Seismic pore pressure prediction without well data and poorly defined normal compaction trend lines: a case study from the Río Bravo Delta, Northern Mexico

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan C. Clarembaux ◽  
Marcelo Giusso ◽  
Roberto Gullco ◽  
Daniel Mujica ◽  
Carlos Carabeo Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Northern Mexico ◽  
Pore Pressure Prediction ◽  
Rio Bravo ◽  
Well Data

Influence of faulting on reservoir overpressure distribution in the Northern Carnarvon Basin

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Edward Hoskin ◽  
Stephen O'Connor ◽  
Stephen Robertson ◽  
Jurgen Streit ◽  
Chris Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Hanging Wall ◽  
Foot Wall ◽  
Geological History ◽  
Pore Pressure Prediction ◽  
Northern Carnarvon Basin ◽  
Well Data ◽  
Carnarvon Basin

The Northern Carnarvon Basin has a complicated geological history, with numerous sub-basins containing varying formation thicknesses, lithology types, and structural histories. These settings make pre-drill pore pressure prediction problematic; the high number of kicks taken in wells shows this. Kicks suggest unexpected pore pressure was encountered and mudweights used were below formation pressure. The horst block penetrated by the Parker–1 well is focused on in this peer-reviewed paper. This horst is one of many lying along Rankin Trend’s strike. In this well, kicks up to 17.2 ppg (pounds per gallon) were taken in the Mungaroo reservoir. The authors investigate whether the kicks represent shale pressure—or rather, represent pressure transferred into foot-wall sandstones—by using well data from Forrest 1/1A/1AST1 and Withnell–1, and wells located in the Dampier Sub-basin and the hanging-wall to the horst. This anomalous pressure could result from either cross-fault flow from juxtaposed overpressured Dingo Claystone or transfer up faults from a deeper source. Using a well data derived Vp versus VES trend, the authors establish that the kicks taken in Parker–1 are more likely to result from pressure transfer using faults as conduits. These data lie off a loading trend and appear unloaded but likely represent elevated sand pressures and not in situ shale pressure. Pressure charging up faults in the Northern Carnarvon Basin has been recognised in Venture 1/1ST1, however, this paper presents a focused case study. Pressure transfer is noted in other basins, notably Brunei. From unpublished data, the authors believe that buried horst blocks, up-fault charging and adjacent overpressured shale may explain high reservoir pressures in other basins, including Nam Con Son in Vietnam.

Ahead of Bit Pore Pressure Prediction using VSP - A Case Study in South China Sea

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuhong Xie ◽  
Jun Cai ◽  
Ling Xia Zhen ◽  
Hong Tian ◽  
Yan Hua Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
Pore Pressure ◽  
South China ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Pore Pressure Prediction

High resolution pore‐pressure prediction from AVO derived velocities; a North Sea case study

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Hawkins ◽  
Andrew Ratcliffe ◽  
Graham Roberts ◽  
Dave Went
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Pore Pressure ◽  
North Sea ◽  
Pore Pressure Prediction

scholarly journals THE IMPORTANCE OF GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IN JUSTIFYING PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION: THE CASE STUDY OF THE PECIKO FIELD, LOWER KUTAI BASIN

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Agus M Ramdhan
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Soil Mechanics ◽  
Hydrodynamic Condition ◽  
Method Of Calculation ◽  
Geological Processes ◽  
Pressure Calculation ◽  
Pressure Equilibrium ◽  
Deltaic Sedimentation ◽  
Pore Pressure Prediction

One significant factor affecting pore pressure prediction is choosing a method of calculation. If we choose the inappropriate method, the result may not refl ect not only pore pressure condition in an area, but also geological processes operating in the whole basin. In this research, two methods are applied to wireline-based pore pressure calculation in the Peciko Field: the Eaton Method and the Soil Mechanics Method. The results of the calculation show a signifi cant difference between these methods. The Eaton Method resulted in reservoir-shale pressure discrepancy (by over-predicting the reservoir pressure) at shallower depth, and reservoir-shale pressure equilibrium at depth. On the contrary, the Soil Mechanics Method resulted in reservoir-shale pressure equilibrium at shallower depth and an under-predicting at depth. It seems that, in terms of processes operating in this fi eld which affect pore pressure regimes, i.e. lateral reservoir drainage and rapid mud-dominated deltaic sedimentation, the result of the Eaton Method is more plausible than that of the Soil Mechanics Method. This research also reveals an important inference: if there is a pressure discrepancy, then it is likely that a hydrodynamic condition is present.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document