See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324106332

Pore Pressure Prediction in Unconventional Carbonate Reservoir

Conference Paper · April 2018

DOI: 10.2118/194224-MS

CITATIONS READS
8 1,482

4 authors, including:

Munir Elmahdy Ali E. Farag

Khalda Petroleum Company The British University in Egypt
12 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Elhamy A. Tarabees
Damanhour University
32 PUBLICATIONS   356 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

groundwater issue including exploration View project

Sea water intrusion: Modelling the effect of sea level rise on the Nile Delta aquifers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali E. Farag on 07 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-194224-MS

Pore Pressure Prediction in Unconventional Carbonate Reservoir

M. Elmahdy, Khalda Petroleum Company; A. E. Farag, British University in Egypt; E. Tarabees, Damanhur
University and A. Bakr, Exploration consultant.

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 23–26
April 2018.

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
Prediction of the formation pore pressure is considered as a significant simulation process during the
drilling and production phases of the carbonate reservoir. The deficiency in this prediction allows for the
occurrence of many troubles like blowouts, kicks, hole washouts, wellbore breakout, and stuck pipe. The
most common conventional methods for the pore pressure prediction are Eaton’s and Bower’s methods
which depend mainly on the normal compaction trend and commonly applied on Shales. The objective of
this work is the prediction of the formation pore pressure by the application of the modified Atashbari
prediction model upon the wireline logging data. This method depend on the porosity and the
compressibility attribute of the rocks for the estimation of the pore pressure without any need for the
normal compaction trends. The method was applied on the carbonate reservoir of the Middle Eocene
Apollonia Formation, Abu El-Gharadig basin, Egypt. It is a gas bearing reservoir which characterized by
its high porosity and low permeability. The results were compared with the other commonly used methods
and show an improvement in the pore pressure estimation. It can be used as an individual method or in
complement with other available methods.

1. Introduction
Formation pore pressure is defined as the pressure of the fluid filled the pores of the formation. It can
be either equal to the hydrostatic pressure, which is known by normal pore pressure, or differ from the
hydrostatic pressure (higher or lower), which is known by, abnormal pore pressure. Swarbrick and
Osborne (1998) described several mechanisms that originates abnormal pressures such as aquathermal
expansion, compaction disequilibrium (under-compaction), gas cracking and hydrocarbon extraction,
hydrocarbon buoyancy, lateral stresses due to tectonic events and mineral transformations. The deficiency
in the formation pore pressure prediction before and during drilling, increase the probability of drilling
risks and incidents. Abnormally high pressures causes weakness in faults (Bird, 1995; Tobin and Saffer,
2009) and mud volcanoes (Davies et al., 2007 and Tingay et al., 2009). Pore pressure predictions in
unconventional carbonate reservoirs, depending on well logs has always been a difficult task. Carbonates
do not compact uniformly with depth as do Shales. In addition to that, the pore system in carbonates is a
complex combination of several pore types, which increases the risk of erroneous pore pressure prediction
(Wang et al., 2013).
The objective of this work is to predict the formation pore pressure in unconventional carbonate
reservoir depending on the porosity and the compressibility attribute of the rocks and by using the wireline
logging data. This method was first approached by Atashbari and Tingay, 2012, and modified by Azadpour
SPE-194224-MS 2

et al., 2015 and Atashbari, 2016. The results are compared with the pore pressure estimated from
commonly used methods such as Eaton’s and Bower’s methods.

2. Area of study
The target reservoir is the gas bearing, Middle Eocene carbonates of the Apollonia Formation, located
in the north east Abu El-Gharadig Basin in Egypt. This basin is considered as the largest and most
significant sedimentary basin for hydrocarbon exploration in the Western Desert of Egypt (Abdel Aal and
Moustafa, 1988), with over 95% of the oil and gas fields producing from the Cretaceous clastics and the
Eocene carbonates (Strating and Postuma, 2008).
The Apollonia formation is related to the Upper Palaeocene to Middle Eocene, overlaid by Dabaa
shale (Oligocene) and underlain by the limestone of Khoman Formation (Upper Cretaceous) (Fig.1).
Stratigraphers divided the formation into four members, A, B, C & D. Apollonia A & C have the most
porous gas – bearing carbonates while Apollonia B and D are mainly shale (Fig.2) (El-Bendary, et. al.,
2016; Faglenour, et. al., 2017). Conventional core measurements show a permeability ranging between
0.01 and 0.90mD; whereas porosity ranges between 14.9% and 39.80% (Corex, 2011).
Structurally, there are two main types of faults dissected the carbonate reservoir of the Abu El-
Gharadig basin. A major tectonic NW-SE normal fault bisected the field into two major hanging wall and
footwall blocks and extends until the cretaceous sequence. It is supposed to be one of the NW-SE oriented
normal faults dissected the NE – SW inversion anticlines formed due to the conversion between the
African and Eurasian plates during the Late Cretaceous – Early Tertiary (Guiraud et al., 2005, Bevan and
Moustafa, 2012, El-Gazzar, et. al. 2016). Another group of minor non-tectonic, layer bound, polygonal
faults restricted only to the uppermost members of the Apollonia formation (Elmahdy, et.al. 2017) (Fig.
3). These faults act as a conduits for the fluid flow during production or during any secondary recovery
operations (Gay et al., 2004; Davies el al., 2009; Elmahdy, et.al. 2018).

Fig.1: Key map discusses the location of the study area

SPE-194224-MS 3

Fig. 2: A full stratigraphic column of the northern Western Desert, with a detailed stratigraphic section for the Upper Cretaceous –
Lower Tertiary sequence (Khalda Petroleum Company (KPC).

Fig. 3: Structure contour map of the main pay zone along the Apollonia A member at the Abu El Gharadib basin, Western desert,
Egypt.

Non-Business Use
SPE-194224-MS 4

The Apollonia carbonate reservoir is considered as a commercial, unconventional, gas bearing reservoir
characterized by its high porosity and low permeability. In 1970, AMOCO drilled two exploration wells
as an Apollonia objective but they showed a disappointing results (Abed El Semia, 2005). In 2007, Shell
drilled the first commercial discovery of Apollonia formation in the Abu El-Gharadig basin. Wireline
logging showed about 20 meter thickness of total net effective pay in the Apollonia A member. However,
the production from the tight carbonates in the vertical wells was uneconomical which triggered the
important of the horizontal drilling of the wells. In 2016, Khalda Petroleum Company – Apache Egypt
operated the first two horizontal wells in the Apollonia A5 member with a multistage completions which
showed an increase in the daily production by 5-8 times (Fagelnour, et. al., 2017).
Data of 2 wells, including different petrophysical logs such as gamma ray, resistivity and porosity
logs (neutron, density and sonic) along with MDT data (Fig.4) are used in this study to determine the
formation pore pressure.

Fig.4: A detailed composite wireline logs of the two wells, with the tops of the main Apollonia members (including pay zone
members).
SPE-194224-MS 5

3. Pore pressure prediction

Biot, 1941 and Terzaghi,et.al., 1996 constructed the most common model used in the pore pressure
estimations. They considered the compaction disequilibrium mechanism as the source of up normal pore
pressure. Their equation was:
𝜎𝑒 = 𝜎𝑣 − 𝛼𝑝…………………….………………...... (1)
where, 𝜎𝑒 is the vertical effective stress; 𝜎𝑣 is the vertical or overburden stress, 𝛼 is the Biot’s effective
stress coefficient and p is the pore pressure.
Commonly, it is assumed that the formation compaction is mainly caused by the vertical / overburden
stress (Chapman, 1983; Osborne and Swarbrick, 1997). The vertical stress is generated by the weight of
the overlying beds. The value of this vertical stress can be obtained by integrating bulk density logs
through the following equation:
𝑧
𝜌𝑣 = 𝜌𝑤 𝘨 𝑧𝑤 + 𝘨 ∫𝑧 𝜌𝑏 (𝑧)𝑑𝑧 ………………..……...... (2)
𝑤

where 𝜌𝑣 is the overburden stress; 𝜌𝑤 is the density of sea water for offshore drilling; 𝘨: acceleration due
to gravity; 𝑧𝑤 : water depth, which is equal to 0 for onshore drilling and 𝜌𝑏 (𝑧): formation bulk density as
a function of depth.
The formation bulk density can be obtained from well logging. However, in most cases the shallow
density log data are not available. The shallow density can be extrapolated to mud line by the following
equation:
𝜌𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑= 𝜌𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 +𝐴0 𝑋 (𝑇𝑉𝐷−𝐴𝑖𝑟𝐺𝑎𝑝−𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ)𝑎 ... (3)
where, 𝜌𝑚𝑢𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 is the density at the sea floor or ground level and 𝐴0 and 𝑎 are the fitting parameters. The
density values of the mud line and shallow depth (point A) and deep depth (point B) have to determine as
in figure 5.
During normal sediments burial, there is an equilibrium between the increasing overburden and the
fluid expulsion, known by normal compaction (Mouchet and Mitchell, 1989). This normal compaction
generated formation pore pressure equals to the hydrostatic pressure, which is considered as the column
of pore fluid from the surface to the interested depth and proportional to the formation depth and the
density of the fluids in the pores (Zhang, 2013):
𝑃𝑛 = 𝜌𝑓 𝘨 ℎ …………………………….……………...... (4)
where: 𝑃𝑛 is the hydrostatic pressure; 𝜌𝑓 the fluid density; 𝘨: acceleration due to gravity and ℎ: is the
vertical height of the fluid column.
In case of rabid subsidence for the sediments, or low formation permeability, the fluids will be
expelled partially, which will cause an abnormal increase in the pore pressure. This causes a fallen in the
rate of the porosity decrease with depth, forming what is known by compaction disequilibrium. Hottman
and Johnson (1965) used the deviation in the porosity behaviour with depth (or any porosity indicators
such as sonic transit time, resistivity or interval velocity) from the normal compaction trend (NCT) as an
indication for the compaction disequilibrium. They depend on the characters of the shale lithology rather
than that of carbonates or sands due to its uniform compaction with depth. Commonly, for the pressure
prediction in non – shale formations, scientists prefer to assume that the pressure in the shale beds is equal
to that of the adjacent non-shale beds or use the fluid flow model. (Dickinson, 1953; Traugott, 1997;
Yardley and Swarbrick, 2000 and Zhang, 2011).
SPE-194224-MS 6

ML

B
Well- 2
Fig.5: Extrapolated density curve with the estimated overburden vertical stress at Well- 2, where, ML is the mud line point and A & B
are the shallow and deep depths respectively.

3.1. Eaton method

Eaton (1975) method is the common used technique for the pore pressure prediction in the oil field.
It depends on the Eaton’s work in the Gulf of Mexico. He depend on both the resistivity and the sonic
compressional transit time data in the following empirical equations:
𝑃𝑝𝑔 = 𝑂𝐵𝐺 − (𝑂𝐵𝐺 − 𝑃𝑛𝑔 )(∆𝑡𝑛 ⁄∆𝑡)3 ……………...... (5)

𝑃𝑝𝑔 = 𝑂𝐵𝐺 − (𝑂𝐵𝐺 − 𝑃𝑛𝑔 )(𝑅𝑛 ⁄R)3 …………….......... (6)

where 𝑃𝑝𝑔 is the formation pressure gradient and equal to the pore pressure divided by the true vertical
depth; 𝑂𝐵𝐺 is the overburden stress gradient; 𝑃𝑛𝑔 is the hydrostatic pore pressure gradient; ∆𝑡𝑛 & 𝑅𝑛 are
the transit time and resistivity in Shales at the normal pressure; ∆𝑡 and R are the transit time and resistivity
in Shales obtained from well logging.
In our field of study, gamma ray log was used for the determination of the shale beds in the carbonate
reservoir. With respect to this analysis, the corresponding velocity points are detected and sonic log
velocity trend line is drawn through these points as is shown in Figure 6. Note that the normal trend line
is drawn through the normally pressured and normally compacted section of the well log data. Any
SPE-194224-MS 7

deviation from the normal trend line indicates as the abnormal pressure. Pore pressure is estimated by
using the both the resistivity and transit time logs in Eaton method, with an Eaton exponent 0.8 (Fig.7).

Fig. 6: Normal velocity trend line corresponding to shale beds.

Well- 1 Well- 2
Fig.7: Pore pressure estimated by Eaton method depending on both the sonic transit time and resistivity curves and correlated by
the MDT points.
3.2. Bowers’s method
This method was introduced by Bowers 1995, to calculate the effective stress from velocity and then
use the Terzaghi’s equation (equation 1) in pore pressure calculation. This method considers two main
SPE-194224-MS 8

mechanisms as a source of overpressure generations: compaction disequilibrium and unloading due to

fluid expansion.
In compaction disequilibrium conditions, Bowers (1995) used the following equation:
𝑣𝑝 = 𝑣0 + 𝐴 𝜎𝑒𝐵 ………………………….…………....... (7)
where, 𝑣𝑝 is the velocity at a given depth and 𝑣0 the surface velocity (normally 5000 ft/sec); , 𝜎𝑒 is the
vertical effective stress and A and B are the parameters calibrated with offset velocities versus effective
stress data.
In unloading conditions, Bowers (1995) proposed the following empirical relation:
𝐵
𝑣𝑝 = 𝑣0 + 𝐴 [𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝜎𝑒 ⁄𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 )1⁄𝑈 ] ………………........ (8)
where, U is the unloading parameter, 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum effective stress and , 𝑣𝑝 , 𝑣0 , 𝜎𝑒 , A and B are
same as above.
Both methods of Bowers have been applied on our available data (Fig. 8) with 𝑣0 = 5000 ft/s, Bowers
A =4.457 & B = 0.8.

Fig.8: Pore pressure estimated by both methods of Bowers method depending on the sonic transit time and resistivity curves and
correlated by the MDT points.
3.3. Compressibility method
This is considered as a new method for the pore pressure predication, introduced and applied in some
of the over pressured carbonate reservoirs in the Middle East (Atashbari and Tingay, 2012 and Azadpour
et al., 2015). He considered that any change in the pore space is a function of the rock and pore
compressibility. The determination of both the bulk and pore compressibility either from the special core
SPE-194224-MS 9

analysis (SCAL) or from well logs, could be used for the pore pressure prediction from the following
equation:
𝛾
(1− ∅)𝐶 𝜎
𝑃= (( ) 𝑏 𝑒 ) ……………………………..…...….. (9)
1−∅ 𝐶𝑏 −𝐶𝑝

where, 𝑃 is the pore pressure, ∅ is the formation porosity, 𝜎𝑒 is the effective overburden stress
(overburden stress – hydrostatic pressure), 𝐶𝑏 is the bulk compressibility in 𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1 , 𝐶𝑝 compressibility in
𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1 and 𝛾 is an empirical constant.
Afterward, Azadpour, et. al., 2015 and Atshbari, 2016 proposed a modification for the above equation
based on pore volume compressibility as follows:

(1− ∅)𝐶𝑝 𝜎𝑒 𝛾
𝑃 = (( ) …………………………….…….... (10)
1−∅)𝐶𝑝 −∅𝐶𝑝

(1− ∅)𝜎𝑒 𝛾
𝑃= ( ) …………….……………………......... (11)
1−2∅
Equation 11 is a new introduced equation that contain only three variables: porosity, pore pressure
and vertical effective stress. In this approach, total porosity (∅)is obtained from well logs, effective stress
(𝜎𝑒 ) equals to the difference between the total vertical stress and hydrostatic pressure Terzaghi (1925).
Given the porosity and effective stress values, pore pressure would be calculated from Equation 10, using
am empirical exponent γ = 0.85.

4. Results and conclusions

Theoretically, the compaction disequilibrium is the main mechanism for the overpressure generation
and the pressure-porosity model is the fundamental for pore pressure prediction in Shales. Using this
theoretical model, pore pressure prediction from porosity and compressional velocity (sonic transit time)
have been obtained.
By the application of the different methods for the pore pressure prediction, we concluded that the
common methods depend on the shale behaviour could provide an acceptable results in the carbonate
rocks. In addition to, the modified equation of the porosity and pore volume compressibility method
discussed in this work have provided reasonable results for pore pressure prediction with an empirical
exponent γ = 0.85 in the Middle Eocene carbonate of Abu El-Gharadig basin. However, all of these
methods have to be carefully calibrated with direct pressure measurements (MDT) from the wells for best
results.
SPE-194224-MS 10

Fig.9: Application of the compressibility method for the estimation of the pore and correlation with the MDT points.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) for supporting this work with
the required data through Badr El-Din Petroleum Company (BAPETCO) and for the permission to publish
this paper. They gratefully acknowledge Wael El Sherbeny for his help and support.

References
Abdel Aal, A. and Moustafa, A. R. (1988): Structural framework of the Abu El Gharadig basin, Western Desert, Egypt. Proceedings of the
9th Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation Exploration and Production Conference, Cairo, V. 2, pp. 23-50.
Abd El Semia, G. B. (2005): Facies modeling and hydrocarbon trapping mechanism of some selected upper cretaceous – tertiary reservoirs
Badr El Din and Sitra concessions, Western Desert, Egypt. Al Azhar University, p. 220.
Atashbari, V. (2016): Origin of overpressure and pore pressure prediction in carbonate reservoirs of the Abadan Plain Basin. Australian
School of Petroleum. doi: 10.4225/55/58bf6bd59953e
Atashbari, V. and Tingay, M.R. (2012): Pore Pressure Prediction in a Carbonate Reservoir. SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Mumbai, India. doi.org/10.2118/150836-MS
Azadpour, M.; Shad Manaman, N.; Kadkhodaie-Ilkhchi, A. and Sedghipour, M.-R. (2015): Pore pressure prediction and modeling using
well-logging data in one of the gas fields in south of Iran. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, v. 128, pp. 15-23.
doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.02.022
 SPE-194224-MS 11

Bevan, T.G and Moustafa, A.R. (2012): Inverted rift-basins of northern Egypt: Phanerozoic Rift Systems and Sedimentary Basins, In: D.
Roberts and A. Bally (eds): Regional Geology and Tectonics, v. 2, pp. 483-506.
Biot, M.A. (1941): General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics, v. 12, pp.155 – 164.
doi.org/10.1063/1.1712886
Bird, P. (1995): Lithosphere dynamics and continental deformation. Reviews of Geophysics (Suppl.), pp 379 – 383.
Bowers, G.L. (1995): Pore pressure estimation from velocity data; accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE
Drilling and Completions, pp. 89 – 95. doi.org/10.2118/27488-PA
Chapman, R.E. (1983): Petroleum Geology. Elsevier.
Corex (2011): Integrated (Sedimentological, Petrographical and Core analysis) Report for Well JDT 1-1, Abu El Gahradig Basin, Western
Desert, Egypt. Badr El Din Petroleum Company, unpublished internal report, p. 29.
Davies, R.; Ireland, M. and Cartwright, J. (2009): Differential compaction due to the irregular topology of a diagenetic reaction boundary: A
new mechanism for the formation of polygonal faults. Basin Research, V. 21, pp. 354–359. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2117.2008.00389.x.
Davies, R.J.; Swarbrick, R.E.; Evans, R.J. and Huuse, M. (2007): Birth of a mud volcano: East Java, 29 May 2006. GSA Today 17 (2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01702A.1.
Dickinson, G. (1953): Geological aspects of abnormal reservoir pressures in Gulf Coast Louisiana. AAPG Bulletin, v. 37, pp. 410 – 432.
Eaton, B.A. (1975): The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME.
doi.org/10.2118/5544-MS
El- Bendary, A.; Faraga, Y.; Abo-Elabas, S.; Magde, M.; Moukhtar, A. and Ramadan, H. (2016): Critical Success Factors Identification to
develop unconventional high porosity low permeability shallow limestone reservoir of Apollonia formation, western desert Egypt.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, UAE. doi.org/10.2118/183471-MS
El Gazzar, A. M.; Moustafa, A. R. and Bentham, P. (2016): Structural evolution of the Abu Gharadig field area, northern western desert,
Egypt. Journal of African Earth Sciences, V. 124, pp. 340 – 354. doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.09.027
Elmahdy, M; Tarabees, E.; Bakr, A. and Farag, E. A. (2017): Layer bound compaction faulting: Abu El-Gharadig basin, Western Desert,
Egypt. 55th annual scientific meeting of the Geological society of Egypt.
Elmahdy, M; Tarabees, E.; Bakr, A. and Farag, E. A. (2018): Polygonal faults implication on the carbonate reservoir characterization. Case
study: Abu El-Gharadig basin, Egypt. AAPG carbonate reservoirs of the Middle East and their future challenges.
Fagelnour, M.; Salah, M. and Sherwied, S. (2017): Unlocking the Apollonia gas potential at JDT field, Western Desert of Egypt. Technical
conference of Egypt petroleum show (EGYPS).
Gay, A.; Lopez, M.; Cochonat, P. and Sermondadz, G. (2004): Polygonal faults-furrows system related to early stages of compaction e upper
Miocene to recent sediments of the Lower Congo Basin. Basin Research, V. 16, pp.101-116. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2117.2003.00224.x
Guiraud, R.; Bosworth, W.; Thierry, J. and Delplanque, A. (2005): Phanerozoic geological evolution of Northern and Central Africa: An
overview, in Catuneanu, O., et. al., eds., Phanerozoic evolution of Africa: Journal of African Earth Sciences, v. 43, pp. 83–143.
Hottmann, C.E. and Johnson, R.K. (1965): Estimation of formation pressures from log derived shale properties pp. 717 – 722.
doi.org/10.2118/1110-PA
Mouchet, J.-C. and Mitchell, A. (1989): Abnormal Pressures While Drilling. Editions TECHNIP, Paris.
Osborne, M.J. and Swarbrick, R.E. (1997): Mechanisms for generating overpressure in sedimentary basins: a reevaluation. AAPG Bulletin
81, pp. 1023 – 1041.
Strating, E. H., and Postuma, W. (2008): Reservoir Compartmentalisation in the JG field – Western Desert, Egypt. SPE Europec/EAGE
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy.
Swarbrick, R.E. and 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, pp. 13 – 34.
Terzaghi, K. (1925): Principles of soil mechanics, IV—Settlement and consolidation of clay. Engineering News-Record, v. 95, pp. 874 –
878.
Terzaghi, K.; Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. (1996): Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, thirded. John Wiley & Sons.
Tingay, M.R.P.; Hillis, R.R.; Swarbrick, R.E.; Morley, C.K. and Damit, A.R. (2009): Origin of overpressure and pore-pressure prediction in
the Baram province, Brunei. AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, pp 51 – 74. doi:10.1306/08080808016
Tobin, H.J. and Saffer, D.M. (2009): Elevated fluid pressure and extreme mechanical weakness of a plate boundary thrust, Nankai Trough
subduction zone. Geology, v. 37, pp 679 – 682. https://doi.org/10.1130/G25752A.1
Traugott, M. (1997): Pore and fracture pressure determinations in deep water. World Oil 218, pp. 68 – 70.
Wang, R., Wang, Z., Shan, X., Qiu, H. and Li, T. (2013): Factors influencing pore-pressure prediction in complex carbonates based on
effective medium theory. Pet. Sci., v. 10, pp. 494-499. doi.org/10.1007/s12182-013-0300-7
Yardley, G.S. and Swarbrick, R.E. (2000): Lateral transfer: a source of additional overpressure? Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 17, pp.
523 – 537. doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8172(00)00007-6
Zhang, J. (2011): Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods, modifications, and new approaches. Earth-Science Reviews, v. 108, pp.
50 – 63. 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. Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 45, pp. 2 – 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.04.007

View publication stats