See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273651149

Reducing the variation of Eaton’s exponent for overpressure prediction in a

basin affected by multiple overpressure mechanisms

Article  in   Interpretation · February 2014

DOI: 10.1190/INT-2013-0100.1

CITATIONS READS

6 499

7 authors, including:

Krongrath Suwannasri Seehapol Utitsan

Stanford University PTT Exploration and Production Plc.
7 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robertus J. Groot Helge Sognnes

TOTAL PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited
2 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pore pressure prediction View project

HYDROCARBON SEAL BREACHING IN THE CENTRAL MYANMAR BASIN View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Krongrath Suwannasri on 15 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 t Special section: Pore-pressure prediction and detection

Reducing the variation of Eaton’s exponent for overpressure prediction

in a basin affected by multiple overpressure mechanisms
K. Suwannasri1, W. Promrak1, S. Utitsan1, V. Chaisomboonpan1, R. J. Groot2, H. I. Sognnes1, and
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

C. K. Morley1

Abstract
Deriving global parameters for velocity-based pore pressure predictions in a complex overpressure origins
regime is normally difficult and nonrobust. Applying large variations in Eaton’s exponent is an unsatisfactory
work practice for velocity-based pore pressure prediction. This study investigates an alternative potential
method to reduce the variation of Eaton’s exponent values in an environment of mixed disequilibrium com-
paction and fluid expansion overpressure mechanisms. Using 25 input wells, the fluid expansion components
are estimated using velocity-vertical effective stress plot and then subtracted from the pressure measurements
to obtain the disequilibrium compaction components. Eaton’s exponents are then derived only from the dis-
equilibrium compaction components. The spatial variation of Eaton’s exponent is greatly reduced from the
range of 1–5 to the range of 1–1.9 after removing the fluid expansion components from the raw overpressure
data set. A constant Eaton’s exponent of 1.44 is used throughout the field to predict the disequilibrium com-
paction components and the fluid expansion components are predicted from gridding of the well data. The two
components are combined to produce a final pore pressure prediction profile, which yields less uncertainty than
the traditional Bowers method.

Introduction from normal compaction trend, and Δt ¼ observed

Prediction of predrill pore pressure is an important
aspect of assessing potential geohazards, well design,
preventing economic loss, environmental damage,
injury, and even death. Such pore pressure prediction
typically requires the integration of well and seismic
data. For overpressure to be detected using seismic
reflection data requires that it causes a significant
deviation in porosity from the normal compaction trend
(NCT), which in turn requires the assumption that the
main cause of overpressure is burial disequilibrium
compaction (Gutierrez et al., 2006; Bachrach et al.,
2007). Such deviations can be detected as variations
in rock properties, particularly sonic velocity, density,
and resistivity (Mouchet and Mitchell, 1989; Bell, 2002;
Sayers, 2006). Eaton (1975) presents a method to esti-
mate pore pressure from the ratio of acoustic slowness
in normally compacted sediments to the observed
acoustic slowness:
P p ¼ σ v − ðσ v − P h ÞðΔtnorm ∕ΔtÞx :
Here, P p ¼ pore pressure, σ v ¼ vertical stress, P h ¼
hydrostatic pore pressure, Δtnorm ¼ acoustic slowness
acoustic slowness.
The variable exponent, x, in the Eaton (1975) equa-
tion is typically found to be a value of three for over-
pressures generated by disequilibrium compaction
(Mouchet and Mitchell, 1989; Hermanrud et al., 1998).
However, in recent years it has been increasingly rec-
ognized that mechanisms other than burial disequilib-
rium compaction (load transfer, fluid expansion) can
entirely cause, or contribute significantly to the total
overpressure (e.g., Osborne and Swarbrick, 1997;
Tingay et al., 2007, 2009, 2013; Nadeau 2011; Goulty
et al., 2012). Once the causes of overpressure have been
identified, Eaton’s exponent can be altered to match
the well data (e.g., Tingay et al., 2009, 2013). In a
scenario where overpressures cause only relatively mi-
nor changes to rock properties, the Eaton’s exponent
will be greater than three and the standard deviation
of the predicted values will also increase (Tingay et al.,
2009).
(1) In the North Malay Basin, overpressures are known
to be caused by mechanisms in addition to burial dis-
equilibrium compaction, particularly gas generation
(Tingay et al., 2013). These authors noted that the

1
PTTEP, Bangkok, Thailand. E-mail: krongraths@pttep.com; wisitp@pttep.com; SeehapolU@pttep.com; vitoon@pttep.com; HelgeS@pttep.com;
ChristopherK@pttep.com.
2
Secondee from Total, Bangkok, Thailand. E-mail: rob.groot@total.com.
Manuscript received by the Editor 29 June 2013; revised manuscript received 25 October 2013; published online 11 February 2014. This paper
appears in Interpretation, Vol. 2, No. 1 (February 2014); p. SB57–SB68, 13 FIGS., 1 TABLE.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2013-0100.1. © 2014 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Interpretation / February 2014 SB57

 calculated perfect Eaton’s exponent for individual wire-
line formation pressure measurements ranges up to 50,
with an average value of 7.8. Such variations are unsat-
isfactory for pore pressure prediction, although maps of
spatial variations in Eaton exponent values can be
made for the basin and are one potential solution
(Limpornpipat et al., 2012). This paper investigates
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
an alternative method to reduce the variation of Eaton’s
exponent in an area of mixed disequilibrium compac-
tion and fluid expansion overpressure generation.
The fluid expansion components are estimated using
velocity-vertical effective stress plots and then sub-
tracted from the pressure measurements to obtain
the disequilibrium compaction components. Eaton’s ex-
ponent is then derived after removing the fluid expan-
sion components. The Eaton’s exponents using this
Figure 1. Location map of the Bongkot field, Gulf of Thailand. The field is
approximately 180 km from the shoreline and the average water depth is about
60 m.
SB58 Interpretation / February 2014
method should converge compared to fitting with
original pressure data.
Geologic background and overpressure
distribution of the Bongkot field
Bongkot field is located in the northern Malay Basin
in the Gulf of Thailand, approximately 180 km from the
shoreline (Figure 1). The Malay Basin covers an area of
approximately 83;000 km2 , and is composed of north-
west–southeast trending rift (Oligocene) and postrift
basins (Neogene). Over 12 km thickness of terrestrial
to shallow-marine sediments are present. Present-day
geothermal gradients in the basin center are high
(50°C − 75°C∕km), and decrease to about 30°C∕km
on the basin margins (Morley and Westaway, 2006).
The unusually thick postrift sediments are suggested
to result from the combination of hot
crust, young continental lithosphere,
rapid tropical weathering and erosion,
and lower-crustal flow (Hall and Morley,
2004; Morley and Westaway, 2006). The
North Malay basin lies northwest of the
main depocenter of the Malay Basin and
sediment thicknesses decrease signifi-
cantly passing from the southeast area
of Bongkot to the northwest area.
The postrift sequences of the North
Malay Basin are divided into three for-
mations as described in Figure 2. The
most hydrocarbon-rich unit is formation
2, which is subdivided into five units
from oldest to youngest: 2A, 2B, 2C,
2D, and 2E. The description of each for-
mation below is summarized from Jar-
dine (1997), Leo (1997), Madon et al.
(1999), Morley and Racey (2011), and
Tingay et al. (2013).
The Lower Miocene formation 1 con-
sists of red mudstones and siltstones
with discontinuous channelized sand-
stones and numerous coal beds. The
transition to formation 2 is abrupt, with
entrenched meandering rivers that ad-
justed to a change in base level. Forma-
tion 2 comprises bundles of several
depositional environments that include
tributary fluvial fan deltas, and lakes
bordered by wetlands that include ex-
tensive peat swamp forests (particularly
in the eastern part of the basin) and
marginal marine/estuarine depositional
environments. Formation 2A consists
of fine- to medium-grained crevasse
splay and channel sands deposited
within delta-plain to delta-front environ-
ments. Numerous coal beds can also
be found in this unit. Formation 2B
displays a similar depositional environ-
ment to 2A, but marine incursions are
 more important. In particular, 35-m thick shale marks a
significant, early marine incursion, the temporary re-
placement of peat swamp forest by coastal mangrove
swamp, and the onset of extensive tidal-dominated
estuarine deltas. Depositional sequences are character-
ized by numerous, vertically stacked, thick, coarse-
grained channels interbedded with clays. However,
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
driven secondary overpressure-generating processes
may be operating. They also note that in such a hot,
deep environment traditional methods of pore pressure
prediction (e.g., Eaton, 1975; Bowers, 1995) offer at best
only a partial solution for pore pressure prediction.

channel connectivity and sand-shale ratio decrease to- Pore pressure and velocity relationship
ward the southeast. Offshore to delta-front environ- background
ments dominate formation 2C, which primarily Typically, overpressure mechanisms can be classi-
comprises shale and point-bar/channelized sands. For- fied into two main categories: disequilibrium compac-
mation 2D is composed of coalesced channelized sands tion and fluid expansion (Swarbrick et al., 2002).
and interbedded organic-rich shales and coals, while Disequilibrium compaction occurs when the rate of
formation 2E is sand rich and composed of coalesced pore-fluid expulsion is slower than the rate of loading.
fluvial and deltaic channels. More dominantly marine As a result, sealed pore-fluids support the increasing
conditions characterize the Upper Miocene-Holocene overburden load and become overpressured. Con-
formation 3, which comprises shale and patchy fine versely, fluid expansion is caused by an increase in fluid
sands. This formation forms a regional seal. volume within sealed pore space such as maturation of
Tingay et al. (2013) shows that over-
pressure magnitude increases basin-
ward from normally pressured in the
northwest to moderate and high over-
pressure in the southeast, as shown in
Figure 3. Source rock content and burial
rates increase while net-to-gross de-
creases toward the basin center. These
trends are accompanied by increase in
overpressure magnitude to the south-
east (basinward), and a change in the
contributing mechanisms from predomi-
nantly disequilibrium compaction in the
northwest to an increasing component
of gas generation-related overpressure
to the southeast (Tingay et al., 2013).
The stratigraphically restricted occur-
rence of overpressures to formations
2A, 2B, and 2C, points to mostly in situ Figure 2. Stratigraphic summary and schematic reservoir variations across the
overpressure development, limited to northern Malay Basin. Source rock is included in formations 2A, 2B, and 2C.
low net-to-gross formations (Tingay Primary reservoirs are in formations 2D, 2E, and 1; whereas, formation 3 acts
et al., 2013). Additionally, the top over- as a regional seal. (Modified from Tingay et al., 2013)
pressure depth is typically near the top
of formation 2C and pore pressures usually return to
hydrostatic near the base of formation 2A. These
low-permeability sequences and interbedded sands
with moderate-to-high overpressures may contain sig-
nificant volumes of gas. It is also possible that as the
magnitudes of overpressure are moderate to high, hy-
drocarbons have yet to fully migrate into the shallower
and higher net-to-gross formations (e.g., 2D and 2E).
This paper is focused on pore pressure prediction
within formations 2C and 2B, where gas generation is
considered to be a significant contributor to overpres-
sure (Tingay et al., 2013). However, it should be noted
that in other parts of the basin the onset of overpressure
occurs at different levels (within formation 1 or even
the syn-rift section) and that the origin of the over- Figure 3. Map of maximum pore-pressure gradient based on
pressure is likely to be different. For example, to every well in Bongkot field illustrates increasing overpressure
the southeast, in the main part of the Malay Basin, magnitude toward the southeast, which is also the direction
O’Connor et al. (2011) discuss how a range of thermally toward the center of the basin.

Interpretation / February 2014 SB59

 kerogen to gas, dewatering of clay-diagenesis, or ther-
mal-expansion of water (Perry and Hower, 1972).
Velocity-vertical effective stress plots (Bowers,
1995) can discriminate fluid expansion from disequilib-
rium compaction overpressure mechanisms using the
physical properties of sequences (Bowers, 1995). As
demonstrated in Figure 4, sediments undergo burial
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
compaction with increasing effective stress acting on
the rock matrix. Mechanical compaction decreases
porosity, which in turn causes an increase in sonic
velocity. Therefore, normally compacted rocks with
normal pressure form a loading curve in the velocity-
vertical effective stress plot. However, when the pore
fluid is sealed off and overpressures are generated
(i.e., disequilibrium compaction), mechanical compac-
tion is inhibited resulting in high-porosity sediments.
Because pore pressure absorbs the additional overbur-
den load, pore-pressures increase parallel to vertical
stress, and consequently effective stress remains con-
stant with burial. Therefore, sediments that have expe-
rienced disequilibrium compaction follow the loading
curve in the velocity-vertical effective stress plot
(Bowers, 1995).
Conversely, fluid expansion-generated overpres-
sures lie on the unloading curve in the velocity-vertical
effective stress plot (Bowers, 1995; Tingay et al., 2007).
The unloading curve is followed by sediments that have
undergone normal compaction then subsequently be-
come overpressured (i.e., fluid expansion). Fluid ex-
pansion simultaneously increases pore-pressure and
reduces effective stress. The porosity and velocity of
the rocks remain little changed because the compaction
process is mainly irreversible.
Velocity-based pore pressure prediction methods
have been developed, including the popular Eaton
Figure 4. (a) Porosity-depth relationship and (b) pressure-depth paths gener-
ated by disequilibrium compaction (DC) and fluid expansion (FE). (c) veloc-
ity-vertical effective stress plot showing that sediments whose overpressures
are generated by DC fall onto the loading curve; while the others (combined
DC þ FE) follow an unloading curve. (Modified from Bowers [1995] and Tingay
et al. [2007])
SB60 Interpretation / February 2014
(1975) and Bowers (1995) methods. Eaton’s method
captures the overpressure-related low velocity devia-
tion from the NCT where the overpressure mechanism
is disequilibrium compaction (equation 1). The high
porosity results from the retardation of dewatering
of shales during burial. Hence, part of the vertical
overburden load becomes transferred to the fluid
phase, which increases the pore pressure above
hydrostatic.
Bowers method can be applied in areas where fluid
expansion is the main overpressure mechanism. Ac-
cording to Bowers (1995), the loading curve or virgin
curve is represented by following equation
v ¼ 5000 þ Aσ B : (2)
The unloading curve is defined by
v ¼ 5000 þ A½σ max ðσ∕σ max Þð1∕UÞ
B ; (3)
where v is velocity (ft∕s), σ is effective stress (psi), A
and B are parameters calibrated with the virgin trend,
U is a third parameter calibrated with the unloading
trend, and σ max is the estimated effective stress at
the onset of unloading.
Once parameters A, B, σ max , and U are calculated,
effective stress (σ) can be estimated from velocity,
and pore pressure can be predicted by subtracting
the derived effective stress with the calculated overbur-
den stress. As there are two velocity-effective stress re-
lationships that either follow the loading or unloading
curves, the overpressure zone must be defined before-
hand so that predicted pore-pressures in each zone are
assigned from the appropriate trend. The loading curve
is used to predict pressures above top-overpressure.
When top-overpressure is reached the
predicting trend is switched to the un-
loading curve. If the input velocity be-
comes faster than Vmax (the velocity at
the onset of unloading), it is assumed
that the fluid expansion-related over-
pressure has ceased, and the predicting
trend is switched back to the load-
ing curve.
Methodology
The main objective of this study is to
investigate the consequences for Ea-
ton’s exponent when the fluid expansion
components from the overpressure data
in 25 input wells across the field are re-
moved. In a complex overpressure set-
ting, the derived Eaton’s exponent
from raw pressure data usually has a
large spatial variation because disequi-
librium compaction and fluid expansion
components are taken into account.
Assuming that disequilibrium compac-
tion process is the key controller of
 anomalously low velocities in the overpressure interval,
removing the fluid expansion contribution to overpres-
sure before fitting the Eaton’s exponent should signifi-
cantly reduce the variation of the Eaton’s exponent in
areas of complex overpressure origins.
Data set
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The data set in this study mainly comprises of pres-
sure data and wireline suite data. The pressure data is
measured and selected for normal pressure tests in
formations 2 and 1 from the repeated formation tester
tool. These pressure data represent only formation
pressure in sandstone and further interpretation is
needed to retrieve the formation pressure in shale.
The wireline suites consist of gamma ray, resistivity,
density, neutron porosity, and sonic. The wireline meas-
urement normally covers formations 2 and 1. In this
study, wireline data is selected from shale lithology only
for pore pressure analysis.
Vertical stress estimation
Most of density wireline measurements do not cover
the shallow part of the wellbore. The density of the shal-
low section is extrapolated from the wireline measure-
ment using equation 4 with constraining seabed density
of 1.8 g∕cc (Figure 5a). The well density profile is the
Figure 5. (a) An example of density estimation in the shallow section. The estimation is based on extrapolation of density wireline
measurements using an exponential equation. The final density profile is the merge between density wireline measurement and
estimated density. (b) A representative vertical stress for the field (thick black line) is derived from vertical stress profile of each
well (thin red lines).
result of merged density, extrapolated density, and wire-
line measurement where the wireline data is present
ρ ¼ ρm − aecz ; (4)
where ρ is estimated density, ρm is matrix density, a and
c are constants, and z is depth.
The vertical stress of each well is the summation of
the well density profile converted to pressure (psia).
The vertical stress profiles of twenty five input wells
are very similar and the field vertical stress representa-
tive is regressed using equation 5 (Figure 5b),
σ v ¼ azm ; (5)
where σ v is estimated vertical stress, a and m are con-
stants, and z is depth.
NCT estimation
Most of input wells are overpressured and the few
normally pressured wells were drilled relatively shal-
low. Consequently, in the overpressured formations,
the NCT cannot be taken directly from wireline mea-
surements but merely extrapolated from the normal
pressure zone located shallower in the wells using equa-
tion 6 (Figure 6a). The NCT profile of all 25 input wells
Interpretation / February 2014 SB61
 are relatively similar and a representative profile for the
field is obtained (Figure 6b):
NCT ¼ aecz ; (6)
where NCT is estimated normal compaction trend, a
and c are constants, and z is depth.
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Pore pressure separation between disequilibrium compaction
and fluid expansion
The velocity-vertical effective stress plot is derived
from pressure measurements from all wells. Each dot
in the plot represents a single pressure measurement.
The velocity for a particular pressure is derived from
an 80-m window Backus’ average of shale sonic velocity
centered at the depth of the pressure data. Meanwhile,
effective vertical stress is derived from estimated verti-
cal stress subtracted by measured pore pressure. The
calculations are done for all pressure measurements
from 25 input wells.
To separate the two components of overpressure,
the loading curve is established by a linear trend. This
linear trend serves as an approximation of the true load-
ing curve in a short interval of interest (mainly forma-
tions 2D and 2E). It would require much longer wireline
coverage in the normal pressure zone (possibly forma-
tion 3) to obtain a robust regression of the loading curve
as described in Bowers (1995).
Figure 6. (a) An example of NCT estimation in the overpressure section. The estimation is based on extrapolation of sonic wire-
line measurements in normal pressure interval using an exponential equation. (b) A representative NCT for the field (thick black
line) is derived from NCT profile of each well (thin red lines).
SB62 Interpretation / February 2014
The fluid expansion component of each overpres-
sure measurement is estimated from the pressure
difference between the data itself to the loading curves
in the velocity-vertical effective stress plot (Figure 7a).
The disequilibrium compaction component is then re-
trieved by subtracting the estimated fluid expansion
to its original measured pressure. This pressure decom-
position method was also used in Tingay et al. (2013).
Eaton’s exponent regressions
This paper follows the equation in Eaton (1975) as
shown in equation 1. The regression is conducted by
second norm linear least square after the logarithmic
transformation on both sides of the equation. The
Eaton’s exponent regression in this paper is done in
three ways as follows:
1) Individual Eaton’s exponents: The goal of this re-
gression is to capture the variation of Eaton’s expo-
nents throughout the field. The regression is done
well by well using original pressure data. Each well
has its individual value of Eaton’s exponent. The
predicted pressures from these Eaton’s exponents
represent a total pressure profile.
2) Individual modified Eaton’s exponents: The goal
of this regression is to test whether the variation
of Eaton’s exponent throughout the field is reduced
once the fluid expansion component is removed.
 The regression is done well by well using the dis-
equilibrium compaction component only. Each well
has its individual values of Eaton’s exponent. If the
variation of Eaton’s exponent is narrower than the
ones from individual Eaton’s exponents, the next
step will be conducted. The predicted pressures
from this Eaton’s exponent only represent the dis-
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
tion 2) are regressed from normal pressure data from
both individually well by well and collectively from
all wells. Here, V max and σ max are directly derived from
well data where the top of overpressure has been de-
fined. The U parameter of the unloading curve (equa-
tion 3) is then regressed from overpressure data
individually well by well, and collectively from all wells.

equilibrium compaction of the overpressure.
3) Collective modified Eaton’s exponent: The goal of
this regression is to have a single value of Eaton’s
exponent throughout the field once the fluid expan-
sion component is removed. The regression is per-
formed on concatenated pressure measurements
from all wells using the disequilibrium compaction
component only. Each well has an identical value of
Eaton’s exponent. The predicted pressures from this
Eaton’s exponent only represent the disequilibrium
compaction of the overpressure. This represents an
ideal scenario for deriving global parameters on
velocity-based pore pressure prediction methods.
Again, the goal of the individual fitting is to capture the
variation of parameters but the global parameters are
used to predict pore pressure in Bowers’ equation.
Results
Most overpressure points form an unloading curve in
the velocity-effective vertical stress plot, confirming
that the fluid expansion mechanism has a significant
role in this field (Figure 7b). However, the pressure
differences between the loading and unloading curves
are not great enough to build the total amount of over-
pressure. This observation agrees with previous studies
(Limpornpipat et al., 2012; Tingay et al., 2013) that the

Total overpressure prediction

The total overpressure is the sum of
the disequilibrium compaction and fluid
expansion components. The disequilib-
rium compaction is predicted from the
velocity attributes using the collective
modified Eaton’s exponent. The fluid
expansion component is predicted from
gridding estimated fluid expansion com-
ponents from each well at different
locations. The gridding undergoes two
sequential methods: Delaunay triangula- Figure 7. (a) Illustration of estimating the fluid expansion components, which
tion and biharmonic spline algorithm. are the pressure differences between the particular overpressure points and
Delaunay triangulation is performed at loading curve. The disequilibrium compaction component is later calculated
a coarse bin-size to sparsely increase by subtraction of the estimated fluid expansion components from the raw pres-
sure data. (b) Velocity-vertical effective stress plot of formation pressure tests
the number of data control points from all wells. Most pressure points lay on the unloading curve suggesting the
linearly. Biharmonic spline (finding existence of fluid expansion overpressure generation.
the minimum curvature surface which
passes through a set of points) is then
later applied at finer bin-size to obtain
a final smooth grid. After several tests,
this gridding methodology yields less
uncertainties compared to other gridd-
ing methods such as linear interpola-
tion, cubic interpolation, and natural
neighborhood. From testing, the maxi-
mum difference between each gridding
algorithm (exclude linear interpolation)
is approximately 10%.

Bowers parameter regression
Following the Bowers (1995) equa-
tions, the second norm linear least
square is performed after performing
the logarithmic transformation to derive
each Bowers parameter. The A and B
parameters of the virgin trend (equa-
Figure 8. (a) Map of derived Eaton’s exponents using raw pressure mea-
surements in the Bongkot field. Eaton’s exponent values increase toward
the southeast, which is the same direction as the increase in pore pressure.
(b) Comparison of Eaton’s exponent distributions between raw pressure mea-
surements and pure disequilibrium compaction pressures. The modified Eaton’s
exponent values show much less variation than the Eaton’s exponent values
from raw pressure measurements. Normal pressure to very low overpressure
wells were omitted in the Eaton fitting process.

Interpretation / February 2014 SB63

 origin of overpressure in this area is caused by a
combination of disequilibrium compaction and fluid
expansion.
Removing the fluid expansion components from the
overpressure considerably reduces the spatial variation
of the Eaton’s exponents. The individual Eaton’s expo-
nents range from one to five, and are highly variable
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
throughout the field (Figure 8a and 8b). In contrast,
Figure 9. An example of fitting Eaton’s exponent values
to disequilibrium compaction components. The predicted
pressures from derived Eaton’s exponent fit well with the
disequilibrium compaction components. The disequilibrium
compaction components are calculated by subtracting
the fluid expansion components to the raw pressure
measurements.
Figure 10. An example of gridded fluid expansion compo-
nents in formation 2B. The gridding methodology is the com-
bination of Delaunay triangulation and biharmonic spline
algorithm. The amount of fluid expansion increased toward
the southeast following a similar trend to the total amount
of overpressure.
SB64 Interpretation / February 2014
the individual modified Eaton’s exponents are con-
siderably less varied, and range only from 1 to 1.9
(Figure 8b). Figure 9 shows the results, for one exam-
ple, of removing the fluid expansion components from
the overpressure and fitting the modified Eaton’s expo-
nent afterward. The collective modified Eaton’s expo-
nent is 1.44. A constant value is more preferable for
calculating the disequilibrium compaction component
for the entire field, given the limited range of values.
The estimated fluid expansion components from
each well are gridded by formation as shown for the
example in Figure 10. The fluid expansion components
are predicted by interpolating grids and then combined
with the disequilibrium compaction values to generate
the final pore pressure prediction. Figure 11 shows an
example of pore pressure prediction from the sum of
two components (modified Eaton’s exponent and fluid
expansion gridding).
The parameters used in Bowers’ equation show lat-
eral variation between wells. The A and B parameters
do not vary much from well to well and the global
values are 5.56 and 0.84, respectively. Following the
unloading curve equation, individual U parameters de-
rived from each well shows significant variation from
0.3 to 18.33 (Table 1). The U parameter obtained from
collective well data regression is 2.20. Derived values
of V max and σ max from well to well are also highly
Figure 11. Examples of predicted pore pressure from the
modified Eaton and Bowers methods. Overall, the modified
Eaton method predicts the actual pressure data with less un-
certainty than the Bowers method.
 dispersed and show no obvious pattern in map view
than can be related to the geology. The collective re-
gressed values of V max and σ max are 3897 m∕s and
4340 psi, respectively and were applied as constants
in this study. Using parameters from individual well fits
instead of a collective fit was not suitable for prediction
purposes, consequently constant values from a collec-
tive fit of A, B, U, and σ max are used in this study to pre-
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
suggests that for combined overpressure mechanisms,
the velocity attribute is dominated by disequilibrium
compaction mechanism.
The prediction from this modified Eaton method
yields less uncertainty than the Bowers method. The
modified Eaton method uses the velocity attribute to
predict only the disequilibrium compaction compo-

nents, but the Bowers method attempts to predict

dict pore pressure using the Bowers method in
comparison to the modified Eaton method.
Predicted pore pressure from the Bowers method us-
ing the derived A, B, and U parameters are shown in
Figure 11. The relative errors between predicted results
and measured pressure data show that the modified Ea-
ton method yields less error in comparison to the
Bowers method (Figure 12). The modified Eaton
method has uncertainty ranging from 1.9% to 13.8% with
an average of 6.8%, whereas for the Bowers method
these values range between 3.1% and 22.6%, with an
average of 10.2%.
overpressure from both components. The relationship
between effective stress and velocity in the Bowers
equation is based on fitting the unloading curve
in the Bowers plot. Because the fluid expansion
mechanism is not the main controller of velocity attrib-
utes, the unloading curve usually becomes highly
variable and difficult to represent as a single trend
on the velocity-vertical effective stress plot. This im-
plies that a particular value of velocity could be
mapped with a wide range of effective stress values

Discussions Table 1. Derived Bowers parameters U, V max , and σ max

from individual well fit.
The maps of the maximum overpressure, individual
Eaton’s exponents, and gridded fluid expansion compo-
nents (Figures 3, 8a, and 10) have high correlations to Well No. U V max (m∕s) σ max (psi)
each other showing that the values increase to the
southwest, which is toward the center of the basin. 1 0.4551 3465 3281
The high variation of derived Eaton exponent occurs 3 0.1964 4652 5678
because disequilibrium compaction and fluid expansion 5 6.2589 3215 2801
are included in the regression process. In this case, the 6 0.9510 3393 3142
higher value of raw Eaton exponents toward the south- 7 0.9451 3234 2837
west arises from taking the greater amount of overpres- 8 0.9380 3058 2504
sure generated by fluid expansion toward the basin
13 6.4949 3359 3076
center.
The results prove the values of Eaton’s exponent 20 2.4594 3180 2733
converge from the range of 1–5 to 1–1.9 after removing 21 18.3329 3247 2862
the fluid expansion component. This observation sup- 22 0.5583 2719 1879
ports the assumption that the velocity decrease in 24 0.2985 3229 2827
the overpressure interval is primarily controlled by dis-
equilibrium compaction and to a minor extent by fluid
expansion processes. In the disequilib-
rium compaction scenario, pore pres-
sure absorbs additional overburden
stress and inhibits porosity reduction re-
sulting in a high porosity anomaly. The
high-porosity anomaly impedes the
increase of velocity as overpressure de-
velops. In contrast, a fluid expansion
mechanism cannot cause the high-
porosity anomaly because the compac-
tion process is irreversible. Fluid infla-
tion into normally compacted rocks
would not expand the pore space or
cause high-porosity anomaly. Fluid in-
flation into the rock could, nevertheless,
decrease the rock velocity by reducing Figure 12. The comparison of prediction errors from Bowers and modified
the force acting on the grain contacts Eaton methods. Generally, the modified Eaton method yields less prediction
(i.e., reducing the effective stress). This error than the Bowers method.

Interpretation / February 2014 SB65

 and ultimately yields large uncertainty in pore pres-
sure prediction.
In this data set, the modified Eaton method has a
weakness in predicting pore pressure in formation 2A
and below, which is the part of the pressure ramp
down. The main reason is that the velocity does not
merge with the NCT in the pressure reversal interval
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
(Figure 13). Instead, there is no change in the velocity
depth trend passing from the region of overpressure
into the region of pressure reversal to hydrostatic con-
ditions. One likely explanation is that the pore pressure
in formation 2A and below is drained off by formation 1,
which has moderate-to-high net-to-gross (sand-shale)
ratios. Thus, the reading of formation pressure tests
in sands could be lower than the real formation pres-
sure in shale. This modified Eaton method is meant
to predict formation pressure in shale and the predic-
tion would not match with the pressure measurements
if the pressure is bled off. In fact, any velocity-based
pore pressure prediction method would yield high un-
certainties in this pressure reversal interval.
It might be argued that mapping the fluid expansion
component around the basin is no improvement on
mapping variations in Eaton’s exponent. This is not
correct for several reasons. First, this modified method
Figure 13. An example of pressure and velocity relationships from one of the
well that has a pressure ramp down. In this data set, the velocity does not merge
with the NCT in the pressure ramp down interval. This is a main reason that the
modified Eaton method (and possibly most velocity-based pore pressure predic-
tion methods) becomes highly uncertain in formation 2A and below.
SB66 Interpretation / February 2014
reduces the prediction uncertainty by gridding only the
fluid expansion component, which contributes around
one-third of overpressure in this area, instead of gridd-
ing the whole overpressure. Second, by extracting
the fluid expansion component, we get closer to the
driving mechanism and so have the potential to add
geologic understanding to aid contouring of the fluid
expansion overpressure values. For example, if the
fluid expansion mechanism is related to hydrocarbon
generation or cracking, then there is a thermal control
on the mechanism. Consequently, the fluid expansion
overpressure contour pattern distribution would be
expected follow that of the geothermal gradient. It
is also expected that a relationship between tempera-
ture and fluid expansion magnitude could be de-
termined.
Conclusion
Overpressure data can be separated into disequilib-
rium compaction and fluid expansion components us-
ing a velocity-vertical effective stress plot and these
components were predicted separately. By removing
the fluid expansion components from the raw overpres-
sure data set, the spatial variation of Eaton exponents is
significantly reduced from the range of 1–5 to the range
of 1–1.9. An Eaton exponent of 1.44 is
used to predict the disequilibrium com-
paction curve. The fluid expansion com-
ponents are predicted from gridding of
the well data. The two components
are combined to provide a final pore
pressure prediction profile. The predic-
tion using this method yields less uncer-
tainty than the traditional Bowers
method.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank
PTTEP, Total, and British Gas for their
permission to publish this study. We
also appreciate useful and constructive
reviews from Karthikeyan G., Fernando
Ziegler, James Krushin, and the other
two anonymous reviewers.
References
Bachrach, R., S. Noeth, N. Banik, M. Sen-
gupta, G. Bunde, B. Flack, R. Utech, C.
Sayers, P. Hooyman, L. den Boer, L.
Leu, B. Toryer, and J. Moore, 2007,
From pore-pressure prediction to reser-
voir characterization: A combined geo-
mechanics-seismic inversion workflow
using trend-kriging techniques in a
deepwater basin: The Leading Edge,
26, 590–595.
Bell, D. W., 2002, Velocity estimation
for pore pressure prediction, in A. R.
 Huffman, and G. L. Bowers, eds., Pressure regimes in
sedimentary basins and their prediction: AAPG Memoir
76, 177–215.
Bowers, G. L., 1995, Pore pressure estimation from veloc-
ity data: Accounting for overpressure mechanisms be-
sides undercompaction: SPE drilling and completion:
SPE, 10, 89–95.
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Eaton, B. A., 1975, The equation for geopressure prediction
from well logs: SPE 5544.
Goulty, N. R., A. M. Ramdhan, and S. J. Jones, 2012, Chemi-
cal compaction of mudrocks in the presence of over-
pressure: Petroleum Geoscience, 18, 471–479.
Gutierrez, M. A., N. R. Braunsdorf, and B. A. Couzens, 2006,
Calibration and ranking of pore-pressure prediction
models: The Leading Edge, 25, 1516–1523.
Hall, R., and C. K. Morley, 2004, Sundaland basins,
in P. Clift, P. Wang, W. Kuhnt, and D. E. Hayes,
eds., Continent-ocean interactions within the east Asian
marginal seas: AGU Geophysical Monograph, 149,
55–85.
Hermanrud, C., L. Wensaas, G. M. G. Teige, E. Vik, H. M. N.
Bolas, and S. Hansen, 1998, Shale porosities from well
logs on Haltenbanken (offshore mid-Norway) show no
influence of overpressuring, in B. E. Law, G. F.
Ulmishek, and V. I. Slavin, eds., Abnormal pressures in
hydrocarbon environments: AAPG Memoir, 70, 65–85.
Jardine, E., 1997, Dual petroleum system governing the
prolific Pattani Basin, offshore Thailand: Preceedings
of the International Conference on Stratigraphy and
Tactonic Evolution of Southeast Asia and the South
Pacific, 525–534.
Leo, C. T. A., 1997, Exploration in the Gulf of Thailand in
deltaic reservoirs, related to the Bongkot field, in A. J.
Fraser, S. J. Matthews, and R. W. Murphy, eds., Petro-
leum geology of Southeast Asia: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication, 126, 77–87.
Limpornpipat, O., A. Laird, M. R. P. Tingay, C. K. Morley, C.
Kaewla, and H. Macintyre, 2012, Overpressures in the
northern Malay Basin: Part 2 — Implications for
pore-pressure prediction: Proceedings of the SPE,
International Petroleum Technology Conference, 4,
3278–3289.
Madon, M., P. Abolins, M. Jamaal Hoesni, and M. Bin Ah-
mad, 1999, Malay Basin, in Petronas, ed., The petro-
leum geology and hydrocarbon resources of Malaysia:
Kuala Lumpur, 173–217.
Morley, C. K., and A. Racey, 2011, Tertiary stratigraphy, in
M. F. Ridd, A. J. Barber, and M. J. Crow, eds., The
geology of Thailand: The Geological Society (London),
223–272.
Morley, C. K., and R. Westaway, 2006, Subsidence in the
super-deep Pattani and Malay basins of Southeast Asia:
A coupled model incorporating lower-crustal flow in re-
sponse to post-rift sediment loading: Basin Research,
19, 51–54.
Mouchet, J. P., and A. Mitchell, 1989, Abnormal pressures
while drilling: Elf Aquitaine, 255.
Nadeau, P. H., 2011, The 2010 George Brown Lecture,
Earth’s energy “Golden Zone”: A synthesis from miner-
alogical research: Clay Minerals, 46, 1–24.
O’Connor, S., R. Swarbrick, J. Hoesni, and R. Lahann, 2011,
Deep pore pressure prediction in challenging areas, Ma-
lay Basin, SE Asia: Proceedings, Indonesia Petroleum
Association, 35th Annual Convention and Exhibition,
IPA11-G022.
Osborne, M. J., and R. E. Swarbrick, 1997, Mechanisms
for generating overpressure in sedimentary basins: A
reevaluation: AAPG Bulletin, 81, 1023–1041.
Perry, E. A., and J. Hower, 1972, Late stage dehydration in
deeply buried politic sediments: AAPG Bulletin, 56,
2013–2021.
Sayers, C. M., 2006, An introduction to velocity-based
pore-pressure estimation: The Leading Edge, 25,
1496–1500.
Swarbrick, R. E., M. J. Osborne, and G. S. Yardley, 2002,
Comparison of overpressure magnitude resulting
from the main generating mechanism, in A. R. Huffman,
and G. L. Bowers, eds., Pressure regimes in sedimentary
basins and their production: AAPG Memoir, 76,
1–12.
Tingay, M., R. Hillis, R. Swarbrick, C. Morley, and A. Damit,
2007, “Vertically transferred” overpressures in Brunei:
Evidence for the formation of high magnitude overpres-
sures: Geology, 35, 1023–1026.
Tingay, M. R. P., R. R. Hillis, R. E. Swarbrick, C. K. Morley,
and A. R. Damit, 2009, Origin of overpressure and pore
pressure prediction in the Baram Delta Province, Bru-
nei: AAPG Bulletin, 93, 51–74.
Tingay, M. R. P., C. K. Morley, A. Laird, O. Limpornpipat, K.
Krisadasima, S. Pabchanda, and H. R. Macintyre, 2013,
Evidence for overpressure generation by Kerogen-
to-gas maturation in the northern Malay Basin: AAPG
Bulletin, 97, 637–672.
Krongrath Suwannasri received a
B.S. (Hons) (2011) in geophysics
and B.A. (Hons) (2011) in economics
from the University of Texas at
Austin. He joined PTTEP as a geo-
physicist in the Geophysics Depart-
ment. His research interests include
rock physics, reservoir characteriza-
tion, overpressure, and sequence
stratigraphy.
Wisit Promrak received a B.S.
(Hons) (2011) in geophysics from
the University of Texas at Austin.
He now works as a geophysicist for
PTT Exploration and Production.
His research interests include quanti-
tative interpretation, computational
method, and imaging.
Interpretation / February 2014 SB67
 Seehapol Utitsan received a B.S.
(2010) in geophysics from the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin. He worked as
a development geophysicist for the
Bongkot project, and currently is
working as an exploration geophysi-
cist for the Myanmar project.
Downloaded 08/15/18 to 171.66.10.117. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Vitoon Chaisomboonpan received a
B.S. (1998) in geology from the Chiang
Mai University and an M.S. (2001)
in petroleum geosciences from the
University of Brunei Darussalam. He
joined PTTEP in 1998 and has been
working in many exploration and
development projects. He is now a geo-
physics manager of the Bongkot field.
Rob Groot received an M.S. (2001) in
geology with a specialization in geo-
physics from Utrecht University. He
joined Elf in the Netherlands as an ex-
ploration geoscientist in 1992 and left
on international assignment to Paris
(new ventures) in 1997. He then went
on to different responsibilities in Total
Angola, Total Indonesie, the Total
new venture group in Paris. Last, Total Thailand assigned
him to the PTTEP Bongkot asset team where he played
the role of exploration team leader. He is currently back
SB68 Interpretation / February 2014
View publication stats
in the Total head office in Paris where he coordinates
the exploration work program for the different American
subsidiaries.
Helge Ivar Sognnes received an M.S.
(1993) in geophysics and an M.S.
(2001) in reservoir geophysics from
the University of Bergen. He is work-
ing on quantitative interpretation stud-
ies in the Geophysics Department at
PTTEP, and has previously worked
for PGS, Statoil, and Wintershall. He
is a member of SEG and TSEG.
Chris Morley received a degree
(1980) from Swansea University and
a Ph.D. (1983), after working for
Amoco, Elf Aquitaine, and the Univer-
sity of Brunei Darussalam. He is cur-
rently working for PTTEP as a senior
geophysicist. He has worked as an ex-
ploration geologist and as a structural
geologist. Geographic areas of work
have included east Africa, Morocco, the Norwegian Caledo-
nides, Carpathians, northwest Borneo, and Thailand. His re-
search interests include the structure and tectonics of rifts,
fold, and thrust belt structural styles, the characteristics of
transpressional deformation, and the evolution, fault dis-
placement characteristics, the structural geology of mobile
shale provinces, overpressure, and neotectonics in basins.