Pore Pressure Basic Level

Introduction to Formation Pressures
Course for Schlumberger, Sept 26-27, 2000
A Division of Knowledge Systems, Inc.
World-wide occurrence of abnormal formation pressures
2.16/
18+
2.05/
17
2.3/
19+
2.37/
22
2.34/
22+
2.4/
22+
2.2/
18+
1.92/
16
2.22/
19
1.92/
16
2.34 = Pf in sg EMW
19 = Pf in ppg EMW
March 18, 201
Geopressure Systems - I
Motivations for Understanding Pore Pressures
Mud
Casing
++
March 18, 201
Risk to Environment
Well Costs
Knowledge of Area
Well/Human Safety
Best PP evaluation while drilling
Drilling Efficiency
Drilling Prog. Quality
Accurate PP prognosis
Rigtime
Optim MW
Kicks
Blowouts
Pore Pressure Concepts (1)

Pressure = Force/Area (also stress) - kPa, psi, bars
Hydrostatic pressure - Pressure exerted by the weight of a column of fluid;
- Varies by basin, fluid salinity, water table level
Pressure Gradient = Absolute Pressure/Vertical Depth
- kPa/m, bars/m, psi/ft, etc
Equivalent Mud Weight, EMW Pressures quoted, for convenience in same units as mudweight
- sg, g/cc, ppg, kPa/m
Effective Circulating Density, ECD Mudweight + Additional effect of overcoming frictional forces in borehole
during circulating
- sg, g/cc, ppg, kPa/m
March 18, 201
Pore Pressure Concepts (2)

Formation pressures Overburden pressure
Pore pressure
Effective stress
= weight of sediments + fluids

= pressure of fluid in rock pores
= difference between above
Tectonic pressures Caused by stresses/movement in earth

Abnormal formation pressure Pressure which is greater than normal hydrostatic pressure
Subnormal pressure Pressure which is less than normal hydrostatic pressure
Overbalance/Underbalance Relationship between mud hydrostatic, ECD and formation pressure
March 18, 201
Origins of Abnormal Pressures (1)

Undercompaction - most widely accepted mechanism:
Pressure seal / Vertical permeability restriction
Compaction = consolidation + compression
Consolidation is plastic / Compression is elastic
Aquathermal expansion:
Complete isolation early in sedimentation. Constant volume
Clay diagenesis:
Smectite/Montmorillonite to Illite as intermolecular water is removed
Tectonics:
Shear deformations -> overpressures in undrained rock
Hydrocarbon Generation:
Breakdown of organic material -> gases in enclosed volume
March 18, 201
Hydrostatic Pressure during Normal Compaction

Fluid Pressure, Pf
Sea level
River delta
Pf=0.0981*pfl*D
Vertical Depth, D
Free water expelled as sediments compact
March 18, 201
Weight of
overlying sediment
supported via
grain-to-grain
contact
Sediment
Grains
Pore Fluid
Abnormal Pressure due to Compaction Disequilibrium

Fluid Pressure, Pf
Sea level
Hydrostatic Pressure
Free water expelled as sediments compact

Vertical Depth, D
Pressure Transition Zone
Sediment
Grains
Abnormal Pressure
March 18, 201
Pore Fluid
Some of weight of
overlying sediment
supported by pore
fluids
Dehydration of Clays during Compaction

Recent
Burial
300m
1000m
3000m
= Expelled Water
= Pore (free) Water

= Interstitial Water
66.7%
75.9%
73%
= Clay
80%
13.3%
4.1%
20%
20%
20%
20%
(after Dickinson,Gulf Coast, 1953)
March 18, 201
Bulk density increase with burial

Depth = 8m
Density = 1.48 g/cc
Solids = 33%
2.5
Fluid = 67%
Depth = 100m
Density = 1.71 g/cc
Solids = 52%
Weight, kg/m3
Fluid = 48%
Depth = 210m
1.5
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Depth, m
Density = 1.97 g/cc

Solids = 73%
Fluid = 27%
March 18, 201
10
Computed porosity decrease with burial, US Gulf Coast

Porosity
0.01
0
0.1
=0.41e-0.000085Ds
Sedim ent Depth, Ds, ft
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
March 18, 201
11
Conversion of Montmorillonite to Illite via de-watering
A. Montmorillonite before diagenesis
B. Removal of some pore and interlayer water
C. Loss of last interlayer water, Montmorillonite-> Illite
D. Final stage of compaction
March 18, 201
12
Aquathermal pressures (1)

During burial:
1. Temperature increases a. Fluid expands
~ 220x10-6 v/v/degF
b. Pore volume expands
~ 3x10-6 v/v/degF
2. Pressure increases a. Fluid compresses
~ 3x10-6 v/v/psi
b. Pore volume compresses
~ 7x10-6 v/v/psi
Low volume systems - overpressure easily dissipated by leakage

Example: Ameland, Holland; Middle East salt diapirs
March 18, 201
13

Osmosis:
Movement of fluid through a semi-permeable membrane
Faults and Fractures:
Conduits for pressures from deeper zones, or
Seals against fluid movement
Poor drilling practices on offset well:
Insufficient sealing of permeable zones eg, leakage via poor cement
around a casing string or across permeable zone
Topography:
Well elevation relative to potentiometric surface
Structure:
In HC-bearing zone, because of buoyancy differences
March 18, 201
14
Osmotic pressures (1)

Osmosis - movement of water through semipermeable membrane separating 2 solutions of
differing densities, until concentration of both
solutions is the same
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
Fresh Water
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O
Saline Water
P1
P2
P2>P1 but does not overcome osmotic pressure
Semi-permeable
membrane
March 18, 201
Possible mechanism for creating and maintaining

abnormal formation pressures via osmosis
15
Faults as pressure seals and drains
Normally pressured sand

Pressure drained
Pressure drained
Overpressured sand
Overpressured sand
Overpressured sand
Overpressured sand
Fault seal can be created by:

Fault places sand against sand
allowing pressure drainage
mineralization along fault face

plastic formations - clay, salt etc
attitude - reverse faults are often seals
March 18, 201
Fault can also be

duct from deeper
o-p system
Fault face seals sands against

shale, preventing pressure
drainage
16
Salt movement effects on pore pressures

Salt intrusion causes stresses in
formations, and impermeability
prevents drainage of pressures
Paleopressured sands
Osmosis effect
because of salinity
differences
Similar structures
are mud volcanoes
or shale diapirs,
caused by rapid
loading and/or
plastic flow in
young sediments; eg
central Asia or N.
Sea.
Salt seals off sands
March 18, 201
17
Pressure leakage via faults or poor well seals
A. Communication along fault
March 18, 201
B. Poor cement or damaged casing
C. Leaking cement plugs in abandoned well
18
Aquifer pressures and potentials (1)

Normal Pressure -
Potentiometric Surface
Well elevation same as

outcrop elevation
B
A
Underpressure -
Well elevation higher

than outcrop elevation
B
Flowing artesian well
Overpressure Well elevation lower

than outcrop elevation
March 18, 201
19
Pressure gradients in reservoir with constant overpressure

(1500*1.05*0.0981)+100=254.5bars
409/3000 = 0.1697 bar/m = 1.73sg EMW
Pressure, bars
os
Ge
Depth, m
i en
t
rs
100ba
P/Z=0.1363bar/m
Soft overpr.
g
tatic
nt
radie
(3000*1.05*0.0981)+100=409bars
409/3000 = 0.1363 bar/m = 1.39sg EMW
March 18, 201
ad
gr
1500m
Hard overpressure
os
Hydr
5sg e
0
.
1
r
fer ressu
i
u
aq verp
s
u
o ars o
u
n
i
t
b
Con w/ 200
er
wat
P/Z=0.1697bar/m
tic
ta
3000m
1500m
3000m
rs
100ba
20
Effect of hydrocarbon buoyancy on reservoir pressure

Fluid Pressure, Pf, bars
D
Gas, d= 0.25g/cc
Pg = Po + (0.0981*0.25*H2)
Oil, d= 0.80g/cc
H2
Po = Pw +
(0.0981*0.80*H1)
H1
Pw=0.0981*1.03*D
Formation water, d= 1.03g/cc
March 18, 201
21
Effect of hydrocarbon buoyancy on aquifer pressure

Abnormally high aquifer pressure
caused by presence of
hydrocarbons in combination
with a shale-out
PB = PA + 140psi
Oil, 0.30 psi/ft
B
11,000ft TVD
10,000ft TVD
Water, 0.44 psi/ft
Inflated Aquifer
eg N.Brae, Ula, Oseberg Gamma
March 18, 201
22

Paleo Pressures:
Uplift of sealed compartments
Pressure compartments:
Sealing faults
Pingos:
Entrapment of unfrozen zones under permafrost
Hydrate dissolution:
Just under seabed in deepwater wells
Massive salt:
Perfect impermeable seal for pressure entrapment
Capillary action or mineralization:
Normally create 'zero' permeability to vertical fluid movement
March 18, 201
23
Abnormal pressures caused by uplift

Fluid Pressure, Pf, bars
500
Vertical Depth, metres
1000
Pf=0.0981*pfl*D
1500
Formation pressure
increases normally
with normal
compaction sequence
2000
2500
3000
Pf at 2000m = 455bars = 2.32sg
Uplift because of
faulting, etc.
Pf at 2000m = 455bars = 1.855sg
3500
Pf at 3500m = 455bars = 1.325sg
4000
Pf at 4500m = 455bars = 1.03sg
4500
March 18, 201
Assume system completely sealed at

burial depth of 4500m, retaining
normal Pf of 455bars, 1.03sg.
24
Formation of cap-rock
Clay
Clay
Preferential
absorption of fresh
water
Clay
Zone of higher pressure and permeability

Remaining water
more saline
Precipitation of carbonates and silicates at formation
boundary creates permeability barrier
March 18, 201
25
Indicators of Abnormal Pressure (1)

Compaction trends:
Deviation from normal trend on Res/Cond, Vel/dT, Dxc, ROP, RhoB
Pressure cap:
ROP slows, less gas, etc because of tighter, sealing formation
Regional geology - correlation
Torque, drag/overpull, hole fill:
Hole wall unstable; 'squeezing' drillstring or collapsing into hole
Losses/kicks, PWD, mud flows, pit levels, mud resistivity (a bit late!):
Underbalanced situation - formation fluids enter borehole
Clay typing:
Shale factor / CEC test for Smectite->Illite
March 18, 201
26
N-pressure
March 18, 201
Reaction times in A & B

depend on differential
pressure and shale
rheology in overpressured
zone.
Normal pressure
If diff-p is -ve, hole

wall may start to
slough. As cavings
build up on stab
and bit, circulation
becomes restricted,
standpipe pressure
and ECD increase.
Develops into
packing off then
partial or full loss
of mud to
formation as ECD
exceeds Frac Grad.
Overpressure
Overpressure
Bit may drill through op zone with no change

in rotary torque, then
hole moves in on
stabiliser blades causing
increase in torque. A
second effect may be
that pieces are knocked
off and fall onto the bit,
further increasing
torque.
N-pressure
Normal pressure
Tight hole, overpull/drag, fill (1)
27
Normal pressure
Normal pressure
Tight hole, over-pull/drag, fill (2)
In these cases there is

the danger of
swabbing/surging
March 18, 201
Overpressure
N-pressure
N-pressure
Overpressure
Upward
movement of pipe,
eg on connection
or trip, creates
overpull as
stabilisers and bit
accumulate
cavings.
Downward
movement of pipe,
eg after connection
or trip, shows drag
as stabilisers and
bit encounter
reduced hole
diameter in o-p
section. Cavings
accumulate on
bottom as fill. Will
need to wash and
ream to bottom.
28
Indicators of Abnormal Pressure (2)

Gas:
Drill gas (Background gas)
Connection gas
Trip gas
Pumps-off gas
C2/C3 ratio
Temperature:
Compare mud temperatures into and out of hole. Useless
offshore
Cuttings/cavings:
Easy to spot PDC cuttings
Cavings - size and shape; splintery, 'rotor'-shaped
March 18, 201
29
Gas response vs. borehole pressure differential (1)

Gas, %
Gas, %
Gas, %
Constant BG in
homogeneous nonporous shale
Porous
Zone
Pm>>Pf
Pm>=Pf
BG reduced in
porous zone
because of
flushing into
formation
Gas into mud from
porous zone
cuttings.
Faster ROP ->
more rock/min ->
more gas
March 18, 201
Pm<Pf
After drilling
through porous
zone, BG does not
return to zero.
Porous zone now
contributing gas to
borehole
30
Swab effects when moving drillstring upwards
Main factors affecting

swab/surge pressures are pipe
speed, mud gel strength and
viscosity, mud filter cake, bitand stabiliser balling, blocked bit
jets
Formation fluids
swabbed into
borehole
Drillpipe moving upwards
Frictional effects
between mud and
moving drillpipe create
pressure differentials
across annulus.
+
++
----
+
++
+
----
March 18, 201
A high percentage of kicks occur

because of swabbing during trips
out of hole. It is vital that
swab/surge pressures are
calculated before a trip to ensure
correct tripping speed.
+++
---
++
++
----
Accumulation of
cuttings/cavings on stabiliser
blades prevents equalisation of
pressures during pipe
movement, resulting in
pressure differential above and
below stab.
A similar situation can occur
above and below bit,
especially with bit balling or
blocked jets.
31
Gas response vs. borehole pressure differential (2)

Homogeneous
Shale, Zero
Gas, %
Gas, %
CG
CG
CG
Pm>>Pf
CG
Pm>=Pf
CG
Homogeneous Shale, Increasing
Constant BG in
homogeneous
non-porous
shale
Gas, %
CG
CG
CG
CG
Pm<Pf
CG
CG
CG
CG
Positive, stable differential
pressure
March 18, 201
Positive, decreasing
differential pressure
CG
Negative differential
pressure
32
Geothermal temperature as indicator of overpressure (1)
s
Isotherm
Depth
Heat
Flow
Insulating body
March 18, 201
33
Geothermal temperature as indicator of overpressure (2)

Use of temperature data:
Fluid content in o-p shales > than in n-p shales.
1. Record MTI and MTO
Thermal Cond water < Thermal Cond shale
2. Plot end-to-end
O-p zone is insulator and temp grad >> in n-p shales
3. Plot T surface to surface

4. Plot gradient factor
5. Record all MWD and WL temps
Limitations:
1. Changes in circulation rate
O-p
Zone
2. Water depth offshore

3. Additions to mud system
4. Major lithology changes
Temperature
Temperature
Gradient
Advantage:
Porosity
Not affected by many of factors

affecting other o-p indicators
Increase
March 18, 201
34
Hole cavings as indicator of overpressure

Amount, shape, size and colour of cavings are important.
With low or negative differential pressure or stress relief at borehole wall -> sloughing of
rock into the hole as cavings.
Cuttings released easily from under bit; may even be 'ejected' by formation pressure, ->
different-shaped cutting little affected by bit contact, eg less rounded.
PDC cuttings have special character, easy to distinguish from cavings.
Top
Top
Shale cavings resulting
from underbalance
Concave cross-section,
thin and spiky shape,
may be striated
March 18, 201
Front
Side
Shale cavings resulting

from relief of rock
stresses during drilling
- indicate excess lateral
stresses in formation
Front
Side
Blocky, rectangular
shape, often cracked
35
Indicators of Compaction and Porosity (1)

Acoustic velocity / Formation slowness, dT:
Seismic (conventional, VSP, while drilling)
Wireline (BHC, LSS) and LWD
Microseconds/foot, feet/second, meters/second
'Quantitative, but:
Gas effect
Interval velocity interpreted for structure, not pressure
Cycle skipping and eccentering
Resistivity
Short normal, induction, propagation:
Use deepest reading sensor - ILD (WL), DP (SS MWD)
'Quantitative, but:
Conductive pore space
Salinity
Temperature
March 18, 201
36
Indicators of Compaction and Porosity (2)

Density
Wireline and LWD:
Reflected Gamma Rays
Strong hole size effect:
Need compensation curve for log quality
Generally used only for overburden
Density column:
Individual cuttings; Technique sensitive; Not in situ
Toxic fluids involved normally
Not 'quantitative' but useful to have
D-exponent
Drill rate normalized for WOB, RPM, and bit diameter
Mud weight or ECD correction
Cutter and bearing wear corrections exist:
Complicated; Questionable accuracy; Generally ignored
Bit type change necessitates trend line shift
'Quantitative'
March 18, 201
37
Calculation of drilling exponent, dx

Original d-exponent from Bingham:
R / N = a * (W / D) ^ d
where: R
= ROP in ft / min
N
= bit rotary speed in RPM
W
= WOB in pounds
D
= bit diameter in inches
a
= "lithological" constant
d
= dimensionless compaction exponent
Jordan & Shirley solved for "d":
dx = log10 (R / 60N) / log10 (12W/10^6 * D)
or, in metric units:
dx = [1.26 - log10 (R / N)] / [1.58 - log10 (W/D)]
where: R
= meters per hour
N
= bit rotary speed in RPM
W
= WOB in tonnes
D
= bit diameter in inches
March 18, 201
d-exponent does not account

for:
hydraulics,
lithology changes,
bit type,
bit wear (although complex
ways of accounting for
bitwear do exist).
D-exponent should be corrected
for Mudweight:
dxc = Dx * (Pn / MW)
or for ECD):
dxc = Dx * (Pn / ECD)
It can work with PDC bits, but
use with care!
38
Formation drillability vs. overbalance vs. bit type

Rock Bit
Pm>Pf
Pm=<Pf
Bit tooth
Mud Hydrostatic Pressure, Pm
Formation Pressure, Pf
Bit tooth in contact

with formation
PDC Bit
Fractures created by
bit tooth action
With large
overbalance, cuttings
held on bottom
With underbalance or
small overbalance,
cuttings released
PDC Cutter
Bit cutter in contact

with formation
March 18, 201
Bit cutter shears

formation
Cuttings pushed away

from formation by bit cutter
and lifted by mud flow
Cutting action
of PDC means
Pm/Pf less
important for
cuttings
removal; hence
Dxc less
reliable
39
Models and Methods for Quantifying Abnormal Pore Pressures

All based on Terzaghi Effective Stress concept from 1948
Horizontal, trend-line methods:
Eaton method for:
Resistivity
Sonic
D-exponent
Equivalent depth method
Ratio method
Vertical, Explicit methods:
Bowers, Alixant; Rasmus; Holbrook
Consider temperature effect
March 18, 201
40
Formation Stresses and Pressures (1)

Sv
S = Total external stress
Sv = (Overburden) Vertical Stress
Sx, Sy = Horizontal Stresses
Sy
Sx
Terzaghi Effective Stress Model

S
- matrix or effective stress
Pf - pore fluid pressure

h - minimum horizontal stress
Pf
March 18, 201
H - maximum horizontal stress

41
Formation Stresses and Pressures (2)

Terzaghi (1948):
S/Z = /Z + Pf/Z
----->
S = + Pf
S/Z = 0.8 - 1.05 psi/ft

Pf/Z = 0.433 - 0.465 psi/ft but can be as low as
0.41 psi/ft or as high as 0.5 psi/ft
depending on dissolved gas and salinity
In North Sea:
h = 0.6 v to 0.75 v
H = 0.85 v to 1.2 v
March 18, 201
42
Methodology (1)
Pf = S -
Requires accuracy in OBG (S) and Effective Stress ():
OBG is usually straightforward
Effective stress requires more assumptions
Overburden Gradient Computation:
Air gap + Water column + Sediment
Best is to integrate LWD density log
Can integrate offset density log:
Common depth reference important
Regional OBG corrected for water depth
Synthesize from seismic velocity via empirical formulae ->
Gardner: Density(g/cc) = 0.23 Velocity0.25 (ft/sec)
March 18, 201
43
Overburden Stress
Area = 1 in.2
Density (g/cc)
Thickness
(ft.)
Weights (lbs.
/ in.2)
t1
0.4341t1
t2
t3
0.4342t2
0.4343t3
t4
0.4344t4
t5
0.4345t5
1
2
Overburden Stress = Total Weight / in.2

= 0.434(1t1 + 2t2 + 3t3 + 4t4 + 5t5)
6
March 18, 201
44
Sediment Stress Calculation

= 0.434*2.38*100
Rhob (g/cc)
8000
2.0
2.2
Depth (ft)
8100
2.4
2.6
Interval
Bottom
(ft.)
8000
Avg.
Density
(g/cc)
2.37
8100
2.38
8200
Interval
Thick.
(ft.)
100
Stress
Change
(psi)
103
Sediment
Stress
(psi)
7404
100
103
7507
2.33
100
101
7608
8300
2.35
100
102
7710
8400
2.32
100
101
7811
8500
2.29
100
99
7910
8200
8300
8400
8500
March 18, 201
= 7404 +103
45
Sediment Stress vs Overburden Stress
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
WD2
1
2
3
4
Sediment Stress Depends on Depth Below Mud Line

= 0.434(1t1 + 2t2 + 3t3 + 4t4 + 5t5)
Depth Below Mud Line
Depth Below Mud Line
WD1
Overburden Stress = Sediment Stress + 0.444*WD
March 18, 201
46
Methodology (2)
Shale Discrimination
All trendline-based methods attempt to quantify PP in shales where it is
impossible to measure PP directly
Need clean, thick shales:
Use GR in realtime
Use SP in post-well
Refine this using:
Photoelectric effect
Spectral Gamma Ray
Caliper
Dimensionless torque
Note:
GR baseline often changes with hole size
March 18, 201
47
Methodology (3)
Normal Compaction Trend Lines
All trendline-based methods attempt to quantify PP by considering deviation of porosity
indicator from a normal compaction trend
Compaction Trends for Pore Pressure:
Requires experience, judgment, interpretation
Least squares fit of shale points sometimes appropriate
Must account for log shifts, bit and hole size changes
Single or multiple trendlines depending on geological history
Regional trends sometime appropriate
For acoustic: seabed trend value = about 190 sec/ft (dT of seawater)
Calibrate trends in real-time by using drilling info in relation to current MW/ECD:
Gas - BG / CG / TG / etc
Hole condition - cavings / torq / fill / etc
Mud temperature and/or MWD tool temperature
Kicks - a last resort!
LOT - compare result against Frac Grad calculated using PP
RFT-type data as it becomes available
March 18, 201
48
Empirical Methods for Calculation of Pore Pressure (2)

Eaton's Method
Pore Pressure from Resistivity (usually as gradient, not
pressure)
Pf = OBG - ((OBG - Pn) * (Ro / Rn)1.2)
where:
Pf
= formation pressure gradient
OBG
= overburden pressure gradient
Pn
= normal pore pressure gradient
Ro
= observed shale resistivity
Rn
= normal shale resistivity, from
trend
line
Pore Pressure from Sonic
Pf = OBG - ((OBG - Pn) * (dTn / dTo)3)
where:
dTn
= normal shale transit time, from
trend
line
dTo
= observed shale transit time
Pore Pressure from D-exponent
Pf = OBG - ((OBG - Pn) * (Do / Dn)1.2)
where:
Do
= observed D-exponent
Dn
= normal D-exponent, from trend
line
March 18, 201
49

Equivalent Depth Method
Each point in undercompacted section has porosity equivalent
to point at a shallower depth in normally compacted section.
Pa = OBa - De*(OBe - Pe)/ Da
where
Pa = Pressure gradient at actual depth, sg

Pe = Pressure gradient at equivalent depth, sg (1.03)
OBa = Overburden gradient at actual depth, sg
OBe = Overburden gradient at equivalent depth, sg
Da = Actual Depth of undercompacted point, m
De = Equivalent Depth of shallower point, m
Draw a vertical line up from point at Da on data curve; depth

at which this line meets normal trend line is De.
Drawback of method is that it assumes a constant
uninterrupted compaction history, thus becomes unreliable
when data crosses stratigraphic or structural boundaries, or
when hiatus/uplift has occurred during sedimentation history
March 18, 201
50
Ratio Method
Difference between a point on 'undercompacted' portion of a plot
and a point at same depth on normal trend line is proportional to
difference in pore pressure between the two points:
Pa = Pn * DatN/ DatO
where:
Pa = Pressure gradient at actual point on plot, sg

Pn = Pressure gradient at point on normal trend, sg
DatN = Data value on normal trend, *
DatO = Data value at actual point on plot, *
* - can be usec/ft, Dxc, g/cc, ohmm, or m/sec
Use a correction factor to adjust to actual pressure values from

RFT/DST; eg, if estimated pressure = 1.3sg, and RFT pressure =
1.4sg, then c = 1.4/1.3 = 1.077 and above becomes:
Pa = c * Pn * DatN / DatO
The correction coefficient can apply as long as the factors
affecting the abnormal pressure remain the same.
This method is easy to use but should be used with care because it
is empirical.
March 18, 201
51
Use of porosity indicators

Resistivity
normal
compaction
trendline
Sonic normal
compaction
trendline
MW
Resistivity
porosity
trend
Sonic
porosity
trend
OBG
PP from
Eaton + Sonic
PP from
EqDep + Res
PP from
Eaton +
Res
PP from
EqDep + Sonic
March 18, 201
52
Formation Strength / Fracture Gradient (1)

Attempt to define:
pressure necessary to create or

open fractures at the wellbore, or
the least principal stress, x, in
borehole
Y
X
Rock fractures perpendicular to

direction of least principal stress
Very important to estimate fracture gradient in order to:

1. Determine correct setting depths for casing strings
2. Help evaluate quality of Leakoff Test by knowing expected result
3. Determine the maximum mud weights allowed for each hole section while drilling
4. Determine maximum allowable pressures while killing a kick
5. Plan hydraulic fracturing program for a well
March 18, 201
53
Formation Strength / Fracture Gradient (2)

Fracture gradient values affected by:
In situ stresses - X, Y, Z
Mud density, rheology and hydraulics
Hole orientation and geometry
Formation temperature
Lithology and mineralogy
Theoretical or empirical methods currently in use:

Hubbert & Willis
1957
Pilkington
1978
Matthews & Kelly
1967
Cesaroni et al
1981
Eaton
1969
Daines
1981
Anderson et al
1973
Breckels & van Eekelen
1982
Christman
1973
Bryant
1983
March 18, 201
54
Surge effects when moving drill-string downwards

Drillpipe moving downwards
Frictional effects
between mud and
moving drillpipe create
pressure differentials
across annulus.
---
++
Drilling mud
flushed into
formation
March 18, 201
A weak formation may be

fractured by surge pressures
occurring during tripping into
the hole. Swab/surge pressures
calculated before POOH should
be used to ensure correct pipe
speed during RIH unless mud
properties have been changed
significantly.
---
++
++
+
++
++
+
----
++
++
Pipe movement on RIH can

result in pressure
differential above and
below stabilisers and/or bit,
causing mud to be forced
into the formation.
----
55
Estimation of Fracture Gradient (1)

Hubbert & Willis, 1957:
From lab tests;X = 0.333Z to 0.5Z where Z = total stress = overburden = 1psi/ft
As S = Z +Pf, then Z = S- Pf then Pfrac = 0.333*(S- Pf )+ Pf
X later amended to between 0.25*Z and 0.5*Z, ie
Pfrac = Between [0.25*(S- Pf )+ Pf] and [0.5*(S- Pf )+ Pf]
Method OK for some sands in Gulf Coast but not reliable elsewhere.
Assumed OBG of 1 psi/ft is not correct.
Matthews & Kelly, 1967:
Introduced a Matrix Stress Coefficient, Ki to allow for observed changes in Pfrac with depth Pfrac = Ki *+ Pf
From Gulf Coast data a set of values were obtained for Ki vs depth.
Drwabacks - Gulf Coast data, and assumed OBG of 1 psi/ft.
March 18, 201
56
Estimation of Fracture Gradient (2)
Eaton, 1969:
Replaced Ki with a value Kx derived from Poissons Ratio which also changes with depth ->
Pfrac = (/(1-))*+ Pf
Eaton published curves of Kx vs depth for various Gulf Coast and W. Texas areas and
suggested the following equation to calculate Kx locally (/(1-)) = Kx = [(PLOT/L) - (Pf/L)] / [(S- Pf)/L], ie
Kx = (PLOT - Pf) / (S- Pf)
ie using a shallow LOT value to calibrate the calculation.

Drawbacks - Gulf Coast data, and assumes PLOT represents the Pfrac for the weakest formation
in open hole, not always true.
Recently (1997), additional Poisson Ratio curves for deepwater were published.
March 18, 201
57
Poissons Ratio,
1 (maximum)
Ratio of Horizontal
to Vertical stresses
in a material under
compression
(minimum)
L1
L1
L2
L3
Matrix Stress Coefficient, Ki:
L1
L3
L3
Depends on
Varies with depth (young basins only)
Ki = / (1-)
March 18, 201
58
Poissons Ratio,
Suggested values for for different lithologies:
Clay, very wet
0.50
Shale, calc
0.14
Clay
0.17
Shale, silty
0.17
Greywacke, fine
0.23
Shale, sandy
0.12
Greywacke, medium
0.24
Shale, silic
0.12
Greywacke, coarse
0.07
Shale, dolom
0.28
Sandstone, fine
0.03
Siltstone
0.08
Sandstone, medium
0.06
Limestone, fine
0.28
Sandstone, coarse
0.05
Limestone, med
0.31
Sandstone, coarse, cmtd
0.10
Limestone, shaly
0.17
Sandstone, clayey
0.24
Limestone, porous 0.20
Conglomerate
0.20
Dolomite
0.21
After Daines, JPT, 1982
March 18, 201
59
Importance of Fracture Gradient estimate (1)

Use of PP + FG to optimize casing depths, offshore well:
Yellow area
shows allowed
MW 16 shoe to
11000ft.
Green area shows
max MW of
13ppg allowed
below 13 3/8
shoe, while PP at
14000ft almost
equals this
March 18, 201
Safe MW
margin
created by
setting 13
3/8 at
11000ft
60
Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Several physical and chemical causes of earth stresses

Burial processes, especially compaction, are the most important
Undercompaction is the most prevalent cause of overpressures
Undercompaction is detectable, most other causes are not
Shale is most prevalent sedimentary rock
Compaction in shale is more readily observed than in other rocks
There are several indicators of over/underbalance while drilling
Methods exist to quantify pore pressure based on shale analysis
Methods exist to estimate fracture gradient
Geopressure analysis improves optimization of casing and mud weight plans
March 18, 201
61
Methodology for Geopressure Analysis

1.
2.
3.
Determine where shales are located.

Obtain shale values in porosity sensitive measurement.
Interpret shale porosity trends:
- Normal compaction trend
- Actual compaction trend
4.
5.
6.
7.
Obtain overburden gradient

Calculate pore pressure
Calculate fracture gradient
Calibrate results using real measurements/well response
March 18, 201
62
Data Flow
Wireline
Log
Offset Wells
SWD
(Seismic-While-Drilling)
MudLog
VSP
Drillworks/
PREDICT
EPP
MWD
PPP
Continuous
Wave dT
Measurement
from Cuttings
March 18, 201
Realtime
Estimated/Prognosed
PP for whole well
DrillWorks/
BASIN
Basin Modeling and
3-D Visualisation
63
DrillWorks/BASIN
March 18, 201
64

Pore Pressure Basic Level

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pore Pressure Basic Level

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Introduction to Formation Pressures

Course for Schlumberger, Sept 26-27, 2000

A Division of Knowledge Systems, Inc.

World-wide occurrence of abnormal formation pressures

March 18, 201

Motivations for Understanding Pore Pressures

March 18, 201

Best PP evaluation while drilling

Drilling Prog. Quality

Pore Pressure Concepts (1)

March 18, 201

Pore Pressure Concepts (2)

= weight of sediments + fluids

Tectonic pressures Caused by stresses/movement in earth

March 18, 201

Origins of Abnormal Pressures (1)

March 18, 201

Hydrostatic Pressure during Normal Compaction

Free water expelled as sediments compact

March 18, 201

Abnormal Pressure due to Compaction Disequilibrium

Free water expelled as sediments compact

Pressure Transition Zone

March 18, 201

Dehydration of Clays during Compaction

= Pore (free) Water

(after Dickinson,Gulf Coast, 1953)

March 18, 201

Bulk density increase with burial

Density = 1.97 g/cc

March 18, 201

Computed porosity decrease with burial, US Gulf Coast

Sedim ent Depth, Ds, ft

March 18, 201

Conversion of Montmorillonite to Illite via de-watering

A. Montmorillonite before diagenesis

B. Removal of some pore and interlayer water

C. Loss of last interlayer water, Montmorillonite-> Illite

D. Final stage of compaction

March 18, 201

Aquathermal pressures (1)

b. Pore volume expands

2. Pressure increases a. Fluid compresses

b. Pore volume compresses

Low volume systems - overpressure easily dissipated by leakage

March 18, 201

Origins of Abnormal Pressures (2)

March 18, 201

Osmotic pressures (1)

March 18, 201

Possible mechanism for creating and maintaining

Faults as pressure seals and drains

Normally pressured sand

Fault seal can be created by:

mineralization along fault face

March 18, 201

Fault can also be

Fault face seals sands against

Salt movement effects on pore pressures

Salt seals off sands

March 18, 201

Pressure leakage via faults or poor well seals

A. Communication along fault