OTC 3220

PORE PRESSURE PREDICTIONS FROM HIGH RESOLUTION SEISMIC DATA

by Simon Waters and Neil Moore, Fairfield Industries, Inc .

• Copyright 1978, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 10th Annual OTC in Houston. Tex., May 8-11,1978. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT

Successful techniques of pore pressure pre- an evolution: pore pressure prediction in the
diction from conventional exploration seismic data shallow geologic section.
have been established for several years. These
techniques have been modified and adapted for use on Knowledge of the pore pressure environment
multifold digital high resolution data. The initial through which a well is to be drilled is vital to the
results show the adaption to be valid, and informa- formulation of a safe and cost-efficient well plan.
tion of significant value to well planning is obtained. This knowledge ultimately governs the "mud, casing,
cementing, logging and drilling programs, the
Interpretation of interval transit times de- combination of which constitutes the bulk of a well
rived from detailed velocity analyses of CDP high plan" (Reference 3).
resolution data reveals pore pressure trends in the
shallow geologic section (less than 2000 to 3000 feet The drilling mud column and well casing are
in depth). This depth interval was previously con- the major ''blowout preventers" in any well.
sidered a blind zone to conventional seismic data Hydrostatic pressure exerted by the mud against
analysis. However, the newly obtained high resolu- the pore pressure of exposed formations in the open
tion pressure data can now forewarn of shallow hole is the primary mechanism by which formation
abnormally pressured intervals and help the design fluid influx is controlled. Well casing allows the
of safe but economic casing and mud programs. use of mud weights required for this control by
Interesting variations in the interval transit times protecting the shallower sediments against fractur-
of shallow gas sand seals are also noted. It is ing and lost circulation.
speculated that these variances might relate to the
pressure containing capability of the seal. Drilling with underbalanced or too finely
balanced mud weights exposes the well to the risks
INTRODUCTION of swabbing, kicks, blowouts and heaVing or
sloughing of overpressurei:rshales. Use of signi-
High resolution seismic surveying is a rapidly ficantly overbalanced mud weights results in low
maturing branch of geophysics. In the marine drilling rates, potential differential sticking prob-
environment, single channel, real time analog re- lems, possible lost circulation, premature setting
cordings have given way over the past six years to of casing and higher than necessary mud costs.
advanced multichanner digital data systems which In addition, transition zones from normal to ab-
emulate conventional exploration seismic equipment normal pore pressures may be harder to detect
(References 1 and 2), For high resolution purposeS, while drilling if excessive mud weights are used.
both the sources and recording equipment have been
tailored to suit the high frequencies required to At shallow depths (less than 3000 feet) the
satisfy engineering and shallow explorational goals. s election of a suitable weight and type of mud is a
In order to exploit the advantages of this new genera- particularly critical decision. In this interval
tion of hardware, and to meet increasingly demand- drilling is vulnerable to potential problems due to
ing marine exploration and production needs, data low fracture gradients, low mud weights, minimal
processing and interpretation techniques must also (if any) casing and poor hole sta.bility. Of specia.l
evolve. This paper describes one aspect of such concern are highly porous and permeable zones
References and illustration at end of paper. which contain nore fluid!'! nnder '1v
high pressure. These are the zones of high "well
kick or blowout potential. "
Clearly then. an approach informed with
respect to anticipated pore pressures. and the mud
weights required to control them. is the optimum
way to plan a successful well. However. although
geophysical prediction of the well environment
from conventional exploration seismic data has
been generally successful at depths greater than
2000 to 3000 feet. the frequencies and recording
geometries used to acquire such data preclude re-
liable analysis above that level. For this reason
the shallower interval has been termed the "twilight
zone ll (Reference 4). It is the objective of this
paper to document the first attempts to illuminate
this twilight zone by quantitative pore pressure
prediction based on digital high resolution seismic
data.
ABNORMAL PORE PRESSURE OCCURRENCE
In the context of common usage. the term
"abnormal pore pressure" refers to formation
fluid pressures in excess of that resulting from the
normal hydrostatic load (e. g. approx. 0.465 psi/feet
x depth. in the Gulf of Mexico). Thus. the adjec-
tive "abnormal" refers to the magnitude of the
pressure rather than its frequency of occurrence.
In fact. abnormal pressures occur in both offshore
and onshore areas of all the continents. at depths
ranging from a few hundred feet to in excess of
20.000 feet and in sediments varying from
Cambrian to Pleistocene in age (References 5 and 6)
ESTABLISHED SEISMIC PORE PRESSURE PRE-
DICTION TECHNIQUES
Pore pressure prediction methods using seis-
mic data primarily focus on the interpretation of de
tailed velocity analyses made possible by CDP
recording methods (Figure 1). Based on such
analyses. the geophysical engineer identifies RMS
velocity values at a series of record times (1. e.
two-way travel times). The sequence of selected
velocity-time data pairs obtained from a velocity
analysis may then be recomputed and displayed in
a form resembling an averaged acoustic log-derived
shale pressure plot. commonly used to confirm ab-
normal formation pressures (Figure 2). Various
workers (References 7. 8 and 9) have shown that
such seismically derived plots can be successfully
employed to reveal the depth and magnitude of ab-
normal pressures by:
1. identifying a "normal compaction trend"
through those shale points which form
a linear trend on the plot;
2. observing those depth intervals which
fall to the right of the trend (zones of
undercompaction indicating probable
abnormal pressure):
1444
3. noting the depth(s) at which these higher
transit time points start to diverge from
the normal compaction trend (1. e. the
topes) of the transition zone(s) from
normal to abnormal pressures):
4. estimating the magnitude of the pore
pressures by use of calibration curves.
overlays. or rock matrix stress analysis.
Figure 3 illustrates the first three steps out-
lined above. Figure 4 is a display of the predicted
pressure gradients (expressed as Equivalent Mud
Weight-EMW) derived from Figure 3 by means of a
"pressure-reading'loverlay. In the example shown
as Figure 4. the maximum abnormal pressure pre-
dicted would be 14 pounds/gallon EMW. It should
be noted at this point. however. that overlays and
calibration curves should ideally only be used in
the areas where the empirical well data. used to
derive the pore pressure versus transit time
departure relationship. was obtained. Differences
in lithologies. sediment age. pore water density.
and overburden. compaction and cementation rates
between areas can produce significantly variant
departure relationships (Reference 10 and 11).
Ignoring this caveat can result in invalid and mis-
leading predictions. In a rank wildcat area where
no established empirical guides are available. a
technique using rock matrix stress analysis may
be employed. A discussion of the effectiveness
and limitations of this approach are beyond the
scope of this paper but a brief description of this
type of analysis is given by Reynolds (Reference 9).
Unlike acoustic log-based prediction. there is
usually no way to accurately separate shales from
other lithologies when using seismic velocity data.
Since the influence of these other lithologies can
adversely affect the interpretation of a seismic
pressure plot. all available geologic and other sub-
surface information should be integrated into the
evaluation. After a "post-analysis" review of 35
worldwide conventional seismic-based predictions.
and with such considerations in mind. Reynolds
stated: 'With careful treatment. the tops of
overpressured zones can be predicted to within
an average of +500 feet. and the pressure mag-
nitudes can beestimated to within +1 pound per
gallon mud weight equivalent morethan one
half of the time. "
HIGH RESOLUTION SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION
For the purposes of pore pressure prediction
from high resolution information Fairfield uses
either SUPERSPARKER* or F AIRFLEX* digitally
recorded data. The SUPERSPARKER was originally
introduced approximately three years ago and is a
high-efficiency. 15 kilojoule electric discharge
source. producing useful seismic frequencies
in the 50 to 350 Hertz range. Figures 5 and 6
show the SUPERSPARKER wavelet and
*Registered Trademarks of Fairfield Industries. Inc.
amplitude spectrum. This source is presently
being superseded by the more recently developed
F AIRFLEX miniaturized sleeve exploder. The
F AIRFLEX produces a superior wavelet and
amplitude spectrum compared to those of equiv-
alent sparker systems, as demonstrated by Figures
7 and 8. The significance of this improved wave-
let will become apparent in the discussion of pre-
diction accuracy below.
A 12-trace, 150-foot group interval
streamer is employed to receive the reflected
seismic signals (Figure 9), which are then passed
through an anti-alias filter, digitally sampled at
a one millisecond interval to a two-second record
length, optionally vertically stacked. and recorded
on. magnetic tape in a demultiplexed format.
PRESSURE PREDICTION PROCEDURES USING
mGH RESOLUTION SEISMIC DATA
The prediction procedures used on the high
resolution data are based on the techniques estab-
lished for conventional exploration seismic data
(see above). The first step in the procedure is
the performance of specially designed velocity
analyses (Figure 10). These analyses are per-
formed with small velocity scan increments (20
feet/ second) and output intervals in the time
domain (10 milliseconds) in order to achieve maxi-
mum precision. The series of interpreted RMS
velocity-time pairs from each analysis are com-
pared with the corresponding segments of the
seismic sections for a validity check of the "picks"
against observed reflecting horizons. They are
then put into the computer for production of an
interval transit time versus depth plot (Figure 11)
and an accompanying data sheet (Figure 12).
Since any single velocity analysis can give
misleading information due to spurious correlations
(Reference 8), a series of closely spaced velocity
analyses are performed in each investigation area
and interval transit time plots generated for each
set of data. The individual plots are then in-
spected for unreasonable computed interval transit
times and unsatisfactory data are reanalyzed or
discarded. Corrected and uncorrected CDP
gathers are also examined as an additional check
on suitable velocity selection. The approved
individual data sets are then compiled in the com-
puter, composited, and a statistically representa-
tive transit time versus depth curve is derived
(Figure 13).
A normal compaction trend is established
on the composite plot and the predicted pore
pressure gradients are derived through the use of
a suitable overlay, calibration curve or rock
matrix stress analysis. These gradients are then
displayed versus depth in a form readily usable
in well planning (Figure 14).
ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF mGH
RESOLUTION SEISMIC PRESSURE PREDICTIONS
The very newness of pressure prediction from
high resolution seismic data prevents a well docu-
mented assessment of the accuracy and reliability
of the technique. By analogy with conventional
seismic-based predictions. and taking into con-
sideration the differences in signal frequencies
and recording geometries, an accuracy of better
than +300 feet in predicting pressure tops and
+1 poUnd/gallon EMW in pressure magnitude. may
be expected in the majority of cases. It should
be noted, however. that the achievement of such
quality results is contingent upon several condi-
tions:
1. Only seismic data possessing good
penetration and a high signal-to-noise
ratio should be selected for prediction
work.
2. The amount of available normal moveout
provided by the recording geometry.
versus the pulse length of the seismic
signal. should be considered in deciding
the depth range over which the velocity
analyses, and the derived interval
transit times, can be expected to possess
reasonable precision. The optimum pre-
diction depth range using the equipment
described in this paper is between
approximately 500 and 3500 feet. The
shorter period, superior pulse generated
by the F AlRFLEX source gives generally
sharper semblance peaks and less smear
on the velocity analyses than the SUPER-
SPARKER signature.
3. The velocity analyses should be run with
small velocity and time scan increments
and short output intervals in the time
domain.
4. Several closely spaced velocity analyses
should be performed, and the results
statistically reduced for each prediction.
5. As much geological information" available
well data. and other relevant knowledge.
as possible, should be incorporated in
the pressure interpretation in order to
avoid erroneous conclusions. This is
particularly important when making
pressure prognoses in the shallow section.
since compaction rates. pore water and
sediment densities. overburden gradients.
etc., are probably significantly different
from those present at the greater depths
at which all previous prediction work has
been aimed. The lack of suitable well
data in the very shallow parts of the
hole is at present a serious problem in
calibrating the interval transit time
 departure versus pressure gradient relationship shelf edge.
and in checking the accuracies of existing pre-
dictions. The significant information provided by the
transit time plot is that the transit times within
At present, only limited postdrilling feedback the anomalous interval are extremely high (205 -
information has been available for comparison 213 microseconds /foot ). The conclusion is
against existing shallow pressure prognoses. In therefore drawn that these sands are probably
several cases where normal pressures were pre- gas- charged and constitute a potential hazard to
dicted in the upper geologic section, subsequent drilling. Owing to their coarse-grained lithology,
well data provided confirmation. In one case no direct pressure estimate can be made of the
where abnormal pressure was predicted just below magnitude of the internal pore pressures present
3300 feet depth, the well data agreed with the depth (Figure 14).
estimate of the pressure top to within 80 feet, and
to within 1 pound fgallon of the predicted pressure SHALLOW GAS SANDS
magnitude.
Although the mere detection of shallow gas
HIGH RESOLUTION PREDICTION RESULTS sands through amplitude, polarity and frequency
studies is the primary hazard assessment concern
Two cases are presented to illustrate the in dealing with such features, some evaluation of
pressure prediction results that may be obtained their properties is also highly desirable. As
using high resolution seismic data. illustrated by Case 2 above, there is presently no
means of estimating their internal pore pressure
Case 1: Figure 15 is a transit time plot unless they are enveloped in a substantial shale
stati-y derived from the results of eight section which allows some pressure prediction to
individual analyses performed on a Eugene Island be made. Unfortunately, with shallow gas sands
location 90 miles offshore Louisiana. The plot this is rarely the case.
clearly shows that a linear “normal compaction
(i. e. pressure) trend” is present at depths within Over the past year, however, the authors
the optimum prediction range of 500 to 3500 feet. have noted that some shallow gas sands in the Gulf
Beneath 3500 feet the data still appears of Mexico appears to be “sandwiched” between
credible, with a possible transition zone to ab- anomalously high velocity layers, while other
normal pressures being present beIow 4100 feet. gas- charged intervals show no such associations.
Figure 16 shows a depth profile of the estimated Detailed interval transit time studies in a High
pore pressure gradients. Island block and a Eugene Island block highlighted
this phenomenon.
The significant contributions made by this
prediction are: Figure 17 shows a comparison between an
automatic gain processed digital sparker section
1. no abnormal pressure problems related from each area. Both records show a similar-
to undercompacted shales are anticipated looking gas sand at approximately 950 feet depth.
in at least the first 3500 feet of the pro- Figure 18 displays a comparison between the
posed well; relative amplitude processed versions of the
same lines. Although some differences between th(
2, pressure predictions should be performed appearance of the two gasified intervals are more
on available exploration seismic data to apparent, their similarities are still remarkable.
confirm or refute the suspected transition
zone commencing at 4100 feet depth. Figure 19 shows a typical interval transit
time plot through each gas sand. Distinct
Case 2: Figure 13 is an interval transit time differences may be noted between the two plots.
plot based on data from four (4) analyses over a The transit time values above and below the gas
continental slope site in Garden Banks 130 miles off- sand (176 and 182 microseconds, respectively),
shore Louisiana. Here again, with the exception of ar in the Eugene Island area (Figure 19a) are on
anomalously high transit time zone between 1625 trend with the other values on the plot. In contrast
and 2450 feet, a “normal compaction trend” the transit times above and below (14 1 and 168
appears to be present down to the depth limits of microseconds, respectively) the gas- charged
the data. The anomalous zone correlates with an interval in the High Island area (Figure 19b) are
interval of generally irregular reflections on the anomalously low.
corresponding stacked seismic section and is
interpreted to represent a series of slumped sand These findings were confirmed on every one
bodies. Several researchers (e. g. Reference 12) of the 22 transit time analyses conducted on the
have described units of similar appearance on the gas sands.
continent al slope and have concluded that these
bodies are composed of coarse-grained sediments It is proposed that the transit time values
that were subject to sliding and mass movement above and below the gas sands indicate the condi-
from their original location on or near the tions of the seals surrounding them. Drilling

14?6
.,
and soil boring information at the Eugene Island technique.
site indicate that the gas sand at the 950-foot level
is normally pressured. The seal surrounding it, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
therefore, merely has to function as a permeability
barrier pmmmting escape of the gas. Data at the The authors would like to specially acknowledge the
High Island site, on the other hand, suggest that management of Fairfield Industries for providing
the gas may be somewhat overpressured, possibly the opportunity to perform this challenging study.
due to gas-charging from a deeper, higher
pressure gas zone. In this case, the seal has to REFERENCES
function not only as a container of gas, but also
of excess pore pressure. Matrix stress analysis 1. Moore, N. A. : “MULTIPAK.: A New
of the pressure seal transit times at the High Geophysical Method for Marine Engineers, “
Island location indicates that the anomalous values OTC Paper No. 1798, 1973.
cannot be solely a result of physical compaction. 2. Dee, M. P. : “Digital CDP Procedures
It is therefore surmised that some degree of Provide New Capability for High Resolution
chemical alteration of the seals has also taken Seismic Data, “ OTC Paper No. 2176, 1975.
place. Louden (Reference 13) has discussed pro- 3. McKee, R. E. , and Pilkington, P. R. :
cesses by which formation of a silicious or carbon- “Pressure Prediction and Detection, “ Part 2:
ate cap can occur in such circumstances. “Calculated Approach to Pressures is
Preferred, “ Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 25,
Presently the proposition made a’hove is 1974.
speculative, but if future work confirms seal 4. Aud, B. W. , and FertI, W. H. : “Evaluating
transit time as an indicator of the pressured state Overpressure in the Twilight Zone, ‘‘
of shallow gas sands, am important step forward Petroleum Engineer, May, 1976.
will have been made in the engineering assess- 5. McClure, L. J. : “Drill Abnormal Pressure
ment of shallow drilling hazards. Should verifica- Safely, ‘‘ Author’s Publication, 1977.
tion of this theory be forthcoming, the next stage 6, FertL W. H. : “Abnormal Formation
will be to estabIish an empirical relationship be- Pressures, “ Developments in Petroleum
tween the transit time departures of seals and the Science No. 2, EIsevier Scientific Publish. C(
magnitude of the pressures they may contain. 7. Pennebaker, E. S. : “An Engineering
Similar steps in the field of drilling have already Interpretation of Seismic Data, “ SPE Paper
been taken by analysis of seal drillability and No. 2165, 1968.
conductivity (Reference 14). Because of the 8. Aud, B.W. : “Abnormal Pressure and
relative thinness of many of the seals, extreme Relative Lithology from Seismic Velocities, “
accuracy is required in the interpretation of Contemporary Geophysical Interpretation
seismic velocity data in order to obtain reliable Symposium, Geophysical Society of Houston,
seal interval transit times. With the recording Preprint Paper, 1974.
geometry presently being employed by Fairfield 9. Reynolds, E. B. : “The Application of Seismic
Industries, seal analysis of acceptable accuracy Techniques to Drilling Techniques, “ SPE
is limited to a maximum depth of approximately Paper No. 4643, 1973.
1500 feet. 10. Eaton, B. A. : “The Effect of Overbuden Stres
on Geopressure Prediction From Well Logs, “
CONCLUSIONS ----- Journal of Petroleum Technology, Aug. , 1972
11. Lane, R. A., and McPherson: “A Review of
1. The adaption of proven seismic pore pres- Geopressure Evaluation From Well Logs -
sure prediction techniques to high resolution data Louisiana Gulf Coast, “ SPE Paper No. 5033,
is a valid transposition of procedures. 1974.
12. Sidner, B. R. ; Gartner, S., and Bryant, W. R.
2. The high resolution predictions that have “Late Pleistocene Geologic History of the
been performed to date have provided valuable Outer Continental Shelf and Upper Continental
information on potential shallow hazards and geo - Slope, Northwest Gulf of Mexico, “ Texas
logic conditions generally. A&M University Technical Report 77- 5-T,
May, 1977.
3. The inclusion of such prediction data into 13. Louden, L. R. : “Chemical Caps Can Cause
well plans helps to ensure safe and economical Pressure Buildup, ‘‘ Oil and Gas Journal,
wells. The extremes of underdesigning or over- Nov. 15, 1971,
designing the shallow mud and casing programs 14. Hebert, R. ; Harger, C. G., and Pertuis, J. B.
can be avoided with such information. “Approximation ~f Pressures Ahead of the
Bit by Analysis of the Exposed Pressure
4. Further improvements in high resolution -- Seal, “ SPE Preprint Paper No. 3896, 1972.
seismic hardware and computer programs, to-
gether with an accumulating knowledge of the
shallow interval transit time versus pore pressure
gradient relationship from well data, will allow
continued refinement of the shallow rmediction
 RMS VELOCITY (FE%T/SECOND) COHERENCY

1 q Iocq Icq

: .;.l.: i..
., !... :&!.

FIG, 1- !3~PLE smr.wn OF A SEISMIC VELOCITy ANALYS~S,

-SEISMIC
PRUGNOSIS
f

)
PREDICTED ONSET OF+
ARNORMAL PNEssURE I
IT
ZONE OF
; ABNORMAL
PRE~SURE
/’

~!
. -“..
:.E- -J - :,-; ~’rx”
WU- .,..,-, :. ..= .: :”;::;:,=.
-
“..
. ..4 J

FIG, 2 - TYPICAL INTERVAL TRANSIT TIME PLOT, I-IG,3 - IWERpFWTATION OF INTERVAL TRANSIT TIME PLOT,
o—

m 5

ONSET OF ABWiWAL PRESSURE o

/
R
@

+>
.5~
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
\
TIME-MILLISECONDS
FIG, 5 - SUPERSPP,RKER
SIGNATURE,

FIG,4- PLOT OF ESTIMATED PORE PRESSURE GRADIENTS,

I
-I

-12
-1:
-24
-80

-5J : ,~ ;5 ;0 ;5 ;0 ;5 &

TIME -MILLISECONDS
FIG, 7 - FAIRFLEXSIGNATURE,
-78
-84
-98
-98

0501W1502W 2543043WM~ WI
~EUEUCY Ill llE~TZ

FIG, 6- AMPLITUDESPECTRUM- SUPERSPARKER,

 s
-t
-12

-1:
I 12 CHANNEL SYSTEM
-34

-Sn
a.3g
m —
-43

!!
a

E:;
~-ctl

-II

-n
-73
-84
-10 FIG, 9 - RECORDING GEOMETRY FOR TWELVE-CHANNEL HIGH RESOLUTION
------ --------
-M >klsmlc sYsl Nl,

s 33rmls3za zMm33Qmm3@
mEEuEncYIn ifmlz
FIG,8- 4MPLITUDE SPECTRUM - FAIRFLEX.

~S VELOCITY [FEETIsEcoNDI COHEIIENCY

4opo 5000 60 0
-.
H.,
. .“—
s..! ..-
>.. — —
,.*A ———
,,i
..4
.,o!-
,—
.*. r ,= ,.
,.*. L
..4 .,. L
.+. . ;,
..4
-’ , .* ,,,
w ,., , ,,

.,.
,-
I

i-
.1
. . ..
.
r,.

---
..; .,
,34 I I

-
,, ,’
!~ 1010

:4. :
., -.
/y- .,, ....> ,- m
---., ,. .! .: :,:;::,.. “ K co

:= FIG,11 - INDIVIDUAL INTERVAL TRANSIT TIME PLOT - GARDEN RANKS,

FIG, 10 - SEGMENT OF A SPECIAL VELOCITY ANALYSIS.
 (

FRIRFIELD INDUSTRIES

SEISMIC PORE PRESSURE;

PREDICTION j~
RWIYSIS FWI WPN. Wr5
IWS VELOCITY THCIWY TIK OEPTH INT VELCCITY [NT T~IT TIME
FEET/SEC SEcotdn FEET FEETAEC HICRCISEC/FT 5

FIG, 12 - DATA SHEET,

FIG, 13 - STATISTICALLY REPRESENTATIVE INTERVAL TRANSIT

TIME PLOT - GARDEN %NKS,

NORMAL PRSSSURE
‘GRADIENT (9 L&%/ GAI-l

FIG, 14 - ESTIMATED PRESSURE GRADIENT PLOT - GARDEN PANKS, FIG, 15- STATISTICALLY REPRESENTATIVE INTERVAL TRANSIT
TIME PLOT - EUGENE ISLAND,
 :, .,,5nE.- ..-
:*.Q2yE#Tc ---
.l. QxiF_ ,,.. ~
,4-,*TJ =:.-mm IS

. I-*ioo FEET

n:;’.:.’, “.:.- ’.,.

FIG. 16 - ESTIMATED PRESSURE GRADIENT PLOT - EUGENE ISLAND,

FEET
Omor)oo
W= ISLAND BLOCK

----
~ tSLAND BLOCK
05WIW0

ii

FIG, U - COMPARISON OF SHALLOW GAS SANDS - STACKED AUTOMATIC

GAIN SECTIONS,
 FEET

EUGENE ISLAND BLOCK w“

EC.

r
1-
a
n

FEET
osooloOO
HIGH ISLAND BLOCK
OOOFT

1000 FT

Fig. 18 - Comparison of shallow gas sands - relative amplitude sections.

 ,.
.

,..
m

I I I 111[
FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES
@
SEISMIC PORE PRESSURE
PREDICTION

I
PROJECT: FA-10 JOB:822
AREA: EUGENE ISLAND BLOCK:N/A
WELL NO.: A-I DATE:KHO-77
.

I
1 @
FIGURE

1
19 a

1 n s,
1 I I 1 .l__l-[
2(” 40 80 8( Mx)lcm
DELTA T INTERVAL TRANSIT TIME MlCROSEC./FT.

h
I I I 1111
I FAIRFIELD
@
INDUSTRIES

1 SEISMIC PORE PRESSURE

PREDICTION

“1 E-

\
I
I I I I 1 I 1 1

I 1
20 40 S08DIO0 m 400 Do
DELTA T INTERVAL TRANSIT TIME MlCROSEC./FT.

Fig. 19 - Comparison of transit times in gas sands and associated seals.

,-
.. .-
., ..