Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1354-0793
  • E-ISSN:


Pre-drill pore pressure prediction is essential for safe and efficient drilling, and is a key element in the risk-reducing toolbox when designing a well. On the Norwegian Continental Shelf, pore pressure prediction commonly relies on traditional 1D offset well analysis, whereas velocity data from seismic surveys are often not considered. Our work with seismic interval velocities shows that the velocity field can provide an important basis for pressure prediction and enable the construction of regional 3D pressure cubes. This may increase the confidence in the pore pressure models and aid the pre-drill geohazard screening process. We demonstrate how a 3D velocity field can be converted to a 3D pore pressure cube using reported pressures in offset wells as calibration points. The method is applied to a regional dataset at the Halten Terrace in the Norwegian Sea; an area with a complex pattern of pore pressure anomalies which traditionally has been difficult to predict. The algorithm is searching for a velocity to pore pressure transform that best matches the reported pressures. The 3D velocity field is a proxy of rock velocity and is derived from seismic surveys, and is verified to checkshot velocities and sonic data in the offset wells.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bell, D.W.
    2002. Velocity estimation for pore-pressure prediction. In: Huffman, A.R. & Bowers, G.L. (eds.) Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction. AAPG Memoirs, 76, 177–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowers, G.L.
    1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drilling & Completion, 10, 89–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2002. Vertical vs. mean effective stress – which one is better for pore pressure estimation?Paper presented at theSEG/EAGE Summer Research Workshop ‘Geopressure: Conceptual Advances, Applications, and Future Challenges’, 12–17 May 2002, Galveston, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruce, B. & Bowers, G.
    2002. Pore Pressure Terminology. The Leading Edge, 21, 170–173, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1452607
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chopra, S. & Huffman, A.R.
    2006. Velocity determination for pore-pressure prediction. The Leading Edge, 25, 1502–1515, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2405336
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dix, C.H.
    1955. Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geophysics, 20, 68–86, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438126
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dutta, N.C.
    2002. Geopressure prediction using seismic data: Current status and the road ahead. Geophysics, 67, 2012–2041, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1527101
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eaton, B.A.
    1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. Paper SPE 5544 presented at theFall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, 28 September–1 October 1975, Dallas, Texas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fjær, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. & Risnes, R.
    2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics. 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Foster, J.B. & Whalen, H.E.
    1966. Estimation of formation pressures from electrical survey – offshore Louisiana. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 18, 166–171, https://doi.org/10.2118/1200-PA
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goulty, N.R.
    2004. Mechanical compaction behaviour of natural clays and implications for pore pressure estimation. Petroleum Geoscience, 10, 73–79, https://doi.org/10.1144/1354-079302-552
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Levin, F.K.
    1971. Apparent velocity from dipping interface reflections. Geophysics, 36, 510–516, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440188
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Sayers, C.M., Johnson, G.M. & Denyer, G.
    2002. Predrill pore-pressure prediction using seismic data. Geophysics, 67, 1286–1292, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1500391
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Skar, T., van Balen, R.T., Arnesen, L. & Cloetingh, S.
    1999. Origin of overpressures on the Halten Terrace, offshore mid-Norway: the potential role of mechanical compaction, pressure transfer and stress. In: Aplin, A.C., Fleet, A.J. & MacQuaker, J.H.S (eds) Mud and Mudstones: Physical and Fluid Flow Properties. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 158, 137–156, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.158.01.11
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Storvoll, V., Bjørlykke, K. & Mondol, N.H.
    2005. Velocity–depth trends in Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments from the Norwegian Shelf. AAPG Bulletin, 89, 359–381, https://doi.org/10.1306/10150404033
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Terzaghi, K.
    1936. The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle between the planes of shear. First International Conference on Soil Mechanics, 1, 54–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, J.
    2011. Pore pressure prediction from well logs: Methods, modifications, and new approaches. Earth-Science Reviews, 108, 50–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error