Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0475-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Overburden stress and pore pressure prediction for the North Rumaila

oilfield, Iraq
Hussein Saeed Ageel Almalikee1 · Fahad Mansour Sakr Al‑Najim2

Received: 12 March 2018 / Accepted: 23 May 2018

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The aim of this study is to give an estimation of the pore pressure in all formations starting from surface to the main reservoir
(Zubair Formation) in North Rumaila oilfield. Pore pressure estimation is fundamental in minimizing the nonproductive time
(NPT) caused by wellbore instability or mud losses. Two methods were used to predict pore pressure: first, direct measure-
ments of by RFT tool where almost all measurements indicated low pore pressure within reservoirs intervals (Zubair, Nahr
Umr and Mishrif Formations) as a result of hydrocarbon production. Second, the indirect prediction, this technique relied
on the disparity of the petrophysical characteristics of normally and abnormally compacted formations determined by the
compressional transit time data (∆t). This method showed that most of the formations in Rumaila field are equal or less than
the normal compaction trend line (NCTL) except the Shale layers in Tanuma, Ahmadi and Zubair Formations as these layers
exhibit low permeability and subjected to under-compaction which occurs in rapidly subsiding basins.

Keywords  Rumaila oilfield · Overburden stress · Pore pressure · NCTL

Introduction
Drilling new wells in selected locations in any oilfield is cru-
cial factor in increasing oil production and enhancing water
injection to support the reservoirs pressure (Rabia 2002).
Achievement of safe and efficient drilling besides sustain-
ing the stability of the wellbore requires knowledge of pore
pressure values of the formations which decide the suitable
drilling mud weight (Narciso 2014).
Around 60% of total non-productive time (NPT) during
drilling new wells in North Rumaila oilfield was related to
mud losses in Dammam and Hartha Formations and well-
bore stability issues in Tanuma, Nahr Umr and Zubair For-
mations. These difficulties can be minimized by using the
proper mud weight window that should be higher than the
pore pressure of the formations. Mud losses occurs when the
* Hussein Saeed Ageel Almalikee
Halmalikee@outlook.com
Fahad Mansour Sakr Al‑Najim
Alnajim73@yahoo.com
1 North Rumaila is a supergiant oilfield located 50 km to the
Basra Oil Company, Ministry of Oil, Basra, Iraq
2
Department of Geology, College of Science, University
of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
mud pressure is by far higher than the formation pore pres-
sure while wellbore stability complications are a result of
low mud weight that cannot prevent the wellbores from col-
lapsing accompanied with abnormal pore pressure (higher
than normal) especially in impermeable layers. Two proce-
dures can be used to determine the pore pressure that are:
direct methods which include taking direct measurements
from the formation using special wireline logging tools, and
indirect approaches that rely on the mathematical relation-
ship between the effective vertical stress and the overburden
stress (Tingay et al. 2009).
Overburden stress, also named vertical stress (Sv) is the
pressure exerted from the combined weight of overlying ver-
tical column of rocks and fluids to the depth of concern. It is
considered as an essential input to pore pressure calculations
(Amadei and Stephansson 1997). The bulk density values
needed for overburden stress calculations can be obtained
from the density log (Bassiouni 1994).
Study area
west of Basrah city in southern Iraq as shown in Fig. 1. It
has stacked pay in multiple Clastic and Carbonate reservoirs,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 1  Study area map
with the main oil reservoirs (Mishrif, Nahr Umr and Zubair
Formations). North Rumaila field was discovered in 1953
and currently contributes in 33% of Iraq’s total oil produc-
tion (Rumaila.iq. 2018).
Materials and methods
Overburden stress prediction
Determination of the overburden stress values can be car-
ried out by integrating the bulk densities extracted from
density log for a column of sediments, starting from sur-
face to the depth of interest (z) as following (Eaton 1975):
z
∫
SV = 𝜌(z) × g × dz (1)
0 measurement in permeable layers is the Repeated Forma-
where: ­SV is the vertical (overburden) stress at true vertical
depth and measured in Pascal (N/m2) unit, ρ(z) is bulk den-
sity as a function of depth (gm/cm3), g is the gravitational
constant (9.8 m/s2) and dz is the depth (m).
S V c a n t h e n b e c o nve r t e d t o f i e l d u n i t s
(1 psi = 6894.76 Pascal).
Measurements of the formation density log can be
affected by the existence of mudcake on the borehole
walls. Therefore, in the density tool the source and detec-
tors are mounted on a plow shaped skid which when
pushed against the borehole wall it will cut through the
mudcake to minimize its thickness, the remaining mudcake
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
influence is corrected by comparing count rates at a short
and long spacing detectors (Schlumberger 1991).
Basically, the upper interval in any well is not logged,
as the focus is on the reservoir section. Accordingly, the
values of density in the shallow depths need to be esti-
mated by linearly extrapolating the shallowest depths den-
sities to the surface using following relationship (Rana and
Chandrashekhar 2015):
𝜌ext = 𝜌ml + A0 (TVD − AG)𝛼 (2)
where ρext: is the extrapolated density, ρ ml is density at
ground level (normally 2 gm/cm3), AG is the air Gap (rig
floor height from the ground level in meters), TVD is the
true vertical depth (m), ­A0 and α are fitting parameters.
Hydrostatic pressure prediction
The hydrostatic pressure ­(Ph) at depth z is the pressure
caused by weight of a column of water extending from sur-
face to that depth (Bjorlykke 2015).
z
∫ (3)
Ph = g × 𝜌f × dz
0
where: ρf is the fluid density (gm/cm3).
The pressure gradient is the increase in the pressure for
a vertical increase in depth (Tingay et al. 2009). The fluids
densities vary with change in salinity values, whilst the reli-
ance on temperature and pressure is relatively small and can
be neglected (Hantschel and Kauerauf 2009).
In Rumaila field the normal pore water density is 1.09 gm/
cm3 (Al-Canaani 2006). When applying that value to Eq. 3
the resultant hydrostatic pressure gradient was 1.55 psi/m
(0.472 psi/ft).
Pore pressure prediction
The common logging tool used for direct pore pressure
tion Tester (RFT); this tool is run into the open hole well
during wireline logging operations to directly measure the
formation pore pressure. The main element of the repeated
formation tester is an accurate pressure gauge which is
attached via a flowline to a probe (Glover 2001). In any oil-
field including Rumaila almost all RFT measurements are
targeting selected points within the reservoirs formations
such as Zubair, Nahr Umr and Mishrif Formations, and no
measurements were taken in other formations.
The indirect methods to estimate pore pressure are based on
the variation of the petrophysical properties of normally and
abnormally compacted formations, in particular, the changes
in the acoustic travel time, density or the resistivity readings
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
compared to the ratio of pore pressure within corresponding
formations (Tingay et al. 2009).
The fundamental concept of conventional pore pressure
analysis is a function of total stress (overburden stress) and
effective stress. The value of the overburden stress (Sv) is
equal to the sum of both effective vertical stress (σV) and
the pore pressure ­(PP) of the formation as following (Zhang
2011):
SV = 𝜎V + PP (4)
Eaton (1975) presented a method for pore pressure pre-
diction which is currently the most widely used in the oil
and gas industry. An empirical relationship to quantify the
Fig. 2  Extrapolated Density log
(blue curve) to the surface and
vertical stress for three well
pore pressure using compressional transit time data. In this
method, the disequilibrium of compaction is considered as
the primary mechanism for over-pressure, and presumes that
overburden pressure is supported by pore pressure and verti-
cal effective stress (Ugwu 2015).
Eaton estimated pore pressure from the ratio of acoustic
travel time in normally compacted sediments to the observed
acoustic travel time by following equation (Eaton 1975):
(
Δtn x
)
PP = SV − (SV − Ph ) (5)
Δt
13

where: Δtn is the acoustic travel time from the normal com-
paction trend at the depth of investigation (µs/ft), Δt is the
observed acoustic travel time from the sonic log (µs/ft) and x
is an exponent (normally 3 according to Tingay et al. 2009).
Pore pressure gradient considered normal if the rate of
sedimentation is similar to the rate of fluid could expel from
the formation pore spaces. On other hand, if the sedimenta-
tion rate is more than the rate of fluid expelling, or if the
fluids were inhibited within the pores and a seal was devel-
oped during burial, the fluid in the pores would progress
into over pressured and as a result will support portion of
the overburden load (Narciso 2014).
Compaction is an important geological process that occur
under the gravity load of overlying sediments and begin on
burial and might continue through burial to depths of 9 km.
Compaction increases the density of the rocks and reduce its
volume and porosity which is related to a decrease in pore
throats and connectivity of the pore network; this loading
usually take the scheme of the gravitational weight of an
overlying column of water-saturated sediments. Compaction
and fluid flow can determine how the pressure is formed and
distributed within the basin (Hantschel and Kauerauf 2009).
The normal compaction trend line (NCTL) is a curve of
a certain rock physical feature (resistivity, density, acoustic
travel time) experiencing compaction because of increased
burial within normal hydrostatic pressure. Normal compac-
tion trend describes the relationship between compaction
and pore pressure gradient (Zhang and Yin 2017).
Fig. 3  Average overburden stress gradient values in North Rumaila field
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
As compaction evolve from the surface with depth, the pore
pressure gradient will remain hydrostatic until the porosity is
decreased sufficiently for the clay particles to become close
enough to obstruct the generally upward movement of the water
being squeezed out of the decreasing porosity below. While
the porosity decreases downward, the resistivity will steadily
increase and the sonic travel time will firmly decrease, the trend
of the resistivity and sonic values in this hydrostatic pressured
zone defines the normal compaction trend. Resistivity and sonic
log values deviating from the normal compaction trend indicate
a change in pore pressure gradient (Schlumberger 1991).
Formation overpressure is mainly caused by the under-com-
paction which occurs in rapidly subsiding basins and in low
permeability rocks; the indicators for under-compaction are
higher pore pressure and formation porosity than those in the
normal compaction conditions. It is commonly accepted that
porosity decreases exponentially as depth increases in normally
compacted formations (Terzaghi 1943). The transit time in the
normal compaction trend can be obtained as following (Zhang
2011).
Δtn = Δtm + Δtml − Δtm × e−cz (6)
( )
where: Δtn is sonic transit time from the normal compac-
tion trend at the depth of interest (µs/ft), Δtml is compres-
sional transit time in the mudline (normally 150 µs/ft), Δtm
is compressional transit time in the shale matrix (normally
equal 70 µs/ft) and c is the compaction constant (0.0003
for Sandstone, 0.0005 for Shale, 0.0006 for Limestone and
0.0004 for Dolomite).
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Results and discussion

Overburden stress

Three wells in North Rumaila field (R-511, R-520 and

R-515) were selected for overburden stress calculations
based on availability of density log with maximum coverage
and good borehole condition. Values of extrapolated density
and vertical stress (­ SV) for the three wells in North Rumaila
field are shown in Fig. 2.
Applying average extrapolated density values from wells
R-511, R-520 and R-515 to Eq. (1) in order to estimate over-
burden stress, the results as presented in Fig. 3 concluded
that the overburden stress gradient in North Rumaila can be
divided into three overburden stress regimes depending on
the gradient change as listed in Table 1, these regimes are
corresponding with unconformity surfaces, in particular top
of Dammam and Tayarat Formations. This change in over-
burden stress gradient might be interpreted as a result of
variable sedimentation rate and subsidence beside tectonic
control (uplift).
Applying Eq. (6) on well R-520 in North Rumaila field,
the results demonstrated that most of formations are similar
or below the normal compaction trend line except the Shale
layers in Tanuma, Ahmadi and Zubair Formations. The nor-
mal compaction transit time as shown in Fig. 4 was extrapo-
lated to surface due to absence of sonic log data in the shal-
low depths (from surface to the top of Dammam Formation)
of well section. After the normal compaction trend line is
being established, the pore pressure can be estimated based
on the data of overburden stress and acoustic travel time.

Pore pressure prediction results

In any oilfield including Rumaila almost all RFT meas-

urements were taken within the reservoirs sections such
as Zubair, Nahr Umr and Mishrif Formations. Only one
well (R-531) had RFT measurements in Tayarat Forma-
tion. Direct pore pressure measurements concluded that
the producing reservoirs (Mishrif and Zubair) had a lower
pore pressure than hydrostatic pressure due to hydrocarbon
production from the North Rumaila field for more than Fig. 4  Normal compaction trend line (NCTL) from sonic log

Table 1  Overburden stress gradient for North Rumaila and average 65 years of production, which decreased the volume of the
values fluids in the pore spaces resulting in lower pore pressure,
on other hand RFT results for fluid pressures in Nahr Umr
Depth (m) Formation Overburden Overburden
stress gradient stress gradient and Tayarat Formations were very similar to the hydro-
From To From To (psi/m) (psi/ft) static pressure.
The results of the indirect pore pressure prediction
0 600 Dibdibba Dammam 2.93 0.89
using Eaton’s method gave an indicator of a minor over-
600 1400 Dammam Tayarat 3.35 1.02
pressure (78–150 psi higher than hydrostatic pressure)
1400 3600 Tayarat Ratawi 3.49 1.06
in Tanuma Shale layers. Table 2 and Fig. 5 display the

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 2  Overburden, Formation Average depth Hydrostatic pres- Pore pressure (psi) Overburden
hydrostatic and pore pressure (m) sure (psi) pressure (psi)
for North Rumaila field
Dibdibba 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
100 155.02 154.00 292.80
200 310.05 308.00 585.60
Lower fars 300 465.07 462.00 878.40
400 620.10 616.00 1171.20
Ghar 500 775.12 770.00 1464.00
Dammam 600 930.15 924.00 1799.40
700 1085.17 1078.00 2134.80
Rus 800 1240.20 1232.00 2470.20
Umm Er Radhuma 900 1395.22 1386.00 2805.60
1000 1550.25 1540.00 3141.00
1100 1705.27 1694.00 3476.40
1200 1860.30 1848.00 3811.80
1300 2015.32 2002.00 4147.20
Tayarat 1400 2170.34 2156.00 4496.10
1500 2325.37 2310.00 4845.00
Shiranish 1600 2480.39 2464.00 5193.90
Hartha 1700 2635.42 2618.00 5542.80
1800 2790.44 2772.00 5891.70
Sadi 1900 2867.96 2849.00 6066.15
2000 3022.98 3003.00 6415.05
Tanuma 2100 3255.52 3334.00 6938.40
Khasib 2150 3333.03 3411.00 7112.85
Mishrif 2200 3410.54 2437.00 7287.30
2300 3565.57 2524.34 7636.20
Rumaila 2375 3681.83 3657.50 7897.88
Ahmadi 2450 3798.10 3773.00 8159.55
Mauddud 2600 4030.64 4004.00 8682.90
Nahr Umr 2700 4185.66 4158.00 9031.80
2800 4340.69 4312.00 9380.70
2900 4495.71 4466.00 9729.60
Shuaiba 3000 4650.74 4620.00 10,078.50
Zubair
 Upper Shale 3100 4805.76 3500.00 10,427.40
 Upper Sandstone 3200 4960.79 3580.00 10,776.30
 Middle Shale 3300 5115.81 3280.00 11,125.20
 Lower Sandstone 3375 5232.08 5197.50 11,386.88

predicted pore pressure, overburden stress and hydrostatic
pressure with corresponding RFT results in North Rumaila
field.
Conclusion
The obtained results of overburden stress and pore pressure
showed the following conclusions:
1. There are three overburden stress gradient regimes
developed in Rumaila oilfield; these regimes were a
result of variable sedimentation rate and tectonic control
(uplift). These regimes denote the unconformity surfaces
at the top of Dammam and Tayarat Formations.
2. Pore pressure is slightly higher (around 100 psi) than
the hydrostatic pressure in the Shale layers of Tanuma
and Ahmadi Formations, which indicate that these low
permeability layers were subjected to under-compaction
which occurs in rapidly subsiding basins.

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 5  Overburden stress,
hydrostatic and pore pressure
plot for North Rumaila with
RFT readings from five wells
3. In the reservoir intervals (Mishrif and Zubair Forma-
tions) the Pore pressure was lower than the hydrostatic
pressure because of hydrocarbon production from these
zones for many years which lead to drop in the pore
pressure.
4. Dissimilar drop in pore pressure between Upper Sand-
stone member and Upper Shale member within Zubair
reservoirs as a result of variation in the permeability,
where Upper sandstone has higher permeability than
Upper Shale.
Recommendations
It is recommended prior to drill any new well in North
Rumaila field to consider the mud weight to be slightly
higher than the pore pressure of Tanuma Formation in
order to minimize or prevent the Shale layers from col-
lapsing in the borehole (Breakouts). However, the mud
weight must be maintained to keep the mud pressure not
much high to prevent mud losses in low pressure Forma-
tions such as Zubair and Mishrif.
References
Al-Canaani AA (2006) Determination of hydrostatic gradient
from hydrochemical data for Mishrif, Nahr Umr,Zubair and
Yamammareservoirs in Basrah area fields. South Oil Company
(unpublished)
Amadei B, Stephansson O (1997) Rock stress and its measurement.
Springer, Berlin
Bassiouni Z (1994) Theory, measurement, and interpretation of well
logs, vol 4. Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society
of Petroleum Engineers
Bjorlykke K (2015) Petroleum geoscience: from sedimentary environ-
ments to rock physics, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Eaton BA (1975) The equation for geopressure prediction from well
logs. Fall meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Glover P (2001) Petrophysics MSc course notes. University of Leeds,
Leeds
Hantschel T, Kauerauf AI (2009) Fundamentals of basin and petroleum
systems modeling. Springer, Berlin
13

Narciso J (2014) Pore pressure prediction using seismic velocities.
Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa
Rabia H (2002) Well engineering and construction. Entrac Consulting
Limited, London
Rana R, Chandrashekhar C (2015) Pore pressure prediction a case
study in Cambay basin. Geohorizons 20(1):38–47
Rumaila.iq(2018) A rare super-giant field. Rumaila Operating Organ-
isation web site. http://www.rumai​la.iq/engli​sh/the-oilfi​eld.php.
Accessed 10 Feb 2018
Schlumberger (1991) Log interpretation principles/applications.
Schlumberger Educational Services
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York
Tingay MR, Hillis RR, Swarbrick RE, Morley CK, Damit AR (2009)
Origin of overpressure and pore-pressure prediction in the Baram
province, Brunei. AAPG Bull 93(1):51–74
Ugwu GZ (2015) An overview of pore pressure prediction using seis-
mically derived velocities. J Geol Min Res 7(4):31–40
Zhang J (2011) Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods,
modifications, and new approaches. Earth Sci Rev 108(1):50–63
Zhang J, Yin S (2017) Real-time pore pressure detection: indicators
and improvedmethods. Geofluids 2017