Version:

Drillworks 11.7 and Prior

Did You Know Topic

Miller Pore Pressure Algorithm has not yet had its Debut in Industry Publications
Note: This tip is intended to provide information about the Miller method in Drillworks in
response to user requests. It reflects the opinion of the author after years of wellsite application.
The author does not officially endorse one method over another, and recognizes various
methods have advantages. This article does not represent an official position or viewpoints by
Knowledge Systems as a company.
Did you know that the Miller pore pressure algorithm has not yet had its debut in industry
publications? Amazing, but true. Several Drillworks Users have inquired about technical
references for the Miller method. This months article will discuss the underpinnings of the Miller
method and may eventually be incorporated into such a reference.
The method is named in honor of Dr. Terry Miller, who developed the technique while serving in
the capacity of Vice President for Technology at Knowledge Systems. Dr. Miller previously
served as Director of ExxonMobils Rock Mechanics Laboratory where he developed testing
capabilities for shear strength, shale compaction, in situ stress characterization and sonic
property/stress relationships. The Miller method has been a part of Drillworks tool-box of
available pore pressure estimation techniques for roughly five years. Knowledge Systems own
geoscientists and geopressure analysts often use the method in preference to other methods,
particularly when it provides a better fit to the calibration data.
The concept is rather simple. First, consider the speed of sound in a slurry in which the grains
hardly touch one another. In this situation, the effective, i.e. grain-to-grain, stress is zero and the
speed of sound in the slurry is roughly the same as the speed of sound in the liquid. This
provides one end-point for the algorithm: namely, when the effective stress is zero, the speed of
sound is the same as the mud-line velocity.
The second consideration involves anticipating what the speed of sound in the shale would be
as the effective stress increases to extremely high values. In this situation, the compaction
process will have squeezed out nearly all the porosity. The resultant speed of sound will
approach the matrix velocity.
The following equation honors both considerations:
1)
Where:

V = Vma (Vma Vml) e

V
Vma
Vml
e

speed of sound in the compacting medium (shale)

speed of sound in the matrix
mud-line velocity, essentially the speed of sound in the liquid
base of the natural logarithms
a fitting parameter, adjusted based on calibration data
effective stress

Knowledge Systems
One Sugar Creek Center Blvd.
Suite 1100
Sugar Land, TX 77478
(281) 243-4300
www.knowsys.com

A little mathematical inspection shows that when the effective stress is zero, the exponential
expression becomes equal to one and the velocity evaluated to the mud-line velocity. As the
effective stress approaches infinity, the exponential expression approaches the value of zero,
and the resultant velocity approaches the matrix velocity.
The following plot illustrates how, in normally pressured sediments, the velocities calculated with
the Miller equation become asymptotic with the matrix velocity at great depth.

Left: Miller velocities in m/sec in normally pressure sediments showing how the lambda
parameter controls the rate at which the velocity converges to the matrix velocity. Right: OBG in
g/cc. Depth scale is in meters.
Recalling Terzaghis Law, the effective stress is equal to the overburden stress minus the pore
pressure:

Knowledge Systems
One Sugar Creek Center Blvd.
Suite 1100
Sugar Land, TX 77478
(281) 243-4300
www.knowsys.com

2)

eff = v - pf
eff
v
pf

Where:

effective stress
vertical stress due to the weight of the overburden
pore fluid pressure

Substituting (v - pf) for in the Miller equation yields an expression in which pore pressure is
related to velocity. When the expression is solved for the pore pressure, we get:
3)

pf = v ln((Vma Vml) / (Vma V)) /

The Miller method addresses a couple of awkward features of the more well-known Eaton
method and the Bowers method. In the Eaton method, the normal compaction trend greater
depths, the Eaton normal compaction trend would suggest that deep normally pressured shales
have velocities faster than solid steel. However, as Bowers pointed out in his excellent paper
Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms
Besides UnderCompaction (Bowers 1994), these unrealistic values projected by the Eaton
normal compaction trend line often (accidentally) compensate for high pore pressures
generated by mechanisms other than undercompaction.
The Bowers algorithm, although often quite good, is simply a curve fit which is dimensionally
awkward:
4)

V = Vml + AB

Where A and B are parameters which can be adjusted in accordance with the available
calibration data. Using the Terzaghi Law, the Bowers method, like the Miller method, can be
solved for pore pressure as a function of the speed of sound in shale. What makes the equation
dimensionally awkward is the observation that, to be dimensionally consistent, the units for A
have to be equivalent to velocity divided by a pressure or stress raised to the power of B, which
is typically a number between 0.70 and 0.75. This dimensional awkwardness is absent in the
Miller equation. However, with two calibration parameters, the Bowers method can generally
provide a useful pore pressure estimation technique.
Both the Bowers and Miller methods are what Alixant and Desbrandes would call explicit
methods, which is to say that no normal compaction trend is required. However, if a normal
effective stress is used in either relationship, that is to say the normal pore pressure value is
subtracted from the overburden stress in either the Bowers or the Miller equation, a normal
pore pressure velocity trend can be generated. This velocity trend can then be used as normal
compaction trend in an Equivalent Depth-style pore pressure estimation technique.

Knowledge Systems
One Sugar Creek Center Blvd.
Suite 1100
Sugar Land, TX 77478
(281) 243-4300
www.knowsys.com

The following plot shows that the three methods can be made to agree, at least within an
interval of a few thousand feet.

Application of the Eaton (dark red), Bowers (orange) and Miller (green) methods to pore
pressure estimation from a sonic log.
The Eaton, Bowers and Miller methods have been calibrated in such a way as to have very
good agreement over the interval 7,000-12,000 feet. The Eaton exponent used was 2.8. The
Bowers A parameter was 12.4 and B was 0.71. The Miller lambda parameter was 0.000165.
Due to the linear normal compaction trend, the Eaton pore pressure calculations differ from the
Knowledge Systems
One Sugar Creek Center Blvd.
Suite 1100
Sugar Land, TX 77478
(281) 243-4300
www.knowsys.com

Bowers and Miller results outside of this depth range. In this well, the Miller method appears to
be a better estimator for the pore pressures closer to the mudline.
For more information, visit the following topics in the Drillworks Help system:
Using Millers Interval Velocity, Using Millers Interval Velocity Method, Using Millers Sonic
and Using Millers Sonic Method.
See also the chapters Calculating Pore Pressure Using Bowers Method and Calculating Pore
Pressure Using Millers Method in the Drillworks User Guide.
References
(1) Alixant, Jean-Louis and Debrandes, Robert, Explicit Pore-Pressure Evaluation: Concept
and Application, SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991, pp. 182-188. Also, SPE paper
19336.
(2) Bowers, G.L, Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure
Mechanisms Besides UnderCompaction, Paper IADC/SPE 27488 presented at the 1994
IADC/SPE conference, Dallas, Texas, February 15-18, 1994, pp. 515-530.

If you would like to share your favorite tip, email asktheexpert@knowsys.com.

If you need software technical support, email support@knowsys.com.
If you have questions related to a geopressure or geomechanics analysis, feel free to email
asktheexpert@knowsys.com.
To view all archived topics, visit, the Did You Know Vault at
http://www.knowsys.com/vault.aspx.

Knowledge Systems
One Sugar Creek Center Blvd.
Suite 1100
Sugar Land, TX 77478
(281) 243-4300
www.knowsys.com