SPE-194578-MS

Estimation of Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient in Volve Field, Norwegian

North Sea

Souvik Sen, Geologix Limited; Shib Sankar Ganguli, CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 9-11 April 2019.

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
Maintaining a stable borehole and optimizing drilling are still considered to be vital practice for the
success of any hydrocarbon field development and planning. The present study deliberates a case study
on the estimation of pore pressure and fracture gradient for the recently decommissioned Volve oil field
at the North Sea. High resolution geophysical logs drilled through the reservoir formation of the studied
field have been used to estimate the overburden, pore pressure, and fracture pressure. The well-known
Eaton’s method and Matthews-Kelly’s tools were used for the estimation of pore pressure and fracture
gradient, respectively. Estimated outputs were calibrated and validated with the available direct downhole
measurements (formation pressure measurements, LOT/FIT). Further, shear failure gradient has been
calculated using Mohr-Coulomb rock failure criterion to understand the wellbore stability issues in the
studied field. Largely, the pore pressure in the reservoir formation is hydrostatic in nature, except the lower
Cretaceous to upper Jurassic shales, which were found to be associated with mild overpressure regimes.
This study is an attempt to assess the in-situ stress system of the Volve field if CO2 is injected for geological
storage in near future.

Introduction
Understanding the in-situ stress system is a key aspect to be considered in hydrocarbon exploration and
production. This involves the estimation of pore pressure, in-situ stress gradients including the fracture
gradient, which are the most crucial components for safe and cost-effective drilling. Pressure excess to
the hydrostatic/normal pressure regime is considered to be a threat for drilling operations, leads to drilling
hazard including instable wellbore and loss of circulation. Estimated in-situ stress system can properly
define the drilling window desired for safe drilling operations in a hydrocarbon-bearing field (Mouchet
and Mitchell 1989; Tingay 2015; Ganguli et al. 2016, 2017). A typical workflow to plan safe drilling
includes defining the normal compaction trend, assessment of pore pressure, overburden gradient and
fracture gradient through the application of a most appropriate prediction method. Nevertheless, precise
prediction of the stated parameters is difficult and a possible range of these can only be defined for safe
operation. Usually, measured pressure from the modular dynamic test (MDT), repeat formation test (RFT),
2 SPE-194578-MS

etc. are considered to be the most reliable pressure measurements from a field and therefore, utilized to
validate the estimated pressure.
The main goal of the present study is to understand the magnitude of pore pressure, in-situ stress
components and shear failure pressure and its relevance for safe CO2 injection in the reservoir formation,
if instigated, in the Volve field. Being situated near to the Sleipner field, the Volve oil and gas field has
enjoyed sustained production and closed in 2016, making it a potential target for CO2 sequestration. The
studied outputs are critical in the feasibility study for CO2 sequestration, and could provide an avenue for
further rigorous analysis since we could hardly find such study in the present day literature.

Methodology of various pressure estimation

Vertical stress or overburden stress is the pressure exerted by the sum of all overlying rocks and fluids. It is
generally estimated using the available density logs, following the equation by Plumb et al. (1991)

(1)

Since the study area is an offshore field, we have included the contribution of the water column for the
calculation of vertical stress

(2)

Where, Sv is the overburden stress / vertical stress, ρw is the density of water column (taken as 1.02 g/
cc), hw is water depth, ρ(h) is the bulk density of the overlying rock as a function of depth (h), and g is the
gravitational acceleration.
Pore pressure (PP) is a vital parameter or input to calculate minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) and
maximum horizontal stress (SHMax) (Tingay et al. 2009). PP is the pressure exerted by the fluids within rock's
pore spaces. PP is estimated using the well-known Eaton's equation applied to the sonic and resistivity logs
(Eaton 1975):

(3)

(4)

Where, Phyd is the hydrostatic pressure; DTn and Rn are sonic travel time and formation resistivity
respectively against the shale zone, which is estimated from the normal compaction trend (NCT); DT is the
observed sonic travel time and R is the measured true formation resistivity.
Drilling mud weight (MW) acts as a good proxy to estimate the upper bound of PP, as mud weight
is normally kept a bit more than PP to avoid any fluid influx from the formation (Mouchet and Mitchell
1989; Tingay 2015, Rajabi et al. 2016). Furthermore, in the study area, the operator had taken direct
downhole formation pressure measurements, which provides the most reliable and direct evidence of in-situ
PP (Kundan et al. 2015; Sen et al. 2017, Sen et al. 2018). Both MW and formation pressure measurements
have been used to calibrate the interpreted pore pressure.
Mathews and Kelly method (1967) is the most extensively used tool in the industry to estimate fracture
pressure, which is given by:
(5)
Where, K0 is the effective stress coefficient = Shmin/Sv, which can be obtained from leak off test (LOT)
and regional experiences (Sen et al. 2018). Estimated fracture gradient has been calibrated with LOT and
SPE-194578-MS 3

formation integrity tests (FIT). For a normal fault tectonic regime, fracture pressure is considered as the
minimum horizontal stress (Shmin).
Lang et al. (2011) has provided a relationship for estimating maximum horizontal stress (SHMax) magnitude
using Shmin:
(6)
Where, k is a constant that defines the ratio of SHmax to Shmin and Sv, and normally ranges from 0 to 2. The
value of k=0 resembles an isotropic horizontal stress system.
To conduct the shear failure analysis, we used the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion considering the
effective tangential and radial stresses as the principal maximum and minimum stresses, respectively.
Moreover, to avert shear failure around the borehole environment, we estimated the mud pressure or shear
failure pressure (SF), which is given by (Lang et al. 2011):

(7)

Where, UCS is the unconfined compressive strength, UCS = (2C Cosϕ)/(1 – Sinϕ); Q = (1 + Sinϕ)/(1 –
Sinϕ); ϕ and C represents the internal friction angle and cohesion of the rock, respectively.

Volve field: the study area

Volve is shallow water (water depth is about 80 m) oil field discovered in 1993, located in the central part
of the North Sea (Norwegian continental shelf), 200 kilometres west of Stavanger at the southern end of the
Norwegian sector (Fig. 1). This field was established with a jack-up processing and drilling facility. This
field started well drilling in 2007 and commenced production with pressure support through water injection
in February 2008 with a life expectancy for about 3-5 years. Volve produced with a peak rate of about
56,000 barrels per day and delivered a total of 63 million barrels of oil, which is beyond its expectation.
With a recovery rate of 54% of reserve estimates, it was shut down in September 2016 after field operation
for over 8 years.

Figure 1—Location of Volve field in the North Sea (adapted from Ravasi et al. 2015).
4 SPE-194578-MS

Volve produced oil (Block 15/9) from middle Jurassic sandstones of the Hugin formation. The reservoir
is a small dome-shaped structure and believed to be formed due to the downfall of contiguous salt ridges for
the period of the Jurassic (Szydlik et al. 2007). Faults as a consequence of salt tectonics are the dominant
structures in this field. The western part of the structure is heavily faulted, mostly influenced by regional
extension and communication across the faults is uncertain. The reservoir is located at a depth of 2750-3120
m TVDSS (true vertical depth subsea), and about 20 m thick on the crest that ultimately reaches up to 100
m on the flanks of the structure. Generalized regional stratigraphy has been presented in Table 1.

Table 1—Regional stratigraphic sequence of the study area, Volve field, as encountered in the studied wells.

System Group Formation Lithology

Quaternary Recent sediments Sandstone, Claystone

Nordland
Upper Utsira Formation Sandstone

Lower Utsira Formation Claystone

Hordaland Skade Formation Sandstone, Claystone
Grid Formation Sandstone, Claystone
Tertiary Balder Formation Claystone, Anhydrite
Sele Formation Claystone
Rogaland
Lista Formation Claystone
Ty Formation Sandstone, Claystone, minor Limestone

Ekofisk Formation Limestone

Tor Formation Limestone
Shetland Hod Formation Limestone
Cretaceous Blodoeks Formation Limestone
Hidra Formation Limestone

Roedby Formation Marl

Cromer Knoll
Asgard Formation Marl, Limestone

Draupne Formation Claystone, minor Limestone

Viking
Heather Formation Claystone
Jurassic
Hugin Formation Sandstone, minor Claystone and Limestone
Vestland
Sleipner Formation Sandstone-Claystone intercalation, minor Coal

Data
Equinor (previously known as Statoil), the operator of Volve field, together with the Volve license partners
have released all subsurface and production dataset from the field for the first time. Released data includes
high-resolution geophysical logs, subsurface measurements, and various drilling and geological reports
(Well Completion reports, Geological summary etc.). For this study, we have chosen four wells which had
a complete dataset for the deliverables. These wells are – 15/9-F-15 A, 15/9-F-10, 15/9-F-11 T2 and 15/9-
F-5. These wells were drilled till the Triassic top (average vertical drilled depth 3500m) in a water depth of
about 80 m. Wireline suite available from the wells includes Gamma-ray, resistivity, sonic and density logs.
SPE-194578-MS 5

Findings
A stratigraphic correlation has been established amongst the four studied wells and presented in Fig. 2. We
picked the formation tops based on the log signatures, guided by the lithology information available from
mudlogs. Formations are laterally continuous and easily correlatable, indicating the absence of any major
fault that might have contributed to any missing or repetition of strata, although the vertical thickness of
various formations (in TVDSS).

Figure 2—A East-West stratigraphic correlation established amongst studied wells along with laterally correlatable
prominent formation tops, as picked from the available well logs. Depths indicates the true vertical depth subsea (TVDSS).

Estimated in-situ stress gradients (Sv, Shmin and SHMax), pore pressure and shear failure gradient (based
on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion) have been presented in Figs. 3 and 4 along with the drilling mud
weight used, formation pressure measurements (MDT), LOT, FIT and casing points. Gradients have been
expressed in ppg (parts per gallon) unit since this is the commonly used unit system in the industry,
beneficial for the interaction with the drilling team. Vertical stress (Sv) has an average gradient of 15.70
MPa/km, as interpreted in the studied wells. Pore pressure has been interpreted as hydrostatic till the upper
Paleocene Rogaland group. Lower Paleocene sands of Ty formation showed sub-hydrostatic pressure. Mild
overpressure has been observed against the lower Cretaceous to upper Jurassic shales, with a maximum pore
pressure of about 10.8 ppg EMW against the Draupne shale. The main oil producer, i.e. lower Jurassic Hugin
6 SPE-194578-MS

formation (encountered at an average depth of about 2800-3200 m TVDSS) indicates an in-situ pressure
of 9.5 ppg EMW, which matches well with the pressure from the direct formation pressure measurements.
Drilling mud weight was above the estimated shear failure gradient, causing no wellbore breakout/shear
failure in the pay formations.

Figure 3—Representation of the pressure gradients of wells 15/9-F-11

T2 and 15/9-F-5 from the Volve field. Depths are represented by TVDSS.
SPE-194578-MS 7

Figure 4—Representation of the pressure gradients of wells 15/9-

F-10 and 15/9-F-15 A from the Volve field. Depths are indicated by TVDSS.

Discussions
The present study is an attempt to understand the in-situ stress regime in the Volve oil field which has been
recently decommissioned after supporting 8 years of oil production, beyond what was anticipated during
the development and operation strategy. For this, in-situ stress gradients (Sv, Shmin, and SHMax), pore
pressure and shear failure gradient are estimated. The results demonstrate that the field under study is in
sub-hydrostatic pressure regime, except the lower Cretaceous to upper Jurassic shales, where pore pressure
reaches up to 10.8 ppg. Basically, the pressure increases below the Draupne formation.
Based on the present investigation, we feel that the depleted Ty and Hugin reservoirs are the potential
candidates for CO2 sequestration. Further modeling of the present day stress scenario will enable the in-depth
understanding of CO2 sequestration potential in this field. The studied outputs are critical in the feasibility
study and could provide an avenue for further rigorous analysis as we could hardly find such study in the
present day literature.
8 SPE-194578-MS

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Equinor ASA, Equinor Volve team, and the Volve license partners ExxonMobil
E&P Norway and Bayerngas Norge, for the release of the Volve data. SSG thank DST for granting DST
Inspire Faculty Award to carry out this work. SS is grateful to Geologix Limited for giving access to Pore
Pressure module, GEO Suite of software, which has been instrumental for all the analyses performed and
presented here.

References
Eaton, B. A., 1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME.
SPE-5544-MS.https://doi.org/10.2118/5544-MS.
Ganguli, S. S., Sen, S. and Kumar, M., 2017. Geomechanical analysis for feasible CO2 storage in an Indian mature oil
field. Presented at the 12th Biennial International Conference & Exposition, SPG Jaipur, India, 17-19 November. Paper
ID–33.
Ganguli, S. S., Vedanti, N., Akervoll, I. and Dimri, V. P., 2016. Assessing the Feasibility of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery
and Storage in Mature Oil Field: A Case Study from Cambay Basin. Jour of Geol Soc of India 88 (03): 273-280.https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12594-016-0490-x.
Kundan, A., Vinod, A. K., Bose, P. N. S., Sen, S. and Kumar, M., 2015. Analysis of Wellbore Breakouts and Determination
of Horizontal Stress Direction from Four Arm Calipers – A Study from Gulf of Kutch, Western Offshore Basin.
Presented at the 11th Biennial International Conference & Exposition, SPG, Jaipur, India. paper ID 37.
Lang, J., Li, S. and Zhang, J., 2011. Wellbore Stability Modeling and Real-Time Surveillence for Deepwater Drilling to
Weak Bedding Planes and Depleted Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Mar
1-2. SPE-139708-MS.
Matthews, W. R. and Kelly, J., 1967. How to predict formation pressure and fracture gradient. Oil Gas J 65:92–106.
Mouchet, J. P. and Mitchell, A. 1989. Abnormal Pressures while Drilling: Origins, Prediction, Detection, Evaluation.
Boussens: Editions TECHNIP Publisher.
Plumb, R. A., Evans, K. F. and Engelder, T., 1991. Geophysical log responses and their correlation with bed to bed
stress contrasts in Paleozoic rocks, Appalachian plateau, New York. Jour Geophy Res 91:14509–14528. https://
doi.org/10.1029/91JB00896.
Rajabi, M., Tingay, M. and Heidbach, O., 2016. The present-day state of tectonic stress in the Darling Basin, Australia:
Implications for exploration and production. Marine and Petrol Geology 77: 776-790.
Ravasi, M., Vasconcelos, I., Curtis, A. and Kristi, A., 2015. Vector-acoustic reverse time migration of Volve ocean-bottom
cable data set without up/down decomposed wavefields. Geophysics 80 (4): S137-S150.
Sen, S., Kundan, A., Kumar, M., 2018. Post-drill analysis of Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient from Well Logs and
Drilling Events – An Integrated Case Study of a High Pressure Exploratory Well from Panna east, Mumbai Offshore
Basin, India. Presented at the AAPG Geosciences Technology Workshop, Perth, Australia, 6-7 June.
Sen, S., Corless, J., Dasgupta, S., Maxwell, C., Kumar, M., 2017. Issues faced while calculating Overburden gradient and
picking shale zone to predict pore pressure. Presented at the First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction, Pau,
France. Paper Mo PP1B 02.
Sen, S., Maxwell, C., Kumar, M., 2018. Real time pore pressure interpretation from drilling events – A case study from
high pressure offshore exploratory well, Operations Geoscience Adding Value. Presented at the Geological Society,
London, 7-8 Nov.
Szydlik, T., Smith, P., Way, S., Aamodt, L. and Friedrich, C., 2007. 3D PP/PS prestack depth migration on the Volve field.
First Break 25:43–47.
Tingay, M. R., Hillis, R. R., Morley, C. K., King, R. C., Swarbrick, R. E., Damit, A. R., 2009. Present-day stress and
neotectonics of Brunei: implications for petroleum exploration and production. AAPG Bull. 93:75-100.
Tingay, M., 2015. Initial pore pressures under the Lusi mud volcano, Indonesia. Interpretation 3:SE33-SE49.