Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
WARNING
This material has been copied and communicated to you by or on
behalf of Curtin University of Technology pursuant to Part VB of
the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act)
?
Connectivity resistance
(permeability, mud cake,
Mud
cement,…) cake
Overbalanced drilling
Mud
50 to 300 psi cake
Differential pressure =
In this unit, the focus is on pore pressure and fracture pressure calculations
water
saturat
ed rock
Depth
Depth
0.052
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
10
water
saturat
ed rock
Depth
0.052
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
11
water
saturated 0.052
Fluid1
pressure?
Fluid2
Depth
Depth
0.052
saturated by:
14
Hydrostatic
column of
D pore fluid
15
16
0.052
Abnormal pressure:
0.052
The source
Pore of normal
and Fracture Pressure pore pressure:
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
17
TVD
Hydrostatic
column of D
pore fluid
18
abnormal
pressure
Depth
Depth
subnormal
pressure
Normal pressure gradient depends on the salinity of the pore fluid in the region.
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
19
abnormal
pressure
Depth
Depth
subnormal
pressure
Normal pressure gradient depends on the salinity of the pore fluid in the region.
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
20
Example
Calculate the pore pressure at 30m, 600m, and
dry rock
1100m.
1100m
21
Example
dry rock
Pore pressure at 30m:
@ 0
Mud pressure at 30m: 30m
.
@ 0.052 8.341 30 42.7
600-30 = 570 m
water
At 600m:
. saturated
@ 0.052 8.6 836.3
@ 0.052 8.341 600
.
853.9 600m 8.6
At 1100m: 1100-30=1070 m
1100m
.
@ 0.052 8.6 1570.0
.
@ 0.052 8.341 1100 1565.4
Any kick?
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
22
Example
dry rock
Pore pressure at 30m:
@ 0
Mud pressure at 30m: 30m
.
@ 0.052 8.341 30 42.7
water
At 600m:
. saturated
@ 0.052 8.6 836.3
@ 0.052 8.341 600
.
853.9 600m 8.6
No kick
At 1100m: 1100m
.
@ 0.052 8.6 1570.0
.
@ 0.052 8.341 1100 1565.4
Kick
23
Location Pressure
Gradient (psi/ft)
West Texas 0.434 Link to exercise book.
North Sea 0.452 Offshore Perth Basin
Malaysia 0.442 pressure gradient will be
calculated.
California 0.439
Gulf of Mexico 0.465
Fresh water 0.433
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
24
Socrative Quiz
25
26
http://kaffee.50webs.com
27
Source: www.slb.com
28
Source: www.slb.com
• Preserved sampling
• Good depth resolution
• Embedding other sensors detecting
fluid type & composition,
permeability, temperature, … Ayan et al. (2001)
29
30
(Zhang, 2011)
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
31
32
pore fluid
pressure, P1
33
Shale formations: fine grain rock, made of clay size minerals (smaller than
2 m)
shale calcite
Definition of clay!
34
• Compaction effects
• Diagenesis effects
35
Compaction Effects
• The variation of the pore pressure as the depth of burial increases
• A journey through millions of years, during the sedimentation
ground surface
more sediment,
more geostatic load
ground surface
Sealant required!
36
P • Valve is open
• Valve is close
37
Pore pressure
38
39
40
Zhang (2011)
41
42
Diagenetic Process
Montmorilonite
transformation
Releasing
water
Pore pressure
increase
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
43
44
45
46
, ,
ℓ ℓg ℓ
ℓ
Calculating at this point
47
Example:
0m
Calculate the overburden stress for below rock
1.5 gr/cc
configuration at the depth of 100m and 1200m:
100 m
1.75 gr/cc
200 m
1.85 gr/cc
400 m
2.2 gr/cc
1200 m
48
Example:
0m
Calculate the overburden stress for below rock
1.5 gr/cc
configuration at the depth of 1200m:
100 m
1.75 gr/cc
@ 0.052
200 m
8.341 3.281
@ 0.052 1.5 100
1 / 1
1.85 gr/cc
@ 213.5
400 m
Stress and pressure have the same dimensions but
they are fundamentally different!
2.2 gr/cc
1200 m
49
Example:
@
0.052 @ @
@ @
3493.7 psi 0m
1.5 gr/cc
100 m
1.75 gr/cc
200 m
1.85 gr/cc
400 m
50
1200 m
Example:
Calculate the overburden stress for the below rock 0m
450m
2.2 gr/cc
1250 m
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
51
Example:
@
0m
1.1 gr/cc
0.052 @ @ 50 m
@ @ 1.5 gr/cc
@ 150 m
1.75 gr/cc
3571.9 psi
250m
1.85 gr/cc
The hydrostatic pressure of the sea water is
also added to overburden. 450m
2.2 gr/cc
1250 m
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
52
53
Integration Background
54
Integration Background
55
Integration Background
Area under the curve = A
56
https://www.spec2000.net
57
1
Matrix or
Deriving this equation? grain
density
Fluid density
58
• The density log is not often available for the entire well
• Bulk density can be obtained based on variation of the porosity:
1
Matrix or
• Assuming a constant and grain
density
across the entire depth
• Characterising porosity
Fluid density
exponentially vs depth
• bulk density can be estimated
is the depth below the surface
59
5000 5000
Depth [ft]
Depth [ft]
10000 10000
15000 15000
20000 20000
25000 25000
The trends?
Exponential and linear curve fitting
in petroleum engineering, example?
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
60
log 1 1
lim 1 or
→ !
ln log
61
ln ln ln ln ln
ln
ln ln
ln
ln ln
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
62
5000 5000
10000 10000
Depth [ft]
Depth [ft]
15000 15000
ln ln
20000 20000
25000 25000
63
Example:
Characterise the variation of porosity with depth for below data set:
Depth (ft)
0 0.29
100 0.27
300 0.26
500 0.25
700 0.24
900 0.235
1100 0.23
1500 0.225
1700 0.217
2000 0.215
2500 0.18
2800 0.175
3000 0.17
3500 0.16
4500 0.13
5500 0.12
6500 0.105
Pore and Fracture Pressure
7500 0.095
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology 8500 0.085
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
9500 0.075 64
Example:
Phi
Depth (ft) ln
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 0.29 -1.23787
0
100 0.27 -1.30933
300 0.26 -1.34707 1000
500 0.25 -1.38629
700 0.24 -1.42712 2000
Depth (ft)
1700 0.217 -1.52786
5000
2000 0.215 -1.53712
2500 0.18 -1.7148 6000
2800 0.175 -1.74297
3000 0.17 -1.77196 7000
3500 0.16 -1.83258
8000
4500 0.13 -2.04022
5500 0.12 -2.12026 9000
6500 0.105 -2.25379
7500 0.095 -2.35388 10000
8500 0.085 -2.4651
9500 0.075 -2.59027
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
65
Phi
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Example: 0
1000
2000
3000
Depth (ft)
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
‐1.5 0.000141
‐2 .
0.269
‐2.5
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
‐3
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
66
67
to be
1 compared
with
and
1
Field units
0.052 1
68
from •Integration
•
vs depth •
Calculating
from
model
• model
Comparing •Direct use
of
69
71
Petro-
physical/geo- Drilling
physical logs
T
R
Porosity Related
72
Fluid receives
more stress
Less compaction
Less
Higher Porosity
73
Density
Resistivity or Conductivity
How are these
parameters function
of porosity?
The variation of these parameters vs depth is: X(D)
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
74
Density 1
Resistivity or Conductivity
75
Qualitative
Abnormal Deviation from
Pore Pressure the normal
Detection trend
https://writersfield.wordpress.com
Quantitative
Abnormal The
Pore Pressure estimation of
Estimation pore pressure
Correlations or
concept of effective
matrix stress
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
76
Normal trend,
increases with
depth, why?
Zhang (2011)
77
Zhang (2011)
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Are we going to have kick
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
in the first 2000 ft?
78
http://fasttrakinc.com/
https://writersfield.wordpress.com
Zhang (2011)
79
Cyan dash lines are not part of cited reference.
predictions
Direct
measurement
vs prediction
Why does
overburden
pressure line
stop at depth
of 4,000 ft?
Zhang (2011)
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
80
predictions
Direct
Normal trend
measurement
https://writersfield.wordpress.com
vs prediction
Abnormal trend
Zhang (2011)
normal trend
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
Cyan and green dash lines are not part of cited reference. 81
Zhang (2011)
82
Pressure Detection –
Resistivity
Zhang (2011)
Pressure Detection –
Resistivity
• The gamma ray log does not show
abnormal zone
Zhang (2011)
Example of
Abnormal Pressure
Detection –
Conductivity
Zhang (2011)
86
Concept of Pore
Effective pressure Correlations
Equivalent estimation
matrix stress
87
88
Equivalent - Concept
http://www.clag.org.uk/
Sonic
Ruler
89
Equivalent - Concept
• , and are known.
• ONLY is known, and and are desired.
• The sonic tools show the same pattern the same distance between pistons
• Thus:
• We have and we know and are known
• Thus: we know and
open ? ?
90
Normal trend
(does it need to be linear ?)
91
If ∗ ∗ Abnormal zone
∗
Thus:
∗ ∗
92
• Normal
zone
Detection • Abnormal
zone
Finding
equivalent
• Abnormal
Calculation pressure
93
Normal trend
Abnormal zone
94
95
Other capabilities:
P-wave [m/s]
96
is gradient.
is pore pressure gradient (psi/ft)
97
98
Correlations
Equivalent
Which one to
select?
99
TOB
Higher ROP
ROP
Increasing rock strength
200
2
Axial stress, 1 (MPa)
150
1= 4.63 3+42.67
100
Drilling Break
50
UCS = 42.6 MPa, C = 9.90 MPa, 40.28o
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 Detournay and Atkinson (2000)
Confining pressure, 3 (MPa)
100
strength
50
Decrease in UCS = 42.6 MPa, C = 9.90 MPa, 40.28o
Drilling 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Performance Confining pressure, 3 (MPa)
2
effect
http://petroleumsupport.com/ 101
TOB
102
exponent W
log log
TO
B
ROP
log
log
log 60
log
10
103
log
60
log
10
104
105
Zamora (1972)
106
old bit
http://www.offshore-technology.com/
new bit
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/
107
•Calculating
d exponent •Plotting
•Calculating
exponent •Plotting
Detection of
Abnormal
zone
Pore
Pressure
Calculation
108
109
111
112
Direction of Fracture
• Perpendicular to
minimum horizontal
stress, that is
minimum resistance
http://veeveeayusim.blogspot.com.au/
How much is ?
113
?
2 2
114
1
is poisson’s ratio
is the vertical stress applied on rock, which is the same as matrix stress
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
115
1
However, and can be different, and larger (or smaller) than
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
116
0 0.5
0
Valid only for shallow depth and much higher at tectonically active fields
117
: vertical stress
: tangential stress
: radial stress
118
119
3 2
3
3
120
121
Eaton’s assumption
1
1 2
1 1
122
?
2 2
2
Hubbert and Willis
1 Eaton’s Correlation
3
Mathews and Kelly 1
123
Example:
Pore pressure gradient is 0.45 psi/ft in the region.
If overburden stress gradient is 0.89 psi/ft,
calculate the fracture pressure at the depth of 4000
ft if Poisson’s ratio is 0.3.
For Mathew and Kelly correlation, use Louisiana
Gulf Coast line.
Assume a tensile strength of 400 psi, and the
horizontal stress has a gradient of 0.6 psi/ft
124
Example:
0.45 4000 1800
125
Example:
0.45 4000 1800
1,760
126
Example:
1800
3,560 2
1,760
0.6 4000 2400
127
Leak-off
Drill off test? Test
129
casing
coupling
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
130
method
10-20 ft
131
FIT
FIT vs LOT
Additional Info
from Extended
LOT
Fu (2014)
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
132
133
0.052 Δ
134
60
Shear stress (lbf/100ft2)
50
40
30 1421
20
1422
10
Lab
0
0 500 1000 1500
Shear rate (hz)
(Mostofi, 2015) (Barnes et al., 1989)
135
1
Compressibility
Component Compressibility ( )
Water 3.0 10
Oil 5.0 10
Solids 0.5 10
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
136
137
• MW design
Design from the
LOT results
138
139
140
Fracture
depth
pressure
Pore
pressure
142
Fracture
depth pressure
Pore
pressure
143
kick
depth
Pore
pressure
Fracture
lower MW lead to kick pressure
higher MW lead to fracturing
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
144
depth Pore
pressure
Fracture
pressure
Shallow formations are protected by
cement and casing
Pore and Fracture Pressure
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
145
Pore
pressure
Fracture
pressure
146
Casing Point
Casing Point
147
References
Ayan, C., Hafez, H., Hurst, S., Kuchuk, F., O’Callaghan, A., Peffer, J., . . . Zeybek,
M. (2001). Characterizing permeability with formation testers. Oilfield Review, 13(3),
2-23.
Bourgoyne, A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., & Young, F. (1986). Applied
drilling engineering.
Fjar, E., Holt, R. M., Raaen, A., Risnes, R., & Horsrud, P. (2008). Petroleum related
rock mechanics (Vol. 53): Elsevier.
Holand, P., & Skalle, P. (2001). Deepwater kicks and BOP performance. Unrestricted
version.
148
References
Mostofi, M. (2015). Quality Control of Bentonite Samples of Australian Mud
Company. External report submitted to AMC.
Rehm, B., & McClendon, R. (1971, January 1). Measurement of Formation Pressure
from Drilling Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/3601-MS
Zhang, J. (2011). Pore pressure prediction from well logs: Methods, modifications,
and new approaches. Earth-Science Reviews, 108(1-2), 50-63. doi:
10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001
149