Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine and Petroleum Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo

Research paper

Prediction of pore pressure and fracture pressure in Cauvery and

Krishna-Godavari basins, India
Sumangal Dasgupta a, Rima Chatterjee b, Sarada Prasad Mohanty a, *
a
Department of Applied Geology, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 826004, India
b
Department of Applied Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 826004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geoscientific data from several wells drilled in onshore and offshore parts of the Cauvery and Krishna-
Received 25 March 2016 Godavari basins, two main hydrocarbon producing basins located in the east coast of India, have been
Received in revised form used to determine pore pressures and fracture pressures in the subsurface formations. We have esti-
19 September 2016
mated pore pressure based on Zhang's porosity model. Variations of normal compaction curves across
Accepted 3 October 2016
Available online 5 October 2016
the basins are demonstrated here. This study also proposes simple relationships among the parameters
used in Eaton's equation for estimating the fracture pressure. Relations established based on the available
data in this current study are compressional and shear sonic velocities against bulk density, Poisson's
Keywords:
Pore pressure
ratio against depth, and the overburden stress against depth. These empirical relationships can be used
Sonic velocity to predict fracture gradient for the future drilling locations in these basins. The pore pressure in Cauvery
Bulk density basin is shown to be almost hydrostatic in nature, which is due to normal sedimentation rate. High
Compaction curve sedimentation rate in the Miocene section of the KG basin is found to be the main reason for over-
Poisson's ratio pressure development.
Petroleum system © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction measurement data is not available (Law and Spencer, 1998; Ruth
et al., 2002). Fracture pressure is defined as the optimum pres-
Pore pressure (the fluid pressure in the pore spaces of the sure at which new fractures develop in a rock formation. Fracture
subsurface formation) and fracture gradient are two important gradient is calculated by dividing the fracture pressure by true
aspects to be considered in hydrocarbon exploration and devel- vertical depth (Zhang, 2011). Fracture pressure can be obtained
opment scenarios for safety, cost effectiveness and the efficiency of directly from leak-off test (LOT). Knowledge of fracture gradient is
the overall drilling programme (Jayasinghe et al., 2014). Hydrostatic essential in mud designing, cementing, matrix and fracture acid-
pressure (normal pore pressure) exerted by a static column of fluid izing, hydraulic fracturing, and fluid injection in secondary recov-
varies according to the density of the fluid (Osborne and Swarbrick, ery (Eaton, 1969). Drilling induced fractures happen when the
1997). Pore pressure above or below the hydrostatic pressure is pressure due to the mud weight exceeds the fracture pressure at a
considered to be abnormal pressure. Abnormally high pore pres- given depth and results into mud loss from the well bore into the
sure may result in a drilling hazard if the precautionary measures induced fractures (Zhang, 2011; Kankanamge, 2013). Lost circula-
are not taken care. Prediction of pore pressure is essential in well tion during drilling is a troublesome and expensive problem (Eaton,
planning, selection of casing point, drilling cost, safety, drilling 1969).
procedures, and completions (Law and Spencer, 1998; Ruth et al., The main objectives of the study are: (a) to demonstrate the
2002). The most reliable and direct pressure measurement can be occurrences and magnitudes of overpressures in several strati-
obtained mainly from the drill stem test (DST), modular dynamic graphic formations across the Cauvery and Krishna Godavari (KG)
test (MDT), and repeat formation test (RFT). Mud weight (MW) can basins, east coast of India, (b) to show the effect of pore pressure on
be used as a proxy for the pore pressure where direct pressure the porosity and to suggest calibrated normal compaction trends,
(c) to identify the top of overpressure zones and its variation across
the basins and (d) to establish empirical relationships to estimate
* Corresponding author. the vertical stress and the minimum horizontal stress for these
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Dasgupta), [email protected] basins.
(R. Chatterjee), [email protected] (S.P. Mohanty).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.10.004
0264-8172/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
494 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

It is a common phenomenon that porosity decreases exponen- period (Jafer, 1996; Phaye et al., 2011). Cauvery basin has 6 major
tially with increase in depth in any sedimentary sequence in case of sub-basins namely Ariyalur-Pondicherry, Tranqueber, Nagapatti-
normal compaction. The results of under-compaction are higher nam, Tanjore, Ramnad-Palk bay and Gulf of Mannar (Fig. 1). Gulf of
pore pressure and more porosity than that of normally compacted Mannar is the southernmost part of the Cauvery basin and is
sediments (Zhang, 2011). The starting depth of the porosity reversal outside the map area. The major horsts, which separate these sub-
is known as top of overpressure zone or top of the under- basins, are Kumbakonam-Madanam-Portonovo high, Pattukottai-
compaction. Several pore pressure prediction models available Mannargudi-Vedaranyam-Karaikal high and Mandapam-Delft
(cf. Heppard et al., 1998; Flemings et al., 2002; Holbrook et al., high (Phaye et al., 2011). NE-SW trending major horsts and gra-
2005) consider porosity-dependent effective stress relationship. bens formed during the rifting phase. Total sediment fill is about
Porosity model (Zhang, 2011) is applied here to estimate the pore 5e6 km in the Cauvery basin (Srikant and Shanmugam, 2014).
pressure (described in Section 5.1). This model also proposes Sedimentation during the early rifting stage in the Cauvery
porosity as a function of effective stress and pore pressure, partic- basin is marked by the deposition of fluvial coars clastics in Late
ularly for the overpressure generated by under-compaction and Jurassic/Early Cretaceous period. Marine influence increased during
hydrocarbon-cracking (Zhang, 2011). the late syn-rift stage with the deposition of fine clastics (Paranjape
Formation will fracture when the pressure in the borehole ex- et al., 2014). Middle to late Cretaceous post-rift marine mixed sili-
ceeds the minimum in-situ stress within the rock. The fracture will ciclastic and carbonate sequences are recorded in the basin
propagate in a direction perpendicular to the minimum principal (Paranjape et al., 2014). Rate of sedimentation during the rifting
stress. Minimum stress refers to the minimum principal in-situ period is reported to be about 50 m/m.y. (Ramani et al., 2000).
stress and is generally equal to the fracture closure pressure.
Thus, it measures the lower bound of the fracture gradient. 2.2. The KG basin
Therefore, the minimum stress method (Zhang, 2011) is applied
here for estimating the fracture gradient using the wireline log The KG basin is located in the central part of the east coast of
data. India. This basin covers an area of approximately 100,000 sq km
Besides pore pressure, other parameters required to estimate (Bastia, 2004) spanning in both onshore and offshore. Around
the fracture gradient are Poisson's ratio and overburden stress 5e7 km of sediment column, ranging in age from Permo-
(described in Section 5.2). Density, compressional and shear sonic Carboniferous to Recent, is identified in the KG basin. This basin
logs from drilled wells are required to estimate Poisson's ratio and was a major intracratonic rift within Gondwanaland until Early
overburden stress. This work attempts to generate basinwide Jurassic (Husain et al., 2000; Rao, 2001). The oldest sedimentary
empirical relations so that the above parameters can be estimated sequence in this basin is classified as pre-rift fill which is Permo-
even there where the full set of data is not available. Therefore, Carboniferous in age. Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous period
these relations can be used as predictive tools to estimate the marks the syn-rift phase of the basin (Prasad et al., 2008; Padhy
fracture pressures in these basins. et al., 2013). During this time the NE-SW trending horsts and
We have analysed 26 exploratory wells (10 wells from the graben systems (Fig. 2) formed due to extensional faulting (Prasad
Cauvery and 16 wells from the KG Basins) to estimate pore pressure et al., 2008). Syn-rift system is mainly characterized by fluvio-
and fracture pressure, and correlate these parameters with the lacustrine depositional environment. The first definite marine
observed values acquired during the well operations. These wells transgression occurred during Aptian (Husain et al., 2000). The post
are distributed across the basins (Figs. 1 and 2) and many of them rift and drift phase commenced from Late Cretaceous (Prasad et al.,
terminated in the basement. These data provide opportunity to 2008). Indian plate moved rapidly towards north with a counter
analyse both lateral and vertical variations in petrophysical prop- clockwise rotation and collided with the Eurasian plate during Late
erties of rocks in these two basins. Geoscientific and engineering Eocene (Srivastava and Chowhan, 1987). Major delta progradation
data, such as wireline log suite, litholog, LOT, DST, MDT, and MW started due to the uplift of the hinterland. During Miocene, hard
maintained during drilling, were used during the course of this collision of India-Eurasia forming the Himalayan Orogen resulted in
study. All the analyses were carried out for the two basins sepa- rapid sedimentation in the basin. Rate of sedimentation during
rately. The results presented here provide acceptable estimates Upper Cretaceous to Miocene is reported as 70e125 m/m.y. in the
from the available data in a short time. KG basin (Rao and Mani, 1993; Raju et al., 1994; Anitha et al., 2014).

2. Tectonics and sedimentation 3. Petroleum system

The Cauvery and KG basins are located in the east coast of India Oil and gas are being produced from number of fields, both
(Figs. 1 and 2). These are well known as prolific oil and gas pro- onshore and offshore, in the Cauvery and KG basins. Several source
ducers. The gneiss and granites of Archaean age form the basement and reservoir rocks of various geological ages are proven in these
of the sedimentary rocks in both the basins. These basins developed basins.
during the separation of Antarctica from India at the time of break-
up of the Gondwanaland. The histories of evolution of these basins 3.1. The Cauvery basin
are quite similar. However, the sedimentation patterns over time
differ from each other. Multiple petroleum systems of both Cretaceous and Tertiary
ages are proven in onland and offshore parts of the Cauvery basin.
2.1. The Cauvery basin Albian-Aptian shale deposited during syn-rift stage under mixed
environment of both continental as well as marine is considered to
The Cauvery basin is the southernmost basin in east coast of be the main source rock in the Cauvery basin (Husain et al., 2000).
India. This basin covers an area of about 25,000 sq km onland and Post rift shales deposited during Late Cretaceous act as secondary
30,000 sq km in the offshore area (Phaye et al., 2011). This basin is sources. The main reservoir, Upper Cretaceous Nannilam sands
classified as pericratonic rift basin (Sastri et al., 1981; Biswas et al., (Husain et al., 2000), were deposited under marine environment
1993; Chari et al., 1995; Biswas, 2012), formed due to the frag- (Avadhani et al., 2006; Srikant and Shanmugam, 2014). Campanian
mentation of Gondwanaland during Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous fans in offshore part of the basin are also proven to be hydrocarbon
 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506 495

Fig. 1. Location map of the Cauvery basin showing regional trend of major tectonic features along with the locations of the drilled wells used for analysis. Inset: Location in the
outline map of India (modified after GCA, 2008; DGH, 2009).

producing reservoir (Hardy, 2010). Early Upper Cretaceous Bhuva- type-II and III kerogens (Husain et al., 2000; Prasad et al., 2008).
nagiri (Phaye et al., 2011) and Early Cretaceous syn-rift Andimadam Transgressive and high stand sands are the main reservoirs in this
sands are the other two Cretaceous reservoirs in the basin. Fluvio- petroleum system. Paleocene shale, rich in type-III kerogen and
deltaic Kamalapuram sands of Eocene e Paleocene age and Oligo- Late Eocene/Early Miocene shales, a mix of type-III and II kerogens
cene Niravi sands are two major proven Tertiary reservoirs in are the main source rocks in Tertiary petroleum system (Venkanna
Cauvery basin (Avadhani et al., 2006). Hydrocarbon is also discov- et al., 2000). Clastic reservoirs of fluvial, deltaic, shoreface, low-
ered in fractured basement in offshore part of the basin (Sircar, stand fans etc ranging in age from Eocene to Pliocene are the
2004; Chandrasekhar et al., 2015). proven reservoirs in this petroleum system. Plio-Pleistocene in the
deeper water is the youngest petroleum system in the KG basin.
3.2. The KG basin Huge volume of biogenic gas is reported from this petroleum
system.
Several petroleum systems have been proven in the KG basin.
Pre-rift Permo-Carboniferous petroleum system is dominated by 4. Pore pressure
gas and condensates. Permian coal and carbonaceous shale are
proven to be the source rock for this petroleum system (Prasad The terms overpressure and underpressure refer to the absolute
et al., 2008). Mainly fluvial sandstones are the proven reservoirs values above and below the hydrostatic pressure respectively, at
in this petroleum system. Discoveries from the Late Jurassic e Early the depth of investigation (Barker, 1972; Bradley, 1975; Fertl, 1976;
Cretaceous syn-rift sequences proved gas, condensates as well as Carstens and Dypvik, 1981; Walls et al., 1982; Mudford, 1988; Hunt,
oil in onland and offshore areas in the basin. Early Cretaceous syn- 1990). Abnormal pore pressures are observed in many sedimentary
rift shales are oil prone source rocks (Rao, 2001). basins around the globe (Osborne and Swarbrick, 1997; Xie et al.,
Late Cretaceous Petroleum system has a proven source rock of 2001; Zahid and Uddin, 2005; Tingay et al., 2009). Globally mag-
Cenomanian to Campania age transgressive shale which is a mix of nitudes of overpressures are classified as mild (11.5e14.0 MPa/km),
496 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

Fig. 2. Location map of the KG basin showing regional trend of major tectonic features along with the locations of the drilled wells used for analysis. Inset: Location in the outline
map of India (modified after Murthy et al., 2011; Kamaraju et al., 2008).

moderate (14.0e17.0 MPa/km) and high (>17.0 MPa/km) (Tingay 4.2. The KG basin
et al., 2013). High rate of sedimentation is considered to be one of
the main reasons for generation of overpressure as it does not allow Overpressures of different magnitudes and nature are observed
efficient expulsion of the pore fluid with burial and compaction in different stratigraphic levels like Lower Cretaceous, Upper
(Osborne and Swarbrick, 1997). Overpressure commonly occurs Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene and Miocene sequences (Rao and
where sedimentation rate exceeds 100 m/m.y. with mudstone (low Mani, 1993; Kumar et al., 2006). The disequilibrium compaction
permeable fine grained sediments) content more than 85%, such as due to fast rate of sedimentation is attributed to the main reason for
Cenozoic Gulf of Mexico, and Baram Delta of Brunei (Bethke, 1986). such overpressure generation (Rao and Mani, 1993; Singha and
The patterns/characters of pore pressure in the Cauvery and KG Chatterjee, 2014). The rate of sedimentation in KG basin is esti-
basins are quite different from each other. Mild to high - a wide mated to vary between 70 and 125 m/m.y. (Rao and Mani, 1993).
range of pore pressure are reported in both onshore and offshore Sedimentation rate was maximum during Eocene to Miocene time
wells in the KG basin (Kumar et al., 2006; Chatterjee et al., 2011, (100e125 m/m.y.) due to the upliftment of hinterland for the Hi-
2015; Singha and Chatterjee, 2014). These overpressures create malayan orogeny and subsequent erosion.
huge challenges in drilling the wells. Many reasons like disequi- The observed pore pressure gradient in the wells based on the
librium compaction, gas expansion are attributed to such abnormal current dataset varies from 11 MPa/km to nearly 18 MPa/km. The
pressures in KG basin (Dasgupta et al., 2016). Pore pressures are top of overpressure zones demonstrate a large variation in depth
quite normal in Cauvery basin (Advanced Resources International from 2200 to 3000 m.
Inc, 2013; Srikant and Shanmugam, 2014). Rather mild sub-
hydrostatic pressures are also reported in few wells which resul- 5. Methodology
ted in minor mud loss.
The methodology applied here aims to suggest new empirical
4.1. The Cauvery basin relationships for normal compaction trends, vertical or overburden
stress, Poisson's ratio, compressional and shear wave velocities
Pore pressure study on the Ramnad sub-basin demonstrate against bulk density and minimum horizontal stress in the Cauvery
normal pressure regime. D-exponent, sigma logs with shale and KG basins, so that it will be helpful in future exploration ac-
compaction models using resistivity and sonic logs e all infer a tivities. An attempt has been made to estimate both pore pressure
normal pore pressure gradient in this region (Srikant and and fracture pressure, and to show the variation of magnitudes of
Shanmugam, 2014). Normal hydrostatic pressure regime is re- overpressure in different stratigraphic formations across these
ported in a recent assessment of shale gas and oil resource of the basins. The methodology followed is described in detail in this
Cauvery basin (Advanced Resources International Inc., 2013). section.
The current dataset demonstrate a pore pressure range up to
11 MPa/km. Relatively slow rate of sedimentation may be the main 5.1. Estimation of pore pressure
reason for the absence of overpressure in this region. Sedimenta-
tion rate during the rifting period is reported to be about 50 m/m.y. As discussed previously, under-compaction results in higher
(Ramani et al., 2000). pore pressure and more porosity than that of normally compacted
 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506 497

Fig. 3. Normal compaction curve using wells W-19, 24 and 26.

sediments. The current study attempted porosity model (Zhang, Porosity decreases exponentially with increase in depth under
2011) for estimating the pore pressure using the equation: the normal compaction condition (Zhang, 2013). The general rela-
tionship of normal compaction trend of porosity is expressed in the
Pp ¼ sv  ðsv  pn Þ½ðlnf0  lnfÞ=ðCn ZÞ (1) following equation (Athy, 1930; Mondol et al., 2007):

where Pp is the pore pressure at depth z, sv is the overburden stress,

fn ¼ f0 eCn Z (2)
pn is normal pressure or hydrostatic pressure, f0 is the porosity in
the sea floor or ground surface, f is the porosity in shale at depth Z The above relationship (Equation (2)) is used for determining
and Cn is the normal compaction constant which can be obtained the normal compaction curve in the current study. The value of
from trend line of normal compaction porosity of shale. compaction constant “Cn” and porosity at the surface “f0” are

Fig. 4. Estimated pore pressure at W-23.

498 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

Fig. 5. Normal compaction curve using wells W-11, 14, and 15.

proposed and calibrated as per the current dataset in the basins. fn Porosity is calculated from the compressional sonic (DTCO) data
is the porosity under normal compaction condition. acquired in the well using the equation:
Standard value of 10 MPa/km is considered for the hydrostatic
.

pressure gradient. Thus Pn is calculated by multiplying the gradient f ¼ DTlog  DTma DTf  DTma (4)
with vertical depth. sv is estimated using a method described by
Plumb et al. (1991) (cf. Equation (17)).
where f is the porosity, DTlog is sonic value measured from the well
Volume of shale (Vsh) is calculated from gamma ray log (GR)
log, DTma and DTf are the sonic values of the matrix and fluid
using the equation:
respectively. Sonic porosity must be calibrated to approximate the

. density derived shale porosity in normally pressured sediments to
Vsh ¼ GRlog  GRmin ðGRmax  GRmin Þ (3) compare the sonic and density log response to overpressure
(Tingay et al., 2009). DTma is obtained from the cross plot of DTCO
where GRlog is obtained from well log, GRmin and GRmax are the for the normal pressured shale and the corresponding porosity
minimum and maximum GR in a stratigraphic sequence obtained obtained from density data.
from the log data. Lithology and cutting sample data are also used 10 wells are used to estimate the pore pressure in Cauvery basin
to calibrate the calculated Vsh. High cut off (80%) of Vsh is applied in the current study. Porosity is calculated from the normal pres-
to wells logs to extract only the shales to minimize the effect of sured shales in wells W19, 24 and 26. DTma is obtained as about
lithology changes. 70 ms/ft by the extrapolated sonic transit time against zero porosity

Fig. 6. Estimated pore pressure at W-16.

 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506 499

Fig. 7. Normal compaction curve using wells W-1, 3, 6.

of shale (method from Hansen, 1996). Standard value of 189 ms/ft normal compaction trends are, therefore, constructed using nearby
for the freshwater mud system was used for DTf (Schlumberger, wells. Broadly 3 different normal compaction trends are proposed
1989). The normal compaction trend (Fig. 3) is established using based on the current dataset. These exponential normal porosity
this shale compaction curve and the relationship is obtained as trends are used to analyse the overpressure zones in Lower Creta-
follows: ceous, Upper Cretaceous and Miocene sequences.
Porosity is calculated from the normal pressured shales in
fn ¼ 0:9e0:0008Z (5) wells W-11, 14, 15 to define the normal compaction trend for
Lower Cretaceous sequence in eastern part of the KG basin. DTma
Comparing Equation (5) with the normal compaction trend of is obtained as 78 ms/ft. Standard value of 189 ms/ft was used
Equation (2), the compaction constant Cn is correlated as 0.0008 for DTf (Dasgupta et al., 2016). The normal compaction trend
and the porosity at the surface as 0.9. Equation (1) is used to esti- (Fig. 5) is obtained from the sonic porosity against depth plot as
mate the pore pressure at the nearby wells as demonstrated as an follows:
example in Fig. 4 for drilled location W-23.
16 wells spanning in both onland and shallow offshore with
fn ¼ 0:8e0:0008Z (6)
maximum stratigraphic penetration are used to estimate the pore
pressure in the KG basin. As discussed earlier, wide variation of pore The exponential relation from the best fit line resembles Athy
pressure is experienced in various parts of the KG basin. Different (1930) compaction trend as described in Equation (2). Therefore,

Fig. 8. Estimated pore pressure at W-6.

500 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

Fig. 9. Normal compaction curve using wells W-8, 9 and 10.

the compaction constant c is estimated as 0.0008 and the porosity A normal compaction trend (Fig. 9) for Miocene is obtained
at the sea bed is obtained as 0.8. using wells W-8, 9 and 10 in the offshore part of the basin (Fig. 1).
Equation (1) is used to estimate the pore pressure at the nearby
wells as demonstrated as an example in Fig. 6 for drilled location fn ¼ 0:9e0:0005Z (8)
W-16.
Pore pressure is estimated (Fig. 10) using Equation (1) with Cn as
Similarly, another normal compaction curve (Fig. 7) is obtained
0.0005 and f0 as 0.9 for well W-10.
considering nearby onland wells W-1, 3 and 6 for the Upper
Cretaceous sequence. The relationship is established as follows:
5.2. Estimation of fracture pressure
0:0009Z
fn ¼ 0:7e (7)
The current study was undertaken to estimate fracture pres-
Equation (1) is used to estimate the pore pressure at other sures in the Cauvery and KG basins. Drilled well data from the
nearby onland wells as demonstrated in Fig. 8 for drilled location basins were used in this purpose.
W-6. The minimum stress method (Zhang, 2011), similar to the

Fig. 10. Estimated pore pressure at W-10.

 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506 501

Fig. 11. (a) Poisson's ratio vs. depth plot for the Cauvery Basin (b) Poisson's ratio vs. depth plot for the KG basin.

methods proposed by Hubbert and Willis (1957), Eaton (1969) and

Daines (1982) is applied here for estimating the fracture gradient.
w ¼ 0:233*ðzÞ0:053 for the Cauvery basin (11)

w , and
smin ¼ ðsv  rÞ þ r (9)
1w

where smin is the minimum in-situ stress, w is the Poisson's ratio, sv w ¼ 1:33*ðzÞ0:176 for the KG basin (12)
is the overburden stress and r is the pore pressure.
Poisson's ratio (w) is calculated using the compressional (Vp) and where z is the true vertical depth in meters below sea level. The
shear (Vs) velocities acquired in the individual well using the coefficient of determination R2 for the above two equations are
following equation: found to be 0.56 and 0.62, respectively.
Moreover, Vp (m/sec) of all the wells of the Cauvery and KG
 2 basins were sampled considering average value in every 5 m in-
1  terval plotted against the density log RHOB (g/cc) with same
2 Vp V 1
s sampling interval and the following relationship were obtained
w¼  2 (10)
 (Fig. 12a and b):
Vp V 1
s

However, the Poisson's ratio calculated from Vp and Vs could not Vp ¼ 412:64ðRHOBÞ2:4386 for the Cauvery basin (13)
be calibrated to core derived Poisson's ratio as core data was not
available. Compressional sonic DTCO (Vp) log was available in 14 , and
wells of the KG basin and 9 wells of the Cauvery Basin in the current
dataset. However, shear velocity log DTS (Vs) was acquired in 6
Vp ¼ 525:68ðRHOBÞ1:993 for the KG basin (14)
wells of the basin and 4 wells of the Cauvery basin in the dataset of
2
current study. The coefficient of determination R for the above two equations
Poisson's ratio data are plotted against vertical depth (m) are obtained as 0.55 and 0.58, respectively.
separately for the two basins and relations are analysed (Fig. 11a Similarly, Vs (m/sec) of all the wells of the Cauvery and KG basins
and b). The effect of water column is removed by subtracting the were sampled considering average value in every 5 m interval
water depth from the true vertical depths in case of the deep water plotted against the density log RHOB (g/cc) with same sampling
wells. The relation obtained between the Poisson's ratio and depth interval and the following relationship were obtained (Fig. 13a and
is as follows: b):
502 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

Fig. 13. (a) Bulk density (RHOB) vs. shear sonic velocity (Vs) for the Cauvery basin (b)
Bulk density (RHOB) vs. shear sonic velocity (Vs) for the KG basin.

Vs ¼ 110:51ðRHOBÞ3:0991 for the Cauvery basin (15)

, and
Fig. 12. (a) Bulk density (RHOB) vs. compressional sonic velocity (Vp) for the Cauvery
basin (b) Bulk density (RHOB) vs. compressional sonic velocity (Vp) for the KG basin.
Vs ¼ 63:646ðRHOBÞ3:555 for the KG basin (16)
The coefficient of determination R2 for the above two equations
are obtained as 0.52 and 0.66, respectively.
 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506 503

Poisson's ratio is estimated using these above relations also.

Minor difference in Poisson's ratio is observed between the esti- Zz
mation from the depth relation (Equations (11) and (12)) and the sv ¼ rz g dz (17)
estimation from bulk density (RHOB) relationship (Equations 0
(13)e(16)). This will be shown later in Table 2.
The pore pressures of individual wells were taken from the where rz is the bulk density of the overlying rock column at a given
measured data such as DST and wireline formation test (WFT) like vertical depth z, and g is acceleration due to gravity.
MDT. Estimated pore pressure is used in case where no direct The following two relations for the overburden gradient are
measurement of pore pressure available. Minor overbalanced mud established from the current set of data for both the basins. The
was used in most of the wells. Therefore, mud weight is also data plots are shown in Fig. 14a and b for the Cauvery and KG basins,
considered to be equal to the pore pressure in absence of any direct respectively.
measurement. Mud weight is commonly used as a proxy for pore
pressure because mud weight is commonly kept slightly in excess sv ¼ 0:0052ðzÞ1:1948 for the Cauvery basin (18)
of pore pressure to prevent an influx of formation fluids into the
wellbore while maximizing the rate of penetration (Mouchet and , and
Mitchell, 1989).
Vertical stress or overburden stress (sv) is the combined weight sv ¼ 0:0093ðzÞ1:1216 for the KG basin (19)
of the overlying rock and the fluids at a specific depth. The most
reliable estimation of the overburden stress can be done using where sv is the overburden stress in MPa, z is the true vertical
density log. The vertical stress or overburden stress (sv) at a specific depth in meters below sea level. Both the equations have a R2 value
depth is calculated integrating the density log (Plumb et al., 1991): of 0.99.

Fig. 14. (a) Overburden stress vs. depth plot for the Cauvery basin (b) Overburden stress vs. depth plot for the KG basin.
504 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

Table 1
Predicted and measured pore pressures in the drilled wells in Cauvery and KG basins.

Basin Well Depth (m) Predicted pore pressure (MPa) (A) Measured pore pressure (MPa) (B) Source of pore pressure data Error (B-A) Standard deviation of error

Cauvery W-24 1227.00 12.40 12.52 MW 0.12 0.47

2062.00 22.06 22.02 MW 0.04
W-23 1960.80 20.30 20.16 MDT 0.14
2272.73 22.90 22.88 MDT 0.02
2354.12 23.55 23.64 MDT 0.09
W-19 1513.27 15.50 16.74 MW 1.24
2706.27 29.90 30.21 MW 0.31
KG W-6 2183.33 25.00 24.23 MDT 0.77 0.98
2500.00 30.35 30.70 MDT 0.35
2711.11 36.23 35.49 MDT 0.74
W-15 3443.60 60.90 59.93 MDT 0.97
3524.82 63.07 62.19 MDT 0.88
3681.78 65.07 64.95 MDT 0.12
W-16 2721.70 36.74 36.27 MDT 0.47
3248.87 47.80 45.99 MDT 1.81
3394.98 49.70 48.06 MDT 1.64
4017.59 65.06 65.00 MDT 0.06
4427.08 77.40 78.47 MDT 1.07
4498.90 78.37 79.43 MDT 1.06
4852.21 78.83 79.95 MDT 1.12
W-10 1300.00 12.10 12.80 MW 0.70
2865.00 28.51 29.90 MW 1.39
3000.00 31.74 32.20 MDT 0.46
3800.00 54.77 54.16 MDT 0.61
W-9 1970.00 21.20 22.00 MW 0.80

6. Results 13.4 MPa/km. The Miocene formation from the offshore wells
located in the SE corner of the KG basin suggests a moderate
The current dataset of Cauvery basin does not show any devel- overpressure development of 14.3 MPa/km. In order to capture this
opment of overpressure zones. The pore pressure gradient is variation, 3 different normal compaction trends (Equations (6)e(8))
observed to be in the range of 10e11 MPa/km, which suggests the are obtained for Lower Cretaceous, Upper Cretaceous and Miocene
hydrostatic pressure regime. Therefore, only one general normal sequences in the basin based on 16 well data in this basin.
compaction curve (Equation (5)) is proposed for this basin. On the A reasonably good fit is obtained between the estimated and the
other hand, wide variability in pore pressure, both in terms of observed pore pressures in the drilled wells. The current database
magnitude and stratigraphy, are observed in the KG basin. The contains measured pore pressure data of 3 wells in Cauvery and 5
Lower Cretaceous syn-rift section from the wells of the eastern part wells in KG basin. The detail data of these 8 wells together are
of the basin shows the very high pore pressure development. The presented in Table 1.
pore pressure gradient is observed as high as 18 MPa/km. The Fracture pressures were estimated using Equation (9) for each
Upper Cretaceous formations from the onland wells show a mild well separately and compared with the observed LOT data recorded
development of pore pressure with a maximum gradient of in the respective well. The Poisson's ratio was calculated in two

Table 2
Detail information of modelled and actual LOT pressures obtained from few wells of the Cauvery and KG basins.

Basin Well Depth RHOB Vp (m/ Vs (m/ PR estimated from RHOB- PR estimated from OBG Pore pressure Process 1: Estimation Process 2: Estimation
name (m) (g/cc) s) s) Vp and RHOB-Vs relation Depth-PR relation (MPa/ gradient (MPa/ of FG and FP using PR of FG and FP using PR
km) km) derived from RHOB-Vp derived from Depth-PR
and RHOB-Vs relations relations

Modelled Modelled Modelled Modelled

FG (MPa/ FP (MPa) FG (MPa/ FP (MPa)
km) km)

Cauvery W-25 190.0 N.A N.A N.A N.A 0.31 14.1 10.0 N.A N.A 11.8 2.25
W-25 1227.0 2.35 3314.8 1560.9 0.37 0.34 20.1 10.0 15.6 19.16 15.2 18.64
W-23 1289.6 2.30 3145.4 1460.3 0.36 0.34 20.3 10.0 15.8 20.44 15.3 19.74
W-23 2470.7 2.40 3489.4 1666.2 0.35 0.35 22.9 10.0 17.0 42.10 17.1 42.12
W-18 1677.0 N.A N.A N.A N.A 0.35 21.3 10.0 N.A N.A 16.0 26.78
W-18 3042.3 2.47 3742.8 1821.4 0.34 0.36 23.9 11.0 17.8 54.07 18.1 55.15
KG W-16 2177.0 2.42 3060 1473.1 0.35 0.34 23.7 11.0 17.8 38.75 17.6 38.41
W-16 4011.0 2.63 3612 1980.2 0.29 0.31 25.5 16.0 19.8 79.38 20.2 81.21
W-6 1763.0 2.35 2886 1327.1 0.37 0.36 23.1 10.5 17.8 31.31 17.5 30.82
W-6 2002.7 2.38 2960 1388.4 0.36 0.35 23.4 11.0 18.0 35.98 17.7 35.38
W-6 2324.0 2.56 3423 1799.1 0.31 0.34 23.9 11.0 16.8 38.94 17.6 41.97
W-10 1685.0 2.03 2156 788.7 0.42 0.39 18 10.5 16.0 26.95 15.2 25.62
W-10 2690.0 2.33 2837 1287.4 0.37 0.34 20.8 11.0 16.8 45.16 16.2 43.53
W-10 3600.0 2.46 3161 1561.5 0.34 0.32 22.4 14.0 18.3 65.94 18.0 64.95

RHOB ¼ Bulk density; PR¼ Poisson's ratio; OBG¼ Overburden gradient; FG¼ Fracture gradient; FP ¼ Fracture pressure; OBG calculated considering the correction for the water
depth of 550 m in W-10.
 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506 505

Table 3
Estimation of accuracy of the modelled fracture pressure with respect to the measured data obtained from the drilled well.

Basin Well Process-1: PR estimated from Process-2: PR estimated from Actual LOT pressure from Process 1 Process 2
name RHOB-Sonic relations Depth-PR relation well data (MPa) (c)

Modelled FP (MPa) (a) Modelled FP (MPa) (b) Observed Standard Observed Standard
error (c-a) deviation of error (c-b) deviation of
error error

Cauvery W-25 N.A 2.25 2.3 1.38 0.05 0.67

W-25 19.16 18.64 18.0 1.16 0.64
W-23 20.44 19.74 19.1 1.34 0.64
W-23 42.10 42.12 42.3 0.20 0.18
W-18 N.A 26.78 25.5 1.28
W-18 54.07 55.15 55.7 1.63 0.55
KG W-16 38.75 38.41 38.0 0.75 0.99 0.41 1.01
W-16 79.38 81.21 80.2 0.82 1.01
W-6 31.31 30.82 30.0 1.31 0.82
W-6 35.98 35.38 35.8 0.18 0.42
W-6 38.94 40.97 40.5 1.56 0.47
W-10 26.95 25.62 25.8 1.15 0.18
W-10 45.16 43.53 45.5 0.34 1.97
W-10 65.94 64.95 66.0 0.06 1.05

ways. First, Vp and Vs directly taken from the compressional and sonic velocities, and bulk density, so that the estimations of pore
shear sonic logs were used for calculations in each well using pressure and fracture pressure can be done quickly within a fair
Equation (9). The general background trend was established be- range of accuracy. One normal compaction trend in the Cauvery
tween the Poisson's ratio and depth for shales (Equations (11) and basin and three normal compaction trends in the KG basin are
(12)). Second, general trends were established between density proposed based on the current dataset. Other relations established
logs and compressional and shear sonic logs separately for all in this study are compressional and shear sonic velocities against
available wells (Equations (13)e(16)). Equations (18) and (19) were bulk density, Poisson's ratio against depth and lastly the over-
used for estimating the overburden stress; pore pressure was burden stress as a function of depth.
considered from the observed data of the individual well wherever The error analysis of the estimated values of pore pressures and
available. Otherwise, estimated pore pressure was used in case of fracture pressures in this study are within low and narrow ranges.
absence of any direct measurement. Fracture pressures estimated The standard deviation of the errors calculated for the estimation of
from both the processes are found to be quite similar and compa- pore pressures in the Cauvery basin is around 0.47, and in the KG
rable to the actual LOT obtained from the wells. LOT data is available basin is 0.98 (Table 1). The standard deviation of the errors of
for 3 out of 10 wells in Cauvery and another 3 out of 16 wells in KG fracture pressures in the Cauvery basin is 0.67e1.38, and in the KG
basin. Data of these 6 representative wells from both the basins are basin is 0.99e1.01.
summarised in Table 2. The KG and Cauvery basins show conspicuous differences be-
Use of the above mentioned general relationships and the pore tween them in terms of the nature and general trends of the pet-
pressure were used to estimate the fracture pressure which was rophysical properties like velocity, the Poisson's ratio, overburden
found to be similar to the actual LOT data of the corresponding gradient, and observed pore pressures. These differences may be
wells. The fracture gradient in Cauvery basin is found to be in the due to the combined effects of differences in patterns of sedimen-
range of about 12e18 MPa/km within depths of 190e3042.3 m. The tation, tectonics, generation and/or accumulation of hydrocarbons.
fracture gradient in the KG basin shows a range of about Only 26 well data were available for this current study. More
16e20 MPa/km within a depth range of 1685e4011 m. These ranges drilled well data including conventional core data can be incorpo-
suggest, the fracture gradient is around 75% of the overburden rated in future to make the estimation more robust and also to
gradient or principal vertical stress in the Cauvery basin and ranges increase the accuracy of the outcome.
from 70%e88% of the overburden gradient in the KG basin,
depending on the magnitude of overpressure. Statistical analysis Acknowledgements
was carried out to determine the error range between the esti-
mated and the observed LOT pressures. The data and the outcome Authors are thankful to ONGC and GSPC for providing us the
are presented in Table 3. The prior idea of pore pressures and well log data and geologic information. Ministry of Earth Science is
fracture gradients in different stratigraphic sections in the Cauvery acknowledged for funding the project (No. MoES/P.O. (Seismo)/
and KG basins, will not only help in strategizing the future drilling 1(138) 2011 dated 9.11.12) to carry out this work.
activities, but also be useful in future exploration studies of
modelling the hydrocarbon column height, top seal integrity, fault References
seal, and migration of hydrocarbon.
Advanced Resources International Inc, 2013. EIA/ARI world shale gas and shale oil
resources assessment. XXIV India/Pakistan 1e42.
7. Summary Anitha, G., Ramana, M.V., Ramprasad, D., Anuradha, M., 2014. Shallow geological
environment of Krishna-Godavari offshore, eastern continental margin of India
as inferred from the interpretation of high resolution sparker data. J. Earth Syst.
Practical geoscientific approach has been attempted to estimate
Sci. 123, 329e342.
pore pressure and minimum fracture pressure using drilled wells, Athy, L.F., 1930. Density, porosity and compactation of sedimentary rocks. AAPG
separately for the Cauvery and the KG basins in east coast of India. Bull. 14, 1e24.
The methodologies applied here, are aimed to establish simple Avadhani, V.L.N., Anandan, M., Thattacherry, B.J., Murthy, K.S., Gariya, B.C.,
Dwivedi, A.K., 2006. Acoustic impedance as a lithological and hydrocarbon
generalised relations between geoscientific data such as depth, indicator e a case study from Cauvery basin. Lead. Edge 25, 854e858.
normal porosity trend, Poisson's ratio, compressional and shear Bastia, R., 2004. Depositional model and reservoir architecture of Tertiary deep
506 S. Dasgupta et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 78 (2016) 493e506

water sedimentation, Krishna-Godavari Basin, India. J. Geol. Soc. India 64, AAPG Mem. 70, 1e11.
11e20. Mondol, N.H., Bjørlykke, K., Jahren, J., Høeg, K., 2007. Experimental mechanical
Barker, C., 1972. Aquathermal pressuring: role of temperature in development of compaction of clay mineral aggregates e changes in physical properties of
abnormal pressure zones. AAPG Bull. 56, 2068e2071. mudstones during burial. Mar. pet Geol. 24 (5), 289e311.
Bethke, C.M., 1986. Inverse hydrologic analysis of the distribution and origin of Gulf Mouchet, J.P., Mitchell, A., 1989. Abnormal Pressure while Drilling, Manuals Tech-
Coast-type geopressured zones. J. Geophys. Res. 91, 6535e6545. niques 2. Elf Aquitaine Edition, Boussens, France.
Biswas, S.K., 2012. Status of petroleum exploration in India. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Mudford, B.S., 1988. Modeling the occurrence of overpressure on the Scotian shelf,
Acad. 78, 475e494. offshore eastern Canada. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 7845e7855.
Biswas, S.K., Bhasin, A.L., Ram, J., 1993. Classification of Indian sedimentary basins in Murthy, M.V.K., Padhy, P.K., Prasad, D.N., 2011. Mesozoic hydrologic systems and
the framework of plate tectonics. In: Biswas, S.K., Dave, A., Garg, P., Pandey, J., hydrocarbon habitat, Mandapeta-Endamuru area, Krishna Godavari Basin, In-
Maithani, A., Thomas, N.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of Second Seminar on Petrolif- dia. AAPG Bull. 95, 147e167.
erous Basins of India, vol. 1. Indian Petroleum Publishers, Dehra Dun, India, Osborne, M.J., Swarbrick, R.E., 1997. Mechanisms for generating overpressure in
pp. 1e46. sedimentary basins: a reevaluation. AAPG Bull. 81, 1023e1041.
Bradley, J.S., 1975. Abnormal formation pressure. AAPG Bull. 59, 957e973. Padhy, P.K., Das, S.K. and Kumar, A., 2013. Krishna-Godavari continental rift basin:
Carstens, H., Dypvik, H., 1981. Abnormal pressure and shale porosity. AAPG Bull. 65, shale gas and oil play systems. 10th Biennial International Conference and
344e350. Exhibition, 1e8.
Chandrasekhar, N., Mane, P.H., Rajappan, P., 2015. Basement hydrocarbon explora- Paranjape, A.R., Kulkarni, K.G., Kale, A.S., 2014. Significance of clastic injectites in the
tion e overview of petroleum system, multi-component seismic analysis, syn-rift Terani clay member, Sivaganga formation, Cauvery basin, Tamil Nadu,
identification of fractures and status of Indian basin exploration. Geohorizons India. Curr. Sci. 106, 1641e1643.
20 (2), 36e46. Phaye, D.K., Nambiar, M.V. and Srivastava, D.K., 2011. Evaluation of petroleum
Chari, M.V.N., Sahu, J.N., Banerjee, B., Zutshi, P.L., Chandra, K., 1995. Evolution of the systems of Ariyalur e Pondicherry sub-basin (Bhuvangiri area) of Cauvery ba-
Cauvery basin, India from subsidence modeling. Mar. pet Geol. 12, 667e675. sin, India: a two dimensional (2-D) basin modeling study. The 2nd South Asian
Chatterjee, R., Mukhopadhyay, M., Paul, S., 2011. Overpressure zone under the Geoscience Conference and Exhibition, GEO India 2011, 1e17.
KrishnaeGodavari offshore basin: geophysical implications for natural hazard Plumb, R.A., Evans, K.F., Engelder, T., 1991. Geophysical log responses and their
in deeper-water drilling. Nat. Hazards 57, 121e132. correlation with bed-to-bed stress contrasts in Paleozoic rocks, Appalachian
Chatterjee, R., Paul, S., Singha, D.K., Mukhopadhyay, M., 2015. Overpressure zones in plateau. New York. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 14509e14528.
relation to in situ stress for the Krishna-Godavari Basin, eastern continental Prasad, I.V.S.V., Negi, B.S., Saksena, A.K., Singh, R.R., 2008. Deep Gondwana sedi-
margin of India: implications for hydrocarbon prospectivity. In: Mukherjee, S. ments of a part of Krishna-Godavari basin: a potential and prospective area for
(Ed.), Petroleum Geoscience: Indian Contexts. Springer International, unconventional gas deposits. GEO India Conv Exhib. 1e6.
pp. 127e142. Raju, D.S.N., Ravindran, C.N., Mishra, P.K., Chidambaram, L., Saxena, R., 1994. Stra-
Daines, S.R., 1982. Prediction of fracture pressure for wildcat wells. J. pet Technol. tigraphy and paleoenvironments of the Godavari clay in the Krishna-Godavari
34, 863e872. basin, India. Indian J. pet Geol. 3, 33e43.
Dasgupta, S., Chatterjee, R., Mohanty, S., 2016. Magnitude, mechanisms and pre- Ramani, K.K.V., Naidu, B.D., Giridhar, M., 2000. Reassessment of hydrocarbon po-
diction of abnormal pore pressure using well data in the Krishna Godavari tential of Cauvery basin, India e a quantitative genetic model approach. In:
Basin, East coast of India. AAPG Bull. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/05131615170. Proceedings of 5th International Conference and Exhibition. Petroleum
DGH, 2009. The Cauvery Basin source: www.dghindia.org. Geochemistry & Exploration in the Afro-Asian Region, New Delhi, pp. 509e515.
Eaton, B.A., 1969. Fracture gradient prediction and its application in oilfield oper- Rao, G.N., 2001. Sedimentation, stratigraphy, and petroleum potential of Krishna-
ations. J. pet Technol. 1353e1360. Godavari basin, east coast of India. AAPG Bull. 85, 1623e1643.
Fertl, W.H., 1976. Abnormal Formation Pressures, Implications to Exploration, Rao, G.N., Mani, K.S., 1993. A study on generation of abnormal pressures in Krishna-
Drilling, and Production of Oil and Gas Resources. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Godavari basin, India. Indian J. pet Geol. 2, 20e30.
Company, Amsterdam, 382 pp. Ruth, P.J.V., Hillis, R.R., Swarbrick, R.E., 2002. Detecting overpressure using porosity-
Flemings, P.B., Stump, B.B., Finkbeiner, T., Zoback, M., 2002. Flow focusing in over- based techniques in the Carnarvon Basin, Australia. APPEA J. 559e569.
pressured sandstones: theory, observations, and applications. Am. J. Sci. 302, Sastri, V.V., Venkatachala, B.S., Narayana, V., 1981. The evolution of the east coast of
827e855. India. Paleogeogr. Paleoclimatology Paleoecol 36, 23e54.
GCA, 2008. Competent Person's Report Prepared for Hardy Oil and Gas Plc. Gaffney, Schlumberger, 1989. Log Interpretation Principles/Applications. Schlumberger
Cline and Associates source: www.gaffney-cline.com. Educational Services, Houston, Texas, 227 pp.
Hansen, S., 1996. A compaction trend for Cretaceous and Tertiary shales on the Singha, D.K., Chatterjee, R., 2014. Detection of overpressure zones and a statistical
Norwegian shelf based on sonic transit times. Pet. Geosci. 2, 159e166. model for pore pressure estimation from well logs in the Krishna-Godavari
Hardy, 2010. Competent Person's Report Prepared for Hardy Oil and Gas Plc source: Basin, India. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems 15, 1e12.
www.investor-hardyoil.com. Sircar, A., 2004. Hydrocarbon production from fractured basement formations. Curr.
Heppard, P.D., Cander, H.S., Eggertson, E.B., 1998. Abnormal pressure and the Sci. 87, 147e151.
occurrence of hydrocarbons in offshore eastern Trinidad, West Indies. AAPG Srikant, D., Shanmugam, P., 2014. Integrated log analysis of Cretaceous sedimentary
Mem. 70, 215e246. sequence of Ramnad sub-basin, Cauvery basin, Southern India. Int. J. pet Geosci
Holbrook, P.W., Maggiori, D.A., Hensley, R., 2005. Real-time pore pressure and Eng. 2 (1), 34e61.
fracture gradient evaluation in all sedimentary lithologies. SPE Form. Eval. 10 Srivastava, V.K., Chowhan, R.K.S., 1987. Study of Focal Mechanism Solutions of
(4), 215e222. Events Distributed in and Around the Indian Lithospheric Plate. Oxford and IBH
Hubbert, M.K., Willis, D.G., 1957. Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. Trans. Am. Inst. Publishing, New Delhi, pp. 139e156.
Min. Metall. Pet. Eng. 210, 153e163. Tingay, M.R.P., Hillis, R.R., Swarbrick, R.E., Morley, C.K., Damit, A.R., 2009. Origin of
Hunt, J.M., 1990. Generation and migration of petroleum from abnormally pres- overpressure and pore-pressure prediction in the Baram province, Brunei.
sured fluid compartments. AAPG Bull. 74, 1e12. AAPG Bull. 93, 51e74.
Husain, R., Gupta, R.P., Lal, N.K., 2000. Tectono-stratigraphic evolution and petro- Tingay, M.R.P., Morley, C.K., Laird, A., Limpompipat, O., Krisadasima, K.,
leum systems of Krishna-Godavari Basin, India. In: Proceedings of 5th Inter- Pabchanda, S., MacIntyre, H.R., 2013. Evidence of overpressure generation by
national Conference & Exhibition. Petroleum Geochemistry and Exploration in kerogen-to-gas maturation in the northern Malay Basin. AAPG Bull. 97,
the Afro-Asian Region, New Delhi, pp. 443e458. 639e672.
Jafer, S.A., 1996. The evolution of marine Cretaceous basins of India: calibration with Venkanna, P., Rao, B.V.S., Srivastava, T.B., Mehrotra, K.L., Guha, B., 2000. Source
nannofossil zones. Mem Geol. Soc. India 37, 121e134. potential assessment in the island and Amalapuram areas in East-Godavari sub-
Jayasinghe, J.M.S.T.W., Kurukulasuriya, A.C., Jayasinghe, W.M.T.U., basin, Krishna-Godavari Basin, India. In: Proceedings of 5th International
Wickrama, M.A.D.M.G., Senadhira, A.M.A.D.M., Ratnayake, N.P., 2014. Develop- Conference & Exhibition. Petroleum Geochemistry and Exploration in the Afro-
ment of a pore pressure and fracture pressure gradient prediction model for Asian Region, New Delhi, pp. 475e481.
dew exploration blocks in Mannar and Cauvery basins, offshore Sri Lanka. In: Walls, J.D., Nur, A.M., Bourbie, T., 1982. Effects of pressure and partial water satu-
Abstract of 8th National Conference of the Department of Earth Resources En- ration on gas permeability in tight sands: experimental results. J. pet Technol.
gineering. University of Moratuwa. 34, 930e936.
Kamaraju, A.V.V.S., Prasad, D.N., Manmohan, M., 2008. Reservoir characterization of Xie, X., Bethke, C.M., Li, S., Liu, X., Zheng, H., 2001. Overpressure and petroleum
Gollapalli gas pay sands of Mandapeta-Endamuru areas of Krishna Godavari generation and accumulation in the Dongying depression of the Bohaiwan
basin, India. GEO India Conv Exhib. 1e5. basin, China. Geofluids 1, 257e271.
Kankanamge, T., 2013. Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient Modelling with Offset Zahid, K.M., Uddin, A., 2005. Influence of overpressure on formation velocity
Well Data and its Application to Surface Casing Design of a Development Well evaluation of Neogene strata from the eastern Bengal Basin, Bangladesh. J. Asian
Deep Panuke Gas Pool Offshore Nova Scotia. Dalhousie University, pp. 1e85. Earth Sci. 25, 419e429.
Kumar, S., Klimentos, T., Affes, S., 2006. Frontier HP/HT exploration drilling in the Zhang, J., 2011. Pore pressure prediction from well logs: methods, modifications,
Krishna Godavari basin, India. In: Proceedings of SPE/IADC Indian Drilling and new approaches. Earth Sci. Rev. 108, 1e33.
Technology Conference and Exhibition 2006, Drilling in India: Challenges and Zhang, J., 2013. Effective stress, porosity, velocity and abnormal pore pressure
Opportunities, 16e18 October 2006, Mumbai, India. Curran Associates, New prediction accounting for compaction disequilibrium and unloading. Mar. pet
York, pp. 165e175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/102018-MS. Geol. 45, 2e11.
Law, B.E., Spencer, C.W., 1998. Abnormal pressure in hydrocarbon environments.