ 1.524 þ 3.02PE0.104 (the unit of velocity is km/s, and the unit of
PE is MPa). The calculation results are shown in Fig. 4.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, both of these two methods give
acceptable results in carbonate formations compared to the drilling
fluid density and the results of repeat formation test (RFT). The
prediction result of Bowers' method is slightly better than that of
Eaton's method. Because of lacking the data of S-wave and the
corresponding sample tests in lab, we can not carry out the PP
calculation by elastic moduli-PE relations. Azadpour et al. (2015)
used the Eaton's method with Zhang's (2011) modified normal
compaction trend (Porosity-PE relation), Bowers' method (Veloc-
ity-PE relation), and compressibility method (Elastic moduli-PE
relation) to predict the PP in one of the carbonate gas field in
south of Iran, respectively. Their results indicated that the modified
Eaton method with Eaton's exponent of about 0.5 gave the best
prediction. Generally speaking, the PP prediction in carbonate

 b
ð1  fÞCb ðPO  PPn Þ
PP ¼ (18)
ð1  fÞCb  fCp

where PPn [psi] is the corresponding hydrostatic pressure; Cb and Cp

[psi1] are the bulk compressibility and the pore compressibility
respectively, which can be calculated from special core analysis; b is
an empirical constant varying between 0.9 and 1.0. They showed
good PP prediction results by using this method in two carbonate
reservoirs of Iran.
Based on the analysis of poroelasticity and Gassmann's model,
Yu et al. (2014a) indicated that the carbonate rock frame is
responsible for the large-scale fluctuations in P-wave velocity,
while the change of PP can only result in small-scale fluctuations in
P-wave velocity. They used the wavelet transformation method to
extract and amplify the high frequency component which is sen-
sitive to the PP change to detect abnormal PP in carbonate reser-
voirs. Another paper by Yu et al. (2104b) analyzed the PP caused by
tectonic compression and its detection based on the thin plate
theory in carbonate reservoirs.
The elastic moduli-PE relations used in PP prediction are still
nascent. However, this kind of method is promising and needs
more experimental and theoretical works to improve its perfor-
mance for further field applications. From feedbacks of current
attempts in carbonate reservoirs, the main problem is the sensi-
tivity of elastic moduli to the change of PE or PP. In some condition,
the elastic moduli seem blunt to the abnormal PP, especially when
the confining pressure is very high (deep burial) or it is liquid Fig. 4. Pore pressure calculated by Eaton's and Bowers' methods of a production gas
saturated (Fig. 3). So a “mathematical amplifier” may be needed. well in northeast Sichun, China.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8
reservoirs is still far from satisfaction. There is no specific method
widely accepted. The published literatures focusing on this issue
are much less compared to the sandstone reservoirs. Such lagging
behind in research leads to the fact that conventional methods
based on normal compaction are still used for PP prediction in
carbonate reservoirs in field applications, which exposes the well
drilling engineering to high risks.
3. Challenges of pore pressure prediction in carbonates
3.1. Multi-mechanisms of abnormal PP in carbonates
There are many mechanisms responsible for abnormal PP
(Zoback, 2007), such as under-compaction, aquathermal pres-
suring, tectonics, kerogen transformation, etc. The generation of
abnormal PP in carbonate formation is different from reservoir to
reservoir because of different depositional and geological condi-
tions (Atashbari and Tingay, 2012). Although most studies currently
point that under-compaction is the dominant mechanism of
abnormal PP generation, the role of this mechanism in carbonate
formations needs further study and discussion. For example, to
what extent the under-compaction mechanism is responsible for
the amount of over-pressure? From the aspect of mechanics, the
amount of over-pressure by under-compaction is controlled by the
relative compressibility of the rock matrix and the pore fluids
(Atashbari and Tingay, 2012). However, carbonate rocks are usually
very stiff, and the amplitude of abnormal PP in carbonates seems
unrelated to the porosity. Weller (1959) pointed out that there is no
consistent relation between the porosity and the burial depth for
carbonates. The post-diagenesis (e.g. chemical effects, cementa-
tion) of carbonate rocks can cause either reduction or increase in
the porosity, so the porosity can not directly reflect the compaction
degree (Li et al., 2000). Therefore, conventional PP prediction
methods explicitly or implicitly containing the disequilibrium
compaction assumption do not suit to carbonate formations. Except
the under-compaction, abnormal PP in carbonates caused by hy-
drocarbon generation and transformation (Chen et al., 2010), tec-
tonic movement (Khashayar, 2010) are also reported. In short, the
mechanisms of abnormal PP generation in carbonate rocks are still
not fully clear (Dutta, 2002), which hinders the further works of PP
prediction in carbonates.
3.2. Velocity variation at the same porosity
As opposed to sandstones, complex diagenetic processes such as
dissolution, cementation and recrystallization make the pore
structure of carbonate rocks extremely complex (Ma et al., 1999).
The velocities of carbonate rocks are usually less dependent on
geologic age or burial depth, and the effect of diagenesis on the
velocity is greater than that of compaction (Eberli et al., 2003). The
velocity-porosity relation of rocks is an important basis for inter-
pretation of reflection seismic and sonic log data. In general, the
velocities of carbonate rocks decrease as the porosity increases
with great velocity variations (Fig. 5). The velocity-porosity cross-
plots of carbonate rocks do not follow traditional empirical re-
lations, such as relations developed by Wyllie et al. (1956), Gardner
et al. (1974), and Raymer et al. (1980). Experiment data from
Verwer et al. (2008) showed that the Wyllie's time average and
Raymer's equations respectively underestimated the P-wave ve-
locity in carbonates by 50% and 25%. Velocities measured from
different carbonate cores can be very different at the same porosity
range (Rafavich et al., 1984; Anselmetti and Eberli, 1993; Assefa
et al., 2003; Baechle et al., 2005; Rogen et al., 2005; Scotellaro
et al., 2007; Verwer et al., 2008; Weger et al., 2009). Among pub-
lished experiment studies, the largest velocity variations are
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
5
reported by Anselmetti and Eberli (1993). They measured P- and S-
wave velocities of carbonate samples from different deposition
environments, and found that the P-wave velocity varies between
1700 m/s and 6500 m/s, and the S-wave velocity varies between
700 m/s and 3400 m/s. Such kind of velocity variation at the same
porosity makes the PP prediction with great uncertainty based on
the velocity-porosity-PE relations.
Wang et al. (2013) discussed the pore structure effects on the
deviations of PP prediction by conventional methods in carbonate
reservoirs based on the effective medium theory (Fig. 6). Carbonate
rocks with soft pores, such as micro-pores and cracks with lower
pore aspect ratio (the ratio of the pore minor axis to the major axis),
have abnormal slow velocities, which lead to pore-pressure over-
estimation. However, carbonate rocks with stiff pores, such as
moldic pores and vugs with higher pore aspect ratio, have
abnormal fast velocities, which lead to pore-pressure underesti-
mation. Therefore, if we do not consider the pore structure effects
on velocities, we may get results with high uncertainty using
conventional PP prediction methods, and even fail to identify
abnormal PP formations without apparent velocity deviations. For
carbonate rocks with well-developed secondary pores, the pore
structure effects on velocities should be as important as porosity
(Eberli et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2015).
3.3. Complex velocity-PE relations
The velocity of clastic sedimentary rocks is obviously dependent
on the PE. There is a sufficiently large gradient in the velocity-PE
crossplot to allow a robust empirical calibration (e.g. Singh et al.,
2006), as shown by the black curve in Fig. 7. But for non-clastic
rocks, their velocity-PE curve is very flat, so there is very little ve-
locity sensitivity to the PE changes. Moreover, the loading and
unloading curves (Bowers, 1995) show unnoticeable velocity
change due to the hysteresis effects (Huffman, 2002). In such
condition, there may be severe secondary over-pressures with very
little velocity changes. In fact, the velocity-PE relations of carbonate
rocks show great variations due to their complex diagenesis and
pore system (Fig. 7). Gomez et al. (2007) concluded that the
velocity-PE relations of carbonate rocks are dependent on their
pore structures based on the observations in 50 carbonate samples.
They found that carbonates dominantly with interparticle or
intercrystalline pores have the most strong velocity sensitivity to
PE, and that the velocities of carbonates dominantly with intra-
particle pores, vugs, and/or moldic pores are much less dependent
on PE changes. The dependency of velocity on PE is moderate for
carbonates with combined pore types. Khaksar and Griffiths (1999)
indicated that the velocity change with PE is more obvious when
there is more pores with low aspect ratio in the rocks. For carbonate
rocks with moderate to high velocity gradient in their velocity-PE
crossplots, such as sample (a) and (b) in Fig. 7, it would give satis-
factory PE predictions based on Bowers' model. But for carbonate
rocks with low velocity gradient, for example, sample (c) in Fig. 7,
there is no reliable method to calculate PE based on velocities at
present. The significant difference in the velocity-PE relation for
carbonates with different pore structures makes the PE calculation
more complicated, and greatly increases the uncertainty in PP
predictions.
4. Way ahead for pore pressure prediction in carbonates
4.1. Rock physics models considering the pore structure effects
More powerful rock physics models are the key to solve the PP
prediction problem in carbonates. Many recent experiment studies
show that the mineral composition (Scotellaro et al., 2007; Kenter
6 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8

Fig. 5. Relation between P-wave velocity and porosity in carbonates with different pore structure; CR represents cracks, IP represents interparticle pores, and VG represents vugs.
(adapted from Xu et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2014).

et al., 2007), pore structure (Anselmetti and Eberli, 1993; Assefa
et al., 2003; Weger et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2015), and frame
texture (Verwer et al., 2008) can be important factors of carbonate
velocity variation. But researchers presently have no consistent
findings. We still need more laboratory data to help us better un-
derstand the physical properties of carbonate rocks. Basically, the
complex pore system and its resultant heterogeneity are the main
factors that affect the performance of conventional rock physics
models in carbonates, which further challenges the reliable PP
prediction. Therefore, we need to develop more powerful rock
physics models to properly describe the relationships between
petrophysical (porosity, permeability, pore structure, and satura-
tion) and geophysical (density, velocities, electrical resistivity, etc.)
properties for carbonate rocks, which can lay a solid foundation for
the PP prediction.
4.2. Predictions by integrating multi-source data
There is a balance between the amount of information and the
reliability of predictions. The more data that describes the reservoir
properties, the more reliable the PP prediction is. Pre-drill PP pre-
diction only based on reflection seismic is of high uncertainty.
Therefore, it is an important strategy to improve the quality of PP
predictions by integrating different types of the formation mea-
surement data at different stages to modify the PP predictions step
by step (Fig. 8).
It is worthwhile to value the correlation of multi-source data.
The pore structure affects different kinds of physical properties of
carbonates, such as elastic wave velocities and electronic resistivity
(Weger et al., 2011). For example, we can use the velocity-resistivity

Fig. 7. Comparison of velocityestress relation between sandstone and carbonate

rocks; the black line is for the sandstone which is Sample 33 in Han et al. (1986); the
Fig. 6. Relationship between pore-pressure deviation and pore aspect ratio in car- other three lines with thin section images are for carbonate rocks, which are measured
bonates (after Wang et al., 2013). in our lab.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8
Fig. 8. Pore pressure prediction using multi-sources data.
joint inversion to obtain the pore structure information, and then
use the velocity or resistivity data to predict PP considering the
effects of pore structure. Such correlation of multi-source data
provides more objective and strong constraints to the inversion,
which helps to gain results closer to the real fact. But we first need
to build the rock physics models of different properties and also
their correlations. Unfortunately, most laboratory studies in car-
bonate rock physics currently are focusing on the pore structure
effects on a particular property (either velocity or resistivity) due to
its complexity. The investigation on the correlation of different
geophysical properties in carbonates is still rare, but is promising.
4.3. Predictions in real-time
We have had many kinds of drill-bit seismic-while-drilling tools
to acquire updated velocity data at present, such as DbSeis
(Schlumberger), Tomex (Western Altas), SeismicTrak (Baker
Hughes). And as the development of MWD and LWD, we can also
gain high quality (high resolution, high SNR) data timely. It seems
that we are very close to the PP prediction and update in real-time
once we have the proper prediction model. The key lies in how to
predict in “real-time” (Dutta et al., 2002). If we can reliably predict
the PP only a few meters ahead of the bit before penetrating based
on the MWD and LWD data, the safety problem of drilling in car-
bonate reservoirs would be perfectly resolved.
5. Conclusions
(1) Currently, the PP prediction for carbonate reservoir is still not
properly solved. More powerful rock physics model is one of
the keys to solve this issue, but with slow progress in sci-
entific research. Among the three kinds of PE calculations
models, velocity-PE relations and elastic moduli-PE relations
are not restricted by the disequilibrium compaction mecha-
nism, and are promising to be adequate for the PP prediction
in carbonates after further improvements.
(2) The complex pore system and its resultant heterogeneity are
the inner factors that affect the performance of conventional
rock physics models in carbonates, which further challenges
the reliable PP prediction. We are still far from well under-
standing the physical properties of carbonate rocks, such as
the pore structure effects on velocities, and the correlations
between different geophysical properties. Developing proper
velocity (or elastic moduli)-PE models based on experiments
and field data is the urgent need for improving the reliability
of PP prediction in carbonate rocks.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
7
(3) Based on proper rock physics models, predicting and
updating the PP results in real time a few meters ahead of the
bit using the MWD and LWD data would be a good solution
for the safe drilling in carbonates.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51274230, and No. 51404287), China
Scholarship Council (201406450011), the Natural Science Founda-
tion of Shandong Province, China (ZR2014EEQ032), and the Excel-
lent Doctoral Dissertation Cultivation Program of China University
of Petroleum (Huadong) (UPC201403011).
References
Ai, C., Feng, F., Li, H., 2007. The current status and development trend of formation
pressure prediction. Pet. Geol. Eng. 21 (6), 70e73 (in Chinese).
Anselmetti, F.S., Eberli, G.P., 1993. Controls on sonic velocity in carbonates. Pure
Appl. Geophys. 141, 287e323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00998333.
Assefa, S., McCann, C., Sothcott, J., 2003. Velocities of compressional and shear
waves in limestones. Geophys. Prospect. 51, 1e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/
j.1365-2478.2003.00349.x.
Atashbari, V., Tingay, M., 2012. Pore Pressure Prediction in Carbonate Reservoirs.
SPE150835. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/150835-ms.
Athy, L.F., 1930. Compaction and oil migration. AAPG Bull. 14, 25e36. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1306/3d93289f-16b1-11d7-8645000102c1865d.
Azadpour, M., Manaman, N.S., Ilkhchi, A.K., Sedghipour, M.R., 2015. Pore pressure
prediction and modeling using well-logging data in one of the gas fields in
south of Iran. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 128, 15e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.petrol.2015.02022.
Baechle, G.T., Weger, R.J., Eberli, G.P., 2005. Changes of shear moduli in carbonate
rocks: implication for Gassmann applicability. Lead. Edge 24, 507e510. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1926808.
Bowers, G.L., 1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: accounting for
overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drill. Complet.
89e95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27488-pa.
Chen, T., Guan, Z., 2000. Theory and Technology of Drilling Engineering. Press of
Petroleum University, Dongying, pp. 6e11 (in Chinese).
Chen, Y., Zhao, L., Fan, Z., et al., 2010. Genesis and prediction for overpressure car-
bonate reservoir-case study of Kenkiyak sub-salt carbonate reservoir in
Kazakhstan. In: International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China,
Beijing, SPE-131842-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/131842-MS.
Chopra, S., Chemingui, N., Miller, R.D., 2005. An introduction to this special section:
carbonates. Lead. Edge 24, 488e489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1926805.
Chopra, S., Huffman, A.R., 2006. Velocity determination for pore-pressure predic-
tion. Lead. Edge 25, 1502e1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2405336.
Dutta, N.C., 1983. Shale compaction and abnormal pore pressures: a model of
geopressures in the Gulf Coast Basin. In: 53rd Annual International Meeting of
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 542e544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1893736.
Dutta, N.C., 1988. Fluid flow in low permeable porous media. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 43
(2), 165e180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2526/ogst:1988011.
Dutta, N.C., 2002. Geopressure prediction using seismic data: current status and the
road ahead. Geophysics 67 (6), 2012e2041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1527101.
Dutta, N., Mukerji, T., Prasad, M., et al., 2002. Seismic detection and estimation of
overpressures, part I: the rock physics basis. CSEG Rec. 27 (7), 35e57.
Dvorkin, J., Mavko, G., Nur, A., 1999. Overpressure detection from compressional-
and shear-wave data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26 (22), 3417e3420. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/1999GL008382.
Eaton, B.A., 1975. The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/5544-MS. SPE5544-MS.
Eberli, G.P., Baechle, G.T., Anselmetti, F.S., Incze, M.L., 2003. Factors controlling
elastic properties in carbonate sediments and rocks. Lead. Edge 22, 654e660.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1599691.
Ebrom, D., Heppard, P., Mueller, M., Thomsen, L., 2003. Pore pressure prediction
from S-wave, C-wave, and P-wave velocities. In: 2003 SEG Annual Meeting,
SEG-2003-1370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1817543.
Fan, H.H., 2003. Discussions on the traditional pore pressure evaluation methods by
using well logging. Pet. Explor. Dev. 30 (4), 72e74 (in Chinese).
Fillippone, W.R., 1982. Estimation of formation parameters and the prediction of
overpressure from seismic data. In: Expanded Abstract of 52nd Annual Inter-
national SEG Meeting, Dallas, Texas, pp. 502e503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/
1.1827121.
Foster, J.B., Whalen, J.E., 1966. Estimation of formation pressure from electrical
surveys-offshore Lousidiana. J. Pet. Technol. 18 (2), 165e171. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/1200-pa.
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., Gregory, A.R., 1974. Formation velocity and densi-
tydthe diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39, 770e780.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1440465.
Ge, H., Chen, Y., Han, D., 2001. The effect of effective stress on rock elastic wave
8 Z. Wang, R. Wang / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering xxx (2015) 1e8
velocities. Chin. J. Geophys. 2001 (44), 152e160 (in Chinese).
Gomez, J.P., Rai, C.S., Sondergeld, C.H., 2007. Effect of microstructure and pore fluid
on the elastic properties of carbonates. In: SEG 2007 Annual Meeting,
pp. 1565e1569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2792794.
Gutierrez, M.A., Braunsdorf, N.R., Couzens, B.A., 2006. Calibration and ranking of
pore-pressure prediction models. Lead. Edge 25 (12), 1516e1523. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2405337.
Ham, H.H., 1966. A method of estimating formation pressures from Gulf Coast well
logs. AAPG Bull. 50 http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/5D25B73D-16C1-11D7-
8645000102C1865D.
Han, D.H., Nur, A., Morgan, D., 1986. Effects of porosity and clay content on wave
velocities in sand stone. Geophysics 51, 2093e2107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/
1.1442062.
Huffman, A.R., 2002. The future of pressure prediction using geophysical methods.
In: Huffman, A.R., Bowers, G.L. (Eds.), Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins
and their Prediction: AAPG Memoir 76, pp. 217e233.
Hofmann, R., Xu, X., Batzle, M., Prasad, M., Furre, A.K., Pillitteri, A., 2005. Effective
pressure or what is the effect of pressure? Lead. Edge 24, 1256e1260. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2149644.
Ke, K., Guan, Z., Zhou, X., 2009. An approach to determining pre-drilling formation
pore pressure with credibility for deep water exploration wells. J. China Univ.
Pet. Ed. Nat. Sci. 5, 61e67 (in Chinese).
Kenter, J.A.M., Braaksma, H., Vewer, K., Lanen, X.M.T., 2007. Acoustic behavior of
sedimentary rocks: geological properties versus Poisson's ratio. Lead. Edge 26,
436e444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2723206.
Khaksar, A., Griffiths, C.M., 1999. Influence of effective stress on the acoustic velocity
and log-derived porosity. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2 (1), 69e75. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/54564-pa.
Khashayar, T., 2010. Application of Rock-Eval6 in detection seepage of Yortshah gas
storage. World Appl. Sci. J. 8 (10), 1193e1199.
Kumar, K.M., Ferguson, R.J., Ebrom, D., Heppard, P., 2006. Pore pressure prediction
using an Eaton's approach for PS-waves. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded
Abstracts, pp. 1550e1554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2369816.
Li, Q., Heliot, D., Zhao, L., et al., 2000. Abnormal pressure detection and wellbore
stability evaluation in carbonate formations of east Sichuan, China. In: IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, SPE-59125-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/59125-MS.
Liu, Z., Xia, H., Chen, P., 2005. Calculating three formation pressures of carbonate
rock using logging data. Drill. Prod. Technol. 28 (1), 18e21 (in Chinese).
Lopez, J.L., Rappold, P.M., Ugueto, G.A., Wieseneck, J.B., Vu, K., 2004. Integrated
shared earth model: 3D pore-pressure prediction and uncertainty analysis.
Lead. Edge 23 (1), 52e59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1645455.
Ma, Y.S., Mei, M.X., Chen, X.B., et al., 1999. Sedimentology of Carbonate Reservoirs.
Geological Publishing House, pp. 161e163 (in Chinese).
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J., 2009. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for
Seismic Analysis of Porous Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626753.
Palciauskas, V.V., Domenico, P.A., 1989. Fluid pressures in deforming porous rocks.
Water Resour. Res. 25, 203e213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/wr025i002p00203.
Pennebaker, E.S., 1968. An engineering interpretation of seismic data. In: Fall
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Houston, Texas, SPE-
2165-MS.
Phillips, D.E., Han, D., Zoback, M.D., 1989. Empirical relationships among seismic
velocity, effective pressure, porosity and clay content in sandstone. Geophysics
54 (1), 82e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1442580.
Rafavich, F., Kendall, C.H.StC., Todd, T.P., 1984. The relationship between acoustic
properties and the petrographic character of carbonate rocks. Geophysics 49,
1622e1636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1441570.
Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E.R., Gardner, J.S., 1980. An improved sonic transit time-to-
porosity transform. In: Transactions of the SPWLA 21st Annual Logging Sym-
posium, pp. 1e13.
Rogen, B., Fabricious, I.L., Japsen, P., Hoier, C., Mavko, G., Pedersen, J.M., 2005. Ul-
trasonic velocities of North Sea chalk samples: Influence of porosity, fluid
content and texture. Geophys. Prospect. 53, 481e496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2478.2005.00485.x.
Sayers, C.M., 2006. An introduction to velocity-based pore-pressure estimation.
Lead. Edge 25 (12), 1496e1500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2405335.
Sayers, C., Latimer, R., 2008. An introduction to this special section: Carbonates.
Lead. Edge 27 (8), 1010e1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2967553.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Z., Wang, R., Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current
status, challenges and way ahead, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.032
Scotellaro, C., Vanorio, T., Mavko, G., 2007. The effect of mineral composition and
pressure on carbonate rocks. In: 77th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstract. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2792818.
Singh, R., Rai, C., Sondergeld, C., 2006. Pressure dependence of elastic wave ve-
locities in sandstones. SEG 2006 Annual, New Orleans, Louisiana,
pp. 1883e1887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2369893.
Soleymani, H., Riahi, M.A., 2012. Velocity based pore pressure prediction: a case
study at one of the Iranian southwest fields. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 94e95, 40e46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.06.024.
Swarbrick, R.E., Osborne, M.J., 1998. Mechanisms that generate abnormal pressures:
an overview. In: Law, B.E., Ulmishek, G.F., Slavin, V.I. (Eds.), Abnormal Pressures
in Hydrocarbon Environments, AAPG Memoir 70. American Association of Pe-
troleum Geologists, Tulsa, pp. 13e34.
Tang, H., Luo, J., Qiu, K., et al., 2011. Worldwide pore pressure prediction: case
studies and methods. In: SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia, SPE-140954-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/140957-ms.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York.
Traugott, M., 1997. Pore/fracture pressure determination in deep water. World Oil
Deepwater Technol. Special Supplement, 1997 68e70.
Verwer, K., Braaksma, H., Kenter, J.A., 2008. Acoustic properties of carbonates: ef-
fects of rock texture and implications for fluid substitution. Geophysics 73 (2),
B51eB65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2831935.
Wang, R., Wang, Z., Shan, X., Qiu, H., Li, T., 2013. Factors influencing pore-pressure
prediction in complex carbonates based on effective medium theory. Pet. Sci. 10
(4), 494e499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12182-013-0300-7.
Wang, Z., Wang, R., Shan, X., et al., 2014. Uncertainty analysis of pore pressure
prediction in carbonate formation using conventional methods. J. China Univ.
Pet. Ed. Nat. Sci. 38 (5), 96e101 (in Chinese).
Wang, Z., Wang, R., Wang, F., Qiu, H., Li, T., 2015. Experiment study of pore structure
effects on velocities in synthetic carbonate rocks. Geophysics 80 (3),
D207eD219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0366.1.
Weger, R., Verwer, K., Eberli, G., Baechle, G., 2011. Capturing pore structures with
digital image analysis for a quantitative correlation to physical properties. In:
AAPG Annual Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA.
Weger, R.J., Eberli, G.P., Baechle, G.T., Massaferro, J.L., Sun, Y.F., 2009. Quantification
of pore structure and its effect on sonic velocity and permeability in carbonates.
AAPG Bull. 93, 1297e1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/05270909001.
Weller, J.M., 1959. Compaction of sediments. AAPG Bull. 43 (2), 273e310. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1306/0bda5c9f-16bd-11d7-8645000102c1865d.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., Gardner, L.W., 1956. Elastic wave velocities in hetero-
geneous and porous media. Geophysics 21, 41e70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/
1.1438217.
Xu, S., Chen, G., Zhu, Y., Zhang, J., Payne, M., Deffenbaugh, M., Song, L.,
Dunsmuir, J.H., 2007. Carbonate rock physics: analytical models and validation
using computational approaches and lab/log measurements. In: The Interna-
tional Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E., Expanded Abstracts,
IPTC-11308-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/11308-MS.
Yu, F., Jin, Y., Chen, K.P., Chen, M., 2014a. Pore-pressure prediction in carbonate rock
using wavelet transformation. Geophysics 79 (4), D243eD252. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1190/GEO2013-0277.1.
Yu, F., Jin, Y., Chen, M., et al., 2014b. Discussion on a formation pore pressure
detection method for carbonate rocks based on the thin plate theory. Pet. Drill.
Tech. 42 (5), 57e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.11911/syztjs.201405010.
Zhang, J., Standifird, W.B., Lenamond, C., 2008. Casing ultradeep, ultralong salt
sections in deep water: a case study for failure diagnosis and risk mitigation in
record-depth well. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21e24
September 2008, Denver, Colorado, USA, SPE 114273. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
114273-MS.
Zhang, J., 2011. Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods, modifications,
and new approaches. Earth Sci. Rev. 108, 50e63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.earscirev.2011.06.001.
Zhang, J., 2013. Effective stress, porosity, velocity and abnormal pore pressure
prediction accounting for compaction disequilibrium and unloading. Mar. Pet.
Geol. 45, 2e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.04.007.
Zhu, W., Yu, W., Li, K., 2009. Formation pressure prediction in carbonate. In: CPS &
SEG Beijing 2009 International Geophysical Conference & Exposition, Paper ID:
1170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3603678.
Zoback, M.D., 2007. Reservoir Geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, New
York, p. 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511586477.