Abnormally High Fluid Pressures and
Associated Porosities and Stress Regimes
in Sedimentary Basins
N.A. Yassir, CSIRO Petroleum and J.S. Bell, Geological Survey of Canada
Summary
The relationships between overpressures and porosity and over-
pressures and stress regime are found to differ significantly accord-
ing to the geological setting and overpressure generating mecha-
nism. These factors must be taken into account in pore pressure
prediction techniques and in correlations between pore pressure and
minimum horizontal stress. Two examples from overpressured Ca-
nadian basins are presented to illustrate the above.
Introduction
“Sonic and density logs . . . provide a means of determining pore
pressure and the overburden stress which are needed to calculate the
fracture pressure.”1
“Pressure generation in the Gulf of Alaska is somehow related to
the high lateral stresses. For this reason it is not surprising that the
traditional methods of abnormal pressure prediction developed in ba-
sins such as the Gulf of Mexico do not work in the Gulf of Alaska.”2
Many sedimentary basins are overpressured at depth, sometimes
so severely that the overburden rocks are practically floating on top
of the overpressured formation. This poses severe problems in
assessing the safety window for mudweights, which have to coun-
terbalance the overpressure to prevent blowouts without exceeding
the minimum stress and fracturing the formation. Mudweight bal-
ancing is at its most sensitive at the onset of overpressuring because
hard geopressures are often suddenly encountered over depth inter-
vals in the order of tens of meters. Accurate pore pressure prediction
is therefore important for optimized well design. Overpressuring
also exerts a significant influence on seal integrity. There has there-
fore been a great deal of research on correlating pore pressure and
the minimum (usually horizontal) stress.
The main assumption made in pressure prediction techniques is
that the overpressure will be associated with a density anomaly that
will be detected using geophysical techniques. This paper will dem-
onstrate that the overpressure generating mechanisms strongly af-
fect pore pressure-porosity and pore pressure-stress relationships in
sedimentary basins.
Origin of Overpressuring
Overpressured rocks can be observed worldwide in many types of
sedimentary and tectonic environments. Overpressures are usually
associated with thick sedimentary sequences of ages varying from
Jurassic to Tertiary. A seal is required to preserve overpressuring;
its properties, as well as the age of overpressuring, control the shape
of the “transition zone” from normal hydrostatic pressures to maxi-
mum overpressures.
A number of different factors may contribute to abnormally high
fluid pressures; these are extensively reviewed in the literature.3-6
The main mechanisms are briefly described next.
1. Overpressuring by rapid loading and undercompaction is the
most widely accepted mechanism. If a sediment is allowed to dissi-
pate its excess pore fluids as it is buried, it compacts and the pore pres-
sure gradient remains hydrostatic. When complete pore pressure dis-
sipation is impeded by a seal, however, the sediment becomes
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Nov. 21, 1994. Revised manuscript received
Jan. 2, 1996. Paper peer approved Jan. 3, 1996. Paper (SPE 28139) first presented at the
1994 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Delft, Aug.
29–31.
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996
underconsolidated, with an abnormally high porosity for its depth of
burial. The high pore pressures increase with increasing load. Under-
consolidation occurs in areas such as the Gulf Coast and the Niger and
Orinoco Deltas, where great thicknesses of shale are buried to depths
of several kilometers in relatively short periods of time.
2. Shear deformations can generate excess pore pressures if the
material is normally consolidated and undrained. There are numer-
ous examples of tectonically-induced overpressuring, including the
California Coast Ranges and the Gulf of Alaska.
3. The transformation of smectite (montmorillonite) to illite in
clay-rich sediments may cause overpressuring. When intermolecu-
lar water in the smectite is released to become intergranular water,
it is thought to experience a volumetric expansion and, thus, result
in abnormally high fluid pressures.
4. Overpressuring is, in many cases, attributed to hydrocarbon
generation. Because organic matter constitutes a substantial part of
freshly deposited muds, biochemical activity can produce large vol-
umes of methane, leading to overpressures.
5. Overpressuring is sometimes attributed to temperature. The
pressure in an isolated volume can increase with increasing temper-
ature to such an extent that it can theoretically exceed geostatic pres-
sures under normal temperature gradients. The conditions for this
mechanism are that the material retains a constant volume, is totally
isolated from its surroundings (zero permeability), and that isolation
has occurred at lower temperatures than present.
There is therefore a tremendous complexity of processes that
could lead to overpressuring. For the purposes of this paper, it is as-
sumed that all these mechanisms are possible under certain geologi-
cal conditions. From a geomechanical point of view, they will be di-
vided into three categories:
1. Rapid loading and undercompaction.
2. Fluid generation at depth.
3. Undrained shear.
Pore pressure-porosity and pore pressure-stress relationships are
assessed for each of these categories.
Pore Pressure and Porosity
Pore pressure prediction techniques invariably rely on the assump-
tion that overpressure is associated with undercompaction and thus
with abnormally high porosities. This has been most widely docu-
mented in the Gulf Coast.3
However, many examples of high density, overpressured shales
are known. In the Viking Graben in the North Sea, pore pressure val-
ues of 80% of the overburden stress are known at depths of over
4000 m in low porosity, cemented shales of Jurassic age.7 In the
Jeanne d’Arc Basin, Canada, over 90% pore pressure/overburden
ratios are present at 4500 m, again, in normal density Jurassic
shales.8 The assumptions made in prediction are therefore not al-
ways valid, as discussed later.
Rapid Loading. In the case of rapid loading, the pore pressure rises
because fluid escape is inhibited during rapid burial. It would there-
fore be expected that the porosity of the sediment will reflect the
depth at which compaction ceased (Fig. 1, Case A), and accurate
pore pressure prediction will be possible.
The principle of effective stress can be used to detect the depth at
which sediment compaction had to cease to justify the value of over-
pressure. The equilibrium depth, ze , is the depth at which a normally
consolidated sediment with an equivalent vertical effective stress is
found.9 For the above-mentioned case of overpressuring in the
5

Fig. 1—Schematic illustration of porosity variations with differ-
ent overpressure mechanisms.
Jeanne d’Arc Basin, ze for the overpressured sediments at 4500 m
is 430 m, which is totally incompatible with their density.8
Compacted sediments at depth can become overpressured by sub-
sidence later in their history; however, this mechanism will only
generate overpressures compatible with the increment of applied
vertical stress. Near-lithostatic overpressures in low density sedi-
ments cannot, therefore, be explained by this mechanism.
Fluid Generation at Depth. Fluid generation implies a process by
which fluid is created or added to sediments which could have been
normally consolidated prior to overpressuring. A number of mecha-
nisms apply: smectite dehydration, hydrocarbon generation, and
thermal expansion of fluid. Fluid migration into one sedimentary
unit because of the compaction of another and osmosis could also
apply.3,5
Consider a hydrostatically pressured normally consolidated sedi-
ment at depth into which additional fluid is injected. From a geome-
chanical point of view, the sediment may dilate in response to the
increase in pore pressure, Du, and therefore become overconsoli-
dated (Fig. 1, Case B). Note that the porosity corresponding to the
same pore pressure in the rapid loading case is higher. This may ex-
plain the high overpressures associated with near-normal densities
observed in the Scotian Shelf, further discussed later. Bowers also
gives a good example of this effect.10
If pore pressure is being generated by the thermal cracking of a solid
hydrocarbon phase, however, the change to a fluid phase may cause a
loss of solid and, therefore, a dramatic increase in porosity.11 In this
case, it is conceivable even that the sediment will rebound above its
normal consolidation line (Fig. 1, Case C) and look severely undercon-
solidated for its depth, when this had nothing to do with rapid burial.
Undrained Shear. When a normally consolidated sediment is sub-
jected to shearing, usually through tectonic activity, and the water
cannot escape, it becomes overpressured. This occurs because the
sediment “skeleton” is rearranged by the shear stresses, resulting in
a transfer of the load from the grains to the pore fluid with little volu-
metric change (Fig. 1, Case D). Original porosity does play a part
in the degree of overpressuring: the looser the initial “skeleton,” the
greater the pore pressure response.12 It is possible, by this mecha-
nism, to reach near-geostatic pore pressures with normal porosities
for the depth of burial, as discussed below.
Fig. 1 illustrates this variation in porosity with different overpres-
sure mechanisms for the same effective stress (or pore pressure u;
SV is constant). In Case A, the sediment is underconsolidated so that
it slowly moves along the consolidation line as the load increases
and the fluids dissipate. In Cases B, C, and D, the sediment contin-
6 SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996
Fig. 2—Porosity-effective stress curves for two saturated clays
isotropically consolidated to 50 MPa. The Taiwan clay has a plas-
ticity index of 12; the Trinidad clay an index of 34. This indicates
that the latter is richer in clay minerals.
ued to consolidate and then became overpressured, experiencing a
reduction in effective stress to the same pore pressure that A is on.
B becomes overconsolidated because of fluid injection or expan-
sion. C experiences a phase change from solid to fluid and thus a dra-
matic porosity increase, possibly higher than its normal consolida-
tion state. Lastly, D is subjected to undrained tectonic shear, so that
the pore pressure increases without significant volumetric change.
In cases B and C, the onset, but not the magnitude, of overpressuring
will be predictable by the standard methodology, although Bowers
presents a good method to resolve Case B.10 In Case D, it will be
difficult to predict the onset or magnitude of overpressure because
the sediment experiences little volumetric change. Only Case A can
give an accurate prediction of both onset and magnitude by standard
methodology because of the direct relationship between pore pres-
sure and porosity, but other effects are important.
1. Diagenesis plays an important role in the consolidation of sedi-
ments and must have an effect on overpressuring and on porosity-
based estimations. This is particularly pertinent in carbonates,
where compaction tends to break down.
2. Experimentation demonstrates that sediment type has a great
influence on porosity-effective stress relationships. Consider two
clays—one from Trinidad and one from Taiwan. The former is rich-
er in clay minerals. Both were isotropically consolidated in a triaxial
cell to 50 MPa mean effective stress. The resulting porosity-effec-
tive stress relationships are different (Fig. 2). This means that even
with rapid loading alone, the porosity-pore pressure relationship
can be unique for each clay type, let alone other sediment types.
3. It is known from the soil mechanics literature that the stress re-
gime during consolidation will create a unique porosity-effective
stress relationship. For the same material, the porosity of a sediment
consolidated under isotropic stress will be higher than that of a sedi-
ment consolidated under anisotropic stress.6
The above reviewed some of the potential pitfalls in pore pressure
prediction techniques. The examples discussed below will illustrate
the importance in identifying the cause of overpressuring for more
effective prediction.
Pore Pressure and Stress
There is increasing evidence in basins worldwide that anomalous
pore pressures are usually associated with anomalous horizontal
stresses. In the Gulf of Alaska, the onset of overpressuring with
depth is associated with a change in stress regime from extensional
to compressional.2 The same relationship is observed in the Scotian
Shelf.13 In Brunei, Venezuela, and the Gulf Coast, overpressures are
associated with anomalously high horizontal stresses, and sub-nor-
mal pressures are associated with anomalously low horizontal
stresses.14 There is therefore considerable interest in obtaining rela-
tionships between the two in order to predict one from the other.14,15
Such correlations can be misleading because no single relationship
 u
u minimum horizontal stress and result in hydraulic fracturing. How-
Fig. 3—Relationship between pore pressure and stress: a. rapid
loading, b. fluid generation.
holds true for different areas (and sometimes within a single basin).
The influence of overpressure mechanism on the pore pressure-
stress relationship is discussed below.
Rapid Loading. Rapid loading involves a pore pressure increase di-
rectly as a result of an increase in the vertical stress, SV. In a tectoni-
cally passive basin, such as the Gulf Coast, the horizontal stress, Sh ,
will also increase in response to burial, so that there is a constant ra-
tio, K, between the effective horizontal and vertical stresses. A com-
mon assumption is that zero lateral strain conditions prevail (this is
the simplest assumption, but other stress regimes can be consid-
ered)16:
Sh +{[n/(1*n)](SV *u)})u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
If there is no drainage, an increase in SV by loading will result in an
identical increase in pore pressure and Sh . Fig. 3a illustrates a simple
theoretical case of a normally consolidated, hydrostatically pres-
sured sediment (n+0.38) at a depth corresponding to an SV of 100
MPa. If this sediment is then loaded rapidly to a depth correspond-
ing to 120 MPa, the pore pressure would rise by 20 MPa to 65 MPa;
Sh would also rise by 20 MPa to 98 MPa: the abnormal gradients of
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996
Fig. 4—Excess pore pressure build-up for the two clays in Fig.
2 during undrained shearing with a confining effective stress of
50 MPa.
both u and Sh are the direct result of an undrained increase in SV. The
u/Sh ratio at SV +120 MPa is 0.66, the fracture condition being
u/Sh u1.
Fluid Generation at Depth. Eq. 1 also shows that, when fluid is
generated at depth, it can result in an increase in horizontal stress;
the total vertical stress, which is the weight of the overburden, does
not change. By the same process, a pore pressure reduction leads to
a corresponding reduction in horizontal stress.17 Fig. 3b illustrates
the same sediment as in Fig. 3a, but subjected to overpressuring by
fluid generation resulting in a 20 MPa shift to the right in the pore
pressure gradient. Note that the horizontal stress increases more dra-
matically than in the rapid loading case. At SV +120 MPa, Sh is 102
MPa, so that the u/Sh ratio is 0.73. This ratio is at its highest value
at the onset of overpressuring (0.76, SV +100 MPa).
Because of the transient nature of overpressuring, it is possible for
a pulse of fluid to increase the fluid pressure beyond the value of the
ever, for the case described in Eq. 1, in neither the fluid source nor
the rapid loading mechanisms can the horizontal stress exceed the
vertical stress. The magnitude of increase or decrease in Sh is natu-
rally dependent on the value of Poisson’s ratio, n. With a fluid source
mechanism, it is possible that the sediment fluidizes at depth, thus
experiencing an increase in u. This can be especially effective if the
solid hydrocarbon phase is altering to a fluid phase (Fig. 1, Case C).
An increase in the dynamic n of shales from 0.35 to 0.48 is observed
in the Gulf Coast as the u/SV ratio increases from 0.5 to 0.9; in sands,
the corresponding increase is 0.28-0.3518.
Undrained Shear. Undrained shear is the opposite situation where
horizontal stress increase results in fluid pressure generation. The
sediment “skeleton” rearranges its structure in response to the
change in shear stress, transferring some of the load to the pore
fluid.12 Fig. 4 illustrates how much excess pore pressure is gener-
ated in sediments consolidated at an effective stress of 50 MPa
(around 4km).
Coarse sediment gives a higher pore pressure response (Fig. 4) if
the porosity is high enough; sandstones and chalks are particularly
susceptible to this behavior and can be severely overpressured if
sealed by shale units.12
In summary, there is a relationship between Sh and u in sedimenta-
ry basins, but this is not a constant. Both u and Sh are related to SV
in the rapid loading case. u causes an increase in Sh in the fluid
7
 1. The sedimentation rates in the history of the basin were low,19
so that rapid loading cannot be responsible.
2. The density of the sediments registers a small anomaly at
approximately 5 km (Fig. 5). However, the ze for the pore pressures
at that depth is approximately 1.5 km, i.e., compaction would have
had to cease completely from 1.5 to approximately 5 km, or shal-
lower if some fluid has escaped. This is incompatible with point 1
and with the sediment density at 1.5 km (unless cementation, which
is inhibited by undercompaction, has caused a density increase from
about 2.25 to 2.75 g/cc, Fig. 5).
3. The transition zone is narrow, which would imply that either a
seal has been perfect over the above depth range, or, more likely, a
recent fluid pulse has caused the overpressures.
4. The top of the overpressure coincides with the 130 °C isotherm,
which is associated with hydrocarbon maturation19; vitrinite reflec-
tance studies show the same correlation.20
5. No tectonic activity is recorded, but the pore pressure is
associated with an increase in horizontal stress, causing a change in
stress regime.13,21
It is possible to detect the onset of overpressures in this area because
the density and the sonic velocity decrease. This would be expected
from a fluid source mechanism (Figs. 1, 5), especially if the fluid is gas.
However, it would be dangerous to calculate the magnitude of over-
pressuring from the anomaly using standard methodology.
Operators on the Scotian Shelf were, indeed, able to successfully
detect the depth of overpressuring by using reflection seismic data
calibrated to nearby wells. The degree of overpressuring, however,
was not correctly predicted, which led to surprises, such as the blow-
out in the Venture N-91 well.
The u/Sh gradient is high and changes with depth in the overpres-
sured zone; the highest value is between 4.5 and 5 km, where great
care should be exercised in drilling. Sh equals or exceeds SV at depth.
Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea abuts the Arctic coast of western
Canada. Tertiary sediments are 10 km deep. The sedimentary se-
quences are dominated by shale and sandstone, shale being domi-
nant at depth offshore (south) and sand being dominant nearshore.
Significant overpressuring is encountered at depths below 2.5 km
in the middle to outer shelf area. Pressure gradients exceeding 20
kPa/m have been measured.
Fig. 6 shows pore pressure and stress magnitude variations with
depth in a typical middle to outer shelf well, Siulik I-05 (70.141°N,
134.511°W). The pore pressure data here are from mudweights, but
the overpressures are verified in the area by drillstem and repeat
formation tests.
It is believed that the cause of overpressuring in this area of the Beau-
fort Sea has a strong tectonic component because of the following.
1. The area is active seismically.22
2. The Canadian portion of the Beaufort Basin was affected by
widespread Tertiary compressive deformation that continued into
Late Miocene time and, locally, Quaternary folding is docu-
mented.23 A regional array of shale-cored, structurally aligned,
thrusted anticlines is present beneath outer shelf areas.
3. The top of the main overpressured zone exhibits significant relief
with undulations that mimic the form of the shale-cored anticlines.
4. Compaction levels in the area of the well are normal; no density
or velocity anomalies are recorded (Fig. 6).
5. The ze at 4 km is approximately 1.5 km. Considering that the
severe overpressures are in thick sandstones, it is difficult to see how
they can retain high pore pressures before being buried by shales.
As mentioned above, sandstones are susceptible to overpressuring
by undrained shear. Evidence for this can be found locally in the
area, where small pockets of sandstone are overpressured at depths
shallower than 2.5 km.
6. The upper two leak-off tests give a fracture gradient slightly
less than the vertical stress. In the overpressured zone, however, the
fracture pressure rises to coincide with the vertical stress (Fig. 6).
This suggests that either stress isotropy prevails or, more likely, both
horizontal principal stresses exceed SV, indicative of a thrust fault re-
gime.
SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996
It is not possible to detect either the onset or the magnitude of over-
pressures in this case because of the absence of an anomaly (Fig. 6),
exactly what would be expected from undrained shear (Fig. 1).
Seismic reflection data, in fact, proved to be ambiguous in pre-
dicting overpressuring in the outer shelf area, let alone their magni-
tudes. Severe drilling problems were encountered.
The u/Sh ratio changes with depth, but, unlike the Scotian Shelf
example, the effective stress is more or less constant.
In summary, the Scotian Shelf and Beaufort Sea, both highly
overpressured regions, reveal different overpressure origins. In the
middle to outer shelf area of the Beaufort Sea, it is difficult to detect
the overpressures because of the lack of a density or sonic anomaly.
The relationships between pore pressure and stress are also different
in the two areas.
Conclusions and Implications
1. The onset of overpressuring can be detected using a density
anomaly for all but the tectonic shear mechanism.
2. Pore pressure magnitude can be predicted from the standard
methods using density anomaly only if undercompaction has been
the mechanism for overpressuring. It is therefore important to iden-
tify the overpressure mechanism(s) operating in order to assess the
potential difficulties in detection.
3. The relationship between pore pressure and fracture pressure
is also different for each of the three mechanisms so that correlations
between the two for prediction purposes can be misleading. The as-
sessment of the safety window between pore pressure and fracture
pressure has to be performed with accurate measurements of both.
4. A knowledge of the geology of an area greatly assists the analy-
sis of overpressured regimes, their causes and timing, and their ef-
fects on porosity and stress.
Nomenclature
u+ pore fluid pressure
Du+ change in u
SV + total vertical stress
Sh + total minimum horizontal stress
K+ ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stresses
n+ Poisson’s ratio.
ze + equilibrium depth
References
1. Anderson, R.A., Ingram, D.S. and Zanier, A.M.: “Fracture Pressure
Gradient Determination form Well Logs,” SPE paper 4135 (1972).
2. Hottman, C.E., Smith, J.H. and Purcell, W.R.: “Relationship Among
Earth Stresses, Pore Pressure and Drilling Problems Offshore Gulf of
Alaska,” SPE AIME (Nov. 1979), 1477–1484.
3. Fertl, W.: “Abnormal Formation Pressures: implications to exploration,
drilling and production of oil and gas reservoirs,” Development in Petro-
leum Science 2 (1976), 382 pp.
4. Rieke, H. and Chilingarian, G.: “Compaction of Argillaceous Sedi-
ments,” Developments in Sedimentology 16 (1974), 424pp.
5. Mouchet, J.P. and Mitchell, A: “Abnormal pressures while drilling,” Elf
Aquitaine Manuels Techniques 2 (1989), 264pp.
6. Yassir, N.A.: “Mud volcanoes and the behaviour of overpressured clays
and silts,” PhD thesis, University of London, UK, (1989), 249p.
7. Carstens, H and Dypvik, H.: “Abnormal Formation Pressure and Shale
porosity,” AAPG Bull. 65 (1981), 334–350.
8. Yassir, N.A. and Rogers, A.L..“Overpressures, fluid flow and stress re-
gimes in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, Canada,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
& Geomech. Ab. 30 (1993), 1209–1213.
9. Chapman, R.E.: “Petroleum Geology,” (1983), Elsevier.
10. Bowers, G.L.: “Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Account-
ing for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction,” IADC/
SPE 27488 (Feb 1994), 515–523.
11. Bjorlykke, K.: “Fluid Flow in Sedimentary Basins,” Sed. Geol. 86
(1993), 137–158.
12. Yassir, N.A.: “Undrained Shear Characteristics of Clay at High Total
Stresses,” Rock at Great Depth, V. Maury and D. Fourmaintraux, eds.
(1990), 2, 907–913.
9
13. Bell, J.S.: “The Stress Regime of the Scotian Shelf, Offshore Eastern SI Metric Conversion Factors
Canada, to 6 Kilometres Depth and Implications for Rock Mechanics ft 3.048* E*01 +m
and Hydrocarbon Migration,” Rock at Great Depth, vol. 3, V. Maury & °F (°F–32)/1.8 +°C
D. Fourmaintraux, eds. (1990), 3, 1243–1265. lbf/in2 6.894757 E*03 +MPa
14. Breckles, I.M. and van Eekelen, H.A.M.: “Relationship Between Hori-
mile 1.609 344* E)00 +km
zontal Stress and Depth in Sedimentary Basins,” SPE paper 10336
(1981). *Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
15. Thiercelin, M.: “Stress Profiling Techniques in Heterogeneous Over-
pressured Formations,” Proc. 32nd U.S. Symp. Rock Mech., Roegiers,
J-C, ed. (1991), 15–24. Balkema. Najwa Yassir is a research scientist at CSIRO Petroleum in MelĆ
16. Addis, M.A., Last, N and Yassir, N.: “The Estimation of Horizontal bourne, Australia. She conducts research on petroleum geoĆ
mechanics problems, including overpressure prediction, stress
Stresses at Depth in Faulted Regions and their Relationships to Pore
measurement, and seal integrity assessment. Previously, she
Pressure Variations,” SPE paper 28140, this volume. was Assistant Professor of Geology and Geological Engineering
17. Teufel, L.W., Rhett, D.W. and Farrell, H.E.: “Effect of Reservoir Deple- at the U. of Waterloo in Canada. She holds a BSc and a PhD in
tion and Pore Pressure Drawdown on in Situ Stress and Deformation in geology from the U. of London. Sebastian Bell is a research sciĆ
the Ekofisk Field, North Sea,” Proc. 32nd U.S. Symp. Rock Mech., entist at the Geological Survey of Canada. Previously, he
Roegiers, J-C, ed. (1991), 63–72. worked as a field geologist (Venezuela), a university professor
18. Darling, H. (Personal communication, 1993). (California and Alberta), and an exploration geologist (Shell
19. Atlantic Geoscience Centre, Geological Survey of Canada, East Coast and BP). He has investigated stress regimes of sedimentary baĆ
Basin Atlas: Scotian Shelf, (1991), 152pp. sins since 1979. He graduated from the Universities of Oxford
20. Mukhopadhyay. (Personal communication, 1993). and Princeton, majoring in geology.
21. Yassir, N. A. and Bell, J. S.: “Relationships Between Pore Pressure,
Stresses and Present-Day Geodynamics in the Scotian Shelf, Offshore
Eastern Canada”. AAPG Bull., 78 (1994), 1863-1880.
22. Dixon, J.A.: “Geological Atlas of the Beaufort-McKenzie Area,” Geo-
logical Survey of Canada Open File (in press).
23. Lane, L. S. and Dietrich, J. R.: “Tertiary Structural Evolution of the
Beaufort Sea—Mackenzie Delta Region, Arctic Canada,” Bulletin of
Canadian Petroleum Geology, 43 (1995), 293–314. Yassir Bell

10 SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1996