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

net/publication/280916272

Overpressure in the Malay Basin and Prediction Methods

Article  in  Geofluids · July 2015

DOI: 10.1111/gfl.12149

CITATIONS READS

8 872

3 authors:

Iftikhar A. Satti Wan Ismail Wan Yusoff

University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
26 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Deva Ghosh
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
213 PUBLICATIONS   1,193 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Plane Wave Destruction Filtering View project

Petrophysical properties prediction from elastic properties View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Iftikhar A. Satti on 29 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geofluids (2015) doi: 10.1111/gfl.12149

Overpressure in the Malay Basin and prediction methods

I. AHMED SATTI, W. I. WAN YUSOFF AND D. GHOSH
Department of Geosciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Predrill overpressure prediction is important for well planning and migration modeling for prospect evaluation.
The Eaton (Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24, 1972, 929) and Bowers (SPE Drilling & Completion, 10, 1995,
89) methods are used worldwide for postdrill overpressure prediction using sonic log and predrill overpressure
prediction using seismic interval velocity. In this research, these two methods were used for overpressure predic-
tion using 3D anisotropic prestack depth-migrated seismic interval velocity in a field of the Malay Basin. In the
shallow overpressured zone, where the mechanism of overpressure is undercompaction, the onset of overpressure
was predicted reasonably well using the Eaton and Bowers methods with their standard parameters (i.e., Eaton
exponent 3 and Bowers loading curve) for seismic velocity. However, in the deep overpressured zone, where fluid
expansion is the cause of overpressure generation, these methods underpredicted the high overpressure. In the
deep overpressured zone, the overpressures were better predicted by applying a correction to the Eaton method.
On the other hand, the Bowers unloading parameters for the fluid expansion mechanisms did not show any sig-
nificant effect on overpressure prediction. Hence, in the study area, the Bowers method is not effective for 3D
overpressure prediction using seismic velocity, whereas the Eaton method is more robust and can be used for 3D
overpressure prediction from seismic velocity.

Key words: Bowers method, Malay Basin, overpressure, predrill prediction, seismic velocity

Received 13 February 2015; accepted 7 July 2015

Corresponding author: Iftikhar Ahmed Satti, Department of Geosciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 31750
Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia. Email: iasatti@gmail.com. Tel: +0060192903309.

Geofluids (2015)

faulting. The resulting synrift section was deposited in

INTRODUCTION
deep half graben and compromises groups M, L, and
The Malay Basin is situated to the east of Peninsular Lower K (Madon et al. 1999). Figure 2 shows the general-
Malaysia, in the South China Sea (Fig. 1). It is a NW-SE ized stratigraphy and structural history of the Malay Basin.
trending rift basin geometrically asymmetric in form with The study area is located in the southwestern part of the
the depositional axis begins closer to the southwestern Malay Basin (see Fig. 1) and comprises an elongated NW-
flank of the basin (P. Ebdale, J. Redfern, unpublished). SE trending anticline. This anticlinal structure is broadly
The sedimentary sequence of the Malay Basin previously dissected by a series of north–south trending normal faults.
has been subdivided into different stratigraphic groups Pore pressure is defined as the pressure exerted by the
starting from the A (Recent) to the M (Oligocene) (Ghosh fluid within the pore space of a rock at a particular depth.
et al. 2010). The stratigraphic development of the Malay Pore pressure that is higher than the hydrostatic pressure is
Basin is directly related to its structural evolution, which called overpressure (Bowers 2002). Undercompaction and
occurred in three phases: fluid expansion are two of the most common mechanisms
(1) Pre-Miocene (Oligocene or early) extensional or synrift of overpressure generation. Different pore pressure predic-
phase, tion schemes are required for both mechanisms as they
(2) Early-Middle Miocene thermal/tectonic subsidence have different effects on rock properties (Tingay et al.
phase, which was accompanied by basin inversion, and 2009).
(3) Late Miocene to Quaternary subsidence phase, which The Eaton (1972) and Bowers (1995) methods are
represents a tectonically quiescent period. commonly used for overpressure prediction. Eaton method
During the Pre-Miocene, basin development was primar- estimates pore pressure from the ratio of acoustic travel
ily an extensional event, with subsidence controlled by time in normally compacted sediment to the observed

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2 I. AHMED SATTI et al.

Fig. 1. Location map of the Malay Basin

modified from (Madon et al. 1999). The red
rectangle shape shows the location of the
study area.

Fig. 2. Summarized hydrocarbon occurrences, stratigraphy, and structural history of the Malay Basin (P. Koch, A. Aznan, N. Mcallister, unpublished).

acoustic travel time (Eaton 1972). By contrast, the Bowers unloading curves to predict the overpressure generated by
(1995) method is an effective stress approach. Bowers undercompaction and fluid expansion mechanisms, respec-
(995) introduced the concept of virgin/loading and tively (Bowers 1995).

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Overpressure prediction 3

Fig. 3. The onset of overpressure in the

Malay Basin modified from (Hoesni 2004).
The depth to the start of the overpressure is
shallowest in the basin center and increases
gradually toward the basin flanks. The top of
the overpressure crosscuts the stratigraphy of
the basin.

Seismic velocity is a most reliable tool for predrill pore nd

2 Pass Anisotropic Velocity
pressure prediction in the frontier area. The concept of
Analysis
using seismic interval velocity for pore pressure prediction
was first demonstrated by Pennebaker (1968). Seismic
Initial Model Building
pressure prediction relies on detecting changes in interval
velocity with depth. These changes reflect the properties of
the overpressured rock, which in most cases are undercom-
Iterative Velocity Model
pacted (Dutta 2002). Overpressure reduces the amount of Update Loop
compaction that could occur. Hence, seismic velocity can
be used for pore pressure prediction (Sayers et al. 2006).
Beam Pre-Stack Depth
Accuracy of the seismic velocity is one of the key factors
Migration
required for reliable pore pressure prediction. Therefore, in
this study, we used high-quality (i.e., prestack depth
migrated) seismic velocity data for 3D pore pressure pre- Residual Move-out Analysis
diction. The density modeling technique was used to
enhance the quality of the seismically generated density.
The Eaton (1972) and Bowers (1995) method were used Reflection Picking, Dip Angle
and Residual
for the predrill overpressure prediction using 3D seismic
velocity. A comparison was made between the overpressure
prediction results obtained from these two methods. A dis- Tomography Inversion
cussion on the effectiveness of these two methods in the
study area was conducted.
Velocity Model Update

ORIGIN OF OVERPRESSURE IN THE MALAY

BASIN AND STUDY AREA Final Anisotropic Kirchhoff
PSDM
The Malay Basin is one of the most prolific hydrocarbon-
producing basins in South-East Asia. In the deeper parts of
the basin, overpressure developed due to the deposition of Well Calibration
12 km fine-grained Tertiary sediments during the last
35 Ma (Hoesni et al. 2003). The depth to the start of the
Fig. 4. Seismic velocity processing workflow.
overpressure varies across the Malay Basin. The top of the
overpressure is shallower in the basin center (i.e., 1.9– flanks because the geothermal gradient is less, overpressure
2.0 km) and gradually deepens toward the basin flanks is progressively deeper in the older stratigraphic units
(i.e., 3.0 km) as shown in the Fig. 3 (Hoesni 2004). (Shariff & Leslie 1995).
Temperature may also play an important role in the A small net uplift has been observed in the Malay Basin,
development of the overpressure. The geothermal gradient but the influence of uplifting and erosion on the overpres-
is high (i.e., 50°C per km) in the central part of the Malay sure generation is minor. In the Malay Basin, the overpres-
Basin due to which the dewatering zone is thin and shal- sure is mainly generated by undercompaction with some
low. This may explain the reason that in the center of the contribution from the chemical compaction (Hoesni, 2004).
Malay Basin, overpressure occurs in the stratigraphically In the northern part of the Malay Basin, both under-
younger units at shallow depth, while toward the basin compaction and fluid expansion mechanisms are present

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

4 I. AHMED SATTI et al.

Fig. 5. Final 3D anisotropic prestack depth-

migrated interval velocity after calibration
with the well tops and interpreted horizons.
This velocity cube is used for overpressure
prediction and for calculating the 3D density
of the study area.

Fig. 6. 3D density calculated from prestack

depth-migrated interval velocity. This 3D
density is used to calculate the 3D
overburden pressure. Scale bar for the density
cube is in grams per cubic centimeter (g per
cc).

and the overpressures are stratigraphically constrained able; the overpressure may start deeper and ramp up rapidly
(Tingay et al. 2013). or start at shallow and ramp up gradually with depth.
The overpressure is observed in almost all of the wells Recently, Satti et al. (2014a) used velocity versus effective
drilled in the study area. The overpressure behavior is vari- stress and velocity versus density cross-plots to identify the

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Overpressure prediction 5

The initial velocity model was constructed using the

2nd pass anisotropic migration velocity picked at a dense
grid of 100 m 9 100 m. The initial interval velocity
model was updated in six iterations. The updated model
obtained from iteration 1 was used in beam prestack depth
migration (BPSDM) to produce a set of 25 m 9 25 m
grid of CIP gathers. In iteration 6, an anisotropy update
was carried out using the delta model to depth adjust the
iteration 5 velocity model to obtain a vertical velocity
model. After validating the tomography update, this veloc-
ity model was used for the final anisotropic Kirchhoff
depth migration. The final velocity model obtained after
applying the anisotropic Kirchhoff depth migration was
calibrated with the well tops and two interpreted depth
surfaces. The model was iteratively updated by reducing
the depth difference between the interpreted horizon and
well tops.
The final 3D anisotropic PSDM velocity cube (Fig. 5)
was converted to the density cube (Fig. 6) using modified
Gardner’s equation. The Gardner equation (Gardner et al.
1974) is given as

q ¼ aV b ; ð1Þ
where q is the density, V is the P-wave velocity, a and b
are empirical parameters.
The Gardner parameters for the study area are obtained
from the cross-plot of sonic and density logs.
Accuracy of 3D density is important to develop an
accurate overburden pressure, as overburden pressure is one
of the major input parameters for overpressure prediction.
Hence, the accuracy of density calculation plays an
important role in accurate overpressure prediction. To
enhance the accuracy of the velocity derived density cube,
Satti et al. (2014b) introduced the concept of 3D density
calibration. The 3D density cube is calibrated with the well
log density using the 3D grid-based modeling technique of
Petrel software. The calibrated density cube is validated by
Fig. 7. Comparison of well log density with the seismically generated den-
exporting the density data at blind well locations (Fig. 7).
sity before and after the density calibration at a blind well location. Overburden pressure is calculated using the calibrated
density cube (Fig. 8). In marine environments, overburden
overpressure generating mechanisms in the study area. This pressure rv at depth z is given as
study showed that the overpressure in the shallower zone
Zz
(i.e., depth approximately <1550 m) is caused by the
rv ðzÞ ¼ qw gzw þ z qðzÞgdz ð2Þ
undercompaction mechanism, whereas in the deeper zone
zw
(i.e., depth approximately >1550 m), fluid expansion is the
mechanism responsible for overpressured generation. where qw is the seawater density, zw is the water depth, q
(z) is the density at depth z below the surface, and g is the
acceleration due to gravity.
3D SEISMIC VELOCITY PROCESSING AND
DENSITY CALCULATION
Overpressure prediction
3D Prestack depth migration (PSDM) seismic interval
velocity data are used for the pore pressure prediction. The The Eaton (1972) and Bowers (1995) methods were used
processing workflow of the seismic velocity is shown in for pore pressure prediction using 3D PSDM interval
Fig. 4. velocity in the study area.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

6 I. AHMED SATTI et al.

Fig. 8. 3D overburden pressure calculated

from the 3D density. This overburden
pressure is used for the overpressure
prediction. Scale bar for the overburden
pressure cube is in pounds per gallon (Ppg).

Fig. 9. 3D normal compaction trend for the

Eaton method.

Eaton method
Sv ¼ rv þ Pf ð3Þ
The Eaton method is based on the detection of changes in
porosity with depth and is derived from Terzaghi & Peck Here, Sv is the total vertical stress, Pf is the pore fluid
(1948) equation (Eq. 1) based on soil mechanics (Eaton 1972). pressure, and rv is the vertical effective stress.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Overpressure prediction 7

(A)

(B)

Fig. 10. 3D pore pressure prediction from

calibrated prestack depth-migrated seismic
interval velocity using the Eaton method. (A)
Pore pressure prediction using the Eaton
method with exponent 3 and (B) pore
pressure prediction using modified Eaton
method with exponent 6. The red line shows
the location of the wells used for the pore
pressure prediction results validation. The
scale bar for both the pore pressure cubes is
in pounds per gallon (Ppg).

The Eaton method is given below as

velocity, Vobs is the observed velocity, and X is the Eaton
Pp ¼ Sv  ðSv  Ph ÞðVobs =Vobs Þx exponent (resistivity = 1.2, velocity = 3).
Here, Pp is the pore pressure, Ph is the hydrostatic pore The Eaton method is an empirical method to estimate
pressure, Sv is the total vertical stress, Vnorm is the normal pore pressures from seismic velocity, sonic, and resistivity

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

8 I. AHMED SATTI et al.

(A) (B)

Fig. 11. Example of the predicted pore

pressure (black line) using (A) Eaton exponent
3 and (B) exponent 6 at a blind well. The
predicted pressure is compared with the
repeat formation tester (RFT) pressure data
(red dots).

logs. This method uses a regionally defined exponent pressure cubes using Eaton exponent 3.0 and exponent 6.0
(Eaton exponent) that can be varied to calibrate the trend are shown in Fig. 10A,B. The predicted pressure using both
to predict the pore pressure generated by different mecha- the Eaton exponents was extracted at the blind well’s loca-
nisms. In the areas where the mechanism of overpressure tion and compared with the repeat formation tester (RFT)
generation is undercompaction, an Eaton exponent of 3.0 pressure measurements (Fig. 11).
is typically used for pore pressure prediction, whereas in
the area where the fluid expansion mechanism is present, Bowers method
the Eaton method can be modified by changing its expo- In 1995, Bowers introduced a new method for pore pres-
nent (i.e., using higher Eaton exponent). sure prediction using an effective stress approach. The
The Eaton method requires a normal compaction trend Bowers (1995) method is based on the relationship
for overpressure prediction, and it is always very tricky to between velocity and effective stress. In the zones where
develop the normal compaction trend for 3D pressure overpressure is generated by an undercompaction mecha-
prediction. To develop the 3D normal compaction for the nism, overpressure can be predicted using Bowers loading/
Eaton method, the following procedure is adopted: virgin curve, whereas in the zone where the fluid expansion
(1) Calibrated seismic velocity is exported at well locations. mechanism is present, overpressure can be predicted using
(2) The normal compaction curve is developed for each Bowers unloading curve (Bowers 1995). The equations of
well location. the loading and unloading curves are given below:
(3) By taking the average of compaction curves for all the Virgin curve:
wells, a 3D normal compaction trend is developed for
V ¼ 5000 þ ArB ð5Þ
the study area.
1
This average normal compaction trend (Fig. 9) was Here, V = velocity (ft s ), r is the effective stress (Psi),
used in 3D overpressure prediction in the study area. Pore and A and B are Virgin curve parameters.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Overpressure prediction 9

Fig. 12. Cross-plot of the velocity–effective

stress for the normal compacted zone. The
values of A and B will be used to develop the
3D normal compaction trend for Bowers
method.

Fig. 13. 3D pore pressure prediction from

prestack depth-migrated interval velocity
using the Bowers method. Red lines show the
locations of the wells for which repeat
formation tester (RFT) and modular dynamics
tester (MDT) pressure data are available to
validate the prediction results. The scale bar is
in pounds per gallon (Ppg).

Unloading curve:
rmax ¼ ððVmax  5000Þ=AÞ1=B ð7Þ
ð1=U Þ B
v ¼ 5000 þ A½rmax ðr=rmax Þ  ð6Þ
Here, Vmax is the velocity at the onset of unloading.
Here, rmax is the estimate of the effective stress U = 1 implies no permanent deformation, when the
at the onset of unloading and U is the unloading unloading curve reduces to the virgin curve. U = ∞ which
parameter. corresponds to a completely irreversible deformation.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

10 I. AHMED SATTI et al.

(A) (B)

Fig. 14. Example of predicted pore pressure

using the Bowers method (pink color line)
extracted at a blind well location. The
predicted pressure is compared with the
repeat formation tester (RFT) pressure data
(red dots). (A) The predicted pressure (pink
color line) using Bowers loading curve (i.e.,
U = 0). (B) The predicted pressure (pink color
line) using Bowers unloading curve parameter
(U = 6.0).

In the study area, both the undercompaction and fluid the Eaton method successfully predicted the pore pressure
expansion mechanisms are present in the shallow and deep using an Eaton exponent of 3.0. In the deep overpressured
overpressured zones, respectively. Hence, the values of vir- zones of the wells where overpressure is generated by the
gin and unloading curve parameters are required for over- fluid expansion mechanism, Eaton exponent 3 underpre-
pressure prediction. The values of loading curve parameters dicted the pore pressure. However, a reasonable pore pres-
A and B have been obtained from the cross-plot of velocity sure prediction was obtained by applying a correction on the
versus effective stress for the normal pressured zone Eaton method (i.e., using the higher Eaton exponent of
(Fig. 12). These values are used for 3D overpressure pre- 6.0), determined from calibration with RFT pressure data.
diction. 3D predicted pore pressure using the Bowers In contrast, the Bowers method underpredicted the over-
method is shown in Figure 13. pressure, particularly in the deep overpressured zone where
To check the accuracy of the results, the predicted pres- the fluid expansion mechanism was present. However, the
sure using the Bowers (1995) method was extracted at onset of overpressure was fairly quite well. To predict the
well’s locations and compared with RFT pressure measure- pressure in the deeper zone, different values of the unload-
ments (Fig. 14). ing curve parameter (U) were used, but they did not show
any significant effect on overpressure prediction.
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
The results obtained from 3D overpressure prediction using
the Eaton and Bowers methods are validated at the blind The Eaton method is empirical and uses a regionally
well locations. In the shallow overpressure zone where the defined exponent (Eaton exponent) that can be varied
overpressure is generated by undercompaction mechanism, easily to calibrate the trend to predict the pore pressure

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Overpressure prediction 11

(A) (B) (C)

Fig. 15. Example of overpressure prediction from extracted velocity at well location using the Bowers method. (A) Seismic velocity and Bowers normal com-
paction trend using the values of A and B. (B) The predicted pressure (pink color line) using the Bowers loading curve. (C) The predicted pressure (pink color
line) using the Bowers unloading curve parameter (i.e., U = 6).

generated by different mechanisms. An Eaton exponent of location and used it for overpressure prediction (Fig. 15).
3.0 is typically used in sediments where undercompaction It is observed that at the onset of overpressure, seismic
is the mechanism of overpressure generation. In the pres- velocity (dark yellow line) increases with depth, but the
ence of the fluid expansion mechanism, velocity will show rate of increase is slower than the normal trend (black
a small response to the overpressure, although this can be line). Hence, it shows the presence of overpressure. At the
compensated using a higher Eaton exponent. Therefore, it onset of high overpressure (i.e., at 1550 m), seismic veloc-
gives better overpressure prediction results. ity did not show reversal and it is still increasing slowly
By contrast, the Bowers (1995) method requires the val- (Fig. 15A). The Bower method is used for overpressure
ues of Vmax and rmax for the unloading curve to predict prediction in both shallow and deep overpressured zones.
the overpressure generated by the fluid expansion mecha- In the shallow overpressured zone, the Bowers method
nism. Vmax is the maximum velocity value after which successfully predicted the overpressure using Bowers load-
velocity starts decreasing (reverse) due to high overpres- ing curve and underpredicted the overpressure in the dee-
sure. This assumes that all formations within the reversal at per zone (Fig. 15B). In the deep overpressured zone, the
one time passed through the same maximum stress state, Bower unloading curve method was applied, but it did not
while this generally may not be true (Bowers 1995). show any significant effect on overpressure prediction and
To find the possible cause of this underprediction by the underpredicted the overpressure in the deeper zone
Bowers method, we exported the seismic velocity at a well (Fig. 15C). On the contrary, the sonic log shows reversal

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

12 I. AHMED SATTI et al.

(A) (B) (C)

Fig. 16. Example of overpressure prediction from sonic log using the Bowers method. B (A) Shale point sonic and Bowers normal compaction trend (NCT).
Light blue circle shows the starting point of velocity reversal because increase in sonic value will decrease the velocity. (B) Overpressure prediction using the
Bowers loading curve equation. (C) Overpressure prediction using the Bowers unloading curve equation. The light blue circle shows the starting point of the
effect of the unloading parameter U on pore pressure prediction.

(light blue circle) at the onset of high overpressure infer that the Bowers (1995) method is lithologically
(Fig. 16A). Therefore, in the high overpressured zone, unsuitable for overpressure prediction using seismic veloc-
overpressure is successfully predicted from sonic log using ity (both 1D and 3D) in the study area.
the Bowers unloading curve method (Fig. 16C). On the This study shows that knowledge of the geology of the
other hand, seismic velocity did not show any reversal at area of interest and the limitation of the overpressure pre-
the onset of high overpressure (see Fig. 15A) and it con- diction techniques must be considered for better overpres-
tinued increasing slowly, so Bowers method underpre- sure prediction. This study shows that in geologically
dicted the overpressure in the deeper zone. complex areas, the Eaton method is more useful to predict
We suggest that the possible cause of slow increase in 3D overpressure from seismic velocity as compared to the
seismic velocity in the high overpressured zones is the thin Bowers method.
interbeds of sand and shale, which are present in Group H
and Group I. Hence, the effect of overpressure on seismic
CONCLUSION
velocity is less than the sonic log due to the presence of
these thin interbeds. Therefore, seismic velocity does not Based on the overpressure prediction results, we conclude
show reversal as shown by the sonic log where only shale that the Eaton method can be used for 3D predrill over-
points are used for overpressure prediction. Hence, we pressure prediction using well-conditioned anisotropic

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Overpressure prediction 13

PSDM interval velocity. By contrast, the Bowers method Hoesni MJ (2004). Origins of overpressure in the Malay Basin
was lithologically not suitable for 3D overpressure predic- and its influence on petroleum systems. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Durham.
tion using seismic interval velocity in the study area. There-
Hoesni MJ, Swarbrick R, Goulty N (2003) Origin of overpressure
fore, it did not give good results for overpressure in the Malay Basin. In 2003 American Association of Petroleum
prediction, although the Bowers method can be used for Geologists International Conference & Exhibition Technical
overpressure prediction in shale using sonic log. Program.
Madon M, Abolins P, Hoesni MJ, Ahmad MB (1999) Malay
basin. The Petroleum Geology and Resources of Malaysia: 173–
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 217.
Pennebaker E (1968) Seismic data indicate depth, magnitude of
We wish to thank Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS abnormal pressure. World Oil, 166, 73–8.
(UTP) and PETRONAS Carigali for providing us the data Satti IA, Ghosh DP, Yusoff WIW (2014a) Analysis of
and permission to publish these findings. Special thanks to Overpressure Mechanism in a Field of Southwestern Malay
Basin. In Offshore Technology Conference – Asia.
Center for Seismic Imaging (C.S.I.), Universiti Teknologi
Satti IA, Ghosh D, Yusoff WIW (2014b) 3-D predrill overpressure
PETRONAS, for providing us the facilities to carry out prediction using prestack depth-migrated seismic velocity in a
this research work. field of southwestern Malay Basin. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s12517-014-1734-y.
Sayers CM, den Boer LD, Nagy ZR, Hooyman PJ (2006) Well-
REFERENCES constrained seismic estimation of pore pressure with uncertainty.
The Leading Edge, 25, 1524–6.
Bowers G (1995) Pore pressure estimation from velocity data:
Shariff BKM, Leslie W (1995) Occurrence, origin and implications
accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides
of overpressure in the Malay and Penyu basins, offshore
undercompaction. SPE Drilling & Completion, 10, 89–95.
Malaysia. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia, 37, 191–
Bowers GL (2002) Detecting high overpressure. The Leading
204.
Edge, 21, 174–7.
Terzaghi K, Peck R (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Dutta N (2002) Deepwater geohazard prediction using prestack
Practice. J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, p. 448, 1996.
inversion of large offset P-wave data and rock model. The
Tingay MR, Hillis RR, Swarbrick RE, Morley CK, Damit AR
Leading Edge, 21, 193–8.
(2009) Origin of overpressure and pore-pressure prediction in
Eaton B (1972) The effect of overburden stress on geopressure
the Baram province, Brunei. American Association of Petroleum
prediction from well logs. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24,
Geologists Bulletin, 93, 51–74.
929–34.
Tingay MRP, Morley CK, Laird A, Limpornpipat O, Krisadasima
Gardner G, Gardner L, Gregory A (1974) Formation velocity and
K, Pabchanda S, Macintyre HR (2013) Evidence for
density-the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics,
overpressure generation by kerogen–to-gas maturation in the
39, 770–80.
northern Malay Basin. American Association of Petroleum
Ghosh D, Halim MFA, Brewer M, Viratno B, Darman N (2010)
Geologists Bulletin, 97, 639–72.
Geophysical issues and challenges in Malay and adjacent basins
from an E & P perspective. The Leading Edge, 29, 436–49.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

View publication stats