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

net/publication/352735570

Analysis of wellbore stability by pore pressure prediction using seismic

velocity

Article  in  Energy Geoscience · June 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.engeos.2021.06.005

CITATIONS READS

0 54

3 authors:

Milendra Prankada Kriti Yadav

Pandit Deen Dayal Petroleum University Pandit Deen Dayal Petroleum University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anirbid Sircar
Pandit Deen Dayal Petroleum University
266 PUBLICATIONS   729 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Selection of Diverter for Refracturing Technique. View project

Integration of Organic Rankine Cycle to Space Heating and Cooling Plant View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anirbid Sircar on 30 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Geoscience
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

Analysis of wellbore stability by pore pressure prediction using seismic

velocity
Milendra Prankada, Kriti Yadav, Anirbid Sircar ∗
Centre of Excellence for Geothermal Energy, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Raisan, 382007, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Borehole problems result in the wastage of huge expenditures in petroleum industries. One of the major chal-
Pore pressure lenges is to keep the borehole intact at a particular location and prevent from falling in reactive shale in high and
Seismic low-pressure zones. To convert seismic velocity to pore pressure the modified Eaton's equation is widely used. A
Borehole
guideline was prepared using both the type of parameters in a stochastic manner, and non-uniform parameters
Eaton's method
distribution. Pore pressure and fracture pressure were calculated using a modified version of Eaton's and Mathew
Mathew and Kelly's method
and Kelly's methods. To validate the result, geomechanical models were developed based on good correlation.
Different regions in the eastern state of India at Tripura were taken into consideration and pore pressure was esti-
mated for the regions of Kathalchari and Ambassa by plotting pressure plots. The actual pore pressure predicted
in Tripura was calculated using seis P and seis P3, the indigenous software which is a modified version of Eaton's
method and Mathew and Kelly's method, from which it was seen that the pore pressure from our method matches
the calculated Repeat Formation Test (RFT) data from wells.

1. Introduction
Subsurface formations are in an underbalanced condition before
drilling. Once a well is drilled under such non-equilibrium condition,
wellbore instability occurs. The drilling fluid can support the wellbore
only to a smaller degree, resulting in a pressure balance problem. If the
stress concentration exceeds the value of the strength of rock the well-
bore failure occurs and to prevent this scenario, the pressure of the
wellbore is predetermined. It comprises pore pressure which in turn af-
fects the wellbore stability Pasic et al. (2007)]. In drilling operations
around the world, instability is one of the biggest problems ever faced
and can be termed as a major non-productive hour as the drilling oil
and gas industries are wasting huge manpower on it (Lai et al., 2018).
As the world's demands for energy increase, the drilling of wellbore is
going through more complicated formations and haphazards which in
turn motivate us to study the wellbore stability in a better way and
identify its effects. Despite many years of study on this, it is still a main
problem facing the oil and gas industries (He et al., 2019; Ma et al.,
2019). Several factors affecting wellbore stability can be categorized as
uncontrollable and controllable factors.
The need for a greater understanding and estimation of pore pres-
sure prior to drilling is important. To measure unusual pressures, it is
necessary at first to grasp pore pressure principles and the circum-
stances under which they become unusual. Using an effective velocity
to pore pressure transition method, pore pressures was calculated from
seismic velocities in this study (Hottmann and Johnson, 2007; Dutta et
al., 2002; Sheehan et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2008). In oil reservoirs, inter-
val velocity is a key factor in assessing fluid type variation, lithology,
reservoir characterization and depth migration. Interpretations which
need actual depth, like faults, are often more reliable and easy when
sufficient velocity characteristics in the region are available. Buitrago et
al. (2010) optimised the input quantities and velocity variables for pres-
sure calculation in the Cretaceous carbonates using residual velocity
measurement that was then analysed to generate a cube of the inverted
velocity. Eaton's approach, which was generated and applied for the
Gulf of Mexico, is no longer applicable in today's carbonate-rich atmos-
phere, while Bowers' method tends to be much more useful for assess-
ing pore strain. Yu (2010) identified two methods for determining pore
pressure: one is geological base mapping and the other is geophysical
seismic velocity measurement. Resolution and Signal to Noise Ratio
(SNR) may also have a big impact on pore pressure performance in pre-
diction and velocity recognition. In his document, he investigated the
influence of input data feature in terms of SNR and frequency range on
seismic velocity perception precision and, more importantly, pore pres-
sure calculation accuracy.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anirbid.sircar@spt.pdpu.ac.in (A. Sircar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2021.06.005
Received 25 May 2021; Received in revised form 9 June 2021; Accepted 22 June 2021
2666-7592/© 2021
M. Prankada et al.
Fig. 1. Hydrocarbon potential and the study area: Atharamura, Baramura and Tulamura anticlines.
A previous study measured the pore pressure in the Sefid-Zakhor gas
field by adapting velocity to pore pressure by means of the Bowers rela-
tion. At the flank and synclinal parts of the Atharamura anticline, Babu
and Sircar (2011) estimated pore pressure commencing seismic veloci-
ties, and over-pressured regions were found. To choose the better pre-
dictive process, improved equivalent depth and modified Eaton's ap-
proaches were used to estimate pore pressures. When the expected pore
pressures were related to offset well pore pressures, the calculated pore
pressures of these offset wells were found to be very similar. The up-
dated approaches were extensively investigated in this work in order to
evaluate pore pressure and to develop a comprehensive approach for
pore pressure estimation. To measure fracture strain, diverse ap-
proaches based on an estimated value of Poisson's ratio and stress
anisotropy including depth along with overburden pressure have been
used. The well stimulation method necessitates fracture pressure assess-
ment. Hydrofracturing is needed to increase output from both tradi-
tional and unconventional reservoirs by increasing fluid mobility
Dejam and Hassanzadeh (2018); Zhang et al., (2018); Dejam et al.
(2018); Dejam (2019a); Dejam (2019b)]. Hubbert and Willis' equation
was used to measure fracture strain (Hubbert and Rubey, 1959), Eaton's
equation (Eaton, 1969) and Matthews and Kelly's calculation
(Matthews, 1967). Total fracture pressure was calculated by using pore
pressure and overburden pressure. In measuring fracture pressure, Hub-
bert and Willis' technology involving a constant Poisson ratio's value of
0.25, was applied. Matthews and Kelly's formula was used to measure
fracture strain, where a matrix strain feature of 0.33 was used; and both
Eaton and revised Eaton's formulas were used to calculate the fracture
strain, as well as a changing Poisson ratio's value derived from Eaton's
value curve of Poisson's ratio.
Brahma and Sircar (2018) moved on to develop a stable well using
seismic data from the maximum altitude of the Atharamura anticline in
Tripura. Their stated objective was to drill a safe well across the
Atharamura anticline in an attempt to identify and extract hydrocar-
bons.
The aims of designing an exploration well dependent on seismic ve-
locities include creating a drilling mud target, optimum mud policy, es-
timating pore pressure, kick tolerance guidelines, optimum depth speci-
2
Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10
fication, and the final well with casing policy. Elmahdy et al. (2018)
used the porosity and compressibility attributes of the rocks to estimate
pore pressure in an unusual carbonate reservoir. The aim of their re-
search was to estimate formation pore pressure by utilizing wireline
logging data and a modified Atashbari proposed model. The carbonated
reservoir of the Middle Eocene Apollonia deposition in Egypt's Abu El
Gharadig basin was studied using this model. For the best results, that
system was standardised with specific pressure measurement from the
well. In the Badri Region, Gulf of Suez, Egypt, Radwan et al. (2019)
wrote an article on pore and fracture pressure analysis using direct and
indirect approaches, the aim of which was to determine fracture pres-
sure estimation and pores using direct and indirect methods, as well as
to define subsurface overpressure regions. All of the pressure measure-
ments were dependent on well log data from the Badri region, including
gamma ray, density, resistivity and sonic logging. They calculated over-
burden stress using the Amoco overburden formula, and used Eaton's
formulas to estimate fracture pressure and pore pressure from resistiv-
ity and sonic logs. Mehtaji et al. (2019) used a new technique to vali-
date the pore pressure with the help of Repeat Formation Test (RFT)
pressure data from a research study on the Tulamura anticline. The ulti-
mate well design was done on the crest of the Tulamura anticline, re-
garding the new pore pressure from the integrated method. Pore pres-
sure is not based on standard compaction trend analysis in this new sys-
tem, so errors due to normal compaction trend analysis can be avoided,
and pore pressure estimation procedures are easy and accurate repre-
sentations of subsurface pressure gradient. Richards et al. (2020) per-
formed a pore pressure prediction study which was based on the Full Ef-
fective Stress (FES) method. This study involved the distribution of seis-
mic waves with geomechanical modelling, observing the present
stratigraphy, stress state and material along with solution for static
equilibrium. Sun et al. (2021) studied the modelling of formation pore
pressure inversion during the tight reservoir drilling while Andrian et
al. (2020) used Anifs method on well and seismic data for pore predic-
tion study of ‘Ayah’ field study.
This paper aims to study the major anticline fields of Tripura, India,
for pore pressure prediction using seismic velocity. All tectonic and
stratigraphic parameters are examined and considered when determin-
M. Prankada et al.
Fig. 2. Poisson's ration curve based on Eaton's method for the Gulf of Mexico Region (after Brahma and Sircar, 2018).
ing target level and casing strategy. Following that, a complete method-
ology is discussed, as well as the approach for designing a well using
pore pressure and fracture pressure. The technique applied is confirmed
with RFT measured data on the crest of the anticlines in Tripura, India,
after pore pressure estimation. The suggested well planning policies,
which include pore pressure using a novel approach and a modified
Eaton's method, are expounded in detail.
2. Study area
The study was carried out in Tripura, a state of Eastern India located
at 23.9408° N, 91.9882° E. Tripura along with the other 6 states,
namely Mizoram, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, and
Meghalaya, is named as seven sister states, covering a gross area of over
4050.86 sq. Mi. Khowai and Dolai are located in the northern part of
Tripura forming a syncline structure. Bangladesh located near Tripura
has approximately 25 TCF gas initially in place and 15.52 recoverable
reserves. In the case of Bangladesh, the success ratio is 3:1:1 which says
that the reservoir faces of Bangladesh are better developed than those
in central Tripura. A thick sequence of reservoir quality sandstone is be-
ing observed in all reservoirs rich in shale and anticline structure which
makes the basin easily accessible for hydrocarbon exploration. Helium
porosity in a basin of Bangladesh is estimated to be 18.7% which typi-
cally differs from 5% to 30%. This is basically due to the amount of
quartz, pyrite, carbonate, and clay in significant volume reducing the
helium porosity concerning the depth in the formation. The permeabil-
ity in horizontal direction significantly varies from 0.5mD to 490mD
with an average variation of 200mD. Plains, valleys, and hill ranges are
what make the geography of Tripura. The Baramura, Agartala, Dhar-
mangr, and Ambassa comprise the major anticlines in this area.
The gravity survey done in the terms of airborne devices leads us to
the delineation of 14 large closed structures which are anticlines named
Skham, Ticha, Altamura, Baramura, Gojalia, Tulamura, Khubal, Langai,
Rokhia, and Jampai, etc. All the locations are shown in Fig. 1. The geo-
morphology in syncline between Baramura and Rokhia features a
3
Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10
buried dome structure which can be established using seismic survey
and called the dome of Agartala. Most of the anticlines, Bhabhan forma-
tion is capped by upper Bhubhan, Bokabil, and Tipam formations. The
overpressure in Tripura is caused by clay digenesis and tectonic activ-
ity. Stratigraphic succession includes the Post Cretaceous to the Pleis-
tocene of the Tripura sub-basin. Fig. 1 shows the stratigraphic section of
the studied area. All wells drilled in Tripura are touching the Surma
groups of the Miocene region, which consists of Bhubham and Bokabil
formations deposited after repaired transgression and regressions. All
these units together build up 4500 m of thickness in the Tripura fold
characterized by large thickness in the south and east part and gener-
ally a depo-center in Mizoram. The lowest and most extreme layers are
mainly siltstone, fine-grained sandstone, with silty and sandy mudstone
occupying the middle unit. The middlemost region of the place is
named Kabil where the natural gas reservoir forms. The exploration in
Tripura for hydrocarbon started in 1962 and the commencement of
drilling began in 1972. Gas was obtained at first in Baramura anticline
in 1975, from that period on multiple gas rejections have been seen
within upper Bhuban, middle Bhuban, and Agartala gas dome struc-
tures. All these discoveries mentioned are within normal and upper
pore pressure regimes and have proven the hydrocarbon potential of
shallow prospects in Tripura. Due to the problem of drilling compli-
cacy, it cannot easily enumerate the hydrocarbon indications in the su-
per pressure sequence (Babu and Sircar, 2011). From previous studies,
it has been concluded that the methane content is about 95%–97% in
thermogenic origin. From the already drilled well it can be suggested
that the Bhubham is under abnormal pressure which is twice that of
normal hydrostatic pressure.
3. Methodology
Some of the early attempts for predicting pore stress by using mir-
rored image seismograph records were based on common speed for
every reflective horizon in a given survey by using normally typical
geophysical relationships and transforming the common velocities to
M. Prankada et al. Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10

Fig. 3. Flow chart for steps to be followed for pore pressure analysis by using seismic velocity.

interval periods. The interval periods were then plotted with depth T1 = travel time to the first reflector
which can predict pore pressure. T2 = travel time to the second reflector.
VRMS1 = RMS velocity to the first reflector.
3.1. RMS velocity estimation VRMS2 = RMS velocity to the second reflector.
The Average Velocity (Vavg) and RMS Velocity (Vrms) formulas are:
The velocity model for the region can be obtained using a standard
approach (stacking velocity) and an acoustic impedance inversion tech- (2)
nique in the reservoir zone. The velocity section can also be generated
(3)
by modifying the velocity via refraction tomography in the surface.
However, using refraction measurements and converting stacking ve-
where.
locity to interval velocity, certain artificial sonic logs can be con-
Vi is the velocity for each plane which is a horizontal layer, and.
structed. A high-resolution velocity estimate for the region can be con-
Ti is one-way time, justifying that the two approximations are exact
structed using these produced sound logs and acoustic impedance in-
for the first layer and are the same when x = 0. If the velocity is mea-
version.
sured from field measurements, the Vrms is higher than Vavg.
Vrms as RMS velocity is the root mean square of the sum of interval
velocity which is multiplied to transit time, all divided by a sum of tran-
3.2. Pore pressure
sit time in layered medium, which is used to simplify the travel time.
The velocity of RMS is typically higher than that of average velocity for
Eaton's (1975) approach uses a combination of sonic log velocities
a given time, and the RMS is of the wave through subsurface layers and
and resistivity measures to calculate the effective vertical tension. For
of different interval velocities with specific ray paths. When source-
differential overburden distribution, the updated Eaton's equation is:
receiver approaches zero and layers are isotropic, the stacking velocity
and RMS velocity are of high quality. Equation (1) is used to calculate
interval velocity: (4)

(1) (5)

where, Vint = interval velocity.

where.

4
M. Prankada et al. Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10

Table 1
Pore pressure prediction for Common Depth Point −1 (CDP-1).
TIME RMS Interval Depth Density Overburden Overburden Pore pressure by Pore pressure gradient Pore pressure by Pores pressure
Velocity Velocity (meter) (g/cc) Pressure pressure modified Eaton's by modified Eaton's new method gradient by a new
gradient (ppg) (kg/cm2) (ppg) (kg/cm2) method (ppg)

125 1948 1996 121.75 2.13889819 22.18 15.2 12.18 8.348827269 12.22 8.38
362 2095 2169 379.195 2.18381008 78.27 17.23 37.92 8.345510041 38.05 8.38
462 2226 2645 514.206 2.29486106 109.32 17.74 51.42 8.345302622 51.6 8.38
680 2451 2873 833.34 2.34279282 184.25 18.45 83.33 8.344999424 83.63 8.38
884 2540 2816 1122.68 2.33108517 251.87 18.72 112.27 8.345548669 112.67 8.38
1081 2742 3510 1482.051 2.46307002 340.31 19.16 148.21 8.345675918 148.73 8.38
1423 2932 3464 2086.118 2.45496016 488.55 19.54 208.61 8.345327992 209.35 8.38
1616 3003 3486 2426.424 2.4588488 572.16 19.68 382.22 13.14600741 421.49 14.5
1733 3039 3494 2633.2935 2.46025829 623.04 19.75 447.06 14.1681682 478.07 15.15
2282 3225 3750 3679.725 2.50413533 884.32 20.06 757.81 17.18668535 750.68 27.02
2899 3591 4706 5205.1545 2.65040938 1282.5 20.56 1183.67 18.97772606 1131.7 18.154
3408 3674 4115 6260.496 2.5629636 1551.04 20.68 1518.68 20.2443897 1423.19 18.97
4115 3757 4135 7730.0275 2.56607211 1295.33 20.79 1913.8 20.66153907 1786.07 19.28
4963 3893 4497 9660.4795 2.6204791 2425.02 20.95 2421.46 20.91827045 2256 19.49

Vobserved = interval velocity factor measured at depth of interest.
Robserved = value of resistivity at depth of interest.
Vnormal = interval velocity value if the formation had been com-
pacted typically at the same depth.
Rnormal = value of resistivity if the formation had been compacted
typically at the same depth.
= overburden stress.
Pp normal = normal pore pressure, and.
Pp = predicted pore pressure.
3.3. Fracture pressure
By means of accepted analytical techniques, Hubbert and Willis
(1957) established that when natural fault occurs (60° to the horizon-
tal), the lowest horizontal stress concentration is one-third to one-half
of the total height compressive stress, and proposed the following rela-
tion:
(6)
Considering a unit overburden coefficient and = 0.25, the preced-
ing equation is reduced to the Hubbert-Willis equation:
(7)
to Hubbert's formula, making it even better. Poisson's coefficient is the
ratio of lateral unit strain to longitudinal strain in a material which has
been strained longitudinally within its own elastic limit, according to
Eaton. The following is Eaton's formula for determining the fracture
gradient:
(9)
According to Eaton, Poisson's ratio is a product of the regional stress
field, or the horizontal-to-vertical stress ratio, rather than the material.
Because Hubbert and Willis believed that the lowest lateral stress is
roughly one-third, the above formula equates to a Poisson's value of
0.25. Eaton produced empirical Poisson's ratio vs. depth charts based
on information from the Gulf coast (Fig. 2).
These slopes are not influenced by the type of material. As a result,
Poisson's ratio swings between 0.25 and 0.5. In geologically challenging
areas, Eaton's approach is critical for calculating fracture pressure gra-
dients (Daines, 1982). Another factor in this strategy is spatially sepa-
rated horizontal tectonic stress , which needs no adjustment in appli-
cation.
(10)
(11)

where. Anderson et al. (1972) proposed another scientific approach for ob-
= gradient of fracture (psi/ft). taining all relevant factors from electric logs in order to determine
fracture pressures. They created the following relation using Biot's
= gradient of overburden (psi/ft). stress/strain equations for porous media:
= gradient of pore pressure (psi/ft).
A fracture coefficient equation close to that of Hubbert was pro- (12)
posed by Matthews and Kelly (1967). Instead of a fixed value of 0.33,
they devised the concept of a differential horizontal-to-vertical stress
3.4. Choosing the best mud weight: the median line approach
value.
A multitude of options exist for determining the amount of mud to
(8) be used. One way for compensating for surge and wipe pressures is to
calculate a specified amount of total overbalance (usually 200–500 psi).
where. However, the mud amount set based on borehole geomechanics, will be
Ki = stress ratio. more logical, as borehole geomechanics accounts for in-situ stresses,
= gradient of compaction or effective stress (psi/ft). lowering the likelihood of borehole failure. When the efficient hoop
stress of the efficient tangential stress reaches zero in a borehole, frac-
Both strategies, nevertheless, are only valid in flexible formations,
turing occurs. Borehole pressure would be equivalent to fracture pres-
which are uncommon in drilling.
sure at that moment, and can be stated as:
The concept of uniform overburden grade is likewise incorrect, re-
sulting in incorrect fracture pressure calculation. Eaton (1969) added
the varying Poisson's coefficient and changeable overburden gradient

5
M. Prankada et al. Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10

Fig. 4. Depth vs. pore pressure at CDP - 1, 3, 8.

= average horizontal stress.

This mud weight selection approach maintains the borehole in
shape because the mud weight will be a mean of the pore and fracture
(13)
pressures of the material to balance the in-situ horizontal stresses. The
median line technique can be used to compute the needed mud weight
once the fracture pressure has compensated for tectonic stress.

where, = − Pw is tangential stress.

Pw = wellbore pressure, and.

6
M. Prankada et al.
Fig. 5. Depth vs. pore pressure at CDP - 4, 1, 8.
3.5. Collapse pressure
Once the external pressure from outside casing equals the fluid pres-
sure within the casing, casing collapse is to occur. As a result, it is be-
lieved that there is no fluid within the shell during designing. This type
of issue will only happen if there is a fluid loss zone around the casing
shoe. Total fluid evacuation within the shell is not achievable in prac-
tice. However, when considered possible, the hydrostatic pressure cre-
ated by the mud in the annulus is the primary cause of collapse. The fac-
tor of safety (FOS) for collapse pressure is around 1.125.
7
Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10
(14)
3.6. Burst pressure
Whenever the fluid pressure within the casing surpasses the outer
pressure, the casing will burst. It is considered there is no fluid in the
casing annulus for calculating burst pressure.
Again, total fluid drainage in the annulus would never happen, how-
ever during kick, gas may reach the annulus and prohibit drilling mud
from entering. The burst pressure FOS is 1.1 in this case.
M. Prankada et al. Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10

Fig. 6. Proposed well design after pore pressure estimation through modified Eaton's method.

(15) safely circulated out, are the input details required to determine the
kick tolerance. The influx volume can be calculated as:
3.7. Tensile load
The casing'‘s tensile load is highest on top of the casing joint, which
is produced by the casing's weight. All estimates are based on the as- Fig. 3 represents the flow chart which is used for pore pressure pre-
sumption that the casing is subjected to a bouncing force. The FOS of diction using seismic velocity with the help of modified Eaton's method.
tensile load is 1.8 in this case.

(16) 4. Results and discussion

3.8. Kick tolerance 4.1. Pore pressure estimation in Tripura

The kick tolerance must be computed periodically via borehole seg-
ment to be drilled at the estimated mud weight after a leak-off test and
before drilling ahead.
Pore pressure from another target depth, mud weight to be em-
ployed to the maximum in the other open hole segment, fracture grade
at the present casing shoe, and designed influx volume that may be
We used seismic data here as an input for prediction. The value of
depth of the overburden pressure started at 1240 m in the Common
Depth Point-1 (CDP-1) chart of time and velocity and for the second
part is about 2400 m in Tripura. As we predict pore pressure using the
new method which is pressure prognosis, the pore pressure can resist
the so-called basement rocks up to around 5900 m - 6000 m, which lies
above the sedimentary basins and is igneous and metamorphic rocks.

8
M. Prankada et al.
The most important thing is to select large depth because as we go
down there are fewer pores with quite high pressure in general. In the
case of Tripura, we have a target depth of around 6 km, because the oc-
currence of sedimentary rocks is apparent at this depth, and we can as-
sure in our study that Vavg = Vrms, an equation valid in the case of our
depth. As per obtained profiles from seismic interpretation all velocity
and time data from different depth points are used for pore pressure
prediction and normal Compaction Trendline (NCT) generation. Table
1 shows the pore pressure prediction for CDP-1, where we get the val-
ues of pore pressure at different depth points and the comparison of ob-
tained value is done with RFT data of nearby wells. The overburden
pressure gradient is approximately 8.20 ppg near the nominal depth
and thereafter, the gradient gradually increases to twice approximately
20 ppg at a depth of 6000 m. If the accuracy of Eaton's method is
checked by comparison with the new pressure prognosis method, we
can see that the second method is more accurate. From a table similar to
Table 1, pore pressures were obtained for different regions and matched
with RFT data; an example of which is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for CDP 1,
3, 8 and 4, 1, 8, respectively.
4.2. Well design with seismic velocity data
Pore pressure is to be established on the Tripura stack, the intake of
which can help us design a good well; meanwhile seismic profile and
velocity data were also used in our research work, with different CDPs
as input for well design. The importance of mud weight selection lies in
cost, easiness, and stability of wellbore. It should be noted that mud
weight varies with depth and should be intensified when being poured
at greater depth to avoid the corresponding formation falling off. It is
important to calculate hydrostatic pressure between pore pressure and
fracture pressure. In Tripura, high pressure is observed in deep forma-
tion, so, the mud weight should be around 10 ppg for a depth up to
8000 ft and then 14 ppg. For the abnormal pressure, it is required to be
up to 20 ppg as it is a very important part in controlling the window of
drilling and management of wellbore pressure. Our main aim lies in no
kicks, and no lost circulation seen in both static as well as dynamic op-
erations during the process. Most of the lost circulation is seen when the
hydraulic pressure is more than the pressure of the particular rock for-
mation. Fig. 6 Represents the proposed well design from pore pressure
estimation.
There are different methods of pore pressure prediction like seismic
data, analysis of logs, evaluation of drilling parameters. But for the de-
termination of fracture gradient, the most common method used is
called Leak-off test, in which the BOP valves are closed and the pressure
is applied to the whole system until the formation accepts inhibited
fluid. To reduce uncertainties, the fracture pressure was derived from
various methods such as the Willis' method and modified methods such
as Willis' and Eaton's method, where the constant Poisson's ratio was
taken in order of 0.25, further, we can see that Hubert's equation is best
for predicting fracture pressure. For the variation in horizontal stress,
Bradley equation was used (Rahman et al., 2009), showing a horizontal
stress variation from 0.77 to 0.8.
5. Conclusion
In this paper an attempt has been made for pore pressure prediction
using seismic velocity for Tripura region in India. Eaton's and modified
Eaton's method were used to convert the seismic velocity into pore pres-
sure. Fracture pressure and pore pressure were estimated using the
modified versions of Eaton's and Mathew and Kelly's method. To vali-
date the result, geomechanical models were developed based on good
correlation. It was observed that when the wellbore stability was pre-
dicted by the pressure prognosis the data obtained were the same as
those of Repeat Formation Test. Our method can be successfully applied
to the density data evaluated by seismic data as it provides a new way
9
Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10
to measure the same and contributes to oil and gas exploration in the
future. From our set of data points, it is generally observed that the pore
pressure has a sudden change in terms of increment at a maximum
depth of 8000 ft, and abnormal formation is ranging from 8500 to
2000 ft. As there are more complex structures in Tripura formation, the
Poisson's ratio is also largely variable. Both changeable as well as non-
changeable factors evaluated from the data obtained from Cambay and
Tripura basins, are supposed to be noted in determining pore pressure.
Accurate seismic velocities are required for more reliable results, as the
prediction also helps in the design of future wells with a single set of
data points.
Uncited references
Dutta and Ray (2002); Eaton (1975); Mhetaji et al. (2019).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Anderson, R.A., Ra, A., Ds, I., Am, Z., 1972. Fracture Pressure Gradient Determination
from Well Logs. Schlumberger Well Survey, Houston, Texas.
Andrian, D., Rosid, M.S., Septyandy, M.R., 2020. Pore pressure prediction using Anfis
method on well and seismic data field “Ayah”. Proceedings, The 2nd International
Conference on Science and Innovated Engineering 854, 1–12.
Babu, S., Sircar, A., 2011. A comparative study of predicted and actual pore pressures in
Tripura, India. Journal of Petroleum Technology and Alternative Fuels 2 (9), 150–160.
Brahma, J., Sircar, A., 2018. Design of safe well on the top of Atharamura anticline,
Tripura, India, on the basis of predicted pore pressure from seismic velocity data. J Pet
Explor Prod Technol 8 (4), 1209–1224.
Buitrago, J., Dessay, J., Diaz, C., Gruenwald, R., Hufman, A., Moreno, C., Gonzalez, J.M.,
2010. Pore pressure prediction based on high resolution velocity inversion in carbonate
rocks, Offshore Sirte Basin—Libya. 2nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition Incorporating
SPE EUROPEC.
Daines, S.R., 1982. Prediction of fracture pressure for wildcat wells. In: SPE 9254.
Dejam, M., 2019a. Tracer dispersion in a hydraulic fracture with porous walls. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 150, 169–178.
Dejam, M., 2019b. Advective-diffusive-reactive solute transport due to non-Newtonian
fluid flows in a fracture surrounded by a tight porous medium. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran.
128, 1307–1321.
Dejam, M., Hassanzadeh, H., 2018. The role of natural fractures of finite double-porosity
aquifers on diffusive leakage of brine during geological storage of CO2. Int J Greenhouse
Gas Control 78, 177–197.
Dejam, M., Hassanzadeh, H., Chen, Z., 2018. Shear dispersion in a rough walled fracture.
SPE J. 23 (5), 1669–1688.
Dutta, N.C., Ray, A., 2002. Geopressure detection using seismic Data: current status and
the road ahead. Geophys 67 (6), 2012–2041.
Eaton, B.A., 1969. Fracture gradient prediction and its application in oilfield operations. J.
Petrol. Technol. 21 (10), 1353–1360.
Eaton, B.A., 1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. In: SPE 50th
Annual Fall Meeting. SPE, Dallas, TX, pp. 2–4 September 28–October 1. Dallas.
Elmahdy, M., Farag, A.E., Tarabees, E., Bakr, A., 2018. Pore pressure prediction in
unconventional carbonate reservoir. In: SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical
Symposium and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
He, W., Chen, K., Hayatdavoudi, A., Sawant, K., Lomas, M., 2019. Effects of clay content,
cement, and mineral composition characteristics on sandstone rock strength and
deformability behaviors. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 176, 962–969.
Hottmann, C., Johnson, R., 2007. Estimation of formation pressures from log-derived
shale properties. J. Petrol. Technol. 17 (6), 717–722.
Hubbert, M.K., Rubey, W.W., 1959. Role of fluid pressure in mechanics of overthrust
faulting: i. Mechanics of fluid-filled porous solids and its application to overthrust
faulting Gsa Bulletin. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 6, 115–166.
Hubbert, M.K., Willis, D.G., 1957. Role of Fluid Pressure in Overthrust Faulting.
Geological Society of America, Boulder, p. 70.
Lai, J., Wang, G.W., Wang, S., Cao, J.T., Li, M., Pang, X.J., Han, C., Fan, X.Q., Yang, L., He,
Z.B., Qin, Z.Q., 2018. A review on the applications of image logs in structural analysis
and sedimentary characterization. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 95, 139–166.
Ma, T.S., Tang, T., Chen, P., Yang, C.H., 2019. Uncertainty evaluation of safe mud weight
window utilizing the reliability assessment method. Energies 12 (5), 942.
Matthews, W.R., 1967. How to predict formation pressure and fracture gradient from
electric and sonic logs. Oil Gas J. 65 (2), 92–106.
Mhetaji, M., Brahma, J., Sircar, A., 2019. Pre-drill pore pressure prediction and safe well
design on the top of Tulamura anticline, Tripura, India: a comparative study. Journal of
Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology 10, 1021–1049.
Pasic, B., Gaurina, N., Matanovic, D., 2007. Wellbore instability: causes and
M. Prankada et al.
consequences. Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zborni19 87–98.
Radwan, A.E., Abudeif, A., Attia, M.M., Mohammed, M.A., 2019. Pore and fracture
pressure modeling using direct and indirect methods in Badri Field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt.
J. Afr. Earth Sci.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafre arsci .2019.04.015.
Rahman, S.S., Chen, Z., Tamhane, D., Sharma, V., Parapullil, A., 2009. An innovative
wellbore stability study in southern Cambay Basin. In: Proceedings in 8th International
Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition New Delhi.
Richards, B.G., Roberts, D., Bere, A., Martinez, S., Tilita, M., Harrold, T., 2020. Pore
pressure prediction based on the Full effective stress (FES) method. In: Proceedings,
Third EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction. pp. 1–5.
Sheehan, J.R., Doll, W.E., Watson, D.B., Mandell, W.A., 2005. Problems detecting cavities
with seismic refraction tomography: can it be done?. In: 18th EEGS Symposium on
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Session: Seismic Refraction
10
View publication stats
Energy Geoscience xxx (xxxx) 1–10
Applications.
Sun, X., Liao, Y., Wang, Z., Zhao, X.X., Sun, B., 2021. Modelling of formation pore pressure
inversion during tight reservoir drilling. Geofliuds 1–11.
Yu, G., 2010. Method Improve Pore Pressure Prediction. The American oil and gas
Reporter. (2010). www.aogr.com.
Zhang, L., Kou, Z., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Dejam, M., Guo, J., Du, J., 2018. Performance
analysis for a model of a multi-wing hydraulically fractured vertical well in a coalbed
methane gas reservoir. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 166, 104–120.
Zhu, X.H., Valasek, P., Roy, B., 2008. Recent applications of turning-ray tomography.
Geophysics 73 (5), 243–254.