_applied sciences_  
_Article_  
**The Relationship between the Time Difference of Formation Water Infiltration Rate, Tectonic Movement, and the Formation Pressure Coefficient**  
[PERSON] 1\({}^{\copyright}\), [PERSON] 1,*, [PERSON] 2, [PERSON] 1, [PERSON] 1, [PERSON] 1 and [PERSON] 1  
1 School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China; [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (X.M. ); [EMAIL_ADDRESS] (Z.L.) Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; [EMAIL_ADDRESS]  
Footnote 13  
+++ ==WARNING: Truncated because of repetitions==
: footnotemark:  
++  
hydrocarbon generation and expansion), then to abnormal low pressure (as migration halts and hydrocarbon dissipation exceeds supply), and finally back to normal pressure. Additionally, overpressure implications extend to the safety of drilling and geological engineering operations and the development planning of oil and gas fields [14; 15]. Therefore, the distribution and genesis mechanism of overpressure have always been of great concern to geologists and exploration workers, and the significance of research in this area is profound. The causes of overpressure have been widely discussed, with undercompaction, hydrocarbon generation, and tectonic compression being recognized as the three common pressure-increasing mechanisms [16; 17; 18; 19; 20]. [PERSON] et al. (2019) [21] proposed that tectonic compression can reduce porosity, thereby generating overpressure. The two most common causes of abnormally high pressure in petroleum basins are compaction disequilibrium and hydrocarbon generation [22]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] (1997) [23] suggested that unbalanced compaction is a viable mechanism for overpressure during rapid burial of thick mudstone sequences while dismissing other mechanisms, sparking significant debate. [PERSON] (1986) [24] quantitatively analyzed the efficiency of dehydration during the transformation of smectite to illite on formation pressure, concluding that its effect is negligible. Both undercompaction and hydrocarbon generation are considered the primary factors leading to overpressure. [PERSON] et al. (2020) [25] argued that most factors causing abnormal pressure occur only under specific conditions, with undercompaction, hydrocarbon generation, and tectonic stress remaining the most common controlling factors. Due to the influence of overpressure genesis, there can be a negative effect on the generation of hydrocarbons. For instance, the overall impact of overpressure on the thermal evolution of organic matter can be divided into four levels, but generally, it has an inhibitory effect, albeit with varying degrees of inhibition [26]. In summary, there are various factors that can cause formation overpressure. Currently, there is no single mechanism that can explain overpressure under all conditions. For example, undercompaction can only explain overpressure during the sedimentation process but not during uplift. Tectonic compression can explain overpressure in foreland basins but cannot explain overpressure in extensional fault basins. Hydrocarbon generation and pressurization can cause overpressure, but they cannot explain overpressure in the absence of oil and gas. For example, the Kela 2 gas field has overpressure, but Kela 1 and Kela 3, which do not contain oil and gas, still exhibit ultra-high pressure. Each hypothesis can only explain a specific type of overpressure, indicating that these piecemeal, customized, or patchwork theories of overpressure genesis may inherently have some flaws. Generally speaking, the more geological factors listed, the further away we may be from the truth. Whether there is a unified, truly dominant factor that can explain formation pressure under different conditions is the goal of this article to explore in depth. A common, yet often overlooked factor, is formation water, which plays a pivotal role in underground geological fluids.