Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
A procedure is presented for using wireline or MWD data to
identify when high pressure techniques are necessary to
predict pore pressures inside velocity reversals. Shale sonic
velocity and density data are smoothed and cross-plotted. If
the reversal data lie on the same trend as points from lower
pressure intervals, shale pore pressures can be computed with
an Equivalent Depth approach. A high pressure technique is
necessary when the reversal velocities track a slower trend.
Introduction
An indicator of possibly high overpressure is a velocity
reversal, i.e., a zone in which the velocities all drop below the
value at some shallower depth. When velocity-effective stress
data from a reversal diverge from the compaction trend
defined by shallower formations, the Equivalent Depth
method can significantly underestimate pore pressures (Fig.
1). The same will hold true for any pore pressure estimation
method that relies upon a single velocity-effective stress
relation.
Bowers (1995) discussed ways to account for high
pressure situations. For instance, a second velocity-effective
stress relation can be introduced, the exponent in Eatons pore
pressure equation (1975) can be increased, or the standard
Eaton equation can be combined with an exponential normal
trend (Fig. 2). Wilhelm (1998) employs velocity effective
stress relations that steepen with decreasing cation exchange
capacity (CEC) and, to a lesser degree, increasing temperature
(Fig. 3). Temperature defines the shape of the shallow normal
trend curve. High pore pressures are matched by reducing the
CEC values for an interval.
GLENN L. BOWERS
OTC 13042
OTC 13042
when the sonic and resistivity logs undergo reversals, but the
density log does not, as in Fig. 10.
If all three logs go through reversals, then pick a point at
the same depth in each reversal, and project it vertically
upwards until it crosses the log again. If all three logs are
crossed at similar depths, the Equivalent Depth method should
work. If the density log is intersected at a deeper depth than
the other two logs, a high pressure technique is necessary.
Velocity-Density Crossplots
When interpreting velocity-density cross-plots, it is helpful to
have some bounds on the expected range of values for shales.
For densities greater than 2.1 g/cc, Gardners relation:
V (ft/s) = (/.23)4
(1)
(2)
Fig. 11 compares Eqs. 1 and 2 with published velocitydensity data for sands and shales. Note that Gardners
equation can significantly overestimate near seafloor densities.
Revised Bowers Method
Bowers (1995) proposed a modified Equivalent Depth
method for dealing with velocity reversals when unloading is
expected. The vertical effective stress at Point B in Fig. 12
would be computed from the equation:
ED U
B = Max
Max
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
GLENN L. BOWERS
estimated Vmax and max values along the reversal are shown
in Figures 17-a and 17-b.
The velocity drop from A to B on the velocity-density
cross-plot could also be attributed to a lithology change, with
segment B-C defining a different compaction trend.
However, experience has shown that when reversal data drop
below the compaction trend for lower pressure intervals, high
pressure techniques are generally necessary.
Figures 18-a and 18-b compare the estimated pore
pressures and effective stresses with measured data. Two sets
of estimates are shown for each parameter: the current value,
and the value at the onset of unloading.
The pore pressure and effective stress plots both indicate
that maximum unloading occurred at the point where the well
penetrated the sand. Above and below this point, the current
and past profiles approach each other, and ultimately merge
together. This effect is probably easiest to see in Fig. 18-c,
which plots the ratio of the estimated past maximum effective
stress divided by the current effective stress.
Estimates of the maximum past effective stress at the
point indicated by the triangle in Fig. 18-b were obtained by
Stump, et. al., (1998) through laboratory compaction tests. It
can be seen that the lab-derived value is in good agreement
with the curve derived from the velocity-density data.
All-in-all, this well appears to be a textbook example of
the centroid effect.
Summary
The velocity-density cross-plot can be a highly useful tool for
pore pressure analysis. It can help: 1) identify where high
pressure pore solutions are appropriate, 2) sort data into
common compaction trend groups, and 3) for unloading zones,
establish estimates of past maximum velocities.
Nomenclature
OTC 13042
References
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Beth Stump, Peter Flemings, and Penn State
for generously allowing access to the EI 330-A20S/T well
data..
14.
OTC 13042
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
GLENN L. BOWERS
Velocity (kft/s)
7.5 10 12.5
15
18
0
2000
6000
6000
VA
8000
10000
Pressure Tests
Reversal
11
Press. Tests
Main Compaction
Trend:
10
Velocity (kft/s)
4000
Depth (ft)
4000
12
Equiv. Depth
Normal
Trend
2000
Depth (ft)
OTC 13042
8000
VB = VA
9
8
Equivalent
Depth
Estimate
10000
12000
14000
Equivalent
Depth
14000
Estimate
For PB
16000
VB
16000
a)
5
0
For
12000
3
4
5
6
Effective Stress (ksi)
b)
c)
Fig. 1 Reversal zones. Case where the Equivalent Depth method fails due to velocity
reversal data diverging from the compaction trend for shallower formations
Velocity (kft/s)
7.5
10 12.5
15
0
Pw r Law V n
2000
2000
Exp. Vn
4000
4000
6000
6000
15
Pressure
Tests
Pw r Law
Pw r Law ; E=3
14
Expon.; E=3
13
Eatons Eq.
12
B = NB (V/VNB)
Press. Tests
Velocity (kft/s)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
11
8000
10000
10000
12000
14000
16000
VNB
VNB
Pwr Law
a)
VB
Expon. Vn;
E=3
7
6
12000
14000
VNB
Pwr Law
10
8000
VNB
5
0
B Pwr Law
3
4
5
6
Effective Stress (ksi)
16000
b)
c)
Fig. 2 Reversal zones: Effect of switching from a power law to an exponential normal
trend on Eaton method pore pressure estimates in a velocity reversal.
NB
7
11
CEC=12;
Tgrd=2F/100
CEC=12;
Tgrd=1F/100
10
Velocity (kft/s)
OTC 13042
9
8
CEC=22;
Tgrd=1F/100
CEC=22;
Tgrd=2F/100
8-15 ppg
15-17 ppg
5
0
Overburden Stress
Shale Far Field
Pore Pressure
Reservoir
Pore
Pressure
Crest Charges
Shallow Shales
Base
Charges
Crest
Deep Shales
Charge Base
Sand
Normal
Pressure
Shale
GLENN L. BOWERS
OTC 13042
Overburden
Stress
Normal
Top of
Overpressure
Undercompaction
Undercompaction
+
Fluid Expansion
Sand
Effective
Stress
Pore
Pressure
Unloading
During
Burial
Shale
17
2.8
17
2.6
15
Density (g/cc)
Velocity (kft/s)
15
13
Estimated
Compaction
Trend
11
9
7
2.4
Unloading Curve
2.2
Estimated
Compaction
Trend
2
1.8
Velocity (kft/s)
Unloading Curve
10
15
a)
20
13
Compaction
11
9
7
1.6
0
Unloading
5
0
10
15
20
b)
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
Density (g/cc)
c)
2.5
2.7
OTC 13042
Velocity
Density
Compaction
Trend
Velocity
Depth
B
Normal
Trend
Normal
Trend
A, C
C
Unloading
C
C
Reversal
C
Density
a)
b)
c)
100
1000
10000
100
1000
(%)
E
B-TG-6b
1
V-8
V-7
0.1
0.01
K (nd)
EJA-2
10
VSF-1
10
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
a)
70
100
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
b)
60
70
10
20
30
40
50
c)
Fig. 8 Response of porosity (a), permeability (b), and formation factor (c) to changes in
effective confining pressure (Bowers & Katsube, 2001). VSF-1 is a sample of
seafloor mud. All other samples are shales.
60
70
10
GLENN L. BOWERS
Connecting
Pore
OTC 13042
Pore
Shape
Aspect
Ratio
Sensitivity
to Fluid
Expansion
> 0.1
Poor
0.001 0.1
Good
Storage Pores
High aspect ratios
Mechanically stiff
Nodes along the pore network
If P < Smin:
Smin
Connecting Pores
Poor
< 0.001
If P = Smin:
Mechanically flexible
Good
Fig. 9 Pore structure models used to characterize shale behavior (Bowers & Katsube, 2001).
Density (g/cc)
2.2
2.4
2.6
Res. (ohmm)
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
Vp (km/s)
2.5
3.5
0
P P s o nic
a)
b)
Depth km)
Depth (km)
RFT's
c)
Mud
Weight
Equiv.
Depth
Soln.
d)
Fig. 10 Determining from wireline logs when the equivalent depth method will fall. The
sonic and resistivity logs undergo reversals not seen by the density log.
OTC 13042
20
20
Suspensions
18
14
Vp (kft/s)
Ottawa Sand
12
10
18
16
Vp (kft/s)
11
Gardners Eq.
50:50 Silica/Clay
16
Hamilton Mudstone
14
Beaufort-Mackenzie Shale
Gulf Co a s t S h a le
12
10
P ie rre Shale
Proposed
Lower Bound
6
4
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
Density (g/cc)
2.5
Gardners Eq.
Proposed
Lower Bound
6
4
2.7
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
Density (g/cc)
a)
2.5
2.7
b)
Fig. 11 Gardners relation and the proposed lower bound curve vs sand (a) and shale (b) velocity-density data.
References: Suspensions (Smith, 1974); Sandstone, 30%, & 31-51% Clay (Han, et. al, 1986); Gulf Coast
Sand/Sandstone (Gregory, 1977); Ottawa Sand (Domenico, 1977); 50-50 Silica Clay Mix (Karig & Hou,
1992); Hamilton Mudstone, Hamilton (1976 (1976; 1979); Beaufort-Mackenzie Shale (Issier & Katsube,
1994); Gulf Coast Shale (Gregory, 1977); Cotton Valley Shale & Pierre Shale (Tosaya, 1982).
Velocity (kft/s)
7.5 10 12.5
15
0
2000
Normal
Trend
8000
Vmax
12000
16000
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
6000
8000
10000
11
Unloading Curve
Vmax
VB
8
7
Max
12000
B VB
14000
Compaction Trend
B = Max (A/Max)U
10
4000
Zmax
Pressure
Test
12
Overb
Pnorm
Press. Test
2000
6000
14000
15
4000
10000
Pressure (ksi)
5
10
Velocity (kft/s)
PB
16000
Max
3
4
5
6
Effective Stress (ksi)
12
GLENN L. BOWERS
Velocity
OTC 13042
Density
Velocity (kft/s)
Depth
Depth
VMax
Compaction Trend:
V = V0 + A (-0)B
=1
=0
Unloading Trend:
V -0
- 0 = (Max-0) -
Max
0
VMax
Max
Max
Density (g/cc)
a)
b)
c)
Vp (kft/s)
10
15
10
15
12
2.8
11
Depth (kft)
Depth (kft)
Density (g/cc)
2.4
10
A
B
VMaxB
VMaxC
a)
Velocity (kft/s)
15
10
Compaction Trend:
B, C
8
7
6
A
B
MaxB
MaxC
5
2
b)
Fig. 14 Velocity reversal with constant Vmax.
2.1
2.2
2.3
Density (g/cc)
c)
2.4
2.5
OTC 13042
Vp (kft/s)
10
15
12
2.8
11
10
VMaxC
MaxB
a)
Compaction Trend:
8
7
5
2
MaxC
15
10
A
B
VMaxB
15
10
A
B
Velocity (kft/s)
Depth (kft)
Depth (kft)
Density (g/cc)
2.4
13
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Density (g/cc)
b)
c)
Vp (kft/s)
10
15
10
11
10
A
B
15
12
2.8
Depth (kft)
Depth (kft)
Density (g/cc)
2.4
VMaxB
VMaxC
C
a)
Velocity (kft/s)
15
10
Compaction Trend:
C
9
8
7
6
A
B
MaxB
MaxC
5
2
b)
Fig. 16 Velocity Reversal with increasing Vmax.
2.1
2.2
2.3
Density (g/cc)
c)
2.4
2.5
14
GLENN L. BOWERS
Vp (kft/s)
7 8
9 10 11
2
1
2
3
TVDrkb (kft)
5
6
A
B
Vmax, max
From
A to C
B
Unloading
7
C
5
6
4.17-5.02 kft
5.12-5.77
5.84-6.36
6.40-7.81
A
B
max
Unloading
Unloading
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Rho (g/cc)
a)
b)
c)
Sigm ax/Sigm a
1
2
3
4
P @ S igmax
5
6
7
8
9
10
P@
Sigmax
Sigma
Sigmax
Sand Pressures
Transferred Up-dip
a)
S igma
S ig m a x
S igma @ RFT's
La b S igmax
10
TVDrkb (kft)
RFT's
TVDrkb (kft)
Compaction
Trend
2.4
9
Vmax
10
Vp (kft/s)
TVDrkb (kft)
TVDrkb (kft)
Rho (g/cc)
2.1 2.2 2.3
OTC 13042
6
7
8
9
Unloading Above
& Below Sand
10
b)
c)