CHAPTER ONE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Energy remains primary to the existence of man. Several energy sources exist for human use and

can be broadly categorized into renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydro) and

non-renewable (fossil fuels- coal, crude oil and natural gas) sources. According to the statistical

review of world energy published in June 2016, coal, natural gas and crude oil accounted for

30%, 24% and 33% respectively while all other energy sources accounted for the remaining

13%. The importance of all fossil fuels especially crude oil can therefore not be overemphasized.

Crude oil exploration and exploitation has several phases, prominent among this is the drilling

phase. Drilling is the planning, development, costing and supervision of all operations involved

in the boring of hole through the earth with the intent to produce hydrocarbons. Safety remains

an integral part of the drilling process. The presence of overpressures in the subsurface however

poses major problems for safety and cost effective well design (Guiterrez, 2006).

Formations with pressures higher than hydrostatic are encountered at varying depths in many

areas. These formations are referred to as being abnormally pressured, abnormally high

pressured, or overpressured. Formation pressures up to twice the, hydrostatic pressure have been

observed and these formations require extreme care and much expense to drill and exploit. .

(Hottman and Johnson, 1965)

Pore pressure itself is the pressure of fluid (either oil, gas or water) which exists within the pores

of a formation and is thus referred to as formation fluid pressure (Hottman and Johnson, 1965).

Pore pressure can be classified as normal, subnormal and abnormal or overpressure by the

magnitude of the corresponding pressure grad ient in a given area. Normal pressures refer to

1
formation pressures which are approximately equal to the hydrostatic head of a column of water

of equal depth. If the formations were opened to the atmosphere, a column of water from the

ground surface to the subsurface formation depth would balance the formation pressure. On the

Gulf Coast, the shallow, predominantly sand formations contain fluids which are under

hydrostatic pressure. These formations are said to be normally pressured or to have a normal

pressure gradient. Experience has shown that the normal pressure gradient on the Gulf Coast is

approximately 0.465 psi/ft of depth. (Hottman and Johnson, 1965). Normal pressure gradients

correspond to the hydrostatic gradient of fresh or saline water with small variations which

depend on the geographic area and depositional basin. The general gradient in the area of study

(Niger Delta) is 0.442 psi/ft of which any pore pressure greater than this is regarded as abnormal

pressure gradient, while pore pressure less than this is subnormal pressure (Lisa, 1997).

Overpressure shale adjacent to reservoir has been observed to boost the reservoir performance

during production by contributing shale water drive to the existing reservoir drive (Wallace,

1965). Furthermore, geopressures impact prospect and play appraisal and economics in a number

of ways. Several issues are associated with subsurface geopressure, amongst which are drilling

safety & cost (rig selection, well kicks & blowouts, lost wells, wellbore stability problems, mud

expense and mud loss, stuck pipe, formation damage, extra casing runs), environmental risks,

prospectivity – trap analysis(hydrocarbon retention and column height, sealing / non-sealing

faults, top seal capacity, aquifer continuity / pressure support during production, volumetric and

economics) and impact on rock and fluid properties (reservoir quality, sediment and fluid

acoustic properties and quantitative seismic interpretation) (Gutierrez et al, 2006)

2
Overpressures can be generated by many mechanisms, such as compaction disequilibrium

(under-compaction), hydrocarbon generation and gas cracking, aquathermal expansion, tectonic

compression (lateral stress), mineral transformations and osmosis, hydraulic head and

hydrocarbon buoyancy (Gutierrez et al, 2006; Swarbrick and Osborne, 1998). In nearly all cases

where compaction disequilibrium has been determined to be the primary cause of

overpressuring, the age of the rocks is geologically young as we have in the U.S. Gulf Coast,

Alaska Cook Inlet; Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie Delta, North Sea, Adriatic Sea, Niger Delta,

Mahakam Delta, the Nile Delta, Malay Basin, Eastern Venezuelan Basin (Trinidad) and the

Potwar Plateau of Pakistan (Law and Spencer, 1998; Burrus, 1998; Heppard, et al., 1998;

Powley, 1990; Nelson and Bird, 2005; Morley et al., 2011). In these areas, the abnormally

pressured rocks are mainly located in Tertiary and late Mesozoic sedimentary formations, the

depositional setting are dominantly deltaic, and the lithology is dominantly shale. (Zhang,2011)

Compaction dis-equilibrum is the most common cause of abnormal pressure (Thomeer and

Boateman, 1961). This is true in rapidly filing (Tertiary) sedimentary basins like Niger Delta

(Lisa, 1997). During burial, the sediments deposited at the De lta front will dewater as the matrix

material reshuffles itself under the influence of gravity and the overburden crested by the

deposition of more overlying sediments. The dewatering process relies on continuous slow

permeability that ultimately connects with the surface/water table, allowing fluid pressure to

remain hydrostatic (Lisa, 1997)

When seasonal changes in load (the switching of a channel) or a change in sediment source

occurs, the quantity and/or type of sediment can change abruptly. A change from a clay/silt/sand

mixture to clay alone can easily restrict the dewatering processes to those clays/silts adjacent to a

sand layer. Rapid loading by a high thickness of clay/silt sediments may tip the dewatering

3
balance temporarily in favour of overpressure. The lack of dewatering causes the matrix stress

between the grains to become locked as burial continues and causes the pore fluids to be

responsible for carrying the remaining overburden. The process will continue until the fluid

pressure finds relief by rupturing the seal. The rupture can occur at pressures below the

overburden if the block is brittle or even as much as 40% above the overburden if the rocks have

enough tensile strength (Short and Stauble, 1967)

1.2 JUSTIFICATION

Overpressure if encountered suddenly during drilling can lead to a kick or even a blowout. An

uncontrolled kick or a blowout if experienced could lead to significant safety, environmental,

economic and reservoir quality problems and may cause loss of human lives, the well and e ven

the entire drilling rig. Overpressure is however strongly associated with Niger Delta fields due to

compaction disequilibrium.

Several works have been done on overpressure prediction and modelling. These works include

Hottman and Johnson(1965), Eaton (1975), Bowers(1995), Tau(2004), Zhang (2011), Boboye

and Ogunkerode (2014) amongst others. Many have achieved huge successes in overpressure

prediction and researches into how to improve existing works continue daily. To the best of the

authors’ knowledge, there is no mathematical model presented as a software which evaluates

without complex mathematical rigours while honouring accuracy.

This study is targeted at creating a mathematical model and software that efficiently and easily

predicts pore pressure using a particular field in the Niger Delta (Field DAS) as reference.

4
1.3 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

The Niger Delta is situated on the continental margin of the Gulf of Guinea in Equatorial West

Africa, between latitude 30º N and 60ºN and longitude 50ºE a nd 80ºE (Fig. 1.1) (Oyedele et. al.,

2012). DAS field is located within the offshore part of the Niger Delta. The Niger Delta is an

extensional rift basin. The northern boundary is the Benin flank, an east-northeast trending hinge

line south of the West Africa basement massif. The northeastern boundary is defined by outcrops

of the Cretaceous on the Abakaliki High. The eastern part is bounded by the Calabar flank, a

hinge line bordering the adjacent Precambrian. The offshore boundary of the province is defined

by the Cameroon volcanic line to the east and the eastern boundary of the Dahomey basin to the

west (Tuttle et. al., 1999).

5
 STUDY AREA

Figure 1.1: Location of Niger Delta (Tuttle et. al., 1999)

6
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study are;

1) To conduct a comprehensive review of existing pore pressure prediction models

2) To develop a model that easily and effectively predicts pore pressure

3) To write a computer program and create a software that can efficiently and easily predict

pore pressure

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of this study can be categorized under

 Mathematical modeling

 Model Validation and Pore Pressure prediction

 Software development

Mathematical modeling: Existing mathematical models are first studied, then existing

mathematical models are modified to create a new model that better predicts pore pressure than

all existing models and in a simpler form than the existing models.

Model Validation and Pore Pressure prediction: The created model is afterwards validated to

confirm its accuracy using field data. The validated model is then used to predict pore pressure in

another field.

A program and software to predict pore pressure: Finally, a computer program will be

written in Fortran programming language for the mathematical mode l created, to predict pore

7
pressure. This program will be further developed into a software that will generate good pore

pressure prediction.

1.6 PREVIOUS WORKS

Brun et al (1985) worked on predicting overpressure in Nigeria using Vertical Seismic Profile

(VSP) techniques. They discovered that for complex growth fault systems like the Niger Delta,

the VSP iterative modeling inversion gives a more accurate predictive profile of acoustic

impedance even when recorded at several hundred meters above the overpressured zones when

compared to the use of regional correlation and surface seismic interpretation which were the

prevalent techniques then. The results were valid for even non- horizontal pressure fronts. The

inversion technique used is independent of the low frequency content in the seismic signal,

contrary to other inversion techniques based on integration. The method used was valid assuming

a continuity in the trend of acoustic velocities in the well down to the top of overpressure.

Work on both pore and fracture pressure prediction using well logs and seismic data was done by

Chukwuemeka (2002). He introduced the effect of anisotropy into pore pressure prediction. He

developed a new model which predicted the depth and magnitude of both subnormal pressure

and overpressure.

Zhang (2011) worked on pore pressure prediction from well logs. He introduced pore pressure

calculation in a hydraulically connected formation. A theoretical pore –pressure- porosity model

was proposed based on the primary overpressure generation mechanism compaction

8
disequilibrium and effective stress- porosity compaction theory. He used deep water oil well as

case study.

Work on the uncertainty in pore pressure prediction and analysis was done by Kumar et al

(2012) by examining the spread in the predicted pore pressure obtained using parameter

combinations of both seismic and well log data. They employed such methods as the Eaton’s

resistivity model and Bower’s sonic model for the pore pressure gradient analysis and also using

Eaton’s approach for the fracture gradient analysis. They were able to estimate pore pressure

from seismic velocity using a Velocity –Over Burden Gradient – Normal Compaction Trend

(OBG-NCT) to pore pressure transform. Their work was however limited in that the velocity –

OBG- NCT-to- pore pressure transform created is only suitable for one layer and other layers of

different lithology or geologic age require a different transform model. Effects such as centroid

effect due to structural relief of reservoir bed and basin modeling for pressure taking structural

framework was not addressed

Yan and Han (2012) stated that Eaton’s equation is the most popularly used model for pore

pressure prediction, but it is based on over-simplified stress velocity relation. They created a new

model for pore prediction based on stress effect modeling of lab core measurement. The new

model requires exactly the same inputs as the Eaton’s model and gave better performance in pore

pressure prediction than the Eaton’s model. They also compared performances of pore pressure

prediction by using differential pressure and effective pressure respectively. Their model has

been successfully applied to field data.

Nton and Ayeni (2014) worked on pore pressure detection and risk assessment of OBL oil field,

offshore Niger Delta, Nigeria. They utilized 3D seismic data and well logs from four wells to

evaluate structural influences on pressure development, detection of overpressure zones and

9
examine the risks involved in drilling such zones. They discovered that sealing faults that

penetrated the basin could have also influenced overpressure development in the study wells

aside the regular compaction disequilibrum usually reported.

Ugwu (2015) worked on pore pressure prediction using offset well logs. He predicted for an

onshore Niger Delta area. The result showed an overpressure area, ranging from mild- to-

moderate overpressure. He discovered Bower and Tau models predicted pore pressure better than

the Eaton’s exponent model.

Olayinka et al (2015) analysed porosity dependent parameters such as Interval Transit Time

(ITT) and Interval Velocities from seismic records of a field in the Western Niger Delta. They

identified an overpressured zone at a particular depth using this analysis. The plot of ITT against

depth gave a positive deflection from the normal at the zone of overpressure while the interval

velocity gave a negative deflection at the same zone.

10
 CHAPTER TWO

GEOLOGY OF THE NIGER DELTA

2.1 REGIONAL TECTONIC SETTING

The Niger Delta basin is located at the southernmost extremity of the elongated intracontinental

Benue Trough. To the west, it is separated from the Dahomey (or Benin) basin by the Okitipupa

basement high, and to the east it is bounded by the Cameroun volcanic line. Its northern margin

transects several older (Cretaceous) tectonic elements—the Anambra basin, Abakaliki basin,

Afikpo syncline, and the Calabar Flank (Fig. 2.1a). The evolution of the Niger delta is controlled

by pre- and synsedimentary tectonics described by Evamy et al. (1978), Ejedawe (1981), Knox

and Omatsola (1989) and Stacher (1995). The tectonic framework of the continental margin

along the West Coast of equatorial Africa is controlled by Cretaceous fracture zones expressed as

trenches and ridges in the deep Atlantic. The fracture zone ridges (Fig. 2.1b) subdivide the

margin into individual basins, and, in Nigeria, form the boundary faults of the Cretaceous Benue-

Abakaliki trough, which cuts far into the West African shield. The trough represents a failed arm

of a rift triple junction associated with the opening of the South Atlantic. Rifting started in the

Late Jurassic and persisted into the Middle Cretaceous (Lehner and De Ruiter 1977). In the Niger

Delta region, rifting diminished altogether in the Late Cretaceous. Figure 2.2a, b show the gross

paleogeography of the region as well as the relative position of the African and South American

plates since rifting began. After rifting ceased, gravity tectonics became the primar y

deformational process. For any given depobelt, gravity tectonics were completed before

deposition of the Benin Formation and are expressed in complex structures, including shale

diapirs, roll-over anticlines, collapsed growth fault crests, back-to-back features, and steeply

11
dipping, closely spaced flank faults (Evamy et al. 1978; Xiao and Suppe 1992). These faults

mostly offset different parts of the Agbada Formation and flatten into detachment planes near the

top of the Akata Formation.

The Niger Delta stratigraphic sequence comprises an upward-coarsening regressive association

of Tertiary clastics up to 12 km thick (Weber and Daukoru 1975; Evamy et al. 1978). It is

informally divided into three gross lithofacies: (i) marine claystones and shales of unknown

thickness, at the base; (ii) alternation of sandstones, siltstones and claystones, in which the sand

percentage increases upwards; (iii) alluvial sands, at the top (Doust 1990).

12
Fig. 2.1 Tectonic setting and structural elements of the Niger Delta Basin. a) Tectonic Map

showing the Niger Delta (After Kogbe 1989). b) Regional structural provinces map of the Niger

Delta showing the Fracture Zones (Wiener et al. 2010)

13
Fig. 2.2 Paleogeography showing the opening of the South Atlantic, and development of the

region around Niger Delta. a. Cretaceous paleogeography (130.0–69.4 Ma). b Cenozoic

paleogeography (50.3 Ma to present). Plots generated with PGIS software (Tuttle et al. 1999)

14
Three lithostratigraphic units have been recognized in the subsurface of t he Niger Delta (Short

and Stauble 1967; Frankl and Cordy 1967; Avbovbo 1978). These are from the oldest to the

youngest, the Akata, Agbada and Benin Formations all of which are strongly diachronous (Fig.

2.3a, b)

15
Fig. 2.3 Stratigraphy of Niger Delta Basin. a Stratigraphic column showing the three formations

of the Niger Delta (modified from Lawrence et al. 2002). b Diagrammatic representation of the

stratigraphic evolution of the Niger Delta (After Reijers 2011)

16
2.2 REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING

2.2.1 Akata Formation (Marine Shales)

The Akata Formation (Eocene–Recent) is the oldest lithostratigraphic unit in the Niger Delta. It

is a marine sedimentary succession that is laid in front of the advancing delta and ranges from

1,968 to 19,680 ft in thickness. It consists of mainly uniform under-compacted shales, clays, and

silts at the base of the known delta sequence with lenses of sandstone of abnormally high

pressure at the top (Avbovbo 1978). These streaks of sand are possibly of turbidite origin, and

were deposited in holomarine (delta-front to deeper marine) environments. The shales are rich in

both planktonic and benthonic foraminifera and were deposited in shallow to deep marine

environments (Short and Stauble 1967). Marine shales form the base of the sequence in each

depobelt and range from Paleocene to Holocene in age. They outcrop offshore as diapirs along

the continental slope, and onshore in the northeastern part of the delta, where they are known as

the Imo Shale.

2.2.2 Agbada Formation (Paralic Clastics)

The Agbada Formation (Eocene–Recent) is characterized by paralic interbedded sandstone and

shale with a thickness of over 3000 m (Reijers 1996). These paralic clastics are the truly deltaic

portion of the sequence and were deposited in a number of delta- front, delta-topset, and fluvio-

deltaic environments. The top of Agbada Formation is defined as the first occurrence of shale

with marine fauna that coincides with the base of the continental-transitional lithofacies (Adesida

and Ehirim 1988). The base is a significant sandstone body that coincides with the top of the

Akata Formation (Short and Stauble 1967). Some shales of the Agbada Formation were thought

to be the source rocks, however; Ejedawe et al. (1984) deduced that the main source rocks of the

17
Niger Delta are the shales of the Akata Formation. The Agbada Formation forms the

hydrocarbon-prospective sequence in the Niger Delta. As with the marine shales, the paralic

sequence is present in all depobelts, and ranges in age from Eocene to P leistocene. Most

exploration wells in the Niger delta have bottomed in this lithofacies.

2.2.3 Benin Formation (Continental Sands)

The Benin Formation is the youngest lithostratigraphic unit in the Niger Delta. It is Miocene—

Recent in age with a minimum thickness of more than 6000 ft and made up of continental sands

and sandstones (>90 %) with few shale intercalations. The shallowest part of the sequence is

composed almost entirely of nonmarine sand. The sands and sandstones are coarse-grained, sub-

angular to well-rounded and are very poorly sorted. It was deposited in alluvial or upper coastal

plain environments following a southward shift of deltaic deposition into a new depobelt. The

oldest continental sands are probably Oligocene, although they lack fauna required to date them

directly. Offshore, they become thinner and disappear near the shelf edge.

2.3 DEPOBELTS

Deposition of the three formations occurred in each of five offlapping siliciclastic sedimentation

cycles that comprise the Niger Delta (Fig. 2.4a, b). These cycles (depobelts) are 30–60 km wide,

prograde southwestward 250 km over oceanic crust into the Gulf of Guinea, and are defined by

synsedimentary faulting that occurred in response to variable interplay of subsidence and

sediment supply rates (Doust and Omatsola 1990; Stacher 1995). Depobelts become successively

younger basinward, ranging in age from Eocene in the north to Pliocene offshore of the present

shoreline. These depobelts are separate unit that corresponds to a break in regional dip of the

delta and is bounded landward by growth faults and seaward by large counter-regional faults or

18
the growth fault of the next seaward belt. Each depobelt contains a distinct shallowing-upward

depositional cycle with its own tripartite assemblage o f marine, paralic, and continental deposits.

Depobelts define a series of punctuations in the progradation of this deltaic system. As deltaic

sediment loads increase, underlying delta front and prodelta marine shale begin to move upward

and basin-ward. Mobilization of basal shale

Caused structural collapse along normal faults, and created accommodation for additional deltaic

sediment accumulation. As shale withdrawal nears completion, subsidence slows dramatically,

leaving little room for further sedimentation. As declining accommodation forces a basinward

progradation of sediment, a new depocenter develops basin-ward. The northern delta province,

which overlies relatively shallow basement, has the oldest growth faults that are generally

rotational, evenly spaced, and increase in steepness seaward. The central delta province has

depobelts with well-defined structures such as successively deeper rollover crests that shift

seaward for any given growth fault. The distal delta province is the most structurally complex

due to internal gravity tectonics on the modern continental slope.

19
Fig. 2.4 Depositional belts showing the study area and Dip section of the Niger Delta Basin. a

Depobelt map with the structural play segments, onshore and offshore Niger Delta Basin

showing the study area. Source Shell (2007). b Schematic Dip section of the Niger Delta (After

Shell 2007; Weber and Daukoru 1975)

20
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The methodology employed in this study entails; mathematical modeling, model validation and

pore pressure prediction, and software development

3.1 MATHEMATICAL MODELING

3.1.1 Existing Pore Pressure Prediction models

There are several existing models to predict pore pressure. Prominent among these are the:

The Hottmann and Johnson model

Hottman and Johnson (1965) were probably the first ones to make pore pressure prediction from

shale properties derived from well log data (acoustic travel time/velocity and resistivity). They

indicated that porosity decreases as a function of depth from analyzing aco ustic travel time in

Miocene and Oligocene shales in Upper Texas and Southern Louisiana Gulf Coast. This trend

represents the ―normal compaction trend‖ as a function of burial depth, and fluid pressure

exhibited within this normal trend is the hydrostatic. If intervals of abnormal compaction are

penetrated, the resulting data points diverge from the normal compaction trend. They contended

that porosity or transit time in shale is abnormally high relative to its depth if the fluid pressure is

abnormally high.

Analyzing the data presented by Hottmann and Johnson (1965), Gardner et al. (1974) proposed

an equation that can be written in the following form to predict pore pressure:

( )( )
Pf= σv – ……………………(1)

21
Where; Pf is the formation fluid pressure (psi)

σv is expressed in psi

is the normal overburden stress gradient (psi/ft)

β is the normal fluid pressure gradient (psi/ft)

Z is the depth (ft)

∆t is the sonic transit time (μs/ft)

A and B are the constants, A1 = 82776 and B1 =15695. 289

The Eaton model (1975)

Eaton presented four different equations to predict pore pressure. The following equation is to

predict pore pressure gradient in shales using resistivity log:

Ppg = OBG – (OBG – Png)( ) ………………………(2)

Where; Ppg is the formation pore pressure gradient

OBG is the overburden stress gradient

Png is the hydrostatic pore pressure gradient (normally 0.45 psi/ft or 1.03 MPa/km,

dependent on water salinity)

R is the shale resistivity obtained from well logging

Rn is the shale resistivity at the normal (hydrostatic) pressure

n is the exponent varied from 0.6-1.5, and normally n = 1.2.

22
Eaton’s resistivity method is applicable in pore pressure prediction, particularly for young

sedimentary basins, if the normal shale resistivity is properly determined

Ppg = OBG – (OBG – Png)( ) ……………………………(3)

If one desires to use the direct conductivity log values, rather than log resistivities Equation 3 is

transformed as follows:

Ppg = OBG – (OBG – Png)( ) ……………………..……….(4)

Where; Co and Cn are the observed and normal conductivities respectively

Just before the models were created, it was discovered that if one calculates end plots the

corrected d exponent from drilling parameters, the resulting plot is very similar to a log

resistivity plot. Therefore, the following equation was developed for geopressured prediction

from corrected d exponent data.

Ppg = OBG – (OBG – Png)( ) ……………………………….(5)

Where; dco and dcn are the observed and normal d exponent respectively

The sonic log was also used in creating a model. The following empirical equation for pore

pressure gradient prediction from sonic compressional transit time:

Ppg = OBG – (OBG – Png)( ) ……………………………..(6)

Where; ∆t n is the sonic transit time or slowness in shales at the normal pressure

∆t is the sonic transit time in shales obtained from well logging, and it can also be derived

from seismic interval velocity.

23
This method is applicable in some petroleum basins, but it does not consider unloading effects.

This limits its application in geologically complicated area, such as formations with uplifts. To

apply this method, one needs to determine the normal transit time (∆t n )

The Bowers model

Bowers (1995) calculated the effective stresses from measured pore pressure data of the shale

and overburden stresses and analyzed the corresponding sonic interval velocities from well

logging data in the Gulf of Mexico slope. He proposed that the sonic velocity and effective stress

have a power relationship as follows:

Vp = Vml + A ………………………………….….(7)

Where; σe is the effective stress

Vp is the compressional velocity at a given depth

Vml is the compressional velocity in the mudline (i.e., the sea floor or the ground surface,

normally Vml is 5000 ft/s, or 1520 m/s);

A and B are the parameters calibrated with offset velocity versus effective stress data.

σe = σv – p(α)…………………………………….(8)

Where; p is pore pressure

σv is the overburden stress

α is the Biot coefficient. This is usually assumed to be 1

Inserting Equation 7 in 8, we obtain,

24
 –* + ………………………..…….(9)

For Gulf of Mexico wells, A = 10 – 20 and B = 0.7 – 0.75

The Miller’s Method

The Miller sonic method describes a relationship between velocity and effective stress that can

be used to relate sonic/seismic transit time to formation pore pressure. In Miller’s sonic method

an input parameter ―maximum velocity depth‖, dmax , controls whether unloading has occurred

or not. If dmax is less than the depth (Z), unloading has not occurred, the pore pressure can be

obtained from the following equation (Zhang et al., 2008):

………………………………….(10)

Where; v m is the sonic interval velocity in the matrix of the shale

v p is the compressional velocity at a given depth

λ is the empirical parameter defining the rate of increase in velocity with effective stress

(normally 0.00025)

dmax is the depth at which the unloading has occurred

The Tau model

A velocity-dependent pore pressure prediction method was proposed by Shell through

introducing a ―Tau‖ variable into the effective stress eq uation (Lopez et al., 2004; Gutierrez et

al, 2006)

…………………………………………..……..(11)

Where; As and Bs are the fitting constants

25
 τ is the Tau variable, and ;

…………………………………………….…..(12)

Where; ∆t is the compressional transit time either from sonic log or seismic velocity

C is the constant related to the mudline transit time (normally C = 200 µs/ft)

and D is the constant related to the matrix transit time (normally D = 50 µs/ft)

Then, the pore pressure can be calculated from Equation 12 using Equation 8, i.e.:

– * + ……………………………………..(13)

The best fitting parameters in the Gulf of Mexico are As = 1989.6 and Bs = 0.904 (Gutierrez et

al, 2006).

Tau model and Miller’s method are similar to Bowers’ method. The advantage of Miller’s

method and Tau model is that both the effects of the matrix and mudline velocities are

considered on pore pressure prediction.

The Zhang model

Athy proposed an equation to determine porosity in 1930. The equation is stated below:

……………………………………….…(14)

Where; ϕ is porosity at a given depth

Φo is the porosity in the mudline

Z is the true vertical depth below the mudline

C is the compaction constant in m-1 or ft-1

…………………………………….…(15)

26
Where σn is the porosity under normal compaction

Also, ……………………………………(16)

Where; σe is the effective stress

a is the stress compaction (psi)-1 or (mPa)-1

From equation 15,

………………………………………..……(17)

…………………………………….……….(18)

Dividing equation 17 by 18

………………………………………..……..(19)

……………………………………………(20)

Combining equations 8, 15 and 19,

( )* +……………………..…(21)

Equation (21) is the Zhang model. It is a pore pressure model which is based on porosity. The

main difference between the Zhang model and other existing pore pressure-porosity equations is

that the pressures calculated from Eq.20 are dependent on depths. In other words, the normal

compaction trendline of porosity is not a constant, but a function of depth.

27
When porosity (υ) at an interested depth is greater than the normal porosity (υ n ) at the same

depth, the formation has overpressure.

3.2 MODEL CREATION

The model proposed by Zhang (2011) had a number of deficiencies. The two main deficiencies

are that;

1) the calculated porosity solely using the sonic transit time whereas the industry standard is

to use a combination of two or more porosity logs which gives better porosity values than

using just one log type.

2) the Biot coefficient was assumed to be 1 whereas a number of existing literature have

proven that the biot coefficient varies with pressure.

On this basis, a new model was created.

3.2.1 Biot Coefficient

Recall from Equation 8 that

Where; p is pore pressure

σv is the overburden stress

σe is the overburden stress

and α is the Biot coefficient.

………………………………………(22)

Where; Cma is the volumetric compressibility of the matrix.

28
 Cb is the volumetric compressibility of the minerals comprising the matrix.

A second method used to measure Biot’s coefficient is to measure the fluid volume released

from a saturated sample during a drained, jacketed test. It can be shown that Biot’s coefficient

can be described by Equation (23) (Franquet and Abass 1999).

………………………………………..(23)

Where; ∆VP is the pore volume expelled

∆V is the total external change in volume of the sample

29
Figure 3.1: Example of the variation in Biot’s coefficient with stress (redrawn from Franquet &

Abass (1999), Gray I (2017)

30
3.2.2 Porosity

The model developed by Zhang (2011) is predominantly dependent on the accuracy of the

porosity values. Hence the best method to obtain porosity must be used while calculating

porosity.

The combination of the density and neutron logs provides a good source of porosity data,

especially in formations of complex lithology. Better estimates of porosity are possible with the

combination than using either tool or sonic separately because inferences about lithology and

fluid content can be made

Therefore the combined density and neutron logs was used for the model generation as opposed

to the sonic used by Zhang.

…………………………………….(24)

Where; ΦD = porosity

ρma = matrix density

ρb = formation bulk density (log value)

ρf = density of the fluid saturating the rock immediately surrounding the borehole—

usually mud filtrate (use 1.0 for freshwater and 1.1 for saltwater mud)

The neutron log mainly measures hydrogen concentration in a formation. The logging device is a

noncontact tool that emits neutrons from a source. Emitted neutrons collide with nuclei of the

formation and lose some of their energy. Maximum energy loss occurs when emitted neutrons

31
collide with hydrogen atoms because a neutron and a hydrogen atom have almost the same mass.

Therefore, most neutron energy loss occurs in the part of the formation that has the highest

hydrogen concentration.

Neutron energy loss can be related to porosity because in porous formations, hydrogen is

concentrated in the fluid filling the pores. Reservoirs whose pores are gas filled may have a

lower porosity than the same pores filled with oil or water because gas has a lower concentration

of hydrogen atoms than either oil or water.

To obtain porosity, the value is read directly from the log.

The density–neutron log is a combination log that simultaneously records neutron and density

porosity. In some zones, porosities recorded on the logs differ for three reasons:

 The matrix density used by the logging program to calculate porosity is different from the

actual formation matrix density.

 Gas is present in the formation pore space.

 Shale/clay is present in the formation.

The porosity value used for this study was therefore computed using

( ) ……………………………………. (25)

Where; Φ is the porosity

ΦN is the neutron porosity

From the changes made to the Zhang model, a new pore pressure prediction model was created

with the equation written below;

32
 * ( )* ++/α……………………………….(26)

Where; P is the pore pressure

σv is the overburden stress

Pn is the normal pore pressure at depth of interest (z)

ϕ0 is the porosity at the sea floor or ground surface

ϕ is the porosity at the depth of interest

c is the normal compaction constant

3.3 INPUT DETERMINATION

Overburden stress

………………………………………(27)

Where; PAT M is the atmospheric pressure

PWAT ER is the pressure due to the height of water

……………………………………….…(28)

Where; ρw is the density of water

hw is the water depth

g is acceleration due to gravity

( ) …………………………….…….(29)

33
Where; σv (1) is the overburden stress in the first formation beneath the sea floor

ρb1 is the bulk density of the first formation beneath the sea floor

h1 is the thickness of the first formation beneath the sea floor

( ) ( ) …………………………..………..(30)

Where; σv (2) is the overburden stress in layer 2

ρb2 is the bulk density of layer 2

h2 is the thickness of layer 2

The general format for determining the overburden pressure is given below

( ) ( ) ………………………………(31)

Where; σv (n) is the overburden stress in layer n

ρbn is the bulk density of layer n

hn is the thickness of layer n

Normal pore pressure

Each basin has its unique normal pore pressure gradient. The normal pore pressure gradient for

the Niger Delta is about 0.442psi/ft. The normal pore pressure P n was thus calculated by

multiplying the depth in feet by 0.442.

Porosity

Porosity was calculated using the combined density neutron plot as explained in section 3.2

34
3.4 MODEL VALIDATION AND PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION

The values derived from the equations 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are inputted into the model

developed using data from 2 different wells in Field DAS. The values determined are compared

against both the existing RFT data for the wells and the Zhang model. The results obtained are

shown in both tabular form and as a graph for each of the 2 wells in chapter four.

After the model has been validated, the validated model is then used to predict pore pressure for

3 other wells in Field DAS. The results are reported in Chapter 4.

3.5 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

A Software that easily reads the input data and subsequently generates the output is thereafter

created based on the model developed. It has a user friendly interface to prevent users from

going through stress while using it. The software is written in frontend programming language.

35
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 WELL DETAILS

Two wells were used in the pore pressure model validation. They are wells 10 and 11 in Field X

in the Niger Delta. The field is an offshore field in the Southern part of the N iger Delta and it is a

gas/condensate field. The field datum point is Minna.

Well 10 has a log start depth of 1985.77m and a log stop depth of 4499.91m. The well has over

16000 data points which were all used in the pore pressure model validation. Most data points

had all the needed inputs to validate the model while some null values were present in a few of

the data points. The well penetrated four (4) hydrocarbon zones and the water depth above the

sea floor at the well location is 18.2m.

Well 11 has a log start depth of 1469.14m and a log stop depth of 4127.91m. The well has over

17000 data points which were all used in the pore pressure model validation. Most data points

had all the needed inputs to validate the model while some null values were present in a few of

the data points. The well penetrated four (4) hydrocarbon zones and the water depth above the

sea floor at the well location is 19.0m.

Table 4.1 presents the well details for both wells 10 and 11 in a tabular form and Figures 4.1 and

4.2 show extracts from the completed well log suite of wells 10 and 11 respectively.

36
Table 4.1: Well details of wells 10 and 11

WELL DETAILS WELL 10 WELL 11

DATUM MINNA MINNA

LOG START DEPTH (m) 1985.7720 1469.1365

LOG STOP DEPTH (m) 4499.9148 4127.9072

DATA POINTS` 16338 17446

HYDROCARBON HYDROCARBON
RESERVOIR FLUID
GAS/CONDENSATE GAS/CONDENSATE

TARGET FORMATION AGBADA AGBADA

WATER DEPTH (m) 18.2 19.0

37
Fig 4.1: An extract from the completed well log suite of well 10

38
Fig 4.2: An extract from the completed well log suite of well 11

39
4.2 PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE PORE PRESSURE FROM THE INPUTS

1) Determine the lithology of each of the layers using the lithology logs – preferably the gamma

ray log

2) For each of the identified lithology, use the corresponding matrix density to determine the

density porosity as discussed in section 3.3

3) Combine the neutron porosity and density porosity to determine the porosity for that particular

layer using equation 23

4) Determine the overburden gradient for each depth data available by using the procedure

explained in section 3.3

5) Determine the normal pressure at the depths of interest by a product of the normal pressure

gradient for the region and depth

6) The parameters ϕ0 and c are to be determined from field data and basin data respectively

7) All parameters, both given and determined will then be inputted into the new model to

determine the pore pressure at various depths

4.3 PORE PRESSURE MODEL VALIDATION

Wells 10 and 11 were used in the validation of the new pore pressure model. The results of the

prediction from the new pore pressure model were compared against the Repeated Formation test

(RFT) data for each of the wells. The data from the Repeated Formation test were also compared

against the new model (assuming that the Biot coefficient is one 1) to analyze the effect of the

40
Biot coefficient (α) on the model and also against the Zhang model to investigate the effect of

porosity and the Biot coefficient on the results. All these are discussed in the following sections.

The new model gave a high degree of accuracy in comparison to the Repeated formation Test

data while the new model (assuming that the Biot coefficient is one) and the Zhang model gave

significant variation from the RFT data

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show the pore pressure values derived from the Repeated Formation

Test(RFT), the Zhang model, the New Model created with Biot coefficient of 1 and the New

Model created with varying Biot coefficient for both wells 10 and 11. The tables also include the

Biot coefficient data, the sonic porosity data, the neutron-density porosity data, the depth,

overburden pressure and normal pressure.

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show a comparison between the new pore pressure model and the RFT data

for wells 10 and 11 respectively. They give almost exactly equal values and overlie each other on

the chart. Five (5) different data points were used for each of the wells to validate the model. The

determined overburden pressure, normal pore pressure, Biot coefficient, density neutron

porosity, depth and compaction constant were all inputed into the new model to give the

predicted pore pressure values. For each meter (depth point), 6 or 7 data points were available to

calculate all parameters. Hence, all parameters used was an average of the various data values for

each depth point.

The predicted pore pressure values and the RFT data were then plotted against depth to give the

charts derived in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 with very high correlation.

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 are plots of the overburden pressure, normal pressure and results from the

new pore pressure model against depth for both well 10 and 11. The values predicted fell in

41
between the overburden and normal pressure thereby giving a logical and scientific proof of the

validity of all inputted parameters.

42
 Table 4.2: Table showing the pore pressure values derived from the Repeated Formation Test(RFT), the Zhang model, the New Model

created with Biot coefficient of 1 and the New Model created with varying Biot coefficient for well 10

DEPTH overburden normal NEW MODEL NEW Sonic

(m) φ stress(psi) Pressure (psi) α RFT(psi) (α=1)(psi) MODEL(psi) porosity Zhang model

3533.469 0.137856 12002.68663 5122.682452 0.89 5072 4503.841152 5060.495677 0.193905495 6553.8

4097.502 0.089763 13831.49898 5940.393775 0.59 7782 4578.397742 7759.996172 0.180939744 8457.4

4245.482 0.110835 14372.1655 6154.929694 0.75 7993 5979.492515 7972.656686 N/A N/A

4386.528 0.131588 14888.71397 6359.412833 0.63 11466 7199.04403 11427.05402 0.145469231 8675

4497.475 0.133468 15287.57276 6520.259646 0.66 11631 7639.7671 11575.4047 0.061554945 5366

43
 Table 4.3: Table showing the pore pressure values derived from the Repeated Formation Test(RFT), the Zhang model, the New Model

created with Biot coefficient of 1 and the New Model created with varying Biot coefficient for well 11

overburden NEW MODEL NEW SONIC ZHANG

DEPTH POROSITY stress normal P α RFT (α=1) MODEL POROSITY MODEL

3825.5 0.124 13043.3 5546 0.88 5687.7 5034.105953 5720.574946 0.3363 9376

3941 0.121 13442.3 5714.3 0.87 6165.7 5321.882692 6117.106542 0.3864 10381

3942 0.122 13445.7 5715.7 0.87 6148.7 5361.107112 6162.192083 0.3861 10381.6

3945 0.122 13455.61 5720 0.87 6168.7 5371.30221 6173.910586 0.4193 10748

4027 0.126 13737.72 5838.87 0.75 7782.7 5791.524356 7722.032474 N/A N/A

44
 PORE PRESSURE (PSI)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
3000

3200

3400

3600
RFT(psi)
DEPTH (m)

NEW MODEL (α=1)(psi)

3800 NEW MODEL(psi)

4000

4200

4400

4600

Figure 4.3: A plot of pore pressure versus depth showing the RFT data, the new model plot and

the new model plot when α = 1 for well 10

45
 PORE PRESSURE (PSI)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
3800

3850

3900
RFT
DEPTH (m)

NEW MODEL

3950

4000

4050

Figure 4.4: A plot of predicted pore pressure and RFT data versus depth for well 11

46
 PRESSURE (PSI)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
3000

3200

3400

3600 NEW MODEL(psi)

DEPTH (m)

overburden stress(psi)
3800 normal Pressure (psi)

4000

4200

4400

4600

Figure 4.5: A plot of the overburden pressure, normal pressure and the new model for well 10

47
 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
3800

3850

3900
overburden stress
DEPTH (m)

normal P
NEW MODEL

3950

4000

4050

Figure 4.6: A plot of the o verburden pressure, normal pressure and the new model for well 11

48
4.4 EFFECT OF BIOT COEFFICIENT ON PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION

Figure 4.3 helps visualize the effect of Biot coefficient on pore pressure prediction and on the

new pore pressure prediction model. The values derived from the new pore pressure model while

using varying Biot coefficient and the values derived while using a fixed Biot coefficient of 1

were plotted against depth to properly view the effect Biot coefficient has on the newly created

model. Both results were compared against the RFT data. The results from the model with Biot

coefficient of 1 gave significant variation from the RFT data while that with varying Biot

coefficient gave significantly high correlation to the RFT data.

This goes to show that the usual assumption of α being one (1) leads to wrong pore pressure

prediction whereas accurate values of Biot coefficient will give almost accurate predictions of

pore pressure values.

From tables 4.1 and 4.2, Biot coefficient generally showed decrease with depth (overburden

pressure increases with depth). There were however some variations to this trend. This variation

can be attributed to the individual properties of the formation at points where these variations

occured. Biot coefficient is predominantly dependent on the properties of the rock layer of

interest and also on the depth and pressure acting on that layer. Therefore, a particular trend

should not be expected for Biot coefficient values of different rock layers.

4.5 EFFECT OF POROSITY VALUES ON PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION

Two major modifications were made to the Zhang model to arrive at the new pore pressure

prediction model. The modifications are the method of obtaining porosity and the re- introduction

of a varying Biot coefficient. The effect the Biot coefficient has on the pore pressure values has

49
been analyzed in the preceding section. This section focuses on the effect porosity has on pore

pressure prediction.

Zhang model purely utilized sonic data in the prediction of porosity while the new model uses a

combined neutron-density data (which is also the generally accepted method in the oil industry)

to predict porosity. From tables 4.1 and 4.2, it can be seen that the values derived for porosity

using the sonic data gave significantly different values from those obtained while using the

combined neutron-density data.

These values of porosity when inputted into the respective models gave results as presented in

tables 4.1 and 4.2. Figures 4.7 and 4.8 are plots of the results of the Zhang model, the new model

(assuming a Biot coefficient of 1) and the RFT data against depth for wells 10 and 11.

Both the Zhang model and the new model (assuming a Biot coefficient of 1) gave significant

variations from the RFT data. They however all showed similar trends except for some

anomalously low value of pore pressure values for the Zhang model in well 10. These low values

can be attributed mainly to the porosity as that is the only diffecre nce between itself and the the

new model (assuming a Biot coefficient of 1). The sonic data for this field was also not available

at some data points in the well thereby making it impossible to determine sonic porosity at these

points and also pore pressure prediction using the Zhang model. This is evidenced in the blanks

available in tables 4.1 and 4.2 under the Zhang model and the sonic porosity values

This result buttresses the effect of accurate porosity estimation on pore pressure prediction as a

little error in porosity values may lead to significantly wrong pore pressure predictions and at

times leading to unrealistic results.

The effect of porosity in pore pressure prediction can therefore not be overemphasized.

50
 PORE PRESSURE (PSI)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
3000

3200

3400

3600 RFT(psi)
DEPTH (m)

Zhang model
3800 NEW MODEL (α=1)(psi)

4000

4200

4400

4600

Figure 4.7: A plot of the RFT data, the results from the Zhang model and the results from the

new model assuming α = 1 for well 10

51
 PORE PRESSURE (PSI)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
3800

3850

3900 NEW MODEL (α=1)

DEPTH (m)

ZHANG MODEL
RFT

3950

4000

4050

Figure 4.8: A plot of the RFT data, the results from the Zhang model and the results from the

new model assuming α = 1 for well 11

52
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

A model for predicting pore pressure in reservoir has been developed. The new model requires

the overburden pressure data and the normal pore pressure data at depth of interest, the depth of

interest, surface porosity, porosity at the depth of investigation, the Biot coefficient and the

compaction constant. The new model has been successfully validated and compared with an

older model (Zhang model) and with well data from a Niger Delta field. The model created is an

advancement of the Zhang model with two major adjustments made to the Zhang model. These

are the inclusion of the Biot coefficient and a different approach (the use of a combined density-

neutron porosity data) to determining porosity as opposed to the use of sonic porosity in the

Zhang model

The new model predicted pore pressure better than the Zhang model and gave an almost perfect

match with the Repeated Formation Test (RFT) data. A software to easily predict pore pressure

using the existing models and the new model was also created.

It is recommended that the new model be tested on another Niger Delta field, a field outside of

the Niger Delta and also on horizontal wells.

53
 REFERENCES

Adesida, A., & Ehirim, B. O. (1988). Cenozoic Niger Delta: A guide to its lithosedimentary
analysis (pp. 1–10). SPDC Exploration note 88.002 (Ref: on-shore wells).

Avbovbo, A. A. (1978). Tertiary lithostratigraphy of Niger Delta (pp. 96–200). Tulsa, OK:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin.

Burrus, J., (1998). Overpressure models for clastic rocks, their relation to hydrocarbon
expulsion: a critical reevaluation. In: Law, B.E., Ulmis hek, G.F., Slavin, V.I. (Eds.),
Abnormal pressures in hydrocarbon environments: AAPG Memoir, 70, pp. 35–63.

Chukwuemeka I. (2002) ―Pore pressure an d fracture pressure prediction using seismic velocity
and well log data in the offshore Niger Delta Nigeria‖. MSc Thesis in University of
Ibadan.

Doust, H. (1990). Petroleum geology of the Niger Delta. Geochemical Society, London, Special
Publications, 50, 365.

Doust, H., & Omatsola, E. (1990). Niger Delta. In J. D. Edwards & P. A. Santogrossi ( Eds.),
Divergent/passive margin basins (p. 239–248). American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin Memoir 48.

Ejedawe, J. E. (1981). Patterns of incidence of oil reserves in Niger delta basin. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 65, 1574–1585.

Ejedawe, J. E., Coker, S. J. L., Lambert-Aikhionbare, D. O., Alofe, K. B., & Adoh, F. O. (1984).
Evolution of oil- generative window and oil and gas occurrence in Tertiary Niger Delta Basin.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 68, 1744–1751.

Evamy, B. D., Haremboure, J., Kamerling, P., Knaap, W. A., Molloy, F. A., & Rowlands, P. H.
(1978). Hydrocarbon habitat of Tertiary Niger Delta. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 62, 1–39.

Frankl, E. J., & Cordy, E. A. (1967). The Niger Delta oil province: Recent developments onshore
and offshore. In Proceedings of the Seventh world petroleum congress (Vol. 2, pp. 195–
209)

Gutierrez, M., Braunsdorf N., and Couzens B.,―Calibration and ranking of pore-pressure
prediction models‖ The Leading Edge, pp. 1516-1523

Heppard, P.D., Cander, H.S., Eggertson, E.B., (1998). Abnormal pressure and the occurrence of
hydrocarbons in offshore eastern Trinidad, West Indies. In: Law, B.E., Ulmishek, G.F.,
Slavin, V.I. (Eds.), Abnormal Pressures in Hydrocarbon Environments: AAPG Memoir,
70, pp. 215–246.

54
Hottmann, C.E., Johnson, R.K., (1965). Estimation of formation pressures from log-derived
shale properties Paper SPE1110 JPT 17, pp. 717–722.

Knox, G. J., & Omatsola, E. M. (1989). Development of the Cenozoic Niger delta in terms of the
―Escalator Regression‖ model and impact on hydrocarbon distribution. In Proceedings of
the KNGMG Symposium on Coastal Lowlands, Geology and Geotechnology, 1987 (pp.
181–202).

Kogbe, C. A. (1989). The cretaceous paleocene sediments of southern Nigeria. In C. A. Kogbe

(Ed.), Geology of Nigeria (pp. 320–325). Jos: Rock View Ltd.

Kumar B., Niwas S. and Mangaraj B.K. (2012) ―Pore pressure prediction from well logs and
seismic data‖. The 9th Biennial International conference and exposition on Petroleum
Geophysics

Law, B.E., Spencer, C.W., (1998). Abnormal pressures in hydrocarbon environments. In:Law,
B.E., Ulmishek, G.F., Slavin, V.I. (Eds.), Abnormal Pressures in Hydrocarbon
Environments: AAPG Memoir, 70, pp. 1–11

Lawrence, S. R., Munday, S., & Bray, R. (2002). Regional geology and geophysics of the eastern
Gulf of Guinea (Niger Delta to Rio Muni). The Leading Edge, 21, 1112–1117.

Lehner, P., & De Ruiter, P. A. C. (1977). Structural history of Atlantic margin of Africa.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 61, 961–981.

Lisa , A (1997). ―Evaluation of Formation Pore Pressure Variations Outer Niger Delta, Nigeria‖.
NAPE Bull., V.12 pp. 34-44

Morley, C.K., King, R., Hillis, R., Tingay, M., Backe, G., (2011). Deepwater fold and thrust
belt classification, tectonics, structure and hydrocarbon prospectivity: a review. Earth-Sci. Rev.
104, pp. 41–91.

Nelson, H.N., Bird, K.J., (2005). Porosity-depth Trends and Regional Uplift Calculated from
Sonic Logs, National Reserve in Alaska. Scientific Investigation Report 2005–5051 U.S.
Dept. of the Interior and USGS.

Nton, M.E., Ayeni, M.A. (2015). ―Pore Pressure detection and risk assessment of OBL oil field,
offshore Niger Delta, Nigeria‖. RMZ-M & G, Vol. 62, pp. 105-115

Olayinka, A.I., Osinowo,O.O., and Oladunjoye M.A. (2015). ―Overpressure Prediction from
Seismic Data and the Implications on Drilling Safety in the Niger Delta, Southern
Nigeria‖ Petroleum Technology Development Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 13-26

55
Oyedele K. F., Oladele S., Ogagarue D. O. and Bakare K., (2012). ―Sequence stratigraphic
approach to hydrocarbon exploration in Bobsaa field, onshore Niger Delta‖. Journal of
Petroleum and Gas Exploration Research (ISSN 2276-6510) Vol. 2(6) pp. 106-114

Powley, D.E., (1990). Pressures and hydrogeology in petroleum basins. Earth-Sci. Rev. 29, pp.
215–226.

Reijers, T. J. A. (1996). Selected Chapters on Geology: With notes on sedimentary geology,

sequence stratigraphy and three case studies and a field guide (197 p.). Warri, Nigeria:
S.P.D.C. Corporate Reprographic Services.

Reijers, T. R. A. (2011). Stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Niger Delta. Geologos, 17(3),
133–162. doi:10.2478/v10118-011-0008-3

Shell. (2007). Onshore to deep-water geologic integration, Niger Delta. In J. Ejedawe, F. Love,
D.

Steele, & Ladipo K (Eds.), Presentation pack of Shell Exploration and Production Limited, Port-
Harcourt.

Swarbrick, R.E., Osborne, M.J., (1998). ―Mechanisms that generate abnormal pressures: an
overview.‖ In: Law, B.E., Ulmishek, G.F., Slavin, V.I. (Eds.), Abnormal Pressures in
Hydrocarbon Environments: AAPG Memoir, 70, pp. 13–34

Short, K. C., & Stauble, A. J. (1967). Outline of geology of Niger Delta. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 51, 761–779.

Stacher, P. (1995). Present understanding of the Niger Delta hydrocarbon habitat. In M. N. Oti &
G. Postma (Eds.), Geology of deltas (pp. 257–267). Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema. 2.3
Depobelts 15

Tuttle, W. L. M., Brownfield, E. M., & Charpentier, R. R. (1999). The Niger Delta Petroleum
System. Chapter A: Tertiary Niger Delta (Akata-Agbada) Petroleum System, Niger Delta
Province, Nigeria, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea, Africa. U.S. Geolgical Survey,
Open File Report. 99-50-H.

Thomeer, J.H. and Boateman, J.A. (1961). ―Increasing Occurrence of Abnormally High
Reservoir pressures in boreholes, and drilling problems resulting therefrom‖. Bull AAPG
45, pp. 1721-1730.

Tuttle, M. L. W., Brownfield, M. E., and Charpentier, R. R., (1999): The Niger Delta Petroleum
System. USGS Science for a changing world: Open File Report 99-50, 65p.

56
Ugwu G. (2015) ― Pore pressure prediction using offset well logs: Insight from onshore Niger
Delta, Nigeria‖. American Journal of Geophysics, Geochemistry and Geosystems, Vol.
1, No 3, pp. 77-86.

Unukogbon, N. O., Asuen, G. O., & Emofurieta, W. O. (2008). Sequence stratigraphic appraisal:
Coastal swamp depobelt in the Niger Delta Basin Nigeria. Global Journal of Geological
Sciences, 6(2), 129–137.

Wallace, W. (1965). ―Abnormal Subsurface Pressure Measures from Conductivity or Resistivity

Logs‖. Professional Well Log Analysts, Lafayette, La, pp.120

Weber, K. J., & Daukoru, E. M. (1975). Petroleum geology of the Niger Delta. In Proceedings of
the 9th World Petroleum Congress, Geology (Vol. 2, pp. 210–221). London: Applied
Science Publishers, Ltd.

Wiener, R. W., Mann, M. G., Angelich, M. T., & Molyneux, J. B. (2010). Mobile shale in the
Niger Delta: Characteristics, structure, and evolution. In L. Wood (Ed.), Shale tectonics
(pp. 145–161). American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 93.

Xiao, H., & Suppe, J. (1992). Origin of rollover. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 76, 509–229.

Yan F., Han D and Ren K. (2012) ― A new model for pore pressure prediction‖ SEG Las Vegas
2012 Annual Meeting

Zhang J. (2011) ―Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods, modifications and new
approaches‖. Elsevier Earth science reviews, V. 108, pp. 50-63

57