1887

Abstract

Summary

Pore pressure prediction in the Barents Sea is challenging for a variety of reasons including a complicated and variable burial history (leading to varying magnitudes and timings of burial, hiatus and uplift from well to well), variation in mudrock lithology and depositional environments. These factors can all create uncertainty when predicting pore pressure. Here are introduced two independent methodologies for present day shale pressure prediction across the Barents Sea, focussing in particular in the Southwestern Barents Sea where high overpressure is often recorded. Independent velocity log based and geological modelling based shale pressure prediction methods are used. Comparison of the two models generally shows good consistency in results, helping to validate the predictions and models and reduce uncertainty. This reinforces the need to integrate multiple techniques in order to reduce uncertainty in what is a challenging area for pore pressure prediction. The results also show that understanding the complex and variable burial history in each well is vital for pore pressure prediction, as this history defines the present day pressures. The models developed have clear implications for design of wells in the Barents Sea, and are also important for understanding reservoir overpressure variation (and potential reservoir fluid flow).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900505
2019-05-19
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alberty, M.W. and McLean, M.R.
    [2003] Emerging Trends in pressure prediction. Offshore Technology Conference, May 5–8, 2003, OTC15290.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Dutta, N.C.
    [2002] Deepwater geohazard prediction using prestack inversion of large offset P-wave data and rock model. The Leading Edge, February 2002, 193–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baig, I., Faleide, J.I. Jahren, J. and Mondol, N.H.
    [2016] Cenozoic exhumation on the southwestern Barents Shelf: Estimates and uncertainties constrained from compaction and thermal maturity analyses. Marine & Petroleum Geology, 73, 105–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Heppard, P. and Ebrom, D.
    [2010] Compaction and Overpressure in Shales: Practice and Theory. Houston Geological Society Bulletin, February 2010, 19–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Swarbrick, R.E.
    [2012] Review of pore-pressure prediction challenges in high-temperature areas: The Leading Edge, November 2012, 1288–1294.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Swarbrick, R.E., Osborne, M.J. and Yardley, G.S.
    [2002] Comparison of Overpressure Magnitude Resulting from the Main Generating Mechanisms, Pressure regimes in sedimentary basins and their prediction: AAPG memoir, 76, The American Associtation of Petroleum Geologists, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Geotrack International
    Geotrack International [1997] Thermal History Reconstruction in Barents Sea Wells 7117/9–2, 7119/9–1, 7120/9–2, 7120/12–2, 7120/12–4 and 7122/6–1 using Apatite Fission Track Analysis and Vitrinite Reflectance, Geotrack Report #642, Stage One.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Geotrack International
    Geotrack International [1998] The Barents Sea: Thermal, Tectonic and Hydrocarbon Maturation Histories assessed using Apatite Fission Track Analysis and Vitrinte Reflectance, Stage Two, Geotrack Report #642 (II)
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900505
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900505
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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