Pore or formation pressure calculation is crucial to petroleum industry. There is currently no widely accepted approach for pore pressure estimation in carbonate reservoirs, and the results are still far from satisfactory. In this study, discussion two approaches called Eaton Slowness and Bowers Original method utilizing in prediction pore pressure. The concerned data (logs, calibration data, drilling, and mud report) and these data were utilized in Techlog 2015 software. Pore pressure in the Tanuma formation is around 4650 psi according to the Eaton data, compared to 3100 psi for the Bowers technique. Eaton's hypothetical mud weight at a certain depth was greater than the actual mud weight, however bowers' results showed that it was lower than the actual mud utilized for this well. When the results of two methods compared against mud weight and the pressure tests are both yield agreeable. Even with improved knowledge, the characteristics for reservoir formations may be was the impact of porous systems on velocities and numerous correlation aspects are still poorly understood. The Bowers method of pore pressure computation is substantially more accurate than the Eaton method.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Aadnoy, B. and Looyeh, R., 2011. Petroleum rock mechanics: drilling operations and well design. Gulf professional publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-64677-8.
- Sayers, C.M., 2006. An introduction to velocity-based pore-pressure estimation. The Leading Edge, 25(12), pp.1496-1500.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2405335.
- Dutta, N.C., 2002. Geopressure prediction using seismic data: Current status and the road ahead. Geophysics, 67(6), pp.2012-2041.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1527101.
- Zoback, M.D., 2007. Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge university press, New work, p.27 .doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511586477.
- Chen, T. and Guan, Z., 2000. Theory and technology of drilling engineering. The Press of the University of Petroleum, Dongying (China), pp.155-157.
- Chopra, S. and Huffman, A.R., 2006. Velocity determination for pore-pressure prediction. The Leading Edge, 25(12), pp.1502-1515.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2405336.
- Deng, H., Fu, M., Huang, T., Gluyas, J.G., Tong, M., Wang, X., Zhou, W. and Liu, F., 2018. Ahdeb oil field, Mesopotamian Basin, Iraq: Reservoir architecture and oil charge history. AAPG Bulletin, 102(12), pp.2447-2480.doi: https://doi.org/10.1306/0424181617217089.
- Al-Jafar, M.K. and Al-Jaberi, M.H., 2019. Well logging and electrofacies of Zubair formation for upper sandstone member in Zubair oil field, southern Iraq. The Iraqi Geological Journal, pp.101-124.
- Pennebaker, E.S., 1968, September. An engineering interpretation of seismic data. In Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. One Petro.
- Fillippone, W.R., 1982. Estimation of formation parameters and the prediction of overpressures from seismic data. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, (pp. 502-503). Society of Exploration Geophysicists. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1827121.
- Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
- Zhang, J., 2011. Pore pressure prediction from well logs: Methods, modifications, and new approaches. Earth-Science Reviews, 108(1-2), pp.50-63.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001.
- Techlog Schlumberger, 2015. Schlumberger Log Interpretation Manual/Applications, Houston, Schlumberger Well Service Inc.V.2, 116p,1974. Schlumberger.
- Eaton, B.A., 1975, September. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. In Fall meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. One Petro.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/5544-MS.
- Bowers, G.L., 1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drilling & Completion, 10(02), pp.89-95.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/27488-PA.
- Traugott, M., 1997. Pore/fracture pressure determinations in deep water. World Oil, 218(8), pp.68-70.