Author
Listed:
- Wenzhe Li
(Engineering Technology Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610017, China)
- Pingya Luo
(State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China)
- Yatian Li
(Engineering Technology Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610017, China)
- Jinghong Zhou
(Sichuan Oil and Gas Field Branch of China National Petroleum Corporation, Chengdu 610051, China)
- Xihui Hu
(Engineering Technology Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610017, China)
- Qiutong Wang
(Engineering Technology Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610017, China)
- Yiguo He
(Engineering Technology Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610017, China)
- Yi Zhang
(Engineering Technology Research Institute, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610017, China)
Abstract
The Luzhou Block in the Sichuan Basin hosts a widely distributed high-quality shale gas reservoir. However, the overlying carbonate strata pose considerable engineering challenges, including severe risks of subsurface fluid loss and wellbore collapse. These challenges are primarily attributed to inaccuracies in pore pressure prediction, which significantly constrains the safety and efficiency of drilling operations in carbonate formations. To address this issue, this study systematically investigates and compares three classical pore pressure prediction approaches—namely, the equivalent depth method, the Eaton method, and the effective stress method—within the geological context of the Luzhou Block. A novel fitting strategy based on laboratory core experimental data is introduced, whereby empirical relationships between field-measured parameters and rock mechanical properties are established to improve model robustness in geologically complex formations. The optimized effective stress model is subsequently applied to the carbonate reservoir interval, and its prediction outcomes are evaluated against measured pore pressure data. The results demonstrate that the effective stress method achieves the highest prediction accuracy, with a maximum deviation of 8.4% and an average deviation of 5.3%. In comparison, the equivalent depth and Eaton methods yield average errors of 12.5% and 12.2%, respectively. These findings suggest that the effective stress method exhibits superior adaptability and reliability for pore pressure prediction in carbonate formations of the Luzhou Block, and holds significant potential for guiding mud density design and improving the operational safety of drilling programs.
Suggested Citation
Wenzhe Li & Pingya Luo & Yatian Li & Jinghong Zhou & Xihui Hu & Qiutong Wang & Yiguo He & Yi Zhang, 2025.
"Comparison and Application of Pore Pressure Prediction Methods for Carbonate Formations: A Case Study in Luzhou Block, Sichuan Basin,"
Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-15, May.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:10:p:2647-:d:1660228
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:10:p:2647-:d:1660228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.