Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning Manual

Formation Pressure Evaluation
Distributed Learning
Document No. USOP0107

Revision D
February 09
2001 Sperry Drilling Services
Notice
Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Notice
This manual contains CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION and is the
property of Sperry Drilling Services, a division of Halliburton Company. Neither this manual nor
information contained herein shall be reproduced in any form, used, or disclosed to others for any
purpose including manufacturing without the express written permission of Sperry Drilling
Services. Manuals are company property and non-transferable to other employees, unless
authorized by Management.
You are responsible for this manual. DO NOT leave this manual where it may be photocopied by
others. This manual is designed to provide information useful for the optimal use of Sperry
Drilling Services equipment. Charts, descriptions, tables and other information contained herein
may have been derived from actual tests, simulated tests, or mathematical models. Although
information has been carefully prepared and is believed to be accurate, Sperry Drilling Services
cannot guarantee the accuracy of all information contained herein. Sperry Drilling Services
reserves the right to modify equipment, software and documentation, and field equipment and/or
procedures may differ from those described herein.
Trained Sperry Drilling Services personnel act as consultants to Sperry Drilling Services
customers. Practical judgment and discretion must be used, based upon experience and
knowledge, to review the circumstances for a particular job and then to perform the job in a
professional manner. Accordingly, the information contained herein should be used as a guide by
trained personnel, and no warranties, expressed or implied, including warranty of merchantability
or fitness for use, are made in connection herewith. In no event will Sperry Drilling Services be
liable for indirect or consequential damages arising from the use of the information contained in
this manual, including without limitation, subsurface damage or trespass, or injury to well or
reservoir.
All brand or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies
or organizations.
2001 by Sperry Drilling Services, a Halliburton Company
Unpublished work, all rights reserved.
Printed in the U.S.A.
ii
2001, Sperry Drilling Services
February 09
Revision D

Chapter 1
Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Introduction and Objectives
Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling

Operations
Scope
This is Chapter 1 of the Distributed Learning Formation Pressure Evaluation

Course.
Course title
Chapter contents
This chapter contains the following information:

1.1
Introduction and Objectives ........................................................................1-2

1.1.1
1.1.2
1.2
Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling ..................................................1-4
1.3
Spudding a Well Formation Competency ................................................1-5
1.4
Shallow Gas.................................................................................................1-7
1.5
Shallow Water Flows ..................................................................................1-7
1.6
Lost Circulation.........................................................................................1-10
1.7
Differential Sticking..................................................................................1-11
1.8
Maintaining Rate of Penetration/Differential Pressure .............................1-14
1.9
Cavings......................................................................................................1-15
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.3
1.9.4
1.9.5
March 2007
Revision D
Introduction ....................................................................................1-2
Objectives.......................................................................................1-3
Shear Failure (Pressure Cavings) .................................................1-15

Faulting and Fracturing ................................................................1-16
Hole Angle Close To Bedding Planes..........................................1-17
Rubblized Zones...........................................................................1-17
Reactive Formations.....................................................................1-18
1.10
Borehole Ballooning / Breathing...............................................................1-19
1.11
Formation Damage ....................................................................................1-19
1.12
Drilling Kicks/Underground Blowouts .....................................................1-20
1.13
References .................................................................................................1-21
1-1

1.1
Description
1.1.1


This section introduces the subject and describes the objectives.
Introduction
Description
Formation pore pressure and fracture pressures place constraints upon the design
and ultimately the cost of a well. They can also be a source of significant amounts
of non-productive time in the drilling operation.
Inaccurate
estimates
Inaccurate estimates of formation pressure can significantly increase the costs of a

well, from over-engineering the well design, taking kicks, encountering differential
sticking, and lost circulation, to borehole instability and the loss of entire hole
sections.
Accurate
estimates
The accurate determination of pore and fracture pressures is an iterative process,

with pre-drilling estimates forming the basis for the well construction. Accurate
whilst-drilling estimates allow the prognosis to be refined and the correct
contingency plan to be implemented. Good post-well analysis allows information
that is more accurate for the next well design and refinement of the basin model.
Benefits
The immediate benefits from accurate predictions are:

Efficient and economic well design
Maximized ROP with minimum mud weight reducing the time and cost of drilling
the well.
Improved selection of casing points during drilling maximizing safety and wellbore
stability
Minimum trouble time from lost circulation, wellbore instability and influxes into
the formation that prevent cost overruns caused by dealing with the immediate
problem and the cost of contingencies.
A better understanding of local geology and drilling problems which improves
future well designs
Drilling issues
1-2
This section describes the drilling issues associated with abnormal pore and
fracture pressures
March 2007
Revision D

1.1.2
Chapter
objectives

Objectives
After completing this section, you should be able to explain the following drilling
problems and understand the role that the relationship between mud weight and
formation pore and fracture pressure plays in their occurrence.
Formation competency when spudding a well
Shallow Gas
Shallow Water flows
Lost circulation
Borehole Balooning
Differential sticking
Maintaining ROP
Formation Caving
Formation damage
Kicks and underground blowouts
March 2007
Revision D
1-3

1.2

Purpose of
drilling
The ultimate purpose of an oil well is to allow the flow of hydrocarbons to surface
in a controlled manner, or in the case of injector wells, to pump fluid from the
surface into the reservoir.
Controlled
drilling
To achieve this the well is drilled in a controlled manner, then cased and cemented.
When the well is being drilled, weighted drilling fluid is used to exert pressure on
the formations to contain formation fluid pressures and to prevent formation
collapse into the wellbore.
Mud weight
The weight of the mud has to be controlled to ensure that the pressure exerted by
the drilling fluid is maintained between the formation fluid pressure and the
formation fracture pressure.
Casing placement Casing placement is dictated by the pore fluid pressure, the formation fracture
pressure, and the formation stability. Casing is set to isolate zones that cannot be
drilled with mud weights required deeper in the well, or zones that are unstable
with time.
Reasons for mud
weight balance
Standard drilling practice dictates that mud weights should be as close as possible
to the balance point with formation pore pressure as is deemed safe. The are
reasons for this are:
To minimise the risk of lost circulation.
To minimise the risk of differential sticking.
To minimise formation damage.
To maintain an optimum ROP.
1-4
March 2007
Revision D

1.3

Spudding a Well Formation Competency
Description
Wells are drilled in both onshore and offshore locations, with the offshore
environment becoming increasingly challenging. Onshore we are typically drilling
into competent formations immediately and do not encounter the following issues
when spudding. Offshore the first problem encountered is the lack of competency
of the sediments below the seabed. To be able to drill a well to depth, drilling mud
of different densities is used to maintain sufficient pressure on the formation to stop
formation fluids from invading the well and maintain wellbore stability. The
sediments immediately below the seabed are not competent enough to support a
hydrostatic column of fluid from the rig floor. Once drilling commences the
pressure acting on the formation is increased because of the ECD and the load of
the sediments the drilling fluid is removing from the hole.
Surface
conductor
For shallow water depths, it is normal to pile-drive a surface conductor from a

jackup or a barge to a depth where the formation is strong enough to support the
pressure created by a column of drilling fluid.
Riserless drilling
As the water depths increase into deepwater 3000ft+ (914m+) and ultra deepwater
7000ft +, (2133m+) and semi-submersible rigs or drill ships must be used, it is
normal to drill the first two hole sections riserless to reach a depth where the
formations are competent enough. High viscosity sweeps are used to clean the hole
and, mud can be used to fill the hole once it has been drilled in order to hold back
the formations before the casing is run.
Deepwater
difficulty
One difficulty with deepwater and ultra-deepwater wells is that the overburden
pressure is much lower than for a given depth below rotary table than in shallow
water or on land. This means that the initial hole sections must be longer to reach
the same formation competency than would be for the case found in shallow water.
Well comparison
Comparing two wells (see Figure 1-1), one in shallow water and one in deep water,
the true vertical depth required to reach a formation that will withstand a mud
weight of 10 ppg is shown as follows. For simplicity, the formation fracture
pressure is assumed to be 2/3 of the overburden pressure.
continued
March 2007
Revision D
1-5


Spudding a Well Formation Competency, continued

Graph of
different water
depths
The well in shallow water can withstand a mud weight of 10 ppg at a depth of 1225
ft BRT or 1200 ft below the mud line (distance A). The well in deep water can
withstand a mud weight of 10ppg at 9400 ft BRT or 4400 ft below the mud line
(distance B).
Figure 1-1. Shallow and deepwater overburden and fracture gradients
1-6
March 2007
Revision D

1.4

Shallow Gas
Shallow Gas
Description
The generation of shallow gas pockets through microbial action on organic material
can be a major hazard to offshore drilling operations. These gas pockets are
normally associated with highly permeable sand layers at shallow depths. The
formation strength above the gas pockets is not sufficiently high enough to resist
the pressures generated by the gas entering the well if it were to be shut in
conventionally. The only option is to allow the gas to vent until it balances with its
surrounding pressure.
Hazards to
drilling
operations
The hazard to the drilling operation is that the erupting gas lowers the buoyancy of
the water and can cause floating rigs to sink. For Jackup rigs the normal practice is
to allow the gas to flow unregulated to surface through the conductor, where it is
diverted to the flare boom. If the gas begins to flow around the outside of the
conductor pipe, the erupting gas will erode the uncompacted sediments on the
seabed causing the weakening or removal of the seabed around the legs of the
jackup.
Safety concerns
Standard practice when drilling in areas with a shallow gas risk is to have a 24-hour
watch on the sea below the rig and monitor returns using an ROV. If shallow gas
erupts to the surface, floating rigs can be moved off location to avoid the erupting
gas. Jackup rigs are normally evacuated of all non-essential personnel.
1.5
Shallow Water Flows
Description
Shallow Water flows can occur during drilling or after casing has been set and
typically occur near to the mudline to depths of ~ 5000ft (1524m) below the
mudline. There is a higher risk when drilling in deepwater and ultra deepwater
environments as there is a greater distance below mud line to obtain required
formation strengths, causing and longer riser-less sections to avoid formation
breakdown / Lost circulation. This leads to added difficulty in maintaining the
correct pressure against the formation to control the flow without breaking down
the shallower formations.
Hazards to
drilling
operations
When the well is drilled into pressurized sands and the well is underbalanced the
water flows into the annulus bringing with it entrained material. This uncontrolled
fluid flow causes both the erosion of the uncased wellbore and the possibility of
packing off the assembly. The uncontrolled erosion of the wellbore can lead to
massive hole instability and the collapse and loss of the exposed section. This
causes the well to have to be re-drilled from a different location.
continued
March 2007
Revision D
1-7

Shallow Water Flows

Shallow water flows, continued

Causes
There are four main causes of shallow water flows which occur during drilling or
after casing.
Geopressured water sand
Induced fractures
Induced storage
Transmission of pressure through cement channels
Geopressured
Sands
Geopressured sands are the most common mechanism causing SWF and are the
most damaging. For pressures to be created a sealing layer in the overburden above
permeable sand layer is required, lateral seals around sand body are also required to
trap the pressure. Two mechanisms have been identified to create the pressure in
the sand which are compaction disequilibrium and differential compaction
Compaction
Disequilibrium
Compaction disequilibrium caused by rapid sedimentation rates forces fluid out of

the surrounding shales into the permeable sand increasing the pressure within the
sand body
Rapidly Deposited
Sediment
~500ft / Million Years
Low Permeability Seal Slow Deposition Rate

Shale / Mudstone
Dewatering Through Compaction
Overpressured Shale / Charged Sand
SAND
continued
1-8
March 2007
Revision D


Shallow Water Flows
Shallow water flows, continued

Differential
Compaction
Differential compaction occurs in deltas or continental slopes where the different

depths of sediment closer to shore and futher offshore create a pressure differental
driving fluid laterally and charging the sand unit.
Higher Overburden
Lower Overburden
Low Permeability Seal Slow Deposition Rate
Silty Mudstone
Lateral Fluid
Transmission
Charged Sand
When a well is drilled into the pressurized body and flow commences the sand bed
is compacted by the overburden as the pressure is released which continues the
pressure drive. The severity of the flow depends on both the pressure the fluid is
under and the extent of the sand bed which governs the volume of fluid which can
be expelled.
Induced
Fractures
These are fractures created by allowing the pressure to become too great in the
annulus causing the pressure at the casing shoe exceeds formation strength the
fracture is generated from shoe to surface. This condition can be caused by too
High Static MW including cuttings load, Too High ECD while drilling Conductor
(20) or surface casing sections (16 or 13 ), or Annular Packoffs. It does not
require a riser to be in place to occur nor does it require pressurized sands.
Induced Storage
Induced storage is the charging of shallow permeable and porous sands and silts
that were previously normally pressured. It occurs in deepwater sediments above
the first sealing formation and normally occurs below Structural (30) casing shoe.
It is caused by overbalance during drilling, spotting high weight mud prior to
casing or when running casing. In Severe cases ~1hr for flow back to stabilize
Generally there is minimal risk unless sediment erosion occurs
March 2007
Revision D
1-9

Lost Circulation
1.6

Lost Circulation
Definition
This is one of the more common drilling problems. It has been defined as the loss
of drilling mud in quantity to the formation. It may occur at any depth.
Reasons for lost

circulation
Lost circulation can develop in two ways. Formations with a coarse matrix are
generally highly permeable and have large pore spaces, gravels for example. When
drilling into such zones that the drilling mud can flow freely into the formation,
overcoming the pressure of the pore fluid. Limestone formations that contain
caverns or are vuggy in nature present the same problem.
Mud losses
Mud losses to cavernous and/or vuggy formations and sometimes to reefs, gravel,
or other permeable zones are usually predictable in a given area because they occur
in definite formations.
Hydraulic
fracturing
The second method is the hydraulic fracturing of formations with no permeable

zones or caverns. This can be along newly created fracture planes, or if the
formation has already been fractured, by opening up these existing planes.
Fracture opening
In many cases, natural fractures are impermeable under normal conditions, but if
sufficient pressure is applied, they are forced open and drilling mud will be lost to
the fracture. Once such a fracture opens up, the mud lost will tend to wash out and
enlarge the fracture. This is serious because later pressure reductions (reduced mud
weight) may not close the fracture, and so the loss of mud will continue.
Note on losses
It is important to realise that losses can and do occur at mud weights below that
which is required to fracture the rock matrix.
1-10
March 2007
Revision D

1.7

Differential Sticking
Definition
If a large overbalance exists between the pressure exerted by the mud column and
the formation pore pressure, excessive filter cake build-up is likely, isolating the
formation. In this situation, differential sticking of the pipe to the borehole wall can
occur as the overbalance pressure of the drilling mud in the wellbore holds the pipe
in place against lower pressured formation.
Formation forces
The force acting on the formation is a function of the pressure differential between
the wellbore and the formation, and the effective area of contact between the pipe
and the filter cake.
Effective area
The effective area illustrated in Figure 1-2 is the thickness of the formation that the
pipe is in contact with, multiplied by the surface area of the embedded portion of
the pipe.
Figure 1-2. Differential sticking

continued
March 2007
Revision D
1-11


Differential Sticking, continued

Calculating
effective area
The effective area can be calculated using the following formula:

2
D h
D
D
A = 2 Hf h h
D d
2
2
Where Hf = thickness of the low pressure permeable formation (inches)

D = the diameter of the borehole (inches)
d = the outer diameter of the pipe or drill collar (inches)
h = thickness of the mud cake (inches)
Calculating drill
collar forces
Once the effective area is known, the force (lbs/ft) acting on the drill collar can be
calculated:
Force = p A F
Where p = Pressure difference between the wellbore and formation (psi)
A = Effective area
F = Coefficient of friction between the drill collar and the mud cake
Example
The following example illustrates the forces that can be created.

Hf = 100 feet
D = 6.125 inches
d = 4.75 inches
h = 16/32 inch
Calculations
So the effective area is:

2
6.125 0.5
6.125
6.125
A = 2 1200
0.5
0.5
6.125 4.75
2
2
A = 2 1200 (2.5625) (3.0625 2.045)

2
A = 2 1200 6.566 1.035

A = 2 x 1200 x 2.3519
A = 5644 in2
continued
1-12
March 2007
Revision D


Differential Sticking, continued

Results
Therefore the force = p A F
1128867 lbs.ft = 2000 5644 0.1

p = 2000 psi = Pressure difference between the wellbore and formation
A = 5644 = Effective area
F = 0.1 = Coefficient of friction between the drill collar and the mud cake
Factors affecting
differential
sticking
From this it can be seen that that the following factors increase the likelihood of
differential sticking:
High wellbore pressure caused by unnecessarily high mud weight
Low formation pressure in a permeable zone
Thick permeable formations, produces a larger effective area
Thick mud cake, produces larger effective area
Larger pipe diameters
Mud cakes with a high coefficient of friction
March 2007
Revision D
1-13

Maintaining Rate of Penetration/Differential Pressure
1.8

Maintaining Rate of Penetration/Differential Pressure
Definition
This is the difference between the drilling fluid hydrostatic pressure and the
formation pore pressure, and is influential in controlling the rate at which cuttings
are cleared from the bit. A high positive differential pressure may well introduce a
chip hold-down effect where loose cuttings are held to the bottom of the hole.
Drill rate
decrease
Cunningham and Eenik (1959) reported from their experiments that the drilling rate
decreased when mud hydrostatic exceeded formation pressure, due primarily to the
chip hold-down effect, and secondarily by localized compaction and strengthening
of the rock.
Experimental
evidence
In experiments, Vidrine and Benit (1968) found that ROP can be reduced by up to
70 percent as differential pressure was increased from zero to 1000 psi. They found
that the sensitivity of ROP to differential pressure was greatest when large diameter
bits were used. The use of excessive overbalance (over 1000-psi) means that
changes in WOB, RPM, and other factors do not alter the ROP to any great degree.
Exceptions
Fontenot and Berry (1975) suggest that, given adequate cleaning, maximum
penetration rate should occur at zero differential pressure. A possible exception
would be the drilling of very weak formations where a low differential pressure
could cause spilling of rock into the hole.
Overbalance
increase
Depth (ft)
Mud Weight
(ppg)
Phyd
(psi)
Formation
EMW
(ppg)
Formation
Pressure
(psi)
Overbalance
(psi)
1000
2000
12.0
624
12.0
1248
10.0
520
104
10.0
1040
208
5000
12.0
3120
10.0
2600
520
10000
15000
12.0
6240
10.0
5200
1040
12.0
9360
10.0
7800
1560
Figure 1-3. Overbalance increase with depth
1-14
March 2007
Revision D

1.9
Definition

Cavings
Cavings
Cavings can be generated by several different mechanisms.
Shear or compressional failure of the wellbore
Faulting or Fracturing causing pre-existing planes of weakness in the formation
Drilling with a hole angle close to the bedding planes
Rubblized zones created near to salt domes.
Chemical effects of the mud system acting on the formation
1.9.1
Description
Shear Failure (Pressure Cavings)

The Shear or compressional failure of the wellbore is caused when the
compressional stresses around the wellbore are greater than the compressional
strength of the rock itself. This condition occurs when the mud weight used is too
low.
This creates large splintery cavings where the size and shape of the cavings are
governed by the properties of the rock
Before this mechanism was fully understood it was believed that the pressure
differential between the formation pore pressure and the mud weight caused the
formation to explode into the wellbore.
Shear or
Compressional
Wellbore Failure
continued
March 2007
Revision D
1-15

Cavings

Cavings, continued
Shear Failure
Pressure Cavings
1.9.2
Description
Faulting and Fracturing

If a formation has been heavily fractured there is a tendency for pieces to fall into
the wellbore. The size can vary from pebbles to large boulders. This type of caving
can often be confused with pressure cavings. Increases in mud weight will not
always stop caving of this type and may make the situation worse as mud is forced
into the fracture planes.
Blocky Cavings
from preexisting
fractures
continued
1-16
March 2007
Revision D


Cavings
Cavings, continued
1.9.3
Description
1.9.4
Description
Hole Angle Close To Bedding Planes

If the hole is being drilled so that the hole angle is close to the bedding planes or
other planes of weakness this can cause the roof of the hole to collapse where the
beds are intersected. The collapse occurs as the wedge of rock that is created has
very little support laterally and falls into the hole.
Rubblized Zones
Formations near the base of salt structures can be heavily faulted and fractured
through the movement of the salt in the sub surface
continued
March 2007
Revision D
1-17

Cavings

Cavings, continued
Rubblized
cavings
1.9.5
Description
Reactive Formations
Shales with a high smectite content react with the mud filtrate and hydrate. Once
hydrated they will fall or swell into the borehole.
Chemical effects
on the formation
1-18
March 2007
Revision D

1.10
Definition

Borehole Ballooning / Breathing
Borehole Ballooning / Breathing

Borehole ballooning or borehole breathing is caused when the ECD (equivalent
circulating density) is higher than the fracture opening pressure causing mud to be
forced into the formation and the ESD (equivalent static density) is less than the
fracture closure pressure causing the mud to be returned to the annulus. This
behavior can be misinterpreted as a kick causing time to be lost as the well is shut
in and causes damage to the formation which can result in increased caving and
hole instability.
Exceed FBP ONCE if no far field

fractures are pre-existing
Exceed FCP if fractures existing

Fracture Propagates
Fracture Reopens
ECD Fill Fracture
Static MW Close
Fracture
(after Gaarenstroom et al., 1993)
1.11
Formation Damage
Definition
Damage to the formation will occur when the overbalance pressure is excessive and
can cause formation washouts, excessive borehole corrosion, reservoir flushing,
and contamination.
First effect on
drilling
This impacts the drilling operation in two ways. First the reduction in the quality of
the borehole can lead to instability problems, the creation of ledges, and increases
in torque and drag making the well more difficult to drill. In addition, damage to
reservoir formations may reduce their final production capability.
continued
March 2007
Revision D
1-19

Drilling Kicks/Underground Blowouts

Formation Damage, continued

Second effect on
drilling
1.12
The second is the reduction in accuracy of wireline data, and to a lesser degree
FEWD data, as a poor quality borehole affects the readings. If formation fluids
have been flushed out by the drilling fluid, the depth of investigation of some tools
may be too shallow to measure actual formation fluid properties.
Drilling Kicks/Underground Blowouts
Definition
A kick occurs when the formation pressure is greater than the pressure exerted by
the mud column, and fluid, either water, gas, or oil flows from the formation into
the well bore. The formation must therefore be permeable to allow fluid flow. In
impermeable formations, pressure caving tends to result (see Section 4.6.1).
Explanation
Kicks are usually shut in and circulated out of the well in a controlled manner. In
rare circumstances, it is possible for underground blowouts to occur. This situation
arises where the fracture pressure of a formation that has not been cased off is less
than the pressure generated by the kick. Then, when the well is closed in to prevent
the formation fluids entering the well bore, the increase in pressure in the well
fractures the weaker zone and allows the fluid to flow from the high-pressure
formation to the low-pressure formation.
1-20
March 2007
Revision D

1.13
References

References
References
Bourgoyne Jr., A.T., Chenevert, M.E., Millheim, K.K., Young Jr., F.S.: Applied
Drilling Engineering, Chapt. 6, pp. 285-294, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2, SPE
TX, 1991.
Fertl, W.H. 1976, Abnormal Formation Pressures. Elsevier NY.
Goldsmith, R.G. 1972 Why Gas Cut Mud is Not Always a Serious Problem. World
Oil Vol. 175 No. 5, pp. 51-54.
Gretener, P.E. 1978, Pore Pressure: Fundamentals, General Ramifications and
Implications for Structural Geology. AAPG Continuing Education Course Note
Series No 4.
Vidrine, D.J., Benit, E.J.: Field Verification to the Effect of Differential Pressure
on Drilling Rate. Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1968, pp. 676-682.
March 2007
Revision D
1-21

Formation Pressure Generation Mechanisms

Chapter 2 Formation Pressure Generation

Mechanisms
Scope

Course.
Course title
Chapter contents This chapter contains the following information:

2.1

2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2
Aquifers.......................................................................................................2-5
2.2.1
2.2.2
Positive Effect ................................................................................2-5

Negative Effect...............................................................................2-6
2.3
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy...............................................................................2-6
2.4
Uplift Tectonic Movement, Isostatic Readjustment.................................2-8

2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
2.6
Formation Foreshortening ............................................................2-14
Undercompaction ......................................................................................2-15
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.8
Normal Faults...............................................................................2-11
Reverse Faults ..............................................................................2-12
Strike-Slip Faults..........................................................................2-12
Growth Faults...............................................................................2-12
Fractures / Joints ..........................................................................2-13
Charged Sands..............................................................................2-13
Stress Field Redistribution ........................................................................2-14

2.6.1
2.7
Example 1.......................................................................................2-8
Example 2.......................................................................................2-9
Faulting and Fractures ...............................................................................2-11

2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
Influences on Porosity..................................................................2-16
Terzaghi and Peck ........................................................................2-17
Katz and Ibrahim..........................................................................2-18
Harkins and Baugher....................................................................2-18
Evaporite Deposits ....................................................................................2-21

2.8.1
2.8.2
April 2007
Revision D
Introduction ....................................................................................2-3
Objectives.......................................................................................2-4
Clay Diagenesis............................................................................2-21
Diagenetic Cap-Rocks..................................................................2-24
2.9
Osmosis .....................................................................................................2-25
2.10
Hydrocarbon Cracking ..............................................................................2-26
2.11
Aquathermal Pressuring ............................................................................2-27
2-1

2.12

Diapirism...................................................................................................2-28
2.12.1 Salt Diapirism...............................................................................2-28
2.12.2 Mud Volcanoes ............................................................................2-29
2.13
Subnormal Formation Pressures................................................................2-30

2.13.1
2.13.2
2.13.3
2.13.4
2.13.5
2.13.6
2.13.7
2.14
2-2
Artificial Production.....................................................................2-30
Precipitation .................................................................................2-30
Potentiometric Surface .................................................................2-30
Temperature Change ....................................................................2-30
Epeirogenic Movements...............................................................2-31
Formation Foreshortening ............................................................2-31
Decompressional Expansion ........................................................2-31
References .................................................................................................2-32
2001, Sperry-Sun
a Halliburton Company
April 2007
Revision D

2.1
Description
2.1.1


Introduction
Overpressure
and
underpressure
Overpressure or underpressure can result from a number of different mechanisms.
Overpressure
For overpressure to develop and then be maintained, fluid flow must be inhibited or
prevented. For abnormal pressures to develop, vertical and lateral sealing is
required.
Defintions
Overpressure or underpressure is a transient occurrence on a geological time scale.

Despite closed systems with vertical and lateral seals, it is rare for rocks to be totally
impermeable, and pore fluids will eventually be redistributed to areas of lower
pressure. Clays in particular have very low permeability but will still allow fluid
flow over a geological time scale. Evaporites are perfect seals, but because they
behave plastically, migration will eventually lead to rupture of the seal.
Therefore, it is important to have knowledge of the geological history of the
sedimentary basin if effective formation pressure evaluation is to be conducted. The
age of the rock, sedimentation rates, uplift, and faulting can all contribute to
overpressure generation, in addition to the usual diagenetic processes of rock
formation.
Formation fluid
Formation fluid pressure increase or decrease is not necessarily consistent in origin

with the deposition of the sediment, but can be induced at a later period.
Mechanisms for
overpressure
Mechanisms of generating overpressure can be broadly grouped into three areas:

1. Pressure changes caused by hydrostatic changes relative to the normal pore
fluid pressure, such as aquifers, hydrocarbon buoyancy, uplift, faulting, matrix
stress redistribution, or the charging of beds.
2. Pressure changes caused by relative changes in compaction, either from
sedimentation processes trapping pore fluids such as undercompaction,
deposition of impermeable layers trapping pore fluids, or increases in relative
stress caused by folding or diapirism.
3. Pressure changes caused by chemical processes or temperature changes such as
clay diagenesis, osmosis, hydrocarbon cracking, or aquathermal pressuring.
April 2007
Revision D
2-3

2.1.2
Pore pressure
mechanisms
2-4

Objectives
After completing this section, you should be able to explain how formation pore
pressure changes are caused by the following mechanisms:
Aquifers
Hydrocarbon buoyancy
Uplifttectonic movement, isostatic readjustment
Faulting and fracturing
Stress field redistribution, formation foreshortening
Undercompaction
Evaporite deposition and clay diagenesis
Osmosis
Hydrocarbon cracking
Aquathermal pressuring
Diapirism
Underpressure (subnormal) generation
Each of these mechanisms is explained in the sections that follow.
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.2

Aquifers
Aquifers
Description
This section describes how aquifers affect formation pore pressure.
Hydrostatic
pressure
Differences in pore fluid pressure greater than or less than the expected normal pore
pressure can be generated in permeable formations caused by differences in the
height of the hydrostatic head.
Negative and
positive
anomalies
In folded formations both positive and negative anomalies can develop.
2.2.1
Positive Effect
Positive pressure In the case of an artesian well, the fluid intake point or formation outcropping is at a
higher altitude than the location where the well bore intersects the formation. This
causes the formation pressure to be greater than would be expected if the normal
pore pressure were calculated using the rotary table as the depth datum.
Figure 2-1. Aquifer pressuring

continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-5

Hydrocarbon Buoyancy
2.2.2

Negative Effect
Negative anomalies can also occur if the elevation of the well is higher than the
fluid intake point or outcropping. This anomaly can also develop in desert regions
where the water table is significantly lower than expected.
Negative
anomalies
Figure 2-2. Negative pressure anomaly
2.3
Description
In sealed reservoirs such as lenticular sand beds, dipping formations, and anticlines,
oil and gas accumulates at the highest point in the structure because it is less dense
than the surrounding pore water and therefore buoyant.
Density
differences
The difference between the density of the reservoir fluid, oil, or gas, and the density
of the pore water produces an upward force within the reservoir fluid causing an
increase in pressure. The density of the reservoir fluid and the height of the column
of reservoir fluid control the size of this force.
2-6
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

Density effect

In the example below D1 is the depth to the top of the reservoir, and D2 is the depth
to the base of the reservoir as measured from mean sea level.
Figure 2-3. Hydrocarbon density effect

Two calculation
methods
There are two approaches to calculating the pressure at the top of the reservoir. The
first is to calculate the force caused by the buoyancy of the fluid and add it to the
hydrostatic pressure of water at that depth. The second is to subtract the downward
force caused by the density of the fluid from the hydrostatic pressure of water at the
base of the fluid.
Calculation note
When drilling through a reservoir or thick sandstone sequence, if the pressure is

known at the top, it is possible to calculate the pressure at any point through the
section using these techniques. This is providing the fluid density is known, as the
height of the reservoir fluid column can be back-calculated. This assumes that the
formations above and below the reservoir are at the same pressure.
Calculate each
fluid separately
For a hydrocarbon reservoir with gas and oil columns, the upward force or
downward force (depending on the calculation method employed) generated by
each fluid must be calculated separately. The results are then added together to
accurately estimate increased pressures.
Depth of contact
To predict pressures through a gas/oil reservoir, the depth of the gas/oil contact is
required.
April 2007
Revision D
2-7

Uplift Tectonic Movement, Isostatic Readjustment
2.4

Definition
Formations that have been normally compacted can be uplifted to a shallower depth.
The action of tectonic forces or the removal of stress and the readjustment of the
earths crust once the ice sheets of a glacial period have receded can cause this.
Description
For these palaeopressures to develop, natural seals have to trap the original fluid so
that it retains its pressure. In addition, a portion of the overlying strata has to be
eroded, or in the case of isostatic readjustment, the additional overburden created by
the ice sheets is removed.
Uplift pressure
It then follows that uplift will only generate abnormal pressures when accompanied
by another geological process that reduces the distance between the buried rock and
the surface. The magnitude of the pressure is therefore a function of the original
depth of burial, the distance the formation has been uplifted, and the amount of
erosion that takes place after the uplift.
2.4.1
Example 1
Figure 2-5 illustrates the concepts of uplift and isostatic readjustment. Movements
Uplift and
isostatic diagram of the rock bodies are relative to an imaginary datum at zero. The pressure at the
base of each column does not change.
Readjustment
Before uplift occurs, the base of Column 1 is at depth D1. After uplift occurs, the
base of the column rises to D2 and the top of the column rises by D2-D1. Because
the height of the column H1 has not changed, the pressure gradient or equivalent
mud weight of the fluid trapped at the base of the column does not change.
continued
2-8
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Example 1, continued
Uplift and
isostatic
readjustment
Figure 2-5. Uplift and isostatic readjustment

Pressure increase It is only after the erosion of part of Column 1 has taken place that the pressure
gradient or equivalent mud weight increases at the base of Column 1, as the height
of the column H2 is now less than H1.
Isostatic
readjustment
2.4.2
Formation
example
For isostatic readjustment, the base of Column 2 is at depth D1, and there is a
superimposed stress by the overlying ice sheet. The density of ice is 920 kg/m3 or
0.92 g/cc or 7.67 ppg. The height of the ice sheet is H3 H1. When the ice is
removed there will be some uplift, and the distance to the surface has decreased by
the height of the ice sheet, causing an increase in the pressure gradient or equivalent
mud weight.
Example 2
In the following example, the formations have been uplifted by 2000 feet, and 2000
feet of erosion has occurred.
continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-9


Example 2, continued
Overpressure
development
Original
depth
ft
Formation
pressure
psi
Original
pressure
gradient
psi/ft
Equivalent
Mud
Weight
ppg
Uplifted
Depth
ft
New
pressure
gradient
psi/ft
Equivalent
Mud
Weight
ppg
10000
8000
6000
4000
4650
3720
2790
1860
0.465
0.465
0.465
0.465
8.96
8.96
8.96
8.96
8000
6000
4000
2000
0.581
0.620
0.697
0.930
11.20
11.95
13.44
17.92
Original
depth
m
Formation
pressure
kPa
Original
pressure
gradient
kPa/m
Equivalent
Mud
Weight
kg/m
Uplifted
Depth
m
New
pressure
gradient
kPa/m
Equivalent
Mud
Weight
kg/m
3048
2438
1829
1219
32060
25648
19236
12824
10.52
10.52
10.52
10.52
1073.7
1073.7
1073.7
1073.7
2438
1829
1219
609.5
13.15
14.02
15.78
21.04
1340.5
1429.1
1605.5
2144.7
Example of overpressure development through uplift

Effective stress
The effective stress acting on the sediment controls the bulk density and porosity. If
uplift and then erosion occur, the uplifted formations will have a lower porosity and
higher bulk density at a given depth, when compared to a normally compacted
formation at the same depth. This is because the uplifted formation has been
subjected to a greater effective stress than the normally compacted sediment during
its depositional history.
Discontinuity
This difference in compaction produces a discontinuity at the depth of the

unconformity, producing a shift in the normal compaction trend. In addition, the
uplifted sediment is now being acted upon by a reduced effective stress, and is one
method of creating the mechanism of unloading.
Fracturing
It is worth noting that since tectonic activity is usually accompanied by fracturing,

the pressure may be dissipated along the fractures as the integrity of the seal is
reduced. Furthermore, the result of uplift to a shallower depth will reduce the
formation temperature, causing a decrease in fluid volume and therefore a minor
reduction in pressure.
2-10
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.5

Faulting and Fractures
Effects of faulting Faulting can have many different effects on the distribution of pressures in the subsurface, depending upon the following conditions:
Effectiveness of the seal on the fault plane trapping pressures or acting as a
drain
Displacement of the formations impermeable formations moved next to
permeable formations
Strata distribution the original distribution of normal and overpressured strata
prior to faulting
Fractures and joints produced by minor faulting allowing communication
between strata of different pressures
Water expulsion
Faults may prevent the expulsion of water during the compaction process,
whereupon the shales in such a zone remain at abnormally high porosity.
Types of faults
As discussed in Chapter 2, fault systems can be classified into three different types,
dependent upon the relative magnitudes of the principal stresses acting on the
formation.
2.5.1
Normal Faults
Description
Normal faults are generated when the stress field magnitudes are Sv > Shmax >
Shmin. They are created when a basin is in extension and therefore tend to be open.
This allows fluid pressures to be transmitted between beds, equalising the pressures.
If saturated fluids are present the fault plane (because of the localised pressure
decrease) becomes a preferred location for mineral crystallisation. The formation of
crystals of Calcite, Dolomite, Anhydrite, or Quartz can cause the fault plane to seal,
trapping higher than expected pressures in shallower formations or lower than
expected pressures in deeper formations.
Fault pressure
It is also possible for normal faults to uplift beds, and depending on the stratigraphy,
relocate the ends of the bed next to impermeable formations providing lateral and
vertical sealing. Figure 2-6(a) illustrates pressure equalisation caused by the fault
plane intersecting beds. Figure 2-6(b) illustrates overpressure generation as the
lower beds charge the shallower beds.
continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-11


Normal Faults, continued

Pressure
transmission
Figure 2-6(a) and (b). Fault pressure transmission
2.5.2
Description
2.5.3
Description
2.5.4
Description
Reverse Faults
Reverse faults are generated when the stress field magnitudes are Shmax > Shmin >
Sv. Reverse faults are more likely to be closed, and generally act as a barrier to fluid
circulation.
Strike-Slip Faults
Strike slip faults are generated when the stress field magnitudes are Shmax > Sv >
Shmin. The fault plane is normally open, and will only act as a seal if crystallisation
has taken place.
Growth Faults
Growth faults can be generated during sedimentation, and are also known as
synsedimentary or listric faults. They are very similar in nature to landslides, with
the top of the fault plane being close to vertical, and the base of the fault becoming
parallel to the dip of the beds.
continued
2-12
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Growth Faults, continued

Growth fault
Figure 2-7. Growth fault

Downstream
compartment
The down-stream compartment will exhibit a thickening of the beds closer to the
fault caused by the fault block slowly slipping and more sediment filling the created
depression.
Upstream
compartment
The base of the upstream compartment can exhibit an area of undercompacted shale
(residual shale) caused by differential compaction compared to the formations on
the downstream side of the fault plane.
2.5.5
Description
2.5.6
Description
April 2007
Revision D
Fractures / Joints
Joints are fractures in the rock with no displacement on either side of the fracture.
Fractures can be created when faulting occurs, or by overpressures creating enough
stress to crack the cap rock or seal. Once the pressure has bled off the fracture will
then close.
Charged Sands
High pressures can occur in shallow sands if the sands are charged by fluids or gas
from lower formations. The conduits for the movement are faults or fractures. This
condition can also result from a poor surface casing cement job, casing leak or a
blow-out in a nearby well.
2-13

Stress Field Redistribution
2.6

Stress Field Redistribution
Description
Tectonic activity is common in nearly all regions, and modifies the force and
direction of a stress field. This can, in conjunction with the overburden stress acting
vertically, increase the rate of compaction of the sediment. This will only hold true
if the pore fluid is allowed to escape.
Overpressure
Tectonic forces may develop rapidly so that fluid expulsion is reduced, causing
overpressuring to develop. If the imposed tectonic stress increases too rapidly, the
overpressure may exceed the minimum principal stress leading to hydraulic
fracture, dissipating the pressure.
2.6.1
Description
Formation Foreshortening
Formation foreshortening is related to the mechanism of stress field redistribution,
and occurs when the horizontal stresses are large enough to laterally compress the
beds. Depending on the competency of the beds it is possible that the deeper bed
warps downward and the shallower bed warps upward. This causes the middle bed
to expand to fill the void. In Figure 2-8, the compression of beds A and C will
generate a larger stress in the pore fluids, causing overpressure. The expansion of
bed B reduces the stress in the pore fluids, causing underpressure. This mechanism
is generally limited to areas of modern tectonic activity, the flanks of the Rocky
Mountains, for example.
Foreshortening
diagram
Figure 2-8. Formation foreshortening
2-14
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.7

Undercompaction
Undercompaction
Definition
Undercompaction, also called disequilibrium compaction, is one of the major causes

of overpressure in young shale/sand sequences. Overpressure creation is dependent
upon the magnitude of the overburden pressure and the ability of a formation to
expel water. The rate of sedimentation is the controlling factor on how rapidly the
overburden pressure increases at a given point in the sequence.
Normal
compaction
When sediments compact normally and the pore fluid is allowed to escape, the
porosity naturally decreases and the system is said to be in equilibrium.
Porosity
measurements
Magara (1978) published porosity measurements in argillaceous (clay) formations

from various regions around the world:
Figure 2-9. Porosity vs. depth for argillaceous sediments

continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-15

Undercompaction

Undercompaction, continued
Curve definitions
2.7.1
Curve 1 (Athy) Permian, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma USA

Curve 2 (Won Engelwardt) Lias, Germany
Curve 3 (Storer) Miocene and Pliocene, Po Valley France
Curve 4 (Magara) Tertiary Japan
Curve 5 (Dickinson) Tertiary, Gulf Coast USA
Curve 6 (J.O.I.D.E.S), ocean drilling programme
Influences on Porosity
Change by depth The porosity of argillaceous ooze can be as high as 80 percent at the sediment /
seawater interface. Within the first 1000 m, the porosity decreases rapidly reaching
on average 20 to 30 percent. Below this depth the decrease in porosity is far slower.
Particle shape
The individual sediment particles break contact above the porosity range of
45-50 percent, and the exact porosity depends upon their shape, size, packing, and
distribution. When there is no grain-to-grain contact, a plastic state results where
little or no overburden stress is supported by the matrix structure and the pore fluid
supports the overburden stress.
Water content
The following factors influence the water content of argillaceous sediments under
applied loads and contribute to the different porosity vs. depth relationships:
Type of clay mineral

Particle size
Adsorbed cations
Temperature
pH
Expelled fluid
Once compaction causes grain-to-grain contacts in the sediment, the pore fluids start
to be expelled. For sediment to remain normally pressured, the pore fluid must be
expelled at a rate less than or equal to the permeability of the sediment of a given
compaction.
Sedimentation
rate
If the rate of sedimentation is high, producing a faster increase in overburden

pressure, the pore fluid becomes trapped because the low permeability of the
claystones restricts the fluid escape.
2-16
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.7.2
Description

Undercompaction
Terzaghi and Peck

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) performed an experiment to simulate the role of drainage
in clay compaction and proved the simple relationship
S=+P
Overburden pressure (S) = pressure supported by the matrix () + Pore pressure (P)
can also be referred to as the effective stress.
Experiment
definition
The experiment consisted of a cylinder containing three metal plates. The middle
plate is perforated and the plates are separated by springs. The springs simulate the
matrix of the clay. A fixed volume of water is contained between the upper and
lower plate. The force S is constant in all three cases.
Illustration
Figure 2-10. Terzaghi and Peck experiment

Cylinder A
In A, the valve is closed, trapping the water in the cylinder. Both the springs and the
water support the force S. The pressure generated in the water is measured in the
manometer at the left of the cylinder.
Cylinder B
In B, the valve is opened slightly to allow water to escape, simulating dewatering.

In this case, more of the force S is supported by the springs and therefore the
pressure of the fluid drops.
Cylinder C
In C, the valve is fully open and the system is in equilibrium, the water is supporting
a force equal to the hydrostatic pressure, and the springs support the difference
between the hydrostatic pressure P and the total stress S.
Comment
It is worth noting at this point Terzaghi and Pecks experiment only illustrates the
relationship derived from uniaxial compression.
April 2007
Revision D
2-17

Undercompaction
2.7.3

Katz and Ibrahim
Description
Katz and Ibrahim (1971) presented a compaction model based upon Terzaghi and
Pecks simple spring analogy explaining the compaction of an argillacous layer
situated between two permeable sand layers.
Explanation of
model
The perforated layers represent the low permeability claystones restricting fluid
flow. The experiment showed that when a load is applied suddenly to the system,
the water between the discs will initially support the entire load. Then after a brief
time, the water begins to be forced from between the plates in either an upward or a
downward direction, depending on the direction of the initial stress. As the outer
plates come closer together, it becomes more difficult to force the water past them,
simulating the reduced permeability. Therefore, the pressure in the central
compartment becomes more difficult to dissipate, producing a higher fluid potential
in the centre compartments than in the outer compartments.
Illustration
Figure 2-11. Katz and Ibrahim compaction model
2.7.4
Description
Harkins and Baugher

Work done by Harkins and Baugher (1969) and Dickinson (1953) attempted to
establish the significance of the ratio of sand to clay in a depositional sequence as
the sand bodies act as drains controlling the generation of overpressure. They
concluded overpressure in clays develops preferentially where the sand content is
less than 15 percent. Figure 2-12 below illustrates a stylised representation of the
relationship between sand and clay sequences.
continued
2-18
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Undercompaction
Harkins and Baugher, continued

Illustration
Figure 2-12. Differential dewatering

Illustration
description
A. Normal compacted claystone dewatering occurred to underlying sandstone.

B. Claystone body with a low permeability at the top and bottom, trapping fluid
and increasing pressure to the centre of the bed. Bed B is normally pressured at
the top and bottom as water escapes into beds A and C. The permeability
reduction creates a normally pressured claystone seal above sand C.
C. Open sandstone, dewatering the claystone above and below, pressure slightly
above hydrostatic.
D. Overpressured claystone with equal rates of dewatering, in contact with sands
above and below.
E. Open sandstone allowing rapid dewatering, pressure slightly above hydrostatic.
F. Rapid dewatering in contact with the overlying sand creates a thin claystone
seal at the top, causing a more rapid pressure transition in the bed.
G. Sandstone is higher than normal pressure but maintains a lower hydrostatic
potential than claystone, allowing some dewatering.
H. Claystone-only dewatering to the sand above and providing a seal for Bed I.
I.
Charged sand preventing dewatering of surrounding claystone.

continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-19

Undercompaction

Harkins and Baugher, continued

North Sea
description
The central North Sea for example contains some highly overpressured Tertiary
shale sequences that have been deposited to a depth of approximately 3350 m in
60 million years. The dominant rock type for this area is soft clay or gumbo. The
rapid sedimentation and the low permeability of the clays has produced these
overpressured shales. Given longer geological time it is probable that compaction
will continue and the fluid will be squeezed out, creating a normal pressure regime.
Limestone beds
Pressure transitions in undercompacted claystones are usually gradual, Carstens

(1978) and others have noted how thin (1-3 m) limestone beds can act as seals to
stop fluid expulsion in these clays. Such beds cause a very rapid transition of
pressures across the seal and higher overpressures than would be expected from a
reduction in clay permeability.
Upper sands
Upper sands can also be highly pressured if developing or migrating gas is trapped
by very rapid deposition, causing the permeability of overlying clays to drop.
2-20
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.8
Evaporite
influences

Evaporite Deposits
Evaporite Deposits
Evaporite deposits can influence the development of overpressure in three ways:
1. Being impermeable, they act as an ideal seal, preventing dewatering or trapping
of hydrocarbons.
2. Generate overpressure through diagenetic processes.
3. Diapirism, discussed in Section 3.12.
Evaporite
characteristics
The impermeable nature of these deposits prevents the vertical expulsion of

formation fluids from underlying sediments, and where lateral permeability is
restricted the increasing overburden pressure will lead to overpressure below the
seal. However, the ability of salts to migrate vertically (diapirism) can result in a
reduction of the seal efficiency, leading to a reduction in the trapped pressure.
Diagenic
transformation
The diagenetic transformation of gypsum to Anhydrite has been proven capable of

overpressure generation (Louden, 1971). Studies show that gypsum is stable below
40C in fresh water and standard pressure and temperature, and Anhydrite is stable
above this threshold. Increasing the salinity of the water has the effect of lowering
the temperature threshold, reaching a minimum of 25C in a saturated NaCl
solution.
Pressure increase As pressure is increased, it encourages the dewatering of gypsum and increases the
stability of the Anhydrite water bond.
Transformation
2.8.1
Description
During the transformation of gypsum to Anhydrite, a volume of water equivalent to

38 percent of the original gypsum volume is released. If this water is unable to
escape, then the increase in pore water volume will cause a rise in pore pressure.
This transformation tends to occur at shallow depths where seals may be ineffective.
Clay Diagenesis
Clay diagenesis or transformation during burial is regarded as a secondary
mechanism of overpressure generation, with some debate as to the significance of
its role. Clays are made up of various different minerals, and their relative
percentage within a clay will influence the claystones behaviour in the presence of
water.
continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-21

Evaporite Deposits

Clay Diagenesis, continued

Clay mineralogy
Figure 2-13. Clay mineralogy

Phylosilicates
Clay or argillacous minerals are part of a mineralogical group known as the

phylosilicates. This defines them as being composed of sheets or lattice layers that
are in turn made up of tetrahedra and octohedra.
Formula
The tetrahedra are comprised of either silicon (Si), aluminium (Al), or iron (Fe3+),
bound with oxygen with the formula:
M2O5
where M is either Si, Al, or Fe3+.
Pyrophyllite
The simplest clay mineral is Pyrophyllite and consists of two tetrahedral sheets
bonded by Al3+. Pyrophyllite is electrically neutral and the sheets are connected by
residual links called van der Waals bonds.
Smectite
If the silicon cations start to be replaced by aluminium cations in the tetrahedral

layer, this produces a negative charge. This negative charge causes the adsorption of
water and other cations. Clay minerals of this type are known as smectites.
Montmorillonite is a clay type composed of smectite minerals.
Illites
Continued replacement of the silicon cations with aluminium cations increases the
electrical imbalance and allows potassium or calcium ions to be fixed between the
layers. The clay mineral then looses its capacity to adsorb water. Clay minerals of
this type are known as Illites.
continued
2-22
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Evaporite Deposits

Kaolinite
Kaolinite is another mineral that makes up clays and is similar to Pyrophyllite,

except that it is asymmetrical and has better thermal stability.
Water adsorption As can be seen, the mineralogical changes that clays undergo during diagenesis are
an important control on their ability to adsorb water. For example, Montmorillonite
has a high water adsorption capability giving it a characteristic swelling property in
contact with water.
Mineral
transformation
As clay mineral transformation occurs (generally to Illite) through cation exchange,

the clays ability to hold water diminishes and water is expelled from the mineral
structure. Continuing diagenesis will lead to the formation of Kaolinite.
Clay dehydration
illustration
Figure 2-14. Schematic dehydration of clays during burial. After Powers, 1959,
Burst, 1969
Pressure effects
Studies have shown a close relationship between the burial depth and an increased
percentage of Illite, with a corresponding reduction of mixed layer clays. The rate
the transformation occurs and water expelled is largely governed by the temperature
and ionic activity, and to a lesser degree, pressure.
continued
April 2007
Revision D
2-23

Evaporite Deposits


Behavior model
Powers, 1959 (Figure 2-14 curve a), proposed a two-phase model characterised by
an initial phase reducing the pore water volume through normal dewatering driven
by overburden pressures. In the second phase, interlayer water is expelled first
under the influence of pressure, but as burial depth increases, temperature becomes
the dominant mechanism as the clay minerals convert from smectite to Illite.
Revised model
Burst, 1969 (Figure 2-14 curves b and c), added a third stage. In the first stage, free
pore water is expelled under pressure. The rate of expulsion reduces as the
permeability of the clay decreases. The second stage expels the last but one
molecular layer of water under the effect of temperature. The third stage expels the
remaining interlayer water.
Temperature
effect
Temperature plays a significant role in this process. The geothermal gradient is

more important than the burial depth. Burst states that the second stage of water
expulsion occurs at a temperature of 90 to100C / 194 to 212F.
Water volumes
Burst also showed how the relative volumes of water and clay varied with each
phase:
2.8.2
Definition
2-24
Initial
deposition
After 1st
dehydration
After 2nd
dehydration
After 3rd
dehydration
Percent of
original volume
100
35
28
25
Bulk density
1.32 g/cc
1.96 g/cc
2.28 g/cc
2.57 g/cc
Pore water
70.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
Interlayer water
7.0
20.0
11.0
0.0
Swelling clay
solids
13.0
40.0
22.0
0.0
Non-swelling
clay solids
5.0
15.0
43.5
74.0
Non-clay solids
5.0
15.0
18.5
21.0
Diagenetic Cap-Rocks
These are hardened or carbonated shale layers above zones of overpressure.
Mouchet and Mitchell (1989) suggest the most probable origin is of preferential
carbonate precipitation as a consequence of underlying overpressure. Cations
precipitate from solution under varying conditions of pressure, temperature, pH and
ionic concentration. Where normally pressured clay overlies undercompacted clay,
the relative levels of these conditions change abruptly, encouraging precipitation.
Thus, diagenetic cap-rocks act to maintain a seal to underlying overpressure, similar
to evaporite deposits.
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.9

Osmosis
Osmosis
Definition
Osmosis is the spontaneous movement of water through a semi-permeable

membrane separating solutions of different salt concentrations. Movement of fluids
will continue until the concentration becomes equal on each side of the membrane.
Early work in the Gulf Coast region proposed this effect to explain salinity and
pressure differences between reservoirs separated by clay beds.
Factors for
osmosis
There are many factors on which the potential for osmosis through clay (acting as a
semi-permeable membrane) depends: differential salinity concentrations,
differential electrical potential, mineralogy, temperature, bed thickness, porosity,
pore size, fracturing, and differential pressure.
Proof for osmosis Given the numerous and often exacting conditions required for osmosis to occur, its
existence in nature can be considered uncertain and difficult to prove.
April 2007
Revision D
2-25

Hydrocarbon Cracking
2.10

Hydrocarbon Cracking
Definition
Overpressure is often associated with zones of hydrocarbon generation, particularly

in basins with kerogen source rocks. It is generally understood that the change from
solid kerogen is accompanied by a volume increase of up to 25 percent. Kerogen
source rocks are characterised by the narrow temperature range (relatively short
time period at a constant rate of burial) over which they generate oil with a higher
yield per unit volume of rock.
Accepted model
The presently accepted model for the expulsion of hydrocarbons from low
permeability source rocks requires high internal pore pressures in the source rocks.
This has to be sufficient to squeeze the oil out of the micropores and/or to initiate
microfractures, releasing the maturing hydrocarbon liquids. However the case for
volume increase associated with kerogen transformation to liquid hydrocarbons is
not proven.
Kinetic control
It is conceivable that although the transformation of kerogen to liquid hydrocarbon

is a kinetically controlled reaction, the build-up of high pressures may act to retard
the reaction.
Cracking
Oil to gas cracking occurs at high temperatures, generally between 120 and 140C /
248 and 284F. Almost complete cracking to gaseous hydrocarbons (mainly
methane) occurs at temperatures in excess of 180C.
Research on
cracking
At standard temperatures and pressures (STP), one volume of standard crude oil can
be shown to crack to 534.3 volumes of gas. This observation lead Barker (1990) to
suggest that when the system is effectively isolated, there is an immediate and
dramatic increase in pressure as oil cracks to gas. His research showed that only a
1 percent cracking of oil was necessary for the pressure to reach that of the
overburden, such that fracturing is inevitable and leakage may occur.
Overpressure
locations
There are several basins where the distribution of overpressure is coincident with
the deeper parts of the basin. This is assumed to be where oil cracking is occurring,
the Northern and central North Sea, for example.
Biogenic gas
generation
At shallow depth, organic matter is transformed through bacterial action, and in a

closed environment the expansion from gas generation can result in overpressure. In
the worst case, large volumes of gas may become trapped in shallow sediments and
be released during the riserless drilling phase of the well.
2-26
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.11
Pressure effect

Aquathermal Pressuring
Aquathermal Pressuring
Work by Kennedy & Holser (1966) first indicated that water heated in a closed
vessel will increase about 125 psi/F. Thus a formation that is completely sealed can
increase by 1000 psi for a rise of only 8F.
For a typical sedimentary sequence, a geothermal gradient can be expected to range

Formation
pressure increase from 1.0 to 2.5F/100 ft. So a sealed formation fluid pressure caused by
aquathermal pressuring may range from 1.25 to 3.2 psi/ft.
Magaras
calculations
Magara (1975) used a figure of 1.4 psi/ft for the Gulf Coast and showed that by
aquathermal pressuring, an overpressured sequence can become equal to the
overburden pressure. For example, a shale sequence becomes isolated at 8000 feet
with a pressure of 3600 psi. If this formation were buried to 20,000 feet, the pore
pressure would be equal to
3600 + (12000 x 1.4) = 20,400 psi
Aquathermal pressuring could therefore account for areas where the pore pressure is
greater or equal to overburden pressure.
Aquathermal
expansion
April 2007
Revision D
Aquathermal expansion will only be effective if exacting conditions are met. The
pore volume has to remain the same, the system is isolated, and the temperature
increases after isolation. In reality, for most sedimentary rocks, the pore volume will
adjust to the new overburden and pore pressure, and some pressure bleed-off will
occur, either from fracturing or from fluid migration.
2-27

Diapirism
2.12
2.12.1
Definition

Diapirism
Salt Diapirism
The upwards movement of a less dense salt deposit due to its plastic behaviour and
buoyancy relative to overlying sediments can disturb the normal layering of
sediments, thereby producing pressure anomalies. Overpressured zones often occur
because of the faulting and folding actions associated with diapirism. Additionally,
the salt may act as an impermeable seal to lateral dewatering of clays.
Salt diapir
diagram
Figure 2-15. Salt diapir

continued
2-28
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Diapirism
Salt Diapirism, continued

Formation pressure increases can develop around salt domes for the following
Formation
pressure increase reasons:
1. Palaeopressure from the uplifting of deeper formation.
2. Isolated rafts above the diapir uplifted and sealed may trap significant
overpressure.
3. Raised salinity levels in the surrounding formation water may generate osmotic
abnormal pressures.
4. Uplifted formations pierced by the salt dome and sealed may transmit pressure
to shallower depths.
Fracturing
2.12.2
Definition
Formations may also contain pressure transmitted from greater depths through
fracturing in proximity to salt dome.
Mud Volcanoes
This mechanism, similar to salt diapirism, refers to the upward movement of a less
dense plastic zone, in this case shale. These are usually associated with rapid
Tertiary sedimentation and/or Late Cretaceous sediments. This type of mechanism
is commonly associated with active transcurrent faults or subduction zones. For
example, New Zealand, Caspian Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and in the Caribbean,
especially in Jamaica.
Illustration
Figure 2-16. Shale diapir / mud volcano
April 2007
Revision D
2-29

Subnormal Formation Pressures
2.13
Definition
2.13.1
Artificial cause
2.13.2
Low water table
2.13.3
Structural relief
2.13.4
Temperature
reduction
2-30


Subnormal formation pressures are those corresponding to a gradient which is less
than hydrostatic. The main mechanisms by which the process of underpressuring
could occur are as follows.
Artificial Production
Subnormal pressures are commonly produced when hydrocarbons and/or water are
produced. Unless this is compensated for by a strong water drive, it will reduce pore
pressure and cause compaction. This may in turn cause land subsidence. Where
freshwater aquifers have been tapped, the reduction in hydrostatic head can cause
subnormal pressure. Levorsen refers to the Texas Panhandle that has gradients
ranging from 0.36 to 0.39 psi/ft caused by this mechanism.
Precipitation
In very arid areas such as the Middle East the water table may be found hundreds of
feet below the surface, hence underpressured formations can result. The hydrostatic
gradient commences at the water table only, causing a subnormal gradient from the
surface.
Potentiometric Surface
This mechanism relates to the structural relief of a formation and can result in
under- or overpressured reservoirs. There is a spontaneous electrical potential
between formations, which indicates the flow of electrical current. This flow of
current moves fluids through the porous media (water flows to the cathode). Strong
salinity contrasts in lenticular sand bodies that are favourable to osmotic action may
result in subnormal pressures. In the Morrow Sands (Oklahoma) there is a regional
transition from sub- to overpressures.
Temperature Change
If there is a reduction of the subsurface temperature, the pore pressure must
decrease, particularly when gas is present. As the sediments and pore fluids are
buried during sedimentation, the temperature rises, and if allowed to expand, the
fluid density will decrease. The magnitude of this effect is very small. Assuming a
thermal gradient of 1.5F/100 ft, the gradient at 20,000 feet would be 0.432 psi/ft
compared to 0.442 psi/ft.
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

2.13.5

Epeirogenic Movements
Elevation change Changes in elevation can cause abnormal pressures in some formations open to the
surface laterally, but otherwise sealed. Thus, if the outcrop is raised, the formation
pressure becomes abnormally high and vice-versa. Pressure changes are seldom
caused by changes in elevation alone, since associated erosion and deposition are
also significant factors. Loss or gain of water-saturated sediments is also important.
2.13.6
Warping of beds
2.13.7
Reservoirs
April 2007
Revision D
Formation Foreshortening
This mechanism may occur in areas of modern tectonic activity, such as along the
flanks of the Rocky Mountains. It is suggested that during compression, upwarping
of the upper beds and downwarping of the lower beds can result. The intermediate
beds must expand to fill the voids left by this process. It is then possible for more
competent, intermediate beds to have a subnormal pressure gradient.
Decompressional Expansion
Russel noticed that in gas reservoirs in the Appalachian Region underpressure
occurred in reservoirs associated with shales in areas that had been eroded. This
erosion may have decreased overburden pressure and temperature, and increased the
pore volume due to expansion of the crystal structure.
2-31

References
2.14
References

References
Barker, C.: Calculated Volume and Pressure Changes During the Thermal Cracking
of Oil to Gas in Reservoirs. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, 1990, 74, 1254-1261.
Drilling Engineering, Chapt. 6, 285-294, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2, SPE TX.,
1991.
Carstens H. 1978, Origin of Abnormal Formation Pressures in Central North Sea
Lower Tertiary Clastics. The Log Analyst, Vol. 19 No. 2 pp. 24-28.
Donato J.A. & Tully M.C. 1981, A Regional Interpretation of North Sea Gravity
Data, Petroleum Geology of the Continental Shelf Of North West Europe. Heyden
& Son Inc.
Fertl, W.H.: Abnormal Formation Pressures. Elsevier, N.Y. 1976.
Halliburton SDL, Overpressure Manual. 1985.
Kennedy G.C. & Holser W.T.: 1966 Pressure-Volume-Temperature and Phase
Relations of Water and Carbon Dioxide. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 97.
Louden, L.R. Chemical Caps can cause pressure build-up. Oil and Gas Journal,
1971, Vol. 69, No. 46, pp. 144-146.
Magara K. 1975, Importance of Aquathermal Pressuring Effect in Gulf Coast.
AAPG Bulletin Vol. 59 No. 10 pp. 2037-2045
Mouchet, J.P., Mitchell, A.: Abnormal Pressures while Drilling, Chapt. 1. 9-13, Elf
Aquitaine, Boussens 1989.
2-32
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

Chapter 3
Unit systems and calculations

Scope

Course.
Course title

3.1

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
Unit Systems ...............................................................................................3-4

3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.5
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
Height and Depth .........................................................................3-10

SI Pressure Calculation ................................................................3-10
Metric Pressure Calculation .........................................................3-11
Imperial Pressure Calculation ......................................................3-11
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
Density of Fresh Water at 20C or 68F ......................................3-12

Density Conversion Factors .........................................................3-13
Derivation of 8.345 ppg Conversion from ppg to g/cc.................3-13
Gradient Calculations................................................................................3-14
Calculation of Pressure Gradients ................................................3-14
Calculation of SI gradients...........................................................3-14
Calculation of Metric Gradients ...................................................3-14
Calculation of Imperial Gradients ................................................3-14
Mud Weight Calculations..........................................................................3-15

3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.6
April 2007
Revision D
Fahrenheit.......................................................................................3-8
Celsius or Centigrade .....................................................................3-8
Kelvin.............................................................................................3-8
Conversion Factors.........................................................................3-9
Formulae ...................................................................................................3-10
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.6
Imperial Units.................................................................................3-4
SI and Metric Units ........................................................................3-5
Units for Ditch Gas Measurement..................................................3-7
Temperature Conversions ...........................................................................3-8

3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
Introduction ....................................................................................3-3
Chapter Objectives .........................................................................3-3
Calculation of Equivalent Mud Weights ......................................3-15

Calculation of SI Equivalent Mud Weight ...................................3-15
Calculation of Metric Equivalent Mud Weight............................3-15
Calculation of Imperial Equivalent Mud Weight .........................3-15
Pounds Per Thousand Feet (PPTF) ..............................................3-16
Depth Datum for the Calculation of Gradients and EMW ...........3-16
3-1


3.7
Conversion Constants................................................................................3-18
3.8
Example calculations Pressure, EMW, Gradt ........................................3-22

3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
3.9
Hydrostatic Calculations ...........................................................................3-27

3.9.1
3.9.2
3.9.3
3.9.4
3.9.5
3.9.6
3.9.7
3.10
SI Calculation Examples ..............................................................3-22

Metric Calculation Examples .......................................................3-23
Imperial Calculation Examples ....................................................3-24
Mixed Units Calculations.............................................................3-25
Aquifer Pressure calculations Positive effect ............................3-27
Aquifer Pressure calculations Negative effect ..........................3-28
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Gas ......................................................3-29
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Calculation Method 1 .........................3-29
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Notes on Both Methods ......................3-31
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy Gas and Oil.........................................3-31
Example Calculations Hydrostatic, Buoyancy .......................................3-33

3.10.1
3.10.2
3.10.3
3.10.4
3.10.5
3.10.6
3.10.7
Aquifer Pressure calculations Positive effect ............................3-33

Aquifer Pressure calculations Negative effect ..........................3-34
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Gas ......................................................3-35
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Notes on Both Methods ......................3-37
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy Gas and Oil.........................................3-37
3.11
References .................................................................................................3-39
3.12
Example calculations answers...................................................................3-40

3.12.1 SI Calculation Answers................................................................3-40
3.12.2 Metric Calculation Answers.........................................................3-41
3.12.3 Imperial Calculation Answers ......................................................3-42
3-2
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.1
Description
3.1.1
Unit systems


Introduction
Two main unit systems are in general use in the oil and gas industry: the Imperial
system, and the International system of units, or SI (Systme International). SI units
are the latest standardisation of the metric system, with SI units being defined in
1960 and the metric system being in use since the mid-1700s.
Choice of systems Choice of unit systems is dependent upon the operator or partners preferences. It is
quite common to encounter a mixture of imperial, metric, and SI unit systems in use
for one client.
Lack of
standardization
The lack of standardisation in the Imperial system serves only to confuse matters
further. The difference between British Imperial and American gallons is a prime
example.
Pore pressure
analysis
One specific requirement of pore pressure analysis is to be able to calculate

pressures, pressure gradients (pressure/depth interval), and pressures expressed as
an equivalent mud weight (EMW) in one or more unit systems, and in some
instances to be able to convert between unit systems.
To minimise errors from conversions and rounding in formulae it is good practice to

Conversion
recommendation perform the calculations with the data all in the same unit system, and then convert
the results into other unit systems.
Rig math
A number of conversion constants are in common use in the oil industry to allow
calculations to be performed quickly. This is commonly referred to as rig math, and
although these constants are not scientifically rigorous they are selected to minimise
the effect of any inherent rounding errors when used in the appropriate way.
Example
Calculations
A set of calculation examples are provided for the students to familiarize themselves
with the calculation of hydrostatic pressures and the use of pressure, equivalent mud
weights and gradients.
3.1.2
Objectives
Chapter Objectives
After completing this section you should be able to:
1. List the base units of the Imperial FPS and SI systems.
2. Calculate hydrostatic pressures in Imperial and SI systems.
3. Calculate hydrostatic pressure gradients and equivalent mud weights.
4. Explain how the constants 0.433, 0.0519 and 0.00981 are derived and applied.
April 2007
Revision D
3-3

Unit Systems
3.2

Unit Systems
Description
This section describes the different unit systems in use.
Unit systems
A Unit system is formed around a set of base units from which all other
measurement units in that system can be derived. Unit systems are either coherent
or customary. A coherent system is one where derived units can be formed from the
base units without the insertion of factors of proportionality other than unity. A
customary system originated from day-to-day customs and arbitrary standards, and
has different factors of proportionality to create derived units. For example 1 metre
= 100 cm = 1000 millimetres is a coherent system, and 1 yard = 3 feet = 36 inches is
a customary system.
Consistent and
field units
A further distinction is between consistent units (which are derived from the base
units), and field units (which use a modification of the fundamental dimensions).
For example in the FPS system lb/ft2 is a consistent unit and psi (lb/in2) is a field
unit.
Field units
In SI, Metric, and Imperial systems field units are commonly employed to create
numbers that are of a practical size for the task in hand.
3.2.1
Imperial Units
Imperial system
The Imperial system actually consists of two related systems: the U.S. Customary
System, used in the United States and dependencies, and the British Imperial
System. The names of the units and the relationships between them are generally the
same in both systems, but the sizes of the units differ, sometimes considerably.
Imperial base
units
The base unit of length is the yard (YD), the base unit of mass (weight) is the pound
(lb), and the base unit of time is seconds (sec). For liquid measure or liquid
capacity, the base unit is the gallon. Within the English system of measurement
there are three different systems of weights: avoirdupois, troy, and apothecary.
Oil & gas base

units
In the oil and gas industry it is accepted practice to use FPS as the base units (feet,
pounds and seconds). Liquid volumes are measured using the American gallons.
Conversion
problems
The Imperial units of measurement have many drawbacks: the complication of

converting one to another, the difference between American and British units, the
use of the same name for different units (pound is a measure of both mass and
force), and the existence of three different systems of weights.
continued
3-4
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Unit Systems
Imperial Units, continued

Oilfield imperial
units
Quantity Base Units
Metric system
Unit Symbol
Foot
ft
Mass
Pound
lb
Time
Second
Temperature
Degrees Fahrenheit
Derived Units
3.2.2
Name of Unit
Length
Name of Unit
Unit Symbol
2
Area
Square foot
ft
Area
Square Inch
in2
Volume
Cubic foot
ft3
Volume
US gallon
gal (US)
Volume
US barrel
bbl
Density
Pound per gallon
ppg
Density
Pound per cubic foot pcf
Velocity
Feet per second
ft/s
Force
Pound
lb
Pressure, stress
Pounds per square

inch
psi
SI and Metric Units

The French devised the Metric units system in an effort to standardize weights and
measures and decided that the new system would have the following attributes:
1. The system should consist of measuring units based on invariable quantities in
nature.
2. All units other than the base units should be derived from these base units.
Metric system
base
The metric system is based on the decimal system; multiples and sub-multiples are
always related to powers of ten.
SI system
The metric system is a dynamic system that is continually being improved to keep
pace with developments in science and technology. In 1960 the CGPM (Confrence
gnrale des poids et measures), or the General Conference of Weights and
Measures, defined the standards for the international system of units commonly
known as SI.
continued
April 2007
Revision D
3-5

Unit Systems

SI and Metric Units, continued

SI base units
Measurement
Unit
length
metre
electric current
ampere
mass
kilogram
light intensity
candela
temperature
Kelvin
substance amount
mole
time
second
All other SI units are derived from these base units.

Metric system
alternatives
SI units
It is still common to use older metric units that are not defined in the SI system,
such as degrees centigrade for temperature.
Quantity Base Units
Name of Unit
Length
Metre
Mass
Kilogram
kg
Time
Second
Temperature
Kelvin
Derived Units
Name of Unit
Unit Symbol
Square Metre
Volume
Cubic Metre
m3
Density
Kilogram per Cubic Metre kg/ m3
Velocity
Metres per Second
m/s
Force
Kilogram per Metre per

Second Squared or
Newton
Kg m/s2 or N
Pressure, Stress
Newton per Square

Metre or Pascal
N/m2 Pa
Quantity
Name of Unit
Unit Symbol
Density
Specific Gravity
sg
Temperature
Degrees Celsius
Pressure
Bars (Pa x 10 )
Factor
12
Name
Bar
Symbol
Factor
-1
Name
Symbol
10
tera
10
deci
109
giga
10-2
centi
-3
milli
-6
micro
-9
10
10
mega
kilo
10
10
10
hecto
10
nano
10
deca
Da
10-12
pico
10-15
femto
atto
-18
10
3-6
Area
Metric units
Multipliers
Unit Symbol
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.2.3
Ditch gas units

Unit Systems
Units for Ditch Gas Measurement

Ditch Gas units require mentioning at this stage. There are five units used that can
be employed when measuring ditch gas:
1. percent
2. parts per million
3. API units
4. Canadian units
5. Bariod units
Total
combustible gas
The total combustible gas in air from the gas trap is expressed in percent as a metric
measurement or as units for the Imperial system.
Chromatograph
units
It is normal for Chromatograph analysis to express the value of each type of gas in
parts per million as this allows small concentrations to be expressed in a reasonable
fashion, e.g., 5 ppm compared to 0.0005 % or 0.025 API Units.
April 2007
Revision D
3-7

Temperature Conversions
3.3
Description
3.3.1
Fahrenheit
3.3.2
Celsius or
centigrade
3.3.3
Kelvin
3-8

This section explains temperature conversions.
Fahrenheit
Temperature is measured on three different scales. On the Fahrenheit scale the
freezing point of water is 32 degrees and the boiling point is 212 degrees. Zero
degrees Fahrenheit was the coldest temperature the German scientist Gabriel Daniel
Fahrenheit could create using a mixture of ice and ordinary salt.
Celsius or Centigrade
Anders Celsius, a Swedish astronomer introduced his scale in 1742. It uses the
freezing point of water as zero and the boiling point of water as 100 degrees. The
Celsius or centigrade (100 gradations) is used throughout the world but not yet
embraced by the American public.
Kelvin
The absolute or Kelvin scale was created by William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, a
British scientist who calculated that the theoretical coldest temperature is minus
273.15 Celsius and called it absolute zero. At this temperature all molecular motion
was believed to stop. The Kelvin scale uses this number as zero and follows
Celsiuss scale. The freezing point of water is 273.15 Kelvin and the boiling point
of water is 373.15 Kelvin.
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.3.4

Conversion Factors
To convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit
(C x 1.8) + 32 = F
To convert from Fahrenheit to Celsius
(F 32) / 1.8 = C
To convert from Celsius to Kelvin
C + 273 = K
To convert from Kelvin to Celsius
K 273 = C
To convert from Fahrenheit to Kelvin
(F 32) / 1.8 = C + 273 = K
To convert from Kelvin to Fahrenheit
((K 273) x 1.8) + 32 = F
April 2007
Revision D
3-9

Formulae
3.4
Description
3.4.1
True vertical
depth
3.4.2
Pressure

Formulae
This section lists formulae used in formation evaluation.
Height and Depth

All of the pressure calculations require the vertical height of the column of material,
so you must use True Vertical Depth in all calculations.
SI Pressure Calculation
Pressure is the force per unit area.
Force in Newtons In the SI system force is calculated as:
F = m g
Where F is Force, m is mass in kilograms and g is the acceleration due to gravity,
9.81m/s2. The product of the formula, which is Kg m/s2, is given the name Newton.
Pascals
Pressure is:
P=
F
A
Where P is Pressure, F is the force in Newtons and area is m2.

The product of the formula N/ m2 can also be called Pascals. The unit of Pascals is
very small so pressures are more frequently quoted in Kilo-pascals (kPa) or Bars,
where 1 bar is 100 Kpa or 100 000 pascals.
Column pressure The pressure generated at the base of a homogenous column of material is
calculated using the formula:
P = gh
Where P is pressure in Pascals, is density in kilograms/m3, g is the acceleration
due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), and h is the height of the material in metres.
continued
3-10
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Formulae
SI Pressure Calculation, continued

For Field use to express the results in kPa use the following formula:
Field use
P = 0.00981 h
For Field use to express the results in Bar use the following formula:
P = 0.0000981 h
3.4.3
Metric Pressure Calculation

Field Pressures can also be expressed in the metric unit of Kg/cm2 using the formula
Field use
P=
10
Where P is pressure in Kg/cm2, h is the height of the material in metres and is

density in g/cc.
3.4.4
Imperial Pressure Calculation
Imperial pressure In practice the units of force in the imperial system are expressed as pounds force
and the acceleration due to gravity is not included. Thus the force exerted by 1 lb is
one pound of force, normally abbreviated to lb. So the unit lb is an expression of
both mass and force.
As the acceleration due to gravity is usually explicitly ignored in the equations,
actual pressures are calculated with reference to the pressure created by material of
known density, in this case the density of fresh water.
Fresh water has a density of 8.330384 pounds per US gallon or 62.32 pounds per
cubic foot.
0.052 Conversion Therefore, the pressure exerted by a column of fresh water 1 foot high x 1 square
inch is.
constant
62.32(lbs / ft 3 )
= 0.43277 psi / ft
144( sq.ins / ft 2 )
Therefore, a column of any density exerts a pressure of
0.4327777 / 8.330384 = 0.051952 psi/ft/ppg.
continued
April 2007
Revision D
3-11

Formulae

Imperial Pressure Calculation, continued

In practice, the field conversion constants are 0.433 psi/ft and 0.0519 psi/ft/ppg.
Field use
The formula to calculate pressure then becomes
P = 0.0519 h
Where P is pressure in psi, is density in ppg, and h is height of the column of
material in feet.
3.4.5
Density of water
Density of Fresh Water at 20C or 68F

The density of fresh water at 20C or 68F is 998.2 Kg/m3 or 0.9982g/cc or 8.33038
ppg (US gallon) or 62.32 lb/ft3 or 432.77 pptf pr 1 sg.
Sources:
Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants G.W.C Kaye and T.H.Laby
Applied Drilling Engineering A.T.Bourgoyne Jr, M.E.Chenevert,
K.K.Millheim, F.S.Young.
Note
It is important to note at this point that the metric unit of sg was derived from the
weight of one cubic centimetre of fresh water being the standard. An objects
weight in sg is the number of cubic centimetres of water it takes to balance it on a
scale.
This means that 1 sg is equivalent to 0.9982 g/cc, and therefore technically the same
value in either of the two unit sets is not directly interchangeable with the other.
3-12
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.4.6
Conversion
factors

Formulae
Density Conversion Factors

1
ppg
119.8264
kg/m3
ppg
0.119826
g/cc
ppg
0.119993
sg
ppg
51.952
pptf
kg/ m3
0.008345
ppg
kg/ m3
0.001
g/cc
kg/ m
0.0010018
sg
kg/ m3
0.433532
pptf
g/cc
8.345406
ppg
g/cc
1000
kg/m3
g/cc
1.00180
sg
g/cc
433.56053
pptf
sg
8.330384
ppg
sg
998.20
kg/m3
sg
0.9982
g/cc
sg
432.78011
pptf
pptf
0.019248
ppg
pptf
2.306634
Kg/ m3
pptf
0.002306
g/cc
pptf
0.002311
sg
Source: Applied Drilling Engineering A.T. Bourgoyne Jr., M.E. Chenevert, K.K.
Millheim, F.S. Young
3.4.7
Derivation
formula
April 2007
Revision D
Derivation of 8.345 ppg Conversion from ppg to g/cc

1g / cc =
8.330384
= 8.345 ppg
0.9982
3-13

Gradient Calculations
3.5
Description
3.5.1

Gradient Calculations
This section explains gradient calculations.
Calculation of Pressure Gradients
Pressure gradient To simplify some of the equations and resulting numbers it has been common
practice in the field to use pressure gradients. A homogenous column of a fixed
density will have a constant ratio between the pressure exerted and the height of the
column. This is the pressure gradient and is expressed in pressure/unit depth.
As already illustrated, a column of fresh water exerts a pressure of 0.433 psi/ft or
(998.2 Kg/m3 x 0.00981) = 9.792 kPa/m.
3.5.2
SI gradients
Calculation of SI gradients
Gradt ( pascals / metre) = 9.81 (kg / m 3 )
Gradt (kilopascals / metre) = 0.00981 (kg / m 3 )
3.5.3
Metric gradients
3.5.4
Imperial
gradients
3-14
Calculation of Metric Gradients

Gradt ( kg / cm 2 / metre) =
( g / cc)
10
Calculation of Imperial Gradients

Gradt ( psi / ft ) = 0.0519 ( ppg )
Where is density.
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.6
Description
3.6.1
Equivalent mud
weights
3.6.2
SI equivalent
mud weight
3.6.3
Mud Weight Calculations

This section explains mud weight calculations.
Calculation of Equivalent Mud Weights

Another common field practice is to express pressures referenced to the mud
weight. A pressure value can be expressed as the weight a homogeneous column of
material would exert at a known pressure and at a known depth. For example, if a
rig is running 10 ppg mud and the pore pressure at 10,000 ft is 5096 psi, it is easier
to express the pore pressure as 9.8 ppg EMW to allow a quick comparison between
the two and to determine if the mud weight is high enough.
Calculation of SI Equivalent Mud Weight

EMW ( Kg / m 3 ) =
P( pascals )
h(meters) 9.81
EMW ( Kg / m 3 ) =
P (kilopascals )
h(meters) 0.00981
Calculation of Metric Equivalent Mud Weight
Metric equivalent
EMW ( g / cc) =
mud weight
3.6.4
Imperial
equivalent mud
weight

10
P (kg / cm 2 )
h(meters)
Calculation of Imperial Equivalent Mud Weight

EMW ( ppg ) =
P( psi )
h( ft ) * 0.0519
Where h is the height of the column, and P is pressure.
April 2007
Revision D
3-15

3.6.5

Pounds Per Thousand Feet (PPTF)

Some operators, particularly at Shell Oil, use the unit PPTF. This allows the
expression of pressures as both a gradient and an equivalent mud weight. It also
makes calculations faster and easier as the decimal places can be ignored and
sufficient accuracy is still obtained.
PPTF
For example, the pressure or the EMW of fresh water is

8.330384 ppg = 0.43277 psi/ft x 1000 ft = 432.77 PPTF
Calculations
To calculate a PPTF value multiply the mud weight in ppg by 51.952 or 52 for field
units.
To calculate pressures in psi divide the depth in feet by 1000 and multiply the result
by the PPTF value.
A density or EMW of 490 PPTF at 8400 feet = 490 x (8400 / 1000) = 4116 psi
To calculate a PPTF value from a pressure measurement divide the pressure by the
result of the depth in feet / 1000.
A pressure of 6000 psi at 10,000 ft = 6000 / (10,000/1000) = 600 PPTF.
3.6.6
Depth Datum for the Calculation of Gradients and EMW
Depth datum
When calculating equivalent mud weights and gradients, the height of the column of
fluid can be referenced to different depth datum. Formations can be referenced to
depth below rotary table (BRT), and depth below mean sea level (MSL) if offshore
or depth below ground level (GL) if onshore. It is critical that the depth datum the
height of the column of material is referenced to is known, otherwise errors can be
created when determining pressure from EMW or gradient.
Example
For example, seawater in the North Sea has an equivalent mud weight of 8.66 ppg,
and if the water depth is 200 ft and the rotary table is 50 ft above sea level, the
correct pressure at the seabed is 90 psi (0.052 x 200 x 8.66) using the height of the
water column. If the height to the rig floor is used in the equation in error, an
estimate of 112.6 psi is created (0.052 x 250 x 8.66).
continued
3-16
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Depth Datum for the Calculation of Gradients and EMW, continued

Calculation notes If we convert these values to gradients using the height of the water column, the
correct gradient is 0.45 psi/ft (90/200) and the incorrect estimate is 0.563
(112.6/200). If we were then to use these gradients to estimate the normal pore
pressure at 5000 ft, we generate values of 2250 psi (0.45x5000) as the correct value,
and 2815 psi (0.563x5000) as the incorrect value.
It is very unlikely that anyone would make this error but it illustrates a point that
becomes important when looking at formation pressures and pressures generated by
the mud column, as the former are calculated using the MSL or GL datum and the
latter the BRT datum.
April 2007
Revision D
3-17

Conversion Constants
3.7
Description
Length

The following are accepted conversion constants for base units and field units
between the American Imperial system and the SI / Metric system.
From
Multiplier
To
Metres
3.28084
Feet
Feet
0.3048*
Metres
mm
0.03937
Inches
Inches
25.40
mm
cm
0.3937
Inches
Inches
2.54
mm
Multiplier
To
m /m
1 000 000
ppm
ppm
0.000001
m /m
10 000
ppm
ppm
0.0001
(* Exact conversion)
Volume gas /
calcimetry
From
3
m /m
Weight
Conductivity
100.000
%
3
0.01
m /m3
API units
200.00000
ppm
ppm
0.005
API units
Canadian Units
100.00000
ppm
ppm
0.01
Canadian Units
Bariod Units
333.33333
ppm
ppm
0.003
Baroid Units
From
Multiplier
To
Mg
Tonnes (metric)
Tonnes (metric)
2.20462
Klb
Klb
0.4535929
Tonnes (metric)
From
Multiplier
To
s/m
1000
mmho/m
mmho/m
0.001
s/m
continued
3-18
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Conversion Constants, continued

Porosity
Flow rate
From
Multiplier
To
m /m
100
pu
pu
0.01
m3/m3
m3/m3
100
0.01
m /m3
From
Multiplier
To
m /min
1000
l/min
l/min
0.001
m3/min
m /min
264.1721
gpm (US)
gpm (US)
0.003785
m3/min
l/min
0.26417
gpm (US)
gpm (US)
3.78541
l/min
From
Multiplier
To
Voltage
Pressure
Equivalent factor
Gradients
Volts
1000
mV
mV
0.001
Volts
From
Multiplier
To
Kpa
0.010197
Kg/cm2
Kg/cm2
98.06806
Kpa
Kpa
0.145038
psi
psi
6.894757
Kpa
Kg/cm2
14.22
psi
psi
0.070323
Kg/cm2
1 Bar = 100 kPa = 100 000 Pa.

From
Multiplier
To
Kpa/m
0.010197
Kg/cm2/m
Kg/cm2/m
98.06806
Kpa/m
Kpa/m
0.044207
psi/ft
psi/ft
22.620554
Kpa/m
Kpa/m
44.207511
pptf
pptf
0.022605
Kpa/m
Kg/cm2/m
4.334256
psi/ft
psi/ft
0.230720
Kg/cm2/m
psi/ft
1000
pptf
pptf
0.001
psi/ft
continued
April 2007
Revision D
3-19



Density /
equivalent mud
weight
From
Multiplier
To
ppg
119.8264
kg/m3
ppg
0.119825
g/cc
ppg
0.119993
sg
51.952
pptf
ppg
3
kg/m
0.008345
ppg
kg/m3
0.001
g/cc
kg/m3
0.0010018
sg
kg/m
0.433532
pptf
g/cc
8.345406
ppg
g/cc
1000.000
kg/m3
g/cc
0.9982
sg
g/cc
433.56053
pptf
sg
8.330384
ppg
sg
998.20
kg/m3
sg
1.001803
g/cc
sg
432.78011
pptf
pptf
0.019248
ppg
pptf
2.306634
Kg/m3
pptf
0.002306
g/cc
pptf
0.002311
sg
continued
3-20
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D



Gradient to
equivalent mud
weight
April 2007
Revision D
From
Multiplier
To
Kpa/m
101.93679
Kg/m3
Kg/m
0.00981
Kpa/m
Kpa/m
0.101937
g/cc
g/cc
9.81
Kpa/m
Kpa/m
0.850664
ppg
ppg
1.175552
Kpa/m
Kg/cm2/m
10000
Kg/m3
Kg/m3
0.0001
Kg/cm2/m
Kg/cm /m
10
g/cc
g/cc
0.1
Kg/cm2/m
Kg/cm2/m
83.454057
ppg
ppg
0.011982
Kg/cm2/m
Psi/ft
2306.495515
Kg/m3
Kg/m3
0.000433
Psi/ft
Psi/ft
2.306495
g/cc
g/cc
0.433558
Psi/ft
Psi/ft
19.248537
ppg
ppg
0.051952
Psi/ft
3-21

Example calculations Pressure, EMW, Gradt
3.8
Description


The section presents example calculations in different unit systems for hydrostatic
pressures, equivalent mud weights and gradients.
The Answers to the calculations are provided at the end of the section in chapter
3.12
Calculate Pressures and EMW values to 2 decimal places of accuracy and gradients
to 3 decimal places of accuracy
3.8.1
SI Calculation
Examples
SI Calculation Examples
1.
Calculate the pressure in kPa at 1058 m created by a column of fluid
weighing 1844 Kg/m3
2.
weighing 1255 Kg/m3
3.
weighing 1090 Kg/m3
4.
Calculate the pressure in kPa at 4500m created by a column of fluid
weighing 2100 Kg/m3
5.
weighing 1690 Kg/m3
6.
Calculate the equivalent mud weight in Kg/m3 of a fluid that generates a
pressure of 4890 kPa from a fluid column 425m high
7.
Calculate the equivalent mud weight in Kg/m3 of a fluid that
generates a pressure of 14568 kPa from a fluid column 1280m high
8.
9.
pressure of 43987 kPa from a fluid column 2765m high
10.
3-22
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

SI Calculation
Examples

11.
Calculate the pressure gradient in kPa/m of a fluid weighing 1128
Kg/ m3
12.
m3
Calculate the pressure gradient in kPa/m of a fluid weighing 987 Kg/
13.
Kg/ m3
14.
Kg/ m3
15.
Kg/ m3
For all of the 15 answers above, convert the results into imperial units
3.8.2
Metric
Calculation
Examples
Metric Calculation Examples

1.
Calculate the pressure in kg/cm2 at 968m by a column of fluid
weighing 1.04 g/cc
2.
weighing 1.45 g/cc
3.
weighing 2.1 g/cc
4.
weighing 1.87 g/cc
5.
Calculate the pressure in kg/cm2 at 2194 m by a column of fluid
weighing 1.35 g/cc
6.
Calculate the equivalent mud weight in g/cc of a fluid that generates a
pressure of 104 Kg/cm2 from a fluid column 1000 m high
7.
pressure of 176 Kg/cm2 from a fluid column 1250m high
8.
pressure of 241 Kg/cm2from a fluid column 1890m high
9.
pressure of 487 Kg/cm2 from a fluid column 2909m high
April 2007
Revision D
3-23

Metric
Calculation
Examples

10.
pressure of 572 Kg/cm2from a fluid column 4800m high
11.
Calculate the pressure gradient in kg/cm2/m of a fluid weighing 1.04
g/cc
12.
g/cc
13.
g/cc
14.
g/cc
15.
g/cc
For all of the 15 answers above, convert the results into imperial units
3.8.3
Imperial
Calculation
Examples
Imperial Calculation Examples

1.
Calculate the pressure in psi at 1250ft created by a column of fluid
weighing 8.66 ppg
2.
weighing 15.4 ppg
3.
Calculate the pressure in psi at 9875 ft created by a column of fluid
weighing 13.2 ppg
4.
weighing 19.5 ppg
5.
weighing 16.3 ppg
6.
Calculate the equivalent mud weight in ppg of a fluid that generates a
pressure of 4598 psi from a column 8356ft high
7.
8.
9.
3-24
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

Imperial
Calculation
Examples

10.
11.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 9 ppg
12.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 12.5 ppg
13.
14.
15.
For all of the 15 answers above, convert the results into SI units
3.8.4
Mixed Units
Calculation
examples
Mixed Units Calculations
For all of the 15 questions below the most accurate method is to make
the fewest conversions of the input data from one unit system to another.
1.
Calculate the pressure in psi at 652.272m created by a column of
fluid weighing 8.66 ppg
2.
Calculate the pressure in kpa at 8270ft created by a column of fluid
weighing 1629.639 Kg/m3
3.
Calculate the pressure in kg/cm2 at 4529 ft created by a column of
fluid weighing 1.7015 g/cc
4.
Calculate the pressure in bar at 31500 ft created by a column of fluid
weighing 2.3605 g/cc
5.
fluid weighing 1.7374 g/cc
6.
pressure of 44985.48 kpa from a column 7549ft high
7.
pressure of 26543 psi from a column 10688m high
8.
generates a pressure of 2543 psi from a column 3145 ft high
9.
pressure of 800.4164 Kg/cm2 from a column 14236ft high
April 2007
Revision D
3-25

Mixed Units
Calculation
examples

10.
generates a pressure of 987.91 Bar from a column 23963ft high
11.
ppg
12.
Calculate the pressure gradient in Kpa/m of a fluid weighing 1.53
g/cc
13.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 1977.13
Kg/ m3
14.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 1.76 g/cc
15.
ppg
3-26
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.9

Hydrostatic Calculations
Description
This section applies the pressure calculation formulae to calculate pore pressures
from the generation mechanisms caused by relative height differences, hydrocarbon
buoyancy and pressure equalization.
Description
This section applies the pressure calculation formulae to calculate pore pressures
from the generation mechanisms caused by relative height differences, hydrocarbon
buoyancy and pressure equalization.
3.9.1
Aquifer Pressure calculations Positive effect
Positive pressure In the case of an artesian well, the fluid intake point or formation outcropping is at a
higher altitude than the location where the well bore intersects the formation. This
causes the formation pressure to be greater than would be expected if the normal
pore pressure were calculated using the rotary table as the depth datum.

Expected
pressure
In Figure 3-1, the expected normal pressure of the bed when calculated using the
distance from the rotary table (Depth 2) is:
8.40 ppg x 0.052 x 600ft (Depth_2) = 262 psi
1007 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 182.9m (Depth_2) = 1806 kPa

Actual pressure
The actual pressure of formation fluid in the bed is:
8.40 ppg x 0.052 x 1600 ft (Depth_1) = 698 psi
1007 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 487.7 m (Depth_1) = 4818 kPa
April 2007
Revision D
3-27

Effect on pore
pressure

This produces an increase in pore fluid pressure above the expected normal of 436
psi or 3012 kPa. Instead of needing drilling fluid of 8.4 ppg or 1007 Kg/m3 EMW to
balance the formation, a pressure of 22.4 ppg or 2685 Kg/m3 is required.
698 psi
= 22.4 ppg
(600 ft (depth _ 2) 0.052)
4818kPa
= 2685 Kg / m 3
(182.9m( Depth _ 2) 0.00981)
3.9.2
Negative
anomalies
Aquifer Pressure calculations Negative effect

Negative anomalies can also occur if the elevation of the well is higher than the
fluid intake point or outcropping. This anomaly can also develop in desert regions
where the water table is significantly lower than expected.

Expected
pressure
In Figure 3-2, the expected normal pressure of bed B when calculated using the
distance from the rotary table, Depth 2, is:
1007 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 487.7 m (Depth_2) = 4818 kPa

Actual pressure
1007 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 182.9 m (Depth_1) = 1806 kPa

continued
3-28
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D


Aquifer Pressure calculations Negative effect, continued

Effect on pore
pressure
This produces a decrease in pore fluid pressure below the expected normal of
436 psi or 3012 kPa. The formation fluid pressure (expressed as an equivalent mud
weight referenced to rotary table in bed B) is then 3.15 ppg or 377.5 Kg/m3. It
becomes obvious that the well must be air- or foam-drilled through bed B.
262 psi
= 3.15 ppg
(1600 ft (depth _ 2) 0.052)
1806kPa
= 377.5Kg / m 3
(487.7 m( Depth _ 2) 0.00981)
3.9.3
Density effect
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Gas


Two calculation
methods
3.9.4
Description
April 2007
Revision D
base of the fluid.
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Calculation Method 1

Using the first method to calculate the increase in pressure at a given point in the
reservoir the distance from D2 to the required depth is used. In this example D2
D1 is the total height of the reservoir fluid. The top of the reservoir is at 6000 ft and
the base of the reservoir fluid at 6500 ft.
3-29

Upward force
calculation

Assuming a pore water density of 8.66 ppg / 1038 kg/m3, a reservoir fluid density
under bottom hole conditions of 2 ppg / 240 kg/m3 (gas), the upward force is:
P psi = (D2 - D1) feet x ( w f ) ppg 0.052
P kPa = (D2 - D1) meters x ( w - f ) kg/m 3 x 0.00981

173 psi = (6500-6000) feet x (8.66-2) ppg x 0.052
1193 kPa = (1981.2 - 1828.8) meters x (1038 - 240) kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Normal pressure The normal pressure at the top of the reservoir (D1) is:
Actual pressure
0.450 psi/ft
18622 kPa = 1828.8 meters x 1038 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
10.18 Kpa/m
Therefore the actual pressure at the top of the reservoir is:

2702 psi + 173 psi = 2875 psi = 9.2 ppg EMW =
0.479 psi/ft
18622 + 1193 kPa = 19815 kPa = 1104 kg/m3 EMW =
10.83 Kpa/m
It should also be realised that the pressure in the water below the reservoir is still at
normal hydrostatic pressure because there is assumed communication of pore water
around the reservoir.
Note
3.9.5
Base pressure
Downward force
Top pressure
3-30
2702 psi = 6000 feet x 8.66 ppg 0.052

Calculating the pressure using the second method the normal pressure at the base of
the reservoir is:
2927 psi = 6500 feet x 8.66 ppg 0.052
0.450 psi/ft
20174 kPa = 1981.2 meters x 1038 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
10.18 Kpa/m
The downward force of the fluid is:
52 psi = 500 feet x 2 ppg 0.052
0.450 psi/ft
359 kPa = 153 meters x 240 kg/m3 x 0.00981
10.18 Kpa/m
Therefore the pressure at the top of the reservoir is

2927.1 psi 52 psi = 2875 psi = 9.2 ppg EMW =
0.479 psi/ft
20174 kPa 359 kPa = 19815 kPa = 104 kg/m3 EMW =
10.83 Kpa/m
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.9.6

Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Notes on Both Methods
Calculation note

Calculate each
fluid separately
Depth of contact
required.
3.9.7
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy Gas and Oil
Pressure profile
Figure 3-4. Gas/oil reservoir pressure profile

Description
In the above example, if we assume the depth to the top of the reservoir as 6000 ft /
1828.8 m, the height of the gas column as 200ft / 61 m, the height of the oil column
as 400 ft / 122 m. The formation water density is 8.8 ppg / 1.054 g/cc, the gas
density is 2.0 ppg / 0.239 g/cc, and the oil density is 6.65 ppg / 0.797 g/cc.
First calculation
method, top
pressure
Using the first calculation method the normal pressure at the top of the reservoir is:
Gas upward
pressure
Pn 2745.6 psi = 6000 feet x 8.8 ppg 0.052
0.457 psi/ft
Pn 18909 kPa = 1828.8 meters x 1054 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
10.34 kPa/m
The upward pressure exerted by the gas is:
70.7 psi = 6200 - 6000 feet x 8.8 2 ppg 0.052
487 kPa = 1889.8 - 1828.8 meters x 1054 - 239 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
April 2007
Revision D
3-31

Oil upward
pressure

The upward pressure exerted by the oil is:
44.7 psi = 6600 - 6200 feet x 8.8 6.65 ppg 0.052
307 kPa = 2011.7 - 1889.8 meters x 1054 - 797 kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Pressure at top
Pressure at
gas-oil interface
Second
calculation
method, base
pressure
Gas downward
pressure
Therefore the pressure at the top of the reservoir is:

2745.6 + 70.7 + 44.7 = 2861 psi
0.477 psi/ft
18909 + 487 + 307 = 19703 kPa
10.77 kPa/m
The pressure at the gas oil interface is:
Pn 2837 psi = 6200 feet x 8.8 ppg 0.052
0.457 psi / ft
10.34 kPa/m
2837 psi + 44.7 psi = 2881 psi.
0.465 psi/ft
19540 kPa + 307 kPa = 19847 kPa.
10.50 kPa/m
Using the Second calculation method, the normal pressure at the base of the
reservoir is:
Pn 3020psi = 6600 feet x 8.8 ppg 0.052
0.457 psi/ft
10.34 kPa/m
The downward pressure exerted by the gas is:
20.8 psi = 6200 - 6000 feet x 2 ppg 0.052
143 kPa = 1889.8 - 1828.8 meters x 239 kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Oil downward
pressure
The downward pressure exerted by the oil is:
138 psi = 6600 - 6200 feet x 6.65 ppg 0.052
953 kPa = 2011.7 - 1889.8 meters x 797 kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Top pressure
Pressure at
gas-oil interface
3-32

3020 psi 138 psi 21 psi = 2861 psi
0.477 psi/ft
20800 kPa - 143 kPa 953 kPa = 19704 kPa
10.77 kPa/m

3020 psi - 138 psi = 2882 psi
0.465 psi/ft
20800 kPa - 953 kPa = 19847 kPa
10.50 kPa/m
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.10
3.10.1

Example Calculations Hydrostatic, Buoyancy

Aquifer Pressure calculations Positive effect
Positive pressure Using the following information calculate in both Imperial and SI units
The normal pore pressure that would be expected in the bed calculated using the
TVD below rotary table.
The actual pore pressure that would be encountered when the well drills into the
formation calculated using the true height of the hydrostatic column.
The mud weight that would be required to balance the aquifer pressure
Depth 1 = 1200 ft
Depth 2 = 400 ft
Water Density = 8.35 ppg

Expected
pressure
In Figure 3-5, the expected normal pressure of the bed when calculated using the
distance from the rotary table (Depth 2) is:
8.35 ppg x 0.0519 x 400ft (Depth_2) = 173.3 psi
1000.55 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 121.92m (Depth_2) = 1196.69kPa

Actual pressure
1000.55 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 365.76 m (Depth_1) = 3590 kPa
April 2007
Revision D
3-33

Effect on pore
pressure

520 psi
= 25.04 ppg
(400 ft (depth _ 2) 0.0519)
3590kPa
= 3001Kg / m 3
(121.92m( Depth _ 2) 0.00981)
3.10.2
Negative
anomalies
Aquifer Pressure calculations Negative effect

Using the following information calculate
The normal pore pressure that would be expected in the bed calculated using the
TVD below rotary table.
The actual pore pressure that would be encountered when the well drills into the
formation calculated using the true height of the hydrostatic column.
The mud weight that would be required to balance the aquifer pressure
Depth 1 = 250
Depth 2 = 1600
Water Density = 8.6

Expected
pressure
In Figure 3-6, the expected normal pressure of bed B when calculated using the
distance from the rotary table, Depth 2, is:
1030.57 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 487.7 m (Depth_2) = 4930 kPa
3-34
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

Actual pressure

8.60 ppg x 0.0519 x 250 ft (Depth_1) = 111.5 psi
1030 kg/m 3 x 0.00981 x 76.2 m (Depth_1) = 770.32kPa

Effect on pore
pressure
111.5 psi
= 1.34 ppg
(1600 ft (depth _ 2) 0.0519)
770kPa
= 160.94 Kg / m 3
(487.7 m( Depth _ 2) 0.00981)
3.10.3
Density effect
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Gas


Two calculation
methods
3.10.4
Description
April 2007
Revision D
base of the fluid.

Using the first method to calculate the increase in pressure at a given point in the
reservoir the distance from D2 to the required depth is used. In this example D2
D1 is the total height of the reservoir fluid. The top of the reservoir is at 6000 ft and
the base of the reservoir fluid at 6500 ft.
3-35

Upward force
calculation

Assuming a pore water density of 8.66 ppg / 1038 kg/m3, a reservoir fluid density
under bottom hole conditions of 2 ppg / 240 kg/m3 (gas), the upward force is:
P psi = (D2 - D1) feet x ( w f ) ppg 0.052
P kPa = (D2 - D1) meters x ( w - f ) kg/m 3 x 0.00981

173 psi = (6500-6000) feet x (8.66-2) ppg x 0.052
1193 kPa = (1981.2 - 1828.8) meters x (1038 - 240) kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Normal pressure The normal pressure at the top of the reservoir (D1) is:
Actual pressure
0.450 psi/ft
18622 kPa = 1828.8 meters x 1038 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
10.18 Kpa/m
Therefore the actual pressure at the top of the reservoir is:

2702 psi + 173 psi = 2875 psi = 9.2 ppg EMW =
0.479 psi/ft
18622 + 1193 kPa = 19815 kPa = 1104 kg/m3 EMW =
10.83 Kpa/m
It should also be realised that the pressure in the water below the reservoir is still at
normal hydrostatic pressure because there is assumed communication of pore water
around the reservoir.
Note
3.10.5
Base pressure
Downward force
Top pressure
3-36
2702 psi = 6000 feet x 8.66 ppg 0.052

Calculating the pressure using the second method the normal pressure at the base of
the reservoir is:
2927 psi = 6500 feet x 8.66 ppg 0.052
0.450 psi/ft
20174 kPa = 1981.2 meters x 1038 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
10.18 Kpa/m
The downward force of the fluid is:
52 psi = 500 feet x 2 ppg 0.052
0.450 psi/ft
359 kPa = 153 meters x 240 kg/m3 x 0.00981
10.18 Kpa/m
Therefore the pressure at the top of the reservoir is

2927.1 psi 52 psi = 2875 psi = 9.2 ppg EMW =
0.479 psi/ft
20174 kPa 359 kPa = 19815 kPa = 104 kg/m3 EMW =
10.83 Kpa/m
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.10.6

Hydrocarbon Buoyancy - Notes on Both Methods
Calculation note

Calculate each
fluid separately
Depth of contact
required.
3.10.7
Hydrocarbon Buoyancy Gas and Oil
Pressure profile
Figure 3-8. Gas/oil reservoir pressure profile

Description
In the above example, if we assume the depth to the top of the reservoir as 6000 ft /
1828.8 m, the height of the gas column as 200ft / 61 m, the height of the oil column
as 400 ft / 122 m. The formation water density is 8.8 ppg / 1.054 g/cc, the gas
density is 2.0 ppg / 0.239 g/cc, and the oil density is 6.65 ppg / 0.797 g/cc.
First calculation
method, top
pressure
Using the first calculation method the normal pressure at the top of the reservoir is:
Gas upward
pressure
Pn 2745.6 psi = 6000 feet x 8.8 ppg 0.052
0.457 psi/ft
10.34 kPa/m
The upward pressure exerted by the gas is:
70.7 psi = 6200 - 6000 feet x 8.8 2 ppg 0.052
487 kPa = 1889.8 - 1828.8 meters x 1054 - 239 kg/m 3 x 0.00981
April 2007
Revision D
3-37

Oil upward
pressure

The upward pressure exerted by the oil is:
44.7 psi = 6600 - 6200 feet x 8.8 6.65 ppg 0.052
307 kPa = 2011.7 - 1889.8 meters x 1054 - 797 kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Pressure at top
Pressure at
gas-oil interface
Second
calculation
method, base
pressure
Gas downward
pressure

2745.6 + 70.7 + 44.7 = 2861 psi
0.477 psi/ft
18909 + 487 + 307 = 19703 kPa
10.77 kPa/m
Pn 2837 psi = 6200 feet x 8.8 ppg 0.052
0.457 psi / ft
10.34 kPa/m
2837 psi + 44.7 psi = 2881 psi.
0.465 psi/ft
19540 kPa + 307 kPa = 19847 kPa.
10.50 kPa/m
Using the Second calculation method, the normal pressure at the base of the
reservoir is:
Pn 3020psi = 6600 feet x 8.8 ppg 0.052
0.457 psi/ft
10.34 kPa/m
The downward pressure exerted by the gas is:
20.8 psi = 6200 - 6000 feet x 2 ppg 0.052
143 kPa = 1889.8 - 1828.8 meters x 239 kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Oil downward
pressure
The downward pressure exerted by the oil is:
138 psi = 6600 - 6200 feet x 6.65 ppg 0.052
953 kPa = 2011.7 - 1889.8 meters x 797 kg/m 3 x 0.00981

Top pressure
Pressure at
gas-oil interface
3-38

3020 psi 138 psi 21 psi = 2861 psi
0.477 psi/ft
20800 kPa - 143 kPa 953 kPa = 19704 kPa
10.77 kPa/m

3020 psi - 138 psi = 2882 psi
0.465 psi/ft
20800 kPa - 953 kPa = 19847 kPa
10.50 kPa/m
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

3.11
References

References
References
Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2, SPE TX., 1991.
Kaye, Laby: Tables of physical and chemical constants. 14th Edition, 1972.
Rabia: Oilwell drilling engineering principles and practice, 1985.
April 2007
Revision D
3-39

Example calculations answers
3.12
Description
3.12.1
SI Calculation
Answers


The section presents example calculations in different unit systems for hydrostatic
pressures, equivalent mud weights and gradients.
SI Calculation Answers
1.
weighing 1844 Kg/m3 Answer: 19138.84 Kpa / 2772.20 psi
2.
3.
4.
weighing 2100 Kg/m3 Answer: 92704.5kpa / 13427.96 psi
5.
weighing 1690 Kg/m3 Answer: 54677.21 kpa / 7919.83 psi
6.
pressure of 4890 kPa from a fluid column 425m high Answer: 1172.87 Kg/m3 /
9.79 ppg
7.
Answer: 1160 Kg/m3 / 9.68 ppg
8.
Answer: 1911.77 Kg/m3 / 15.96 ppg
9.
Answer: 2227.09 Kg/m3 / 18.58 ppg
pressure of 43987 kPa from a fluid column 2765m high Answer: 1621.66 Kg/m3 /
13.53 ppg
10.
3-40
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

SI Calculation
Answers

11.
Kg/ m3 Answer: 11.066 kpa/m / 0.489 psi/ft
12.
Calculate the pressure gradient in kPa/m of a fluid weighing 987 Kg/
3
m Answer: 9.682 kpa/m / 0.428 psi/ft
13.
14.
15.
Kg/ m3 Answer: 14.028 Kpa/m / 0.620 psi/ft
3.12.2
Metric
Calculation
Answers
Metric Calculation Answers

1.
weighing 1.04 g/cc Answer: 100.67 kg/cm2 / 1431.56 psi
2.
3.
4.
5.
Calculate the pressure in kg/cm2 at 2194 m by a column of fluid
6.
pressure of 104 Kg/cm2 from a fluid column 1000 m high Answer: 1.04
g/cc / 8.68 ppg
7.
pressure of 176 Kg/cm2 from a fluid column 1250m high Answer: 1.408
g/cc / 11.75 ppg
April 2007
Revision D
3-41

Metric
Calculation
Answers

8.
pressure of 241 Kg/cm2from a fluid column 1890m high Answer: 1.275
g/cc / 10.64 ppg
9.
pressure of 487 Kg/cm2 from a fluid column 2909m high Answer: 1.67 g/cc
/ 13.97 ppg
10.
pressure of 572 Kg/cm2from a fluid column 4800m high Answer: 1.19 g/cc
/ 9.94 ppg
11.
g/cc Answer: 0.104 kg/cm2/m / 0.451 psi/ft
12.
13.
14.
15.
3.12.3
Imperial
Calculation
Answers
Imperial Calculation Answers

1.
weighing 8.66 ppg Answer: 561.82 psi / 3873.60 kpa
2.
3.
4.
5.
3-42
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

Imperial
Calculation
Answers

6.
pressure of 4598 psi from a column 8356ft high Answer: 10.60 ppg /
1270.44 Kg/m3
7.
1911.35 Kg/m3
8.
1446.86 Kg/m3
9.
1922.37 Kg/m3
10.
1751.39 Kg/m3
11.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 9 ppg
Answer: 0.467 psi/ft / 10.57 kpa/m
12.
13.
14.
15.
Mixed Units
Calculation
examples
For all of the 15 questions below the most accurate method is to make
the fewest conversions of the input data from one unit system to another.
1.
fluid weighing 8.66 ppg Answer: 961.83 psi
2.
Calculate the pressure in kpa at 8270ft created by a column of fluid
weighing 1629.639 Kg/m3 Answer: 42490.5
3.
Calculate the pressure in kg/cm2 at 4529 ft created by a column of
fluid weighing 1.7015 g/cc Answer: 234.88 kg/cm2
April 2007
Revision D
3-43

Mixed Units
Calculation
examples

4.
Calculate the pressure in bar at 31500 ft created by a column of fluid
weighing 2.3605 g/cc Answer: 2223.37 Bar
5.
fluid weighing 1.7374 g/cc Answer: 11275.46 psi
6.
pressure of 44985.48 kpa from a column 7549ft high Answer: 16.649 ppg
7.
pressure of 26543 psi from a column 10688m high Answer: 14.612 ppg
8.
generates a pressure of 2543 psi from a column 3145 ft high Answer:
1864.948 Kg/m3
9.
pressure of 800.4164 Kg/cm2 from a column 14236ft high Answer: 1.844
g/cc
10.
generates a pressure of 987.91 Bar from a column 23963ft high Answer:
1378.77 Kg/m3
11.
ppg Answer: 0.123 kg/cm2/m
12.
g/cc Answer: 15.046 Kpa/m
13.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 1977.13
Kg/ m3 Answer: 0.856 psi/ft
14.
Calculate the pressure gradient in psi/ft of a fluid weighing 1.76 g/cc
Answer: 0.762 psi/ft
15.
ppg Answer: 21.629 Kpa/m
3-44
2001, Sperry-Sun
April 2007
Revision D

Abnormal Pressure Prediction and Detection

Chapter 4 Abnormal Pressure Prediction and

Detection
Scope

Course.
Course title

4.1

4.1.1
4.1.2
4.2
Pre-Drilling Prediction ................................................................................4-5

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
February 09
Revision D
Types of Seismic Survey................................................................4-5

Uses of Seismic Data......................................................................4-6
Real-Time Drilling Pore Pressure Indicators ..............................................4-7

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.3.8
4.3.9
4.3.10
4.3.11
4.3.12
4.3.13
4.3.14
4.3.15
4.3.16
4.3.17
4.3.18
4.3.19
4.3.20
4.3.21
4.4
Introduction ....................................................................................4-3
Objectives.......................................................................................4-4
Drilling Rate Equations..................................................................4-7

Factors Affecting ROP ...................................................................4-8
Action of Rock and Insert Bits .......................................................4-9
Rotary Speed (RPM) ....................................................................4-10
Weight on bit (WOB)...................................................................4-11
Bit Wear and Type Tooth Efficiency ........................................4-12
Drilling Hydraulics.......................................................................4-14
Differential Pressure.....................................................................4-15
Compaction ..................................................................................4-16
Pore Pressure ................................................................................4-16
Torque and Drillstring Effect .......................................................4-16
Matrix Strength and Lithology Variations ...................................4-17
D Exponent...................................................................................4-18
Corrected d Exponent (Dc exp)....................................................4-19
Sigma Log ....................................................................................4-19
Torque Drag and Overpull ...........................................................4-22
Hole Fill .......................................................................................4-24
Pit Levels......................................................................................4-24
Mud Pump Pressure .....................................................................4-24
Flow Meters .................................................................................4-24
Drilling Kicks...............................................................................4-25
Lagged Drilling Pore Pressure Indicators .................................................4-27
4-1

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
4.4.9
4.4.10
4.4.11
4.4.12
4.4.13
4.4.14
4.4.15
4.4.16
4.4.17
4.4.18
4.4.19
4.4.20
4.5
Resistivity/Conductivity...............................................................4-46
Delta T Sonic................................................................................4-47
Density Logs ................................................................................4-50
Neutron Porosity ..........................................................................4-51
Gamma Ray..................................................................................4-52
Post-Drilling ..............................................................................................4-53
4.6.1
4-2
Gas levels .....................................................................................4-27

Background Gas ...........................................................................4-29
Normalised Gas ............................................................................4-30
Connection and Trip Gas..............................................................4-32
Swab Gas......................................................................................4-34
Gas Cut Mud ................................................................................4-34
H2S and CO2 .................................................................................4-34
Other Factors Affecting Gas Levels.............................................4-35
Cuttings Gas .................................................................................4-35
Geothermal Gradient ....................................................................4-36
Mud Temperatures .......................................................................4-36
Mud Temperature Measurements.................................................4-38
Wireline Temperature Measurement............................................4-40
Mud Conductivity ........................................................................4-41
Mud Density.................................................................................4-42
Cuttings Analysis .........................................................................4-42
Shale Density Measurements .......................................................4-42
Bulk Density (Mud Balance Method) ..........................................4-43
Shale Density (Density Column Method) ....................................4-44
Shale Factor (Percent Montmorillonite).......................................4-44
Real-Time FEWD Measurements .............................................................4-46

4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.6

Repeat Formation Tests RFT ....................................................4-53
4.7
Overview of Detection Techniques...........................................................4-54
4.8
References .................................................................................................4-55
February 09
Revision D

4.1


This section introduces the subject and outlines the objectives.
Scope
4.1.1
Introduction
Pre-drilling
information
There are many sources of information that can be utilised to indicate or measure
changes in formation pore pressure. Pre-drilling seismic data can be used to identify
shallow gas, gas zones, faults and diapirs. When converted to interval velocities it
can be used to determine undercompaction in tectonically inactive basins.
Drilling
measurement
During drilling direct measurements of drilling parameters can reflect changes in

pore pressure. These can be grouped into real-time indicators and indicators
dependent upon the lag time.
Real-time
measurement
Real-time indicators include ROP and normalised ROP, such as D exponent, Dc

exponent, and Sigma log to reflect changes in compaction of the formation. Torque,
overpull, drag, and hole fill will indicate a deterioration in the hole condition, while
pit levels, mud flow out, and pump pressure will indicate if the well is flowing or
whether wellbore ballooning is occurring.
FEWD
information
FEWD information can be used to refine the stratigraphy and estimate pore
pressures by indicating undercompaction, or provide information for petrophysical
models from Gamma ray, resistivity, sonic, and density measurements. If both
phase and shear sonic are available, this information can be used to determine in
situ rock properties.
Lagged
indicators
Lagged indicators include ditch gas levels, mud temperatures, mud conductivity,
mud density, and cuttings analysis.
Post-drilling
information
Post-drilling direct pressure measurements can be taken from the formation through
Wireline samples or well tests, although this information is usually confined to
reservoir sections.
February 09
Revision D
4-3

4.1.2
Objectives
4-4

Objectives
After completing this section you should be able to explain how the following
information sources indicate pore pressure changes, their limitations, and the
pressure generation mechanisms they can detect.
Seismic data
Normalised ROP methods, D exp, Dc exp, Sigma log
Hole condition indicators, torque and drag, overpull, hole fill
Pit levels, mud flow and standpipe pressure
Gas levels
Mud temperature, conductivity and density
Cuttings analysis
MWD / Wireline resistivity
MWD / Wireline sonic
MWD / Wireline density
MWD / Wireline neutron porosity
February 09
Revision D

4.2
Introduction
4.2.1
Difference in
resolution

Pre-Drilling Prediction
It is necessary to be familiar with the regional setting of the well so that the
depositional history and any subsequent disturbance of the formations are
understood. This allows the likely generation mechanism to be determined and
anticipated.
Types of Seismic Survey

Seismic data and analysis usually form the basis for pre-drilling prediction of pore
pressures, with the estimated pressures refined using offset well data. Depending on
the specific seismic technique, the resolution of the data can vary between 1 m and
50 m.
VHR (Very High Resolution) seismic is limited to a depth of investigation of 50 m

Very high
resolution seismic to 100 m, but has a resolution of less than a meter. It is normally used for site
studies for platform anchorage. It can however locate shallow gas pockets and
define gas chimneys that may cause problems when spudding the well.
High resolution
seismic
HR (High Resolution) seismic has a depth of investigation of 1000 m to 1500 m and

a resolution of 1-5 meters.
Conventional
seismic
Conventional seismic has a lower resolution between 5 to 50 meters and a depth of

investigation of several thousand meters. It is used to determine gas zones (which
show up as bright spots), faults, and diapirs. It can also indicate the lithologies and
facies.
3D seismic
3D seismic differs from conventional seismic only in the fact that it uses multiple
seismic lines spaced between 50 and 100 m apart, providing data on a regularly
spaced grid. It also allows HR and VHR seismic acquisition at the same time as the
conventional seismic signals.
February 09
Revision D
4-5

4.2.2
Seismic
stratigraphy

Uses of Seismic Data

Seismic data is normally plotted as the two-way transit time of the signal from the
transmitter to the receiver as a seismic section. Echoes from each surface are
aligned side by side, and unbroken reflective surfaces indicate the various
lithological horizons in the plane of the survey. Faults and diapirs can also be
identified. It is possible to correlate reflective surfaces in offset wells to determine
the anticipated lithology.
Undercompacted Undercompacted areas generally show up as blind spots with poor or absent
reflections. However this is not conclusive proof, as other features generate similar
areas
reflections, such as diapirs, reefs, and laccoliths.
Complex
structures
If the sub-surface geological structures are complex, the relationship between transit
time and depth can become distorted. 3D seismic may provide a more accurate
picture, but correlation is usually performed during drilling so that the known
lithologies can be used to refine the seismic estimates for deeper in the well.
Interval velocities Where structures are not very complex and lithological sequences are sufficiently
thick, the seismic reflections can be converted to interval velocities. This conversion
is an expert skill, and the resolution of the data can be as low as 200 m.
Factors affecting The velocity is a function of the density, porosity, fluid content, elastic properties,
and stress conditions of the formations. It is therefore important to have offset data
velocity
to correlate with the proposed well path in order to refine the analysis.
Transit time
The interval transit time can be used in the same way as sonic data, to determine
areas of undercompaction when plotted as a linear depth vs. logarithmic ITT. See
Section 2.4 for a detailed explanation.
Offset well data
Use of seismic horizons to correlate between offset wells and the proposed wellbore
information can be extrapolated from the offsets to create a likely pore pressure,
fracture pressure, and overburden pressure profile. Any problem zones encountered
on offset wells can be anticipated. Obviously the accuracy of offset analysis
depends on the distance to the nearest well, and whether the offset well is in the
same part of lithological structure as the proposed well. For example, conditions
may vary considerably from one side of a fault to another.
4-6
February 09
Revision D

4.3
Description
4.3.1

Real-Time Drilling Pore Pressure Indicators

This section explains pore pressure indicators available during real-time drilling.
Drilling Rate Equations
ROP
The ROP (Rate of Penetration) can be used as an indicator of varying formation

compaction. Formations are assumed to increase in compaction with depth, and
therefore ROP will decrease with depth. This relationship can be used to detect
areas of undercompaction because they will drill faster than expected since they
have a lower matrix stress compared with normally compacted sequences.
Deviations
Once the normal compaction trend has been established, any deviation from this
trend can be used to establish changes in matrix stress, and by extension, the pore
pressure (Section 2.4).
Other factors
There are other factors that can affect the ROP. This led to the development of
various drilling rate equations that attempt to normalise the ROP for these effects,
allowing a more accurate estimation of undercompaction.
February 09
Revision D
4-7

4.3.2

Factors Affecting ROP
Decrease in ROP Jordan and Shirley (1966) stated that with constant drilling parameters in uniform
lithology, the ROP should decrease exponentially with depth as compaction
increased (decreasing porosity), and that this could be applied to the detection of
undercompacted formations.
Misinterpreting
ROP
Because ROP is a function of so many different factors, direct analysis of the ROP
is subject to misinterpretation.
ROP factors
The ROP is a function of the following:

Rotary speed (RPM)
Weight on bit (WOB)
Tooth efficiency
Drilling hydraulics
Differential pressure (P)
Compaction
Pore pressure
Drillstring effects
Matrix strength
Lithology variations
Each of these factors will be discussed before the various normalised drilling rate
equations are covered.
4-8
February 09
Revision D

4.3.3
Formation
breakdown

Action of Rock and Insert Bits

The mechanism of formation breakdown relies on the impact of the bit teeth on the
rock to cause a series of small craters. A bits efficiency is a measure of its ability to
shatter the rock and remove the rock fragments from the bit face.
Figure 2-1. Tooth bit crater mechanism (Maurer 1965)

Illustration
Event
Description
Tooth Impact
Tooth pressure on the formation exceeds the rocks

mechanical strength.
Wedge formation
The rock forms a crushed wedge beneath the tooth that

continues to compact developing horizontal stress in
the formation.
Fracture
The horizontal stress increases until the rock fractures

and a crater is formed.
Post fracture
The fractured rock fills the crater.
Differential
pressure
Once the initial fracture has formed (Figure 2-1c), the differential pressure affects
the failure mode and the removal of the fractured rock. Where no differential
pressure exists, brittle fracture occurs and rock chips spring out of the crater with
the release of the elastic stress.
Low pressure
Under low differential pressure, and if the friction on the surface of the fracture is
less than the failure strength of the rock, transitional failure occurs. The chips
generated are displaced laterally but are held in the crater by fluid pressure. High
friction may prevent the rock fragments from moving along the fracture, and will
therefore clog the bit face.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-9


Action of Rock and Insert Bits, continued

High pressure
4.3.4
Drill speed vs.
rotary speed
Under high differential pressure, and if the friction on the fracture surface
preventing displacement of the chips is greater than the shear strength of the rock,
pseudoplastic failure occurs. With no displacement on the initial fracture plane, the
lateral stress exerted by the crushed wedge is not released. Applying more force at
the tooth induces additional fractures parallel to the first. The rock appears to yield
plastically and the rock is pulverized, destroying the original texture.
Rotary Speed (RPM)

Wardlaw (1968) proposed that when all the mechanical energy applied to the bit is
used in rock fracture and none in rock removal, drilling speed would be directly
proportional to rotary speed:
RN
In practice however there is a non-linear relationship between ROP and rotary
speed, as perfect cleaning does not exist due to overbalance and insufficient
circulation rates, thus:
R Na
Where
R
drilling rate
rotary speed
rotary exponent
RPM vs. ROP
Figure 2-2. RPM vs. ROP

continued
4-10
February 09
Revision D


Rotary Speed (RPM), continued

Vidrine and
Benit
Vidrine & Benit (1968) considered this relationship to be an exponential curve and
derived a empirically from field data for given a lithology and weight on bit. They
give values of a from 0.4 to 1.0.
Bourgoyne and
Young
Bourgoyne & Young (1974) proposed 0.4 for very hard formations, to 0.9 for very
soft formations.
Prentice
Prentice (1980) proposed an exponential increase in penetration rate with increased

RPM because the bit teeth spend less time in contact with the formation as speed
increases, thereby reducing the effective weight on bit.
Later research
Later research showed the shape of the curve to be dependent on the lithology,
where a linear relationship is more likely in soft formations, and becoming more
exponential with increasing hardness. The implication is that the amount of toothto-formation contact time needed to initiate breakdown is higher for harder
formations than softer ones.
4.3.5
Definition
Weight on bit (WOB)

Weight on the bit or to be more accurate force per unit area to give the effective
weight on bit per unit area of the bit cutting structure. This will include variations
for bit size, tooth shape and distribution, actual weight on bit and threshold weight.
Threshold weight The threshold weight is defined as the minimum weight at which the bit will
commence to drill, i.e., the point at which the force applied causes the formation to
crater.
Vidrine and
Benit
Vidrine & Benit (1968) and Maurer (1962) state that under perfect bottomhole
cleaning conditions, drilling rate is proportional to the square of bit weight. This is
supported by experiments conducted by Somerton (1959). Vidrine and Benit (1968)
suggested the following relationship:
R (W-Wo)
where
Wo
threshold weight
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-11


Weight on bit (WOB), continued

Bourgoyne and
Young
Bourgoyne & Young (1974) developed:

W Wo
R
D
D
where
W
weight on bit
bit diameter
Negative
threshold weight
The threshold weight may become negative in very soft or unconsolidated

formations, where the jetting action is sufficient to achieve penetration.
Flounder point
The upper limit where penetration rate decreases with increasing weight is termed
the Flounder point, and is valid only for soft formations. This occurs when the bit
teeth are completely embedded in the formation, bringing the cone face into contact
with the bottom of the hole and reducing the cleaning effect.
String friction
Caution must be exercised when drilling directional wells, as the weight recorded at
the surface may differ significantly from the actual weight being applied at the bit
due to string friction. Hole angle and the nature of the BHA govern the true weight
on bit.
4.3.6
Effects on bit
wear
Bit Wear and Type Tooth Efficiency

This takes into account three main effects:
1. Efficiency of the original cutting structure
2. The minimum effective cutting structure
3. The rate at which the bit will lose its efficiency
continued
4-12
February 09
Revision D


Bit Wear and Type Tooth Efficiency, continued

Dull bits
A dull bit can mask changes in the drilled formation, and is especially exaggerated
for long tooth bits. Vidrine & Benit (1968) stated that the relationship of drilling
rate with bit wear was not linear:
R
1
f ( T)
where
f(T) = function of tooth wear approximated by
f(T) = (1+(2.5T))
where
T = normalized tooth wear with T = 0 for a new bit and = 1 for a worn bit.
Rate factor
The drilling rate is governed by the factor 2.5, and is dependent on the bit type and
nature of the formation. If the loss in drilling efficiency and tooth wear relationship
is assumed to be linear, then:
Ro = R1 (1+(2.5T))
where
Ro = drilling rate with a sharp bit
R1 = drilling rate with a dull bit
Tooth wear
Bourgoyne & Young (1974) assumed an exponential decrease in drilling rate with
tooth wear:
Re h or
Rae h
where
h = fractional tooth height worn away
a = constant depending on bit type and formation
Compensating
for bit wear
February 09
Revision D
To compensate for bit wear (which obscures the trend), several formulas have been
generated but none has universal use. In most cases, corrections for bit wear only
occur for tooth bits. It is unsatisfactory to introduce correction coefficients for
others using a relationship based on the wear characteristics of tooth bits because
the wear processes are different. Bit wear corrections do not take lithology into
account. In particular they ignore the hardness and abrasiveness of the formation
being drilled. In conclusion, penetration rate corrections that a client can request to
allow for bit wear are unsatisfactory, and must be used with caution. Valid
corrections can be applied provided there has been sufficient data collected
regionally for a statistical analysis to be carried out.
4-13

4.3.7

Drilling Hydraulics
Factors affecting This will be dependent on pump pressure, nozzle size and type, and mud rheology.
If insufficient hydraulic action is applied, a reduction in the rate of cleaning will
hydraulics
result in a subsequent reduction in the rate of penetration. Conversely, excess
hydraulic action may increase the rate of penetration through a jetting action in
unconsolidated formations. In harder formations, the effect is the reverse, as the bit
is forced off bottom because of the large hydraulic impact. This effect will therefore
depend to some degree on the level of consolidation. Combs (1968) suggested:
R
Qaq
3Dh dn
where
Q = flow rate
Dh = Diameter hole
dn = Diameter nozzle
aq = hydraulic exponent 0.3 suggested.
The term Q/(Dh dn) represents the cross flow velocity beneath the bit, and hence
hole cleaning. The term actually represents the momentum flux or hydraulic
impact per unit area of hole.
Jet velocity
Wardlaw (1968) suggested that drilling rate is proportional to the square of the jet
velocity:
R Pd = K Vn 2
where
R = ROP
Pd = Differential pressure across nozzles
Vn = Nozzle Velocity
K = Constant
continued
4-14
February 09
Revision D


Drilling Hydraulics, continued

Mud rheology
The rheology of the mud was observed by many authors to be significant in

affecting the rate of penetration. Bourgoyne & Young (1974) assumed an
exponential increase in drilling rate with the Reynolds number:
Q
R = e a1 + a2 m
350 d n
where
a1 = Constant
a2 = Constant
m = mud density (ppg)
Q = flow rate (Gpm)
= viscosity (cp)
dn = diameter nozzles (ins)
350 = units constant
Low viscosity
Low viscosity fluids in turbulent flow are more effective at cleaning the bit face
than viscous laminar ones.
Water loss
In some circumstances water loss can affect ROP, as fluid percolates into fractures
caused by the bit teeth expelling the rock fragments.
Suspended solids Suspended solids may affect the immediate water loss and in certain circumstances
limit the penetration rate. If there are too many solids suspended in the mud, the
teeth are prevented from making clean contact with the formation.
4.3.8
Definition
Differential Pressure
This is the difference between the drilling fluid hydrostatic pressure and the
formation pore pressure, and is influential in controlling the rate at which cuttings
are cleared from the bit. A high positive differential pressure may well introduce a
chip hold-down effect where loose cuttings are held to the bottom of the hole.
Cunningham and Cunningham and Eenik (1959) reported from their experiments that the drilling rate
decreased when mud hydrostatic exceeded formation pressure, due primarily to the
Eenik
chip hold-down effect, and secondarily by localized compaction and strengthening
of the rock.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-15


Differential Pressure, continued

Vidrine and
Benit
Vidrine & Benit stated from field evidence that a 70 percent reduction in drill rate
may be observed as the differential pressure increased from 0 to 1000 psi, and that
sensitivity to P changes was greatest for larger sized bits. They also suggested that
with differential pressures of greater than 1000 psi, changes in WOB, RPM, and
other factors do not noticeably alter ROP.
Fontenot and
Berry
Fontenot & Berry (1975) suggested that given adequate cleaning, maximum
penetration rates should occur at zero differential pressure.
4.3.9
Increased
compaction
4.3.10
Pore pressure
gradient
Compaction
Increased depth of burial results in increased compaction, and hence increased
compressive strength. This results in a slow decrease in bit performance with depth,
and where an increase is seen in an otherwise uniform shale sequence, it is taken to
represent undercompaction.
Pore Pressure
Bourgoyne & Young (1974) assume an exponential increase in drill rate with pore
pressure gradient:
R = e( a1 + a3 D )0.69 ( g p - 9.0)
where
a1 & a3 = constants
D = Depth (ft)
gp = formation fluid gradient (ppg)
4.3.11
Penetration rate
4-16
Torque and Drillstring Effect

The penetration rate may decrease if the rotary torque fluctuates, causing erratic
drilling action. Thus hole deviation, radical changes in string stabilisation, strength,
and dip of formation may all affect the ROP.
February 09
Revision D

4.3.12

Matrix Strength and Lithology Variations
Drillability
This is often referred to as the drillability of the formation, and is perhaps the major
controlling factor over penetration rates. Formation matrix strength depends upon
the porosity, permeability, hardness, plasticity, and cementation of the lithology.
The constituent mineralogy of a formation can affect penetration rates, hence the
need to reference drilling and penetration rates to carbonate and silt content.
Drilling strength
Zoeller (1970) defined formation drilling strength as the measurement of the

formation resistance to failure or chipping when a wedge-shaped flat crested tooth is
pressed into the formation.
February 09
Revision D
4-17

4.3.13
Drilling rate
equation

D Exponent
Bingham proposed a generalised drilling rate equation to interrelate all relevant
drilling parameters (1964):
R= a Ne (
W d
)
D
where R
ROP (ft/hr)
rotary speed (rev/sec)
rotary speed exponent
WOB (lbs)
bit size (ft)
matrix strength
formation drillability exponent
Bingham absorbed changes in P ( differential pressure) in the constant a.

Jorden and
Shirley
Jorden and Shirley solved Bingham's equation for d (the drillability exponent):
R
)
60N
d=
12W
log10 ( 6 )
10 D
log10 (
where R
ROP (ft/hr)
RPM (rev/min)
WOB (lbs)
bit size (ins)
They assumed e = 1 (linear increase in ROP with RPM) and a = 1 (constant

lithology, removing the need to derive a matrix strength constant). Hence the d
exponent becomes lithology dependent.
Modifications
Other modifications were to make the equation compatible with oilfield units, i.e.:
60xN converts revs/min to revs/sec
D/12 converts bit size inches to feet
106 allows simple scale for d exponent
continued
4-18
February 09
Revision D


D Exponent, continued
Comments
When (R/60N)< 1, then (R/60N) varies inversely with ROP, and so the d Exponent
varies inversely with ROP.
When drilling constant lithology, the d exponent will increase with depth,
compaction, and P.
The d exponent is not compensated for mud weight, SPP (i.e., hydraulics), and bit
wear.
4.3.14
Rehm and
McClendon
Corrected d Exponent (Dc exp)

Rehm and McClendon (1971) proposed the corrected d exponent to account for
changes in mud weight.
dc=
MW 1
xd
MW 2
where dc
4.3.15
modified d exponent
MW1 =
normal pressure gradient
MW2 =
mud weight (preferably ECD)
Sigma Log
History
The Sigma log was developed in the Po Valley region of Italy in the mid-seventies
by Bellotti of AGIP and Gerard of Geoservice. The aim was to improve on the
limitations of the d exponent while drilling overpressured sequences of carbonates,
marls, and silty marls in deep wells. This method gives a direct estimate of pore
pressure without the need for an overburden gradient and an instantaneous porosity
estimate from drilling data.
Description
The Sigma log is based on the laws of regulating the drillability of the rock,
corrected for the influence of drilling parameters, the effects of differential
pressures, and the formation porosity on the penetration rate.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-19


Sigma Log, continued

Formula
The Sigma log is the variation with depth of the sigma factor, also called the "total
rock strength." The Sigma factor takes the same factors into account as the d
exponent. The initial relationship is:
W 0.5 N 0.25
t =
B R 0.25
where t
Mud weight
correction
raw sigma log or total rock strength (dimensionless)
WOB (tonnes)
RPM
Bit Diameter (inches)
ROP (m/hr)
To correct for mud weights, the o (or corrected Sigma) is calculated as:
o = F t
where o
corrected sigma log, or rock strength parameter
raw sigma log value
and
F = 1+
(1 + n )P
2
n P
P = differential pressure of mud to formation fluid corresponding to the normal

hydrostatic gradient in Kg/cm2
n = factor expressing the time required for the internal pressure of cuttings not yet
cleared from the bit face to reach mud pressure.
continued
4-20
February 09
Revision D



Derivation of n
The term n was established for the Po Valley on the basis of the following
relationship:
D
t' = t + 0.028 7
1000
where
D = depth in metres
3.25
640 t'
If t 1
n=
If t > 1
0.75
n = 0.00156 4
t'
Definition of n
The value of n is a function of formation porosity and permeability. As a general

rule t' 1 for sands and t' > 1 for shales. This means that n is greater for shales
than for sands and reflects the fact that the bit face is more difficult to clean in
shales. Changes in n have a minor effect on the calculation of o. It is therefore not
a problem to apply the equations from the Po Valley to other regions, as the error
introduced will also be minor.
Sigma log
The Sigma log is then plotted on linear scales, and indicates compaction with depth
in the same lithology. The highest values of sigma represent the lowest porosity,
and the normal trend should be established through these values.
Slope of trend
A shift in the normal trend is required each time there is a change of lithology, bit
diameter, or bit type, but the slope remains the same. The slope of the trend usually
remains constant at 0.0881 / 1000 m.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-21



Empirical
formula
If values of o start to fall without changes in lithology or drilling conditions, this

suggests an increase in porosity and/or formation pressure. Bellotti & Gerard (1976)
suggested the use of Sigmalog as a method of determining porosity by the use of the
empirical formula developed in the Po Valley. This should be used with caution in
other regions.
=
1
9
o
r
14
. +
where
= porosity
= trend of the o points most to the right
4.3.16
Torque Drag and Overpull
Definition
Drag is the excess hook load over the free handling string weight while pulling out
of the hole or additional weight running in the hole. This excess in load may be
caused by one or a combination of the following factors and may not necessarily be
related to overpressure:
Bit balling
Dog legs and hole deviation
Excess of cavings
Swelling clays
Insufficient cleaning of cuttings
Bottomhole assembly design
Recording the
drag
Record the drag at connections and on trips in and out with reference to depth and
formations. Sharp peaks above the normal drag can indicate a change in the
formation pressure.
continued
4-22
February 09
Revision D


Torque Drag and Overpull, continued

Surface
measurement
Surface measurement of rotational torque is a combination of the torque from the

drillstring in contact with the borehole walls, and the torque from the drilling action
of the bit. As such, the deeper a well becomes and the higher the deviation from
vertical, the higher the torque becomes. This should be seen as a gradual trend over
the length of the borehole, thus differentiating it from the more abnormal rises seen
in association with the following factors:
Swelling clays
Cavings
Insufficient cleaning of cuttings
Undercompacted Undercompacted shales are considered to be plastic in nature, and when a negative
differential pressure exists, these shales will tend to swell, reducing the hole
shales
diameter. Increased torque should be noticed when underbalanced conditions
prevail. This is especially true if full-gauge stabilisers are present in the drill string.
Excess torque can also be produced by an increase in the size and amount of
cuttings around the bit or stabilizers.
Increase in
torque
A drastic increase in torque can mean a locked cone on the bit, hanging up of fullgauge stabilisers on limestone stringers, or a change in pore pressure. Unless strict
control is maintained over the normal torque and drag trends, these are not valid
indicators when drilling high angle directional holes. Consideration of the BHA
design must also be made when interpreting these values.
Transition zones
McClendon (1977) states that torque will tend to increase in the transition zone with
a low density mud, because a larger amount of cuttings will enter the borehole.
Shale can tend to stick to and/or impede bit rotation and bit teeth will take larger
bites of the formation as they are rotated. If the mud has been weighted to result in a
hydrostatic pressure greater than the formation pressure, the torque will be masked.
In the presence of negative differential pressure in the borehole, over-pressured
shales will tend to flow or heave into the borehole. Pilkington and McKee (1974)
state that overpressured shales will tend to slough when drilled underbalanced by
0.5 to 1.0 ppg, thus causing the torque increase.
February 09
Revision D
4-23

4.3.17

Hole Fill
Cavings may settle to the bottom of the hole during connections or trips, producing
fill. This may be caused by wellbore instability from overpressured formations but
could have other causes:
Geomechanical instability
Inefficient cleaning by the drilling mud
Poor mud rheology
Cavings
4.3.18
Pit Levels
Fluid gain
Any subsurface addition of fluid to the mud system will be indicated by a gain in pit
level. If a gain is recorded it is good practice to perform a flow check. Losses in pit
level may be due to lost circulation. Good communication between the mud
engineer and the logging unit is essential to account for changes to the active
circulating volume. In any event it must NEVER be assumed that mud transfer is
taking place. All volume changes must be accounted for.
Example
For example, a 6 bbl gas influx at 12000 ft, if ignored, may become 300 bbl or more
at 1500 ft, by which time the gas bubble is rapidly expanding in the riser. It is worth
noting that a gas influx may only begin to significantly expand in the last 3000 ft /
1000 m or less.
4.3.19
Description
4.3.20
Mud Pump Pressure

Observation of the pump pressure can indicate an influx of less dense fluid into the
annulus, producing an imbalance between the annulus and drillstring. The influx
(assuming it is lighter than the drilling mud) will reduce the hydrostatic pressure in
the annulus. The heavier uncontaminated mud in the drill pipe will have a tendency
to U-tube down the drill pipe and up into the annulus, causing the drill pipe pressure
to fall. This assumes that the influx entry is slow enough to allow continuity of the
mud inside the drill pipe with the mud inside the annulus. If the pore pressure is
high and good permeability exists, an increase in drill pipe pressure may be
observed, as the influx has a direct action into the drillstring.
Flow Meters
Increased return An increased rate of flow returning from the annulus caused by fluid entering the
wellbore from the formation will be noticed before the corresponding rise in pit
flow
level. The standard paddle flow-out sensor is far from ideal for this measurement as
it is neither quantitative or sensitive enough to slow influx rates.
continued
4-24
February 09
Revision D


Flow Meters, continued

Flow sensors
4.3.21
Differential flow measurement sensors (usually electromagnetic) are significantly

more accurate at detecting mud losses or kicks than a single flow-out sensor. The
advantage is that surface mud movements do not have to be taken into account, and
the response is more immediate than pit level monitoring. However, the cost and
difficulty with installation means this is rarely used, despite the potential advantage
to safety and cost saving that early kick detection may have in critical overpressure
wells.
Drilling Kicks
Kick occurrence
The purpose of formation pressure estimation is to avoid kicks. However, if a kick

does occur it will provide exact information on the formation fluid pressures and
density, if the volume of the influx is accurately measured.
Low density
influx
Where a low-density influx is introduced into the annulus, it will tend to equalise
the pressure on both sides of the U-tube, created by the annulus and the internal
bore of the drill string. If the U tube was closed on both sides, i.e., the BOP has
been closed, preventing the system from achieving equilibrium, a pressure equal to
the difference in hydrostatic pressure between the two sides is exerted on the low
density side.
Pressure
calculation
If the well is shut in and pressures are allowed to stabilize, we can calculate the
formation pressure:
Formation pressure = Shut-in drill pipe pressure + hydrostatic pressure in DP
Formation pressure = Shut-in casing pressure + hydrostatic pressure in annulus
Nature of influx
As we do not generally know the nature of the influx in the annulus and therefore
the true hydrostatic head, we must use the SIDPP to calculate formation pressure.
Influx direction
The influx will in almost all cases only enter the annulus, due to the direction of
mudflow during circulation and its larger size. The entry of the influx will displace
mud in the annulus, therefore reducing its effective hydrostatic head. As a
consequence the SICP will be greater than the SIDPP.
Kill mud weight
Once a kick has been taken, the well shut in, and pressures recorded, the Kill Mud
Weight required to balance the formation pressure must be calculated and the nature
of the influx determined:
Kill Mud Weight (ppg) = MW (ppg) + [SIDPP (psi) x 0.052 x Depth (Ft)]
This gives the minimum Kill mud weight required to balance the formation
pressure. To this a safety margin should be added.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-25


Drilling Kicks, continued

Density
calculation
The Density of the influx may be calculated by:

I = MW (ppg) [SICP (psi) SIDPP(psi)] x 0.052 x Height of the Influx (ft)
where
I = Influx density (ppg)
H = height of the influx calculated from the pit gain taken and the hole and string
dimensions.
Table of densities
4-26
Density
Fluid Type
< 3 ppg (0.36 SG)
Gas
4 - 6 ppg (0.5 - .72 SG)
Oil or combination of oil, gas and/or salt water
> 8.33 ppg (1 SG)
Water or oil
February 09
Revision D

4.4
4.4.1

Lagged Drilling Pore Pressure Indicators

Gas levels
Description
The analysis of the background gas trace is a very useful aid to formation pore
pressure prediction. The main limitation is the time delay as the gas is circulated to
surface.
Gas sources
Figure 2-3 categorises the various sources of gas that may be present during drilling.
These are:
Cuttings gas released from the drilled formation and by breakdown of cuttings
moving up the annulus.
Produced gas from the borehole walls due to cavings, swelling, fractures,
diffusion, or insufficient overbalance.
Contaminants from the breakdown of the mud under thermal action or
hydrocarbon-based products in the mud.
Recycled gas through insufficient degassing at surface.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-27


Gas levels, continued

Illustration of gas
sources
Figure 2-3. Sources of gas while drilling (Fertl)

The monitoring and interpretation of gas data is fundamental to the detection of
overpressured zones, and in many instances may be the only indicators available.
The reliability of these parameters will improve with careful interpretation of the
following data:
The differential pressure, including swab pressures at connections and trips
Porosity and permeability of the formation
Rate of penetration and bit size affecting the quantity of cuttings
Pump rate
The degassing efficiency of the sampling trap, i.e., design, location, position
relative to the mud surface, agitator speed, blockages, etc.
Chromatograph precision
Potential for hydrocarbons in the formation
Changes in the mud properties, i.e., viscosity, temperature and type. The latter
may determine the ability to take gas into solution.
4-28
February 09
Revision D

4.4.2

Background Gas
Gas entry
Gas enters the mud system as the formation is drilled by the bit, and usually
maintains a steady but low level. Additionally, as shales are circulated up the hole,
the reduction in pressure explodes the shale particles releasing gas into the mud.
These are the most common sources of gas.
Pressure
differential
If a low differential pressure exists from a combination of low-density mud and

high formation pressure, gas will enter the borehole and increase the amount of
background gas in the mud.
Gas
measurements
Pixler (1945) recommended the use of gas measurements for the detection of
overpressures and for warnings of impending blowouts. Goldsmith (1972) stated
that most impermeable shales would contain some gas, while abnormally pressured
shales often contain large quantities of gas. Fertl (1973) explains this by stating that
comparatively free gas diffusion is possible through clay, as a function of the
median pore size of clays or silty clays, and the varying diameter of gas molecules.
Factors affecting Since overpressured shales have high porosity, diffusion will be enhanced, resulting
in shale gas to be found over long impermeable shale sections. Low salinity and
measurement
high pressures increase the amount of solution gas in formation waters. Background
gas will normally increase in a transition zone as the porosity increases, hence a
higher gas content. Additionally, the increased ROP will release more cuttings,
freeing more gas, and the reduction in the overbalance will cause levels to increase.
This latter point may be important in the identification of transition zones when the
overbalance is small. Where this is too high, gas readings may be masked and
analysis impossible.
Background gas
Background gas levels should be continuously monitored and plotted. The operator
must be aware of trends, changes to trends, and the controlling factors that are
associated with levels of background gas.
Evaluation of gas Correlation of the background gas with changes in the mud weight can give an
accurate indication of the differential pressure, and consequently the formation
pressure
pressure. For example, if a small mud weight increase suddenly decreases high
background gas levels with associated connection gas peaks, then it is reasonable to
assume that the formation pressure is only slightly below that of the new ECD.
February 09
Revision D
4-29

4.4.3

Normalised Gas
Description
A close correlation between drilling rate and background gas exists, when the gas
volume is corrected for flow and drilled rock volume any subsequent rise in
background gas can in certain cases be attributed to changes in P. Two methods of
gas normalisation are detailed. The first is the standard Texaco method, which is a
calculated normal method only related to the mud flow volume and the drilled hole
volume, where no relationship between gas levels in differing formations is
assumed. The second normalisation is more of a comparison between gas levels
from an operator input "normal section." All subsequent and previous gas levels are
then compared to the drilling and pressure conditions when the "normal section"
was drilled.
Texaco formula
Gas n = G T 14.7
(D R)
2
where
Standard
normalisation
and comparison
Flow rate (Gpm)
Bit Diameter (in)
Rate of Penetration (ft/hr)
GT
Total gas (%)
R Dn2 Qa
Gasn = GT n
Ra Da2 Qn
where
Gasn
normalised total hydrocarbons (ppm)
GT
total combustible hydrocarbons (ppm)
Rn
normal rate of penetration (m/hr)
Ra
actual rate of penetration (m/hr)
Dn
normal bit diameter (mm)
Da
actual bit diameter (mm)
Qn
normal flow rate (m3/m) (mud flow in)
Qa
actual flow rate (m3/m) (mud flow in)

continued
4-30
February 09
Revision D


Normalised Gas, continued

Example
calculation
In an argillacous interval selected by the operator, the following normal conditions

prevail:
Rn
20.16 m/hr
Dn
216 mm
Qn
2.00 m/min
In a later section the following conditions are observed:

GT
37200 ppm
Rn
22.32 m/hr
Dn
216 mm
Qn
1.65 m/min
The normalised gas value is calculated by:

2
20.16 216 1.65
Gasn = 37200
= 27720 ppm
2
22.32 216 2.0
Notes
Ideally, for pore pressure analysis, the reference section should be an interval of
constant overbalance within a uniform argillaceous formation. The sections chosen
for other normal trends would be ideal, i.e., Dc exponent. The above formula will
take into effect any changes in hole size, mud flow rates, and ROP.
Porosity
consideration
Porosity is not explicitly taken into account but is considered as part of the ROP.
Minor effects such as temperature, etc. are also not compensated for.
Gas curves
The two normalised gas curves should be plotted on the same scale as the total gas.
This will allow trends to be analysed for all curves. It is now possible to compare
gas levels over a well or between wells without concern for differences in rate of
penetration, hole size, or flow rates.
Alternate gas
formula
If a porosity either from sonic or density has been calculated or the porosity log is
available from wireline, the normalisation can be extended to cover this variable. In
this case the formula is:
R D n2 Qa a
Gas n = G T n

R a D a 2 Q n n
February 09
Revision D
4-31

4.4.4

Connection and Trip Gas

The presence of connection gas or trip gas maybe used to indicate changing
overbalance where the formation pore pressure is equal or greater than the
equivalent density of the static mud column. The drop in pressure from a dynamic
circulating mud density to that of a static density (pumps off) may allow gas to seep
into the mud from the formation, producing an increase in gas at the point of
seepage. In extreme cases, flow may be initiated and a kick taken. An additional
pressure loss due to swabbing when the bit is raised off bottom may contribute to
further flow of gas into the mud.
Factors affecting The actual quantity of connection gas is dependent upon a number of factors that
must be considered when interpreting and reporting the peak value:
gas quantity
Differential pressure between mud weight and formation pressure
Formation permeability
Contribution from cavings by observation of the volume over the shakers
Chromatographic breakdown of the drilled gas
Swabbing effects at connection (with reference to pipe speeds)
The time static conditions prevailed at the connection
Circulating time. Long periods may disperse the gas and create a broad flatter
peak.
Illustration of
differential
pressure
Correlation of the frequency and level of connection gas with respect to the mud
weight can give an accurate indication of differential pressure.
Figure 2-4. Connection gas example

continued
4-32
February 09
Revision D


Connection and Trip Gas, continued

Explanation of
illustration
In Figure 2-4, the connection gas increases as a zone of undercompacted uniform

shale is drilled. The ECD decreases to the static mud weight at each connection.
There is also a reduction in bottomhole pressure at each connection due to the
swabbing effect of the pipe.
Pore pressure
increases
When the pore pressure exceeds dynamic mud pressure, connection gas appears as
sharp peaks of produced gas, the connection gas increasing as the pressure
differential increases. When the pore pressure finally exceeds dynamic mud
pressure, total background gas readings also begin to increase, since an
underbalanced condition exists.
Gas reporting
Connection and trip gas should always be read and reported above background gas
levels.
Monitoring
differential
pressure
Connection gas is perhaps the best means of monitoring the differential pressure
while drilling, and giving a close approximation to the actual formation pressure,
especially when associated with changes in the mud weight. Where the well is
drilled close to balance, connection gas can provide an accurate profile of the
formation pressure but with the associated risks this involves.
Pressure test
stages
In Abnormal pressures while drilling, Mouchet and Mitchell refer to a normalised

connection gas test, where a series of conditions are created to deliberately induce
gas slugs into the mud. From these tests the gas can be interpreted more accurately.
The four-stage test is as follows:
1. Drilling stopped, bit on bottom, rotating and pumps on - 10 minutes.
2. Drilling stopped, bit on bottom, rotating and pumps off - 10 minutes.
3. Pull pipe 10 m at pre-set standard velocity, rotating, pumps off - 10 minutes.
4. Circulate bottoms up while drilling.
This will give results for background gas under the normal circulating density, gas
under static mud conditions, gas levels from swabbing and gas transfer to surface.
Notes on the test
The drawback with this is the time element if the test is conducted on a regular
basis, as well as the possibility of stuck pipe, and more importantly the dangers of a
large gas influx. Variations on this may be more realistic given the associated
problems. If connection gas is suspected but difficult to confirm, it is worth
suggesting this test to the operator.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-33


Connection and Trip Gas, continued

Trip gas
production
4.4.5
Description
4.4.6
Trip gas is produced by a similar mechanism to connection gas although in this

case, the swabbing effect caused by pipe movement is generally more sustained as
stands of pipe are pulled out. The width of a trip gas peak can give an indication of
conditions at the bottom of the hole. An early peak may indicate that swabbing has
taken place some distance up the hole, usually due to insufficient formation of mud
cake. The poor buildup of cake can indicate that the pressure differential between
mud and formation has not allowed filtration and hence cake buildup will take
place. Therefore, the early onset of trip gas can indirectly relate to the state of
balance in much of the open hole.
Swab Gas
This has already been mentioned in conjunction with connection and trip gas.
However, a more detailed explanation may help in defining the actual differential
pressure. As pipe is pulled out, a frictional pressure loss in the annulus will
temporarily reduce the effective hydrostatic head of the mud. This may be sufficient
to fall below the formation pressure and thus allow gas to flow into the borehole.
The actual pressure loss due to swabbing may be calculated and used to define an
approximate formation pressure when used in conjunction with gas peaks and the
mud weight. By minimising the swab effect by pulling slowly with the pumps on,
the connection gas can be related more accurately to the differential pressure, i.e.,
by minimising additional effects.
Gas Cut Mud
Description
If the degassing of the mud at surface is insufficient, the gas can remain within the
mud, reducing its density and therefore the hydrostatic pressure it exerts. This in
turn will lead to a greater influx of gas from the formation and potential kicks.
Recycling note
Recycling of the gas cut mud through the pumps decreases their efficiency. Enough
gas will render the pumps ineffective. The recycled gas plus the reduced ECD from
a lower pumping rate may induce a kick.
4.4.7
Description
4-34
H2S and CO2

Hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide gases have a thermodynamic behaviour
different from that of methane/natural gas. They are both soluble in mud (especially
oil muds). Expansion of H2S and CO2 only takes place at low pressures high in the
borehole, hence there is very little warning of kicks resulting from these gases.
February 09
Revision D

4.4.8
Factor list
4.4.9

Other Factors Affecting Gas Levels

Other factors affecting gas levels:
Degradation of mud additives due to high temperature produces gases such as
H2S and CO2. Lignosulphonates and other organic additives can degrade at
temperatures above 200C.
Lignite zones are often associated with high gas readings.
Diagenesis of volcanic ash over geological time results in three components,
namely clay minerals, methane, and carbon dioxide. Drilling associated shales
causes gas cutting without directly reflecting formation pressure variations.
Shale diapirs can expel large amounts of solids, fluids and gases causing
frequent gas cutting but not necessarily overpressure.
Faults often channel gas causing localised gas flow into wells and thus the mud
may become gas cut.
Additives to the mud such as hydrocarbon-based products will create false
peaks or increases in the background trend.
Cuttings Gas
Definition
The cuttings gas technique involves breaking down a fixed volume of cuttings and
measuring the level of gas released. This level when compared with the totalised
drilled gas can give an indication of the permeability of the formation. The oversimplified methods traditionally used involving hotwire or catalytic detectors
provide only limited data accuracy and quality. More recent developments have
used FID chromatography and integrators to provide data comparable in quality to
the drilled gas analysis.
Explanation
The micropores in the cuttings containing the gas or fluid remain isolated from the
drilling mud either because the pores are unconnected or through capillary forces.
Therefore, the volume of gas released in this analysis may infer a direct
measurement of the rock permeability. Unlike background gas, which is affected by
many factors, cuttings gas analysis will indicate the true composition of the in-situ
formation gas.
February 09
Revision D
4-35

4.4.10
Definition

Geothermal Gradient
The geothermal gradient is the rate at which subsurface temperature increases with
depth, and can be calculated from:
T T1
G = 100 2
D 2 D1
where
G
Geothermal gradient (C/100 m)
T1
Temperature (C) at depth D1
T2
Temperature (C) at depth D2
Gradient
variation
For any given area, the geothermal gradient is usually assumed to be constant, but it
will vary according to individual formation thermal conductivity rates and the
presence of overpressured formations. From regional studies the average gradient
can be expected to vary between 1.0 - 2.5F/100 ft (1.8 - 4.5C/100 m).
Gradient factors
The geothermal gradient can be estimated from the mud temperature measurements,
and determination of a gradient will be dependent upon a number of factors:
Rate of circulation which affects temperature in two ways:. 1) The speed at
which the mud is returned to surface and therefore the rate at which it cools; 2)
In conjunction with the pump pressure it determines the hydraulic energy that
heats the mud.
Surface mud temperature, which may vary several degrees depending on the
surface system and climatic control.
The length of the marine riser. Long risers are efficient heat exchangers and
may cool mud to the point where the flowline temperature plot becomes invalid
as an overpressure indicator.
The type of mud and its thermophysical properties.
The actual bottomhole formation temperature.
4.4.11
Definition
Mud Temperatures
Mud temperatures can be used to identify overpressured formations and in some
circumstances predict the presence of these zones before they are drilled. In contrast
to normally pressured formations, overpressured formations have a lower thermal
conductivity because of their a higher fluid content, and hence exhibit an
abnormally high geothermal gradient.
continued
4-36
February 09
Revision D


Mud Temperatures, continued

Thermal
conductivity of
water
The thermal conductivity of water is considerably less, about 0.3 to 0.15, than that
of most rock matrix materials and since a characteristic feature of most
overpressured formations is the possession of higher than normal water filled
porosity. It follows that overpressured formations also exhibit a lower than normal
thermal conductivity and consequently an elevated geothermal gradient.
Variations in
properties
It should be noted that formations vary in their thermal conductive properties

depending on the constituent minerals. For example, kaolinite will decrease
conductivity while quartz will cause an increase.
Effect of porosity Porosity affects thermal conductivity, but the actual fluid within the pores is
important. Water is a poor conductor of heat but gas and oil are significantly less
conductive to heat. Although important in the identification of undercompacted
zones, the geothermal gradient will also be affected by reservoirs and thick coal
beds, which act as insulators. Similarly, crystalline rocks are better thermal
conductors than sediments, and evaporates are very good conductors.
Overpressure
Diagram of
temperature
response
As an overpressured formation below a normally pressured formation is

approached, a temperature transition zone will be encountered. It has been found
that the geothermal gradient and consequently the flowline temperature gradient
decreases, even to the extent of a fall in flowline temperature (i.e., a negative
gradient). Cap rocks usually have a greater thermal conductivity and a reduction in
flowline temperature may be seen, especially if the cap rock is thick. On transition
into the overpressured zone, increases in the geothermal gradient are reflected in
increased flowline temperature gradient. See Figure 2-5.
2000
2100
Normally Pressured Shale
2200
2300
Depth
2400
2500
2600
Normal Flowline
Temperature Gradient
Decrease Flowline
Transition Zone or
Cap rock
Increased Flowline
Overpressured Zone
(Insulating body)
2700
2800
2900
3000
-25
25
Temperature
75
125
175
Figure 2-5. Temperature response when drilling into an overpressure foundation
February 09
Revision D
4-37

4.4.12

Mud Temperature Measurements
Flowline
temperature out
Measuring the mud temperature out may give a good indication of the geothermal
gradient of the well and thus an approximation of the bottomhole temperature.
Flowline temperature however, is the drilling parameter most affected by surface
events and least affected by the conditions in the borehole. It is far easier to change
the flowline temperature by adding water in the pits, for example, than by a change
in temperature downhole.
Effects that
match gradient
Recording of flowline temperature is a practical way to determine the temperature

gradient. However, consideration must be given to mechanical and human-induced
effects which may mask the actual gradient. Some of these effects are:
The time elapsed since the last trip
The volume of the circulating mud system
The time period the mud spends in the marine riser dependent upon the flow
rate
The amount of metal in the drill string
The rate of penetration
Changes at surface due to mud mixing and transfers between pits, especially
noticeable in the upper hole sections where large volumes of mud may be
required.
Circulation halts allowing the mud to cool in the surface system and in the
marine riser, similarly increasing the mud temperature down hole
Mud type and chemical treatments that alter the thermal conductivity of the
mud - barite.
Prevailing climatic condition i.e., changes from mild to severe cold conditions,
diurnal temperature variations
String rotation inducing rotation in the mud will affect the thermal transfer at
the borehole wall. With little or no string rotation the observed flowline
temperatures will decrease as a result of the creation of a stationary boundary
layer of mud insulating the main stream of mud.
Delta mud
temperature
A more meaningful measurement may be Temp (the difference between

temperature in and out) with sensors at the suction pit and the flowline, provided the
lagged temperature in and out are used. Temp will normally decrease with depth
due to longer circulation times at lower rates of penetration. A decrease in Temp.
can thus indicate entry into a transition zone, followed by a rapid increase in Temp
as the overpressured zone is entered. Plotting the Temp reduces the effect of
ambient temperature changes and mud system additions on temperature data.
continued
4-38
February 09
Revision D


Mud Temperature Measurements, continued

End-to-end and
trend analysis
With direct lagged measurement of flowline temperature measured against depth it

is found that the resultant temperature curve is broken when the bit is changed, or
during other downtime, and a certain period of time is necessary for the mud
temperature to re-establish equilibrium after circulation.
Equilibrium rate The rate at which thermal equilibrium is re-established maybe significant, as a more
rapid return may indicate an increased geothermal gradient. Since undercompacted
formation is predicted using the temperature gradient rather than magnitude of
temperature, each depth segment between discontinuities can be analysed separately
for gradient trends.
Plotting
temperatures
Plotting these as a trend end-to-end will remove irrelevant scatter from the plot, but
will highlight changes in the overall geothermal gradient. It is also helpful to plot
individual segments as a flowline temperature end-to-end plot. This will aid
interpretation when the effect due to overpressure may be so small that the trend-totrend analysis will cause the anomaly to disappear.
Example plot
0
Raw Mud
Temp. Out
Data
500
End to End
Trend to Trend
1000
Depth
1500
2000
Top
Undercompaction
2500
3000
3500
0
20
Mud Temperature
Out 60
40
80
Figure 2-6. Migrated temperature plot to aid interpretation

continued
February 09
Revision D
4-39


Mud Temperature Measurements, continued

Recording
maximum
temperature
A further way of recording temperature gradient is to record maximum temperature

upon regaining circulation after a period of downtime: i.e., after a trip, mud
temperature will reach a maximum on bottoms up. Plotting these peaks may aid
identification of geothermal trend interpretations.
Other
temperature
readings
Other indications of geothermal gradient whose temperature values should be noted

are wireline-recorded temperatures, Horner temperature plots and MWD tool
temperature readings. The MWD tool temperature reading is normally the
temperature of the electronics within the tool and may not reflect the true formation
temperature.
Logging
temperature
Presenting temperature data in log format should be made with reference to all the
controlling factors to aid interpretation. A plot of purely temperature in and out,
Temp and end-to-end / trend-to-trend may not be sufficient. Reference should be
made to pump rate, ROP, hole size, lithology, and events such as bit changes,
circulating off bottom, mud additions.
4.4.13
Wireline Temperature Measurement
Maximum
thermometer
When running a suite of logs a maximum thermometer is attached to the tool. This
temperature in conjunction with tool depth and time after the last circulation may be
used to calculate the bottom hole temperature.
Temperature
equilibrium
From research it seems that about four days are required for mud temperature to
reach equilibrium with the formation temperature. A Horner plot may be used to
extrapolate measured tool temperatures over several logging runs to equate to a
bottomhole temperature. The theory is based on the principle of thermal recovery:
i.e., if a column of mud is left undisturbed in the hole for an indefinite period it will
eventually warm up to the same temperature as the surrounding sediments.
Mud circulation
The method assumes that circulating mud cools the formation, setting up a
temperature gradient between the borehole wall and the formation. When
circulation stops, heat exchange between the formation and mud reduces the radius
of the cooled zone and thereby the temperature gradient. Extrapolating the
temperature over infinite time makes it possible to calculate the true formation
temperature.
continued
4-40
February 09
Revision D


Wireline Temperature Measurement, continued

Temperature
calculations
These temperatures are then plotted against the log of dimensionless time
(Figure 2-7). Dimensionless time is the ratio of time since last circulation stopped
(t) to the sum of the actual circulation time (T) and (t):
t
log dimensionless time = log
t + T
A straight line is drawn through these points and extrapolated to meet the x-axis,
where:
t
log
=1
t + T
i.e., where t is a very large number relative to T. This gives the best estimate of
true BHT.
200
Example plot
Run-4
Run-3
Run-1
Run-2
150
100
50
Temperature degC
Calculated B.H.T
0
0.1
Log(delta T/(delta T+T)
1.0
Figure 2-7. Example calculated Horner bottomhole temperature plot

New plots
required
4.4.14
Wiper trips and circulation will interrupt the thermal recovery time as cool mud
from the surface is pumped around the well. Therefore for subsequent logging runs
a new Horner Plot must be drawn up.
Mud Conductivity
Salinity affects
conductivity
When using a fresh water-based mud, salt water entry from the formation will cause
an increase in chloride content of the mud filtrate. This amount depends on the
contrast between chlorides in the mud and chlorides in the formation.
Routine checks
may miss effect
Difficulties arise in that routine mud checks usually do not show the subtle changes
in chloride content of the filtrate caused by formation fluids.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-41


Mud Conductivity, continued

Increased
conductivity
4.4.15
Decrease in mud
density
4.4.16
The resistivity and conductivity of the mud is dependent to a large extent on its
temperature but generally an increase in mud conductivity (assuming a constant
chloride content of the mud due to surface additions) will indicate increased pore
fluid within the drilled formation, and hence increased formation pore pressure.
Mud Density
Decreases in the mud density out can be caused by an influx of formation fluid into
the mud system. If the influx of fluid (either water, oil, or gas) is rapid, other
indicators such as the pit levels, mud flow out and stand pipe pressure will detect it
long before changes in mud density are recognised. If, however, the influx speed is
relatively slow some dilution of the returning mud will occur, reducing the density.
In the case of gas and oil, background gas levels should increase accompanying the
influx. In the case of water there may be an accompanying change in chlorides.
Cuttings Analysis
All cuttings analysis except cuttings gas (Section 2.4.9) are used to determine
Determine
undercompaction undercompaction in claystones and shales through measurements of the density of
the cuttings or determination of the clay type.
4.4.17
Shale Density Measurements
Trend line
important
Establishing a normal trend line is critical to the analysis and good lithological
descriptions are necessary in order to make connections between plot-points of
constant lithotype: i.e., clean shale displays a lower density than limey shale. Any
reduction in density from the established normal compaction trend is an indication
of undercompaction.
Establish trend
line for the
formation
Experience has occasionally shown that depositional environment may affect shale
densities: i.e., reversals may be experienced on the transition from one formation to
another, for example Eocene to Paleocene in the North Sea. Thus if the geology of
an area is well known, it is best to attempt to establish a normal trend-line within a
particular formational unit.
continued
4-42
February 09
Revision D


Shale Density Measurements, continued

Other factors affecting the readings are:
Other factors
affecting readings Consolidation of the clay the clays can be too unconsolidated to be placed in
the density column.
Clay composition accessory minerals, silt and carbonate content will all affect
the density of the clay.
Accurate lag depth cuttings must be representative of the drilled depth and
where possible claystones that have caved into the wellbore should not be
selected.
Mud type reactive water-based mud will affect the measurements as the
cuttings absorb water when travelling up the well bore. It is not unusual to see
the shale densities plot 0.1 0.5 g/cc lower than FEWD density measurements
across the same section.
4.4.18
Balance method
Bulk Density (Mud Balance Method)

Using a mud balance, place cuttings in the cup to balance at the density of fresh
water, 8.33 ppg (1 SG).
Fill the cup plus cuttings with water, and re-balance. The reading obtained at
balance point is W2.
Form. dens (g/ cm3 ) =
8.33
1
=
16.66 - W 2 2 - W 2
The second equation is used where W2 is read in SG rather than ppg. The final value
for both equations is SG.
Use diesel fluid if If oil-based mud is used and cuttings are washed with diesel, then diesel should be
used as the balancing fluid. The equation must therefore be modified to
necessary
accommodate the density of diesel (generally around 7.0 ppg) replacing that of
water.
Advantages
February 09
Revision D
This method has the advantage of being fast and simple to perform, and uses a good
quantity of cuttings. Unlike other methods it does not require the selection of
individual cuttings.
4-43

4.4.19
Density column
method
4.4.20
Description

Shale Density (Density Column Method)

A miscible liquid of known density and water are partially mixed in a cylinder to
produce a column of fluid with a graded density, and beads of known specific
gravity are suspended within the column. Pieces of shale are lightly dried with filter
paper and dropped into the column, floating at a level of comparable density.
Shale Factor (Percent Montmorillonite)

Montmorillonite clays are more porous and less permeable than most other clays.
An increase in montmorillonite clays will mean lower-density shale that may lead to
a misinterpretation as undercompacted shale. Several authors have associated
montmorillonite with deep marine shales in which sands are absent. Thus water
cannot escape by way of the sands. They speculate that if montmorillonite is
associated with deep marine shales, increases in montmorillonite tend to be
associated with abnormal pressures. This, however, need not be the case.
Formation details More simply, as diagenesis proceeds, montmorillonite clays are converted to illite
clays plus water. Hence montmorillonite content should decrease with depth.
However, overpressured zones are assumed to be sections in which normal
diagenesis (for that depth) has not taken place. This is because in zones of abnormal
pressure the pore fluid bears a greater part of the overburden stress and the rock
matrix a lesser part. Hence, because clay diagenesis is, in part, a pressure-dependent
process the montmorillonite/illite ratio in the formation will increase.
Water release
Bound inter-layer water is released into the available pore volume between clay
mineral grains. Where fluids have become trapped in the clays, the resultant
overpressuring of the pore fluids acts against the release of this inter-layer water.
Conversion to illite is therefore halted.
Shale factor
definiton
The ratio of montmorillonite to illite in cutting samples is measured as the cation

exchange capacity (CEC). Montmorillonite has a much greater CEC than illite. The
CEC is expressed in milli-equivalents per 100 g of sample, and is also termed the
shale factor. In essence then, the shale factor should gradually decrease with depth
and show an increase in abnormally pressured regions (Nevins and Weintritt 1967,
and Gill 1972). To determine the CEC, a titration using methylene blue solution is
performed.
continued
4-44
February 09
Revision D


Shale Factor (Percent Montmorillonite), continued

Table of shale
factors
Texture
CEC
Water Content
Wt %
Water
Clay Content
Wt % Clay
Density
(SG)
soft
20-40
free & bound
25-70
montmorillonite
and illite
20-30
1.2-1.5
firm
10-20
bound
15-25
illite and mixed

layer
montmor/illite
20-30
1.5-2.2
hard
3-10
bound
5-15
High illite, trace

montmorillonite
20-30
2.2-2.5
brittle
0-3
bound
2-5
illite, kaolin,
chlorite
5-30
2.5-2.7
bound
2-10
illite and mixed

layer
illite/montmor
20-30
2.3-2.7
firm-hard 10-20
February 09
Revision D
4-45

Real-Time FEWD Measurements
4.5
Definition
4.5.1


FEWD measurements can be the most accurate way of quantifying formation pore
pressures, but they are normally restricted in availability by what the client wishes
to pay for. Common practice is to run a directional gamma package with resistivity
in the upper sections, then to add density or neutron density and perhaps sonic for
the reservoir sections.
Resistivity/Conductivity
Description
This is a measure of the ability of a formation to conduct an electric current and is

one of the earliest methods of wireline detection. The solid matrix is generally nonconductive while the pore space may be filled either with non-conductive
hydrocarbons or conductive saline water.
Effects on
resistivity
Resistivity values are therefore related to the amount and nature of the pore fluid
and, ultimately to the degree of porosity. Where all things are equal (homogenous
clay formation and constant fluid properties) a unit decrease in the resistivity
reading will correspond to a unit increase in the porosity and hence overpressure.
continued
4-46
February 09
Revision D


Resistivity/Conductivity, continued
Example of
resistivity
1000
1500
TVD (m)
2000
2500
Top of
Overpressure
3000
NCT
3500
0.1
10
RILD (ohm.m)
Figure 2-8. Resistivity example

Resistivity
increases
4.5.2
Definition
Assuming a constant shale formation, the normal resistivity trend would be a

gradual increase with depth as compaction reduces porosity (Figure 2-8). As
overpressured zones contain more pore fluid than would be normal for that depth
and the saline fluid is the conductive medium, resistivity through an overpressured
zone tends to diverge from the normal trend and show as increased resistivity.
Delta T Sonic
The sonic tool emits sound waves and measures the wave transit time per unit of
vertical distance through the formation. Pulses of sonic energy are transmitted to the
formation and take several paths through the formation, mud, tool body, before
reaching the receivers. As the sonic waves are transmitted most quickly through the
formation, a timing circuit is added to the system to cut out all late arriving waves.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-47


Delta T Sonic, continued

Time difference
The difference in time (T) for the same pulse to reach the receivers is recorded.
This eliminates the effect of the mud and mud filter cake, leaving only the transit
time of the sonic wave through the interval of formation corresponding to the
distance between the receivers, usually placed one to two feet apart.
Sonic transit time Sonic transit time may be considered as a function of lithology and porosity. If a
given lithology such as shale is investigated, the sonic response will be a function of
porosity variations. If sonic transit times of normally compacted shales are plotted
on a logarithmic scale against depth on a linear scale, a linear trend results and
transit time will decrease with depth (Figure 2-9).
Sperry-Sun BAT With newer tools such as the Sperry-Sun BAT sonic it is possible to measure the
compressional wave and the shear wave return at the tool.
sonic
Effect of
overpressure
The fluid pressure represented by this normal compaction trend will be hydrostatic.
If overpressured clay formations are encountered, the data points will diverge from
the normal trend, toward higher transit times for a given depth, as the porosity is
higher. The actual compressional wave transit time obtained from the tool will be a
value dependent on the individual transit times from the rock matrix and the pore
fluids. The shear wave transit time is less affected by pore fluids. Because the
fastest times are recorded through the rock matrix, an increase in the porosity and
hence a reduction in rock matrix per unit volume will have the effect of slowing
down the transit time.
continued
4-48
February 09
Revision D



1000
Sonic example
response
in casing
1500
cycle
skipping
2000
2500
Top of
Overpressure
3000
NC
3500
100
Sonic (usec/m)
1000
Figure 2-9. Sonic example

Calculating
transit time
The interval transit time (T) is measured in microseconds per foot (sec/ft) or per
metre (sec/m).
A quick check to assess the validity of a sonic log is to note the reading of the
compressional wave inside the casing. This should be 57 sec/ft (187 sec/m).
The sonic transit time is defined by the relationship:
T = Tf + (1 ) Tm
where
T
log value transit time
Tf
fluid transit time
Tm
matrix transit time
porosity
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-49



Calculating
porosity
Rearranging the above relationship derives porosity:

=
T Tm
Tf Tm
Using the above formula for clays the sonic logging tool provides an excellent way
of assessing compaction quantitatively.
4.5.3
Density Logs
Definition
If a source of gamma rays is applied to the wall of the borehole, an interaction takes
place between the material due essentially to gamma/electron collisions. The energy
of the incident photon is partially transmitted to the electron ejected from an atom.
The tool measures the strength of this diffused gamma radiation. The number of
electrons in atoms is approximately proportional to their density, therefore
collisions are more numerous the denser the material.
Calculation of
porosity
If the density of a rock matrix is known its porosity can be determined by the
relationship:
b = (1 - ) m + f
b
b = m
m f
where
Effect of
compaction
matrix density
pore fluid density
porosity
The bulk density of normally pressured shales increases with compaction, and hence
depth. The presence of undercompacted sediments is reflected as a reduction in bulk
density. Reading off bulk densities from logs gives an indication of compaction and
hence overpressures assuming matrix and fluid densities are constant (Figure 2-10).
continued
4-50
February 09
Revision D


Density Logs, continued

Density example
1000
1500
2000
2500
Top of
Overpressure
3000
3500
NCT
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Density (sg)
Figure 2-10. Density example
4.5.4
Neutron Porosity
Definition
The neutron porosity method measures the amount of hydrogen in a given volume
of formation. A radioactive source emits a constant stream of high-energy neutrons
which, when in collision with the formation matrix, show a reduction in their
energy. The presence of hydrogen nuclei in the formation of a similar mass to the
neutrons emitted from the tool causes maximum energy loss. An approximation of
the formation porosity is obtained by measuring the amount of hydrogen present in
the formation by counts of neutrons at the detector.
Scope of
measurement
The neutron log is not used for a qualitative or quantitative analysis of

undercompaction. It may contribute to an understanding of the origins of
overpressure, however it is found that neutron data is difficult to interpret for the
purposes of quantifying pore pressure but is of use to correlate and confirm
abnormally pressured zones.
February 09
Revision D
4-51

4.5.5

Gamma Ray
Definition
The gamma ray tool is the most widely used of all wireline tools and often forms the
basic FEWD logging tool along with directional measurements. In these cases it is
used for formation correlation purposes.
Description
This tool measures the natural gamma rays emitted by radioactive elements in the
formation, these being uranium, thorium and potassium 40, the latter being the more
abundant. All three elements are unstable and emit particles of radiation (including
gamma rays) until they attain a stable atomic structure. The relative concentrations
of these elements will vary between lithologies, for example, clays emit
radioactivity from potassium minerals.
Radiation levels
in minerals
Shales and clays generally have a high concentration of potassium minerals, i.e.,
illite and mixed layered clays, having been formed by the decomposition of
feldspars and micas which have a high K fraction. Clay particles also absorb ions of
heavy radioactive elements from mineralised waters during deposition. As a result,
shales and clays generally have high gamma ray counts. Dark bituminous shales
e.g., the Kimmeridge Clay of the North Sea, often contain strong traces of thorium
and uranium and are very radioactive.
Problems with
gamma ray
Sands formed by the mechanical erosion of quartz generally have low gamma ray
values as the stable crystal form of quartz precludes impurities such as radioactive
elements. A badly sorted and dirty sandstone, however, traps appreciable amounts
of clay minerals which often causes a reduction of the porosity and permeability of
the sandstone as well as increasing its radioactive response. Carbonates generally
have a low gamma ray response, although dolomitised limestone may exhibit
increased radioactivity due to the introduction of a low quantity of radioactive
elements by the percolating waters. However, other minerals can lead to wrong
assumptions, i.e., K salts, arkosic sands, tuffs and glauconite. Therefore the gamma
ray log should always be used in conjunction with ROP, other logs and cuttings
lithology to pick good shale points.
API standards
Gamma ray response is quoted in API units that relate to a standard permanent
source in the API test pit at the University of Houston, Texas. Gamma ray logs
exhibit a degree of statistical variation as the number of gamma rays reaching the
tool varies with time due to the random emission of radioactivity. Averaging
circuits are placed in the tools to minimise these statistical fluctuations. As a result,
response times are increased and therefore bed boundaries should be picked at the
point halfway between maximum and minimum deflections of the anomaly.
4-52
February 09
Revision D

4.6
4.6.1

Post-Drilling
Post-Drilling
Repeat Formation Tests RFT
Definition
Most wireline logging companies have a pad tool that can take direct formation
pressures. Where these are taken the depth and mud hydrostatic pressure must also
be known. The tool will record formation and mud pressure values. The following
points should aid interpretation of data.
If the recorded hydrostatic pressure values are consistent with the mud weights,
then the recorded formation pressures should also be accurate.
If the hydrostatic pressures vary, then the formation pressure readings will be
questionable.
If the hydrostatic pressures are consistent but do not agree with the mud weight,
then it is probable the mud balance is off calibration, (check with water).
If the hydrostatic pressure equals formation pressure, then the well may be on
balance, but more likely the seal on the testing tool has failed.
Accuracy
Other than kicks this data is the most accurate formation pressure available to the
formation pressure engineer. Unfortunately these data points tend to be concentrated
over a limited depth interval, i.e., the reservoir and are generally applied over sand
intervals.
February 09
Revision D
4-53

Overview of Detection Techniques
4.7
Detection
overview

Overview of Detection Techniques

Pre-Drilling
Drilling RealTime
Drilling Lagged
Post-Drilling
Basin Studies
FEWD Resistivity 2
Gas
Wireline
Resistivity
Seismic
FEWD Sonic
Mud Temperature
Wireline
Sonic
Seismic ITT
FEWD Density
Mud Conductivity
Wireline
Density
Dc exponent
Mud Density
Wireline RFT
Sigma Log
Bulk Density
Pit Levels
Shale Density
Pump Pressure
Shale Factor
Mud Flow Out
Torque + Drag
Overpull
Hole Fill
Kicks
Note: Each of the techniques has been classified (after Mitchell and Mouchet) for
their reliability in detection changes in abnormal pressures, where R = reliability
factor:
1 = Reliable
2 = Moderately reliable
3 = Not very reliable
4-54
February 09
Revision D

4.8

References
References
List of references Allen, J.H. 1977 Optimising Penetration Rate Pt 1, Determining Parameters that
Affect Rate of Penetration. Oil & Gas Journal Vol. 75 No. 41 pp. 94-107.
Bingham, M.G. 1965 A New Approach to Interpreting Rock Drillability. The
Petroleum Publishing Company.
Black, A.D., Dearing, H.L., DiBona, B.G.: Effects of Pore Pressure and Mud
Filtration on Drilling Rates in a Permeable Sandstone. SPE12117, Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Fransisco, 5-8 Oct 1983.
Black, A.D., Tibbitts, G.A., Sandstrom, J.L. & Di Bona, B.G. 1985 Effects of Size
on Three Cone Bit Performance in Laboratory Drilled Shale. JPT, Vol. 37 No. 9 pp.
473-481.
Boatman, W.A.: Shale Density Key to Safer, Faster Drilling. World Oil, Vol. 165,
Aug. 1967.
Bourgoyne, A.T., Young, F.S.: A Multiple Regression Approach to Optimal
Drilling and Abnormal Pressure Detection. SPE 4238, SPE-AIME 6th Conference
on Drilling and Rock Mechanics, Austin, Tx. 22-23 Jan. 1973.
Brett J.F., Beckett A.D., Holt C.A., Smith, D.L.: Uses and Limitations of a
Drillstring Tension and Torque Model to Monitor Hole Conditions. SPE 16664.
SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Tx. 27-30 Sept. 1987.
Combs, G.D.: Prediction of Pore Pressure from Penetration Rate. SPE 2162, AIME
43rd Ann. Fall meeting, Houston, Tx. 1968.
Cunningham, R.A. & Eenink, J.G. 1959 Laboratory Study of the Effect of
Overburden, Formation and Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rates of Permeable
Formations. Trans. AIME Vol. 216 pp. 9-17.
Eckel, J.R. 1958 Effect of Pressure on Rock Drillability, Trans. AIYE Vol. 213 pp.
l-6, also JPT Apr, 1967.
Fertl, W.H.: Abnormal Formation Pressures. Elsevier, N.Y. 1976.
Fertl, W.H. & Timko, D.J. 1973 How Down Hole Temperatures, Pressures Affect
Drilling. Pt 9 Novel Ways to Detect Abnormal Pressures. World Oil Vol. 176 No. 2
pp. 47-50.
Fontenot, J.E., Berry, L.N.: Study Compares Drilling Rate-Based Pressure
Prediction Methods. Oil and Gas Journal, 1975, Vol. 73, No. 37, pp. 123-138.
continued
February 09
Revision D
4-55

References

References, continued
References,
continued
Gill, J.A. 1972 Shale Mineralogy and Overpressure: Some Case Histories of
Pressure Detection Worldwide Utilising Consistent Shale Mineralogy Parameters.
SPE of AIME Abnormal Subsurface Pressure Symposium, Reprint No 3890, pp.
121-136.
Hawkes, S.L. 1985 How to Analyze Bit Records to Increase Penetration Rates.
Petroleum Engineer International Vol. 57 No. 5 pp. 72-84.
Ho, H.S.: An Improved Modeling Program for Computing the Torque and Drag in
Directional and Deep Wells. SPE 18047. SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston. 2-5 Oct 1988.
Johancsik, C.A., Friesen D.B., Dawson, R.: Torque and Drag in Directional Wells Prediction and Measurement. Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 987-992, June
1984.
Jorden, J.R., Shirley, O.J.: Application of Drilling and Performance Data to
Overpressure Detection. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1966, Vol. 18, No. 11,
pp.1387-1394.
Kennedy, G.C. & Holser, W.T. 1966 Pressure-Volume-Temperature and Phase
Relations of Water and Carbon Dioxide, Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 97.
Lesage, M., Falconer, I.G., Wick, C.: Evaluating Drilling Practices in Deviated
Wells with Torque and Weight Data. SPE Drilling Enginering Journal, pp. 248-252,
Sept. 1988.
Lewis, C.R. & Rose, S.C. 1970 A Theory Relating High Temperatures and
Overpressures. JPT January 1970, pp. 11-16.
Marsala, A.F., Zausa, F., Della Martera, M., Snatarelli, F.J.: Sonic While Drilling:
Have You Thought About Cuttings?. SPE 30545. SPE Ann. Tech. Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 22-25 October 1995.
Maurer, W.C.: The Perfect Cleaning Theory of Rotary Drilling. AIME, Petroleum
Trans. 1962, Vol. 225, p.1271.
Maurer, W.C.: Bit tooth penetration under simulated borehole conditions. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 1965, Vol. 17, pp.1433-1442.
Maurer, W.C.: How Bottom Hole Pressure Affects Penetration Rate. Oil and Gas
Journal, 10 Jan. 1966, pp.61-65.
McClendon, R.T. 1977 Combinations of Drilling Data Pick Formation Pressures.
Oil & Gas Journal Vol. 75 No. 10 pp. 102-110.
continued
4-56
February 09
Revision D


References
References,
continued
Mercer, R.F. 1974 Liberated, Produced, Recycled or Contamination. 15th Annual

SPWLA Logging Symposium Trans. 20 pp.
Mondshine, T.C. 1969 New Technique Determining Oil-Mud Salinity Needs in
Shale Drilling. Oil & Gas Journal Vol. 67 No. 28.
Moore, P.L.: How to Predict Pore Pressure. Petroleum Engineer International,
March 1982, pp.144-152.
Mouchet, J.P., Mitchell, A.: Abnormal Pressures while Drilling, Chpt 3.4 105-109,
Chapt 4.3, 208-229, Chapt. 3.4.2, 134-147, Chapt 3.4.3, 149-157, Elf Aquitaine,
Boussens 1989
Prentice, C.M.: Normalised Penetration Rate Predicts Formation Pressures. Oil and
Gas Journal, 1980, Vol. 78, No. 32, pp.103-106.
Rehm, W.A. and McClendon, R. 1971 Measurements of Formation Pressure from
Drilling Data. SPE 3601.
Nevins, M.J., Weintritt, D.J.: Determination of Cation Exchange Capacity by
Methylene Blue Absorption. Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 6. 1967.
Pham, T.H., Brindley, G.W.: Methylene Blue Absorption by Clay Minerals.
Determination of Surface Areas and Cation Exchange Capacities, (Clay-Organic
Studies XVIII). Clays and Clay Minerals Vol. 18, 1970.
Somerton, W.H. 1959 A Laboratory Study of Rock Breakage by Rotary Drilling.
Petroleum Trans AIME Vol. 216 pp. 92-97.
Vidrine, D.J., Benit, E.J.: Field Verification of the Effect of Differential Pressure on
Drilling Rate. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Jul. 1968, pp.676-682.
Wardlaw, W.W.R.: Drilling Performance Optimisation and Identification of
Overpressure. SPE 2388. 1969.
Borel, W.J. and Lewis, R.L. 1969 Ways to Detect Abnormal Formation Pressures.
Pet. Eng. Vol. 41 No. 10 pp. 101-109.
Zoeller, W.A. 1970 The Drilling Porosity Log. 4th Annual Fall Mtg. SPE 3066.
February 09
Revision D
4-57

Quantitative Pore Pressure Estimation

Chapter 5 Quantitative Pore Pressure Estimation

Scope

Course.
Course title

5.1

5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2
Overlay Theory ...........................................................................................5-4

5.2.1
5.2.2
5.3
Normal Compaction Trend Selection...........................................5-14

Data Presentation..........................................................................5-16
Dc Exponent NCT Selection ........................................................5-16
Using the Dc Exponent ................................................................5-19
Shifting of Dc Curves...................................................................5-20
Resistivity Normal Compaction Selection ...................................5-20
Sonic Normal Compaction Selection ...........................................5-22
Density Normal Compaction Selection........................................5-22
Overlay Techniques...................................................................................5-24
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
February 09
Revision D
Effect of the Air Gap on Overburden Pressures.............................5-6

Obtaining Bulk Density Information..............................................5-7
Bellotti Equation for Bulk Densities from Sonic ...........................5-7
Gardner Equations for Bulk Densities from Sonic.........................5-8
Comparison of Sonic to Density Methods .....................................5-9
Calculating Overburden Pressures .................................................5-9
Comparison of Overburden Pressure Profiles ..............................5-12
Regional Overburden Variations..................................................5-13
Normal Compaction Trends ......................................................................5-14

5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
5.4.8
5.5
Applicable Lithologies ...................................................................5-4

Normal Compaction Trends ...........................................................5-4
Overburden Pressure Calculation................................................................5-6

5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
5.3.8
5.4
Introduction ....................................................................................5-3
Objectives.......................................................................................5-3
Ratio Method................................................................................5-24
Calculating Pore Pressure.............................................................5-24
Calculating Overlays ....................................................................5-25
Calculating the NCT Position ......................................................5-27
Eaton Overlay...............................................................................5-27
5-1

5.5.6
5.5.7
5.5.8
5.5.9
5.5.10
5.6
5-2

Calculating Pore Pressure.............................................................5-27

Calculating the Beta Factor ..........................................................5-28
Calculating Overlays ....................................................................5-29
Calculating the NCT Position ......................................................5-30
Equivalent Depth Method ............................................................5-31
References .................................................................................................5-36
February 09
Revision D

5.1


Scope
5.1.1
Introduction
Module 2,
Chapter 2
As discussed in Section 3.2, Abnormal Pressure Prediction and Detection, various

information sources are available during the drilling of a well that indicate changes
in formation pore pressure. It is possible to derive quantitative pore pressure
estimates using data that is a direct function of the compaction of the sediments. All
of the techniques outlined within this section were developed to assess the
undercompaction and therefore formation pore pressure changes in claystone or
shale sections. They cannot be applied to any other lithological type.
Terzaghi and
Peck
The basis of these calculations is the Terzaghi and Peck formula:
Definition
The relationship can be solved in terms of pore pressure, as the overburden pressure
can be calculated for any point in the wellbore if the bulk density of the overlying
sediments is known. The matrix stress can be calculated as a function of any
parameter that can represent the compaction of the formation. Estimating the matrix
stress involves establishing a normal compaction trend for the parameter in
question. The normal compaction trend is the expected parameter value if
equilibrium compaction has occurred and the clay or shale has dewatered without
restriction.
5.1.2
Objectives
February 09
Revision D
Overburden pressure = Matrix stress + Pore Pressure
Objectives
Calculate overburden pressures, gradients and equivalent mud weights.
Calculate pore pressures using the Ratio, Eaton and Equivalent Depth methods.
Create overlays using the Ratio, Eaton and Equivalent Depth methods.
Recalculate the Beta factor for Eaton overlays and the correction factor for
Ratio overlays using actual pressure data.
Recalculate the position of the normal trend line based upon actual pressure
data.
5-3

Overlay Theory
5.2
Overlay formula

Overlay Theory
The basis of the overlay calculations discussed in this course is the Terzaghi and
Peck relationship between the overburden, matrix stress and the pore pressure.
S = + P
Overburden Pressure = Matrix Stress + Pore Pressure
It is assumed that the overburden pressure is vertical and is the maximum normal
stress. This means the overlay techniques will work well in Normal Fault Regime
basins such as the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea.
Pressure
definition
5.2.1
Applicable Lithologies
Limitation
Overlays are only effective in assessing the degree of compaction within formations
of low permeability, claystones or shales. Only these lithological types consist of
matrix particles small enough to significantly retard pore fluid flow and allow part
of the overburden pressure to be supported by the pore fluid.
Porosity
reduction
Coarser-grained sediments such as sand do not tend to trap pore fluids during
compaction, as the permeability remains higher. Reduction in porosity and
permeability within sandstones is normally caused by cementation, the precipitation
of minerals in the pore space. This reduces the porosity and permeability of the
sediment but is not directly related to the degree of compaction.
Mineral types
Limestone and dolomites can generally be classified into three groups, organic, e.g.,
reefs, chemically precipitated, e.g,. evaporites, and clastic limestone that is
mechanically deposited. The porosity within each type of limestone is not directly
related to the level of compaction and is largely dependent upon the solution and
chemical processes acting in the formation.
5.2.2
Undercompaction
Normal Compaction Trends

As explained in Module 1, Section 3.7 Undercompaction, as the claystones dewater
with increasing overburden pressure, their porosity decreases and the bulk density
increases. If the dewatering is unrestricted over the whole sequence the claystone is
normally compacted.
continued
5-4
February 09
Revision D


Overlay Theory
Normal Compaction Trends, continued

Normal
compaction
A normally compacted Claystone would exhibit the following porosity/bulk density

relationship with depth (Figure 3-1). If this relationship is plotted on a loglinear
scale with the depth being linear and the porosity and bulk density being
logarithmic, the trends approximate to a straight line.
Module 2,
Chapter 2
As explained in Section 2.5, there are various measurements that can be used to
quantitatively estimate the porosity or bulk density of the claystone and changes in
their response indicate changes in the porosity of the claystones and by extension
the degree of compaction. These are:
Neutron porosity
Neutron density
Sonic compressional waves
Resistivity
Dc exponent
Sigma log
Porosity diagram
Figure 3-1. Porosity/bulk density relationship with increasing pressure/depth
February 09
Revision D
5-5

Overburden Pressure Calculation
5.3

Overpressure
estimation
The basis of pore pressure estimation using the Eaton and equivalent depth
techniques is the calculation of the overburden pressure at any given point in the
well.
Overburden
pressure
The overburden pressure is generated by the weight of the sediments and pore fluid,
the formation bulk density, overlaying a given point.
Cases for
overburden
There are three separate cases for the overburden calculation:

Offshore where the depth of water exerts an additional pressure on the
formations
Onshore with a shallow water table
Onshore with a deep water table (deserts) the surface bulk densities are less as
there is no pore fluid present until the water table is reached.
The latter case presents its own problem when calculating overlay pressures.
Formation
fracture
Overburden pressures are also required to calculate the formation fracture pressures,
discussed in Section 7.
5.3.1
Effect of the Air Gap on Overburden Pressures
Air gap effect
The air gap must be taken into account when calculating the overburden pressures.
Inclusion of the air gap means that the calculated pressure gradients or equivalent
mud weights are referenced to the same datum as the mud column. The depth datum
during drilling is normally the rotary table. The larger the air gap, the lower the
gradient and equivalent mud weight results. The magnitude of this effect will reduce
with depth.
Example
calculation
For example, if the overburden pressure was 950 psi at 1000 ft below ground level
this can be expressed as:
0.95 psi/ft or 18.26 ppg EMW
Modified
calculation
If the air gap were 200 ft, the gradient and equivalent mud weight for the same
depth below ground level when the rotary table is used as the datum would be:
0.79 psi/ft or 15.22 ppg EMW
Include depth
5-6
It is essential that the depth datum be indicated when calculating gradients or

equivalent mud weights so that the actual formation pressure can be back-calculated
correctly.
February 09
Revision D

5.3.2
Bulk densities

Obtaining Bulk Density Information

Bulk densities can be obtained directly from tool measurements, but it is very
unlikely that this information will be available for the complete well.
Other techniques Other techniques for estimating densities from Sonic or Seismic Interval Transit
time data have been developed.
5.3.3
Bellotti Equation for Bulk Densities from Sonic
Description
Bellotti et al established an empirical relationship between the sonic transit time and
the formation bulk densities. This was based upon Willies relationship for sonic
transit times related to porosity and Maxwells study of the conductance of
suspensions.
Porosity vs.
transit time
Willie stated that for consolidated, compacted sandstone with a uniform porosity
distribution a linear relationship between porosity and transit time exists:
t log = [t Matrix (1 - )] + t Fluid

where transit times are secs / ft.
Alternate
equation
This can also be expressed as:
Uncompacted
formulas
For unconsolidated formations, the relationship between porosity and transit time is
quite different because it must be regarded as a suspension of a solid component
within a fluid. The following relationships were established:
t log - t matrix
t Fluid - t Matrix
t log - t matrix
t Fluid - t Matrix
For uncompacted sands the relationship is: = 1.228
t log - t matrix
t Fluid - t Matrix
For uncompacted Clays the relationship is: = 1.568
Bulk density
Bulk density is related to porosity by the following relationship:
bulk = [ matrix(1 - )] + [ fluid ]

continued
February 09
Revision D
5-7


Bellotti Equation for Bulk Densities from Sonic, continued

Combining
equations
Combining the above equations and using the following values:

Average matrix density = 2.75 gm/cc
Fluid density = 1.03 gm/cc
Average matrix travel time = 47 sec/ft
Average fluid travel time = 200 sec/ft
The resulting formulae they derived were:
For cemented and consolidated formations bulk = 3.28
t log
89
t log - t matrix
t log + 200
bulk = 2.75 - 2.11
For uncemented formations
where densities are in g/cc and t transit times are in seconds / foot.
Uncemented
results
The Authors stated that the equation for uncemented formations generally produced
satisfactory results in most situations.
Estimating
density
Both equations give similar results for compacted formations (47 - 60 sec/ft) but
are quite different for longer transit times. The second equation satisfies the density
evaluation for most types of formations. However, massive carbonate and evaporite
sequences represent an abnormal situation since the Bellotti formula represents a
density value that is much too high. One must therefore use an estimated density
value for these formations:
Actual Density
t for Bellotti Equation
Anhydrite
2.96
25
Halite
2.17
140
PolyHalite
2.78
44
Formation
5.3.4
Equation
Gardner Equations for Bulk Densities from Sonic

Gardner developed equations to derive bulk densities from sonic interval transit
times. This can also be applied to sonic data using the following formula:
1000000
bulk = 0.23
t log
0.25
Where bulk is in g/cc and t log is in sec/ft.
5-8
February 09
Revision D

5.3.5

Comparison of Sonic to Density Methods
Density
comparison
Figure 3-2. Comparison of density calculations from Sonic
5.3.6
Calculating Overburden Pressures

Once a bulk density profile for a well has been determined the overburden pressures
can be calculated by selecting a suitable interval, calculating the average bulk
density for each interval and finally establishing the cumulative pressure increase.
It is recommended that the pressure is calculated first and then the conversions to
gradient or equivalent mud weight are made.
If the calculation interval matches frequency of the density readings, the more
accurate the final pressure estimates will be. This is only practicalable using
software.
The following example illustrates the calculations for an offshore rig where the
pressure from the water is taken into account.
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-9


Calculating Overburden Pressures, continued

Imperial
calculation
example
Values:
Air gap = 25 ft
Water depth = 500 ft
Water density = 1.07 g/cc or 8.9 ppg
Average bulk density 525 ft to 1525 ft = 1.8 g/cc
Bulk density
table
Interval
Interval
start depth end depth
TVD ft
TVD ft
Interval
distance
Average
bulk
density
Average
bulk
density
Interval
pressure
Cumulative
pressure
TVD ft
g/cc
ppg
psi
psi
C
B x 8.345
D
CxA
x0.052
E
D
25
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
525
500
1.07
8.9
231.4
231.4
525
1525
1000
1.8
15.0
781.1
1012.5
1525
2525
1000
1.9
15.9
824.5
1837.0
2525
3525
1000
16.7
867.9
2704.9
3525
4525
1000
2.05
17.1
889.6
3594.4
4525
5525
1000
2.1
17.5
911.3
4505.7
The overburden pressure at 5525 m is therefore 4505.7 psi.

Pressure as
gradients
Expressing the pressures as gradients and equivalent mud weights shows the
following:
Interval start
depth
Interval end
depth
Cumulative
pressure
Gradient BRT
EMW BRT
TVD ft
TVD ft
psi
psi / ft
ppg
25
0.00
0.0
25
525
231.4
0.44
8.5
525
1525
1012.5
0.66
12.8
1525
2525
1837.0
0.73
14.0
2525
3525
2704.9
0.77
14.8
3525
4525
3594.4
0.79
15.3
4525
5525
4505.7
0.82
15.7
continued
5-10
February 09
Revision D


Calculating Overburden Pressures, continued

SI calculation
example, bulk
density table
SI pressure as
gradients
February 09
Revision D
Interval start
depth
Interval end
depth
Interval
distance
Average bulk
density
Interval
pressure
Cumulative
pressure
TVD m
TVD m
TVD m
g/cc
Kpa
Kpa
C
AxBx
0.00981
D
C
7.62
7.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.62
160.02
152.4
1.07
1.60
1.60
160.02
464.82
304.8
1.80
5.38
6.98
464.82
769.62
304.8
1.90
5.68
12.66
769.62
1074.42
304.8
2.00
5.98
18.64
1074.42
1379.22
304.8
2.05
6.13
24.77
1379.22
1684.02
304.8
2.10
6.28
31.05
Interval start
depth
Interval end
depth
Cumulative
pressure
Gradient BRT
EMW BRT
TVD m
TVD m
Kpa
Kpa/m
g/cc
7.62
0.00
0.000
0.00
7.62
160.02
1.60
0.010
1.02
160.02
464.82
6.98
0.015
1.53
464.82
769.62
12.66
0.016
1.68
769.62
1074.42
18.64
0.017
1.77
1074.42
1379.22
24.77
0.018
1.83
1379.22
1684.02
31.05
0.018
1.88
5-11

5.3.7
Description

Comparison of Overburden Pressure Profiles

Overburden pressure profiles can vary considerably between offshore, onshore and
where there is a deep water table. The following example, Figure 3-3, illustrates this
graphically. The depth scale is TVD BRT.
Gradient curves
Figure 3-3. Overburden gradients comparison
5-12
February 09
Revision D

5.3.8
Description

Regional Overburden Variations

As there are differences in stratigraphy from region to region the average bulk
density of the formations will vary and have a corresponding effect on the
overburden pressure and gradient. Figure 3-4 illustrates this displaying gradients
from around the world. The depth scale is TVD and the datum is stated for each
curve.
Regional
gradients
Figure 3-4. Regional variations in overburden gradient

1. Santa Barbara Sea level datum
(Fertl and Timko)
2. Australia Sea level datum
(Mitchell and Mouchet)
3. Gulf Coast Sea level datum
(Fertl and Timko)
4. North Sea Flowline datum
(Fertl and Timko)
5. Offshore Java Flowline datum
(Mitchell and Mouchet)
It is therefore essential for accurate pore pressure estimates to have detailed

knowledge of the formations and bulk densities of the specific area where you will
work.
February 09
Revision D
5-13

5.4

Three techniques Three techniques for estimating pore pressures will be discussed in this course: the
ratio method, the equivalent depth method and the Eaton method. The ratio method
does not take the overburden pressure into account, while the equivalent depth
method and Eatons method do.
Calculating
iso-density
5.4.1
Description
All of the techniques involve calculating iso-density lines that show the expected
value of the indicating parameter at a given pore pressure. With all of these
methods, establishing a correct normal trend line is crucial for the accuracy of the
estimation.
Normal Compaction Trend Selection

The Normal compaction trend defines the expected value of the parameter used to
indicate pore pressure if the formation were normally pressured. As such a normal
compaction trend can only be established across lithology of the same geological
age or depositional history.
Once a different depositional environment is encountered the normal compaction

Revising
compaction trend trend will have to be revised. This can be problematic where the pore pressure is
higher than normal across the boundary but using a computer program where the
overlays can be manipulated graphically the isodensity lines can be matched up for
the given pressure.
Normal
compaction
The normal compaction trend line is established visually as the best fit through the
data in a zone that is normally pressured. This trend is then extrapolated to the
current drilling depth. Any deviation from this trend line indicates an increase in
undercompaction and therefore formation pressure.
Influences on
compaction
Depending upon the parameter used to determine the formation pressure increase
different factors could influence the response of the trend, producing difficulties in
establishing the normal compaction trend or producing inaccurate estimates.
Compaction
gradient
The gradient of the NCT for all indicators except sonic is a positive one as their
values will increase with greater compaction. The sonic is the only exception, where
the NCT has a negative gradient as transit times increase with compaction.
continued
5-14
February 09
Revision D


Normal Compaction Trend Selection, continued

NCT gradient
plot
Figure 3-5. NCT Dc exp, density, resistivity

Sonic plot
Figure 3-6. NCT sonic
February 09
Revision D
5-15

5.4.2
Plot
specifications
5.4.3

Data Presentation
Data should be displayed on a condensed scale to show compaction preferably
1:2000 - 1:5000. The vertical scale is linear and is in TVD true vertical depth for
interpretative purposes. The datum is the rotary table so that pore pressure estimates
can be referenced directly to mud weights in use. The x or horizontal axis is
logarithmic.
Dc Exponent NCT Selection
Ratio with ROP
The value of the calculated Dc exponent is expected to increase with depth as ROP
decreases.
Note on
correction
The d exponent formula was derived from empirical data, especially the correction
for mud weight. In cases where P is very high the correction required is so large
that Dc drops to excessively low values with little variation. Care must be taken if
the well is drilled highly overbalanced in selecting the normal trend.
Dc exponent
variations
Lithological variations will also modify the Dc exponent trend line but analysis of
the cuttings will help determine the clean shale points. Variations in the Dc
exponent trend not related to compaction changes include the following:
Sand laminations that increase the ROP and therefore move the Dc trend
unpredictably. Dispersed sand with no grain-to-grain contact and no
intergranular porosity will not affect the Dc exponent. This is true for any other
constituent minerals that are dispersed, i.e., pyrite, glauconite, mica, and
anhydrite. These will only alter the trend if they are laminar.
Degree of silt within argillaceous formation. If the silts are not grain-supported
then they will react exactly as a shale. Grain-supported matrix will cause a trend
shift to the higher or lower depending on the degree of compaction.
Carbonate deposits as thin limestone beds will disrupt the trend generally
causing an increase in the Dc values. These stringers not only shift the Dc trend
but may also act as cap rocks to underlying overpressured zones.
Calcareous claystones will affect the trend, increasing it. The value would
remain constant if the amount of carbonate was constant but this is seldom
calculated accurately and therefore impossible to determine. The main danger of
calcareous claystones is that they can increase the Dc exponent values giving
the impression of lower overpressure than actually present. Calcimetry results
can be used to assist in the interpretation of the Dc exponent.
continued
5-16
February 09
Revision D


Dc Exponent NCT Selection, continued

Dc exponent
diagram
Figure 3-7. Dc exponent response under influencing factors

Influence on
response
As the Dc exponent is a normalised ROP, changes in drilling parameters or

equipment will influence the response:
Bit dulling
New bit type, insert, diamond, turbines, and motors
Major changes in drilling parameters
Bit hydraulics
Dc exponent vs. Attempts are made in the basic equation to compensate for hole size, however there
bit type and wear is no compensation for bit type, hydraulics and wear which can cause shifts in the
trend of Dc exponent values. The effects of bit wear are easily identified and can, to
some extent, be corrected for using variations on the previous bit wear equations.
Gradual bit wear causes a rise in d exponent values superimposed on the
compaction effect. If the bit wear occurs abruptly at the end of a bit life, the effect is
easier to spot but can in turn mask entry into an undercompacted zone (Figure 3-8).
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-17



Illustration of bit
type and wear
Figure 3-8. Effects on Dc exponent of bit type and wear

Dc exponent
equation
Below is an example Dc exponent equation modified to account for bit wear after
Vidrine & Benit (1968):
R F(T)k
126
. log
N
Phyd
dc =
ECD
W
158
. log
D
The correction coefficient K was added to take into account other bit types.
Suggested values:
tooth bit
K=1
insert bit
0.4 < K < 0.6
diamond bit
0 < K < 0.2
Note on equation These empirically derived corrections do not always prove satisfactory and care
must be taken when applying them. These equations were developed around the
wear characteristics of tooth bits and to expect the correction coefficients for other
bit types to hold up under a different wear process is unrealistic.
Lithology not
considered
There is also no consideration of lithology in these formulae in particular the

formation hardness and abrasiveness; instead they assume a uniform lithology
where the linear relationships between wear and drilling time may be valid. Where
interbedding occurs this relationship will fail because of the variation in
abrasiveness between the formations.
Weight on bit
excluded
The exclusion of weight on bit from wear corrections adds further inaccuracies by
neglecting the energy applied by tooth impact.
continued
5-18
February 09
Revision D



Note on Dc
exponent
corrections
5.4.4
A relationship between ROP and wear is unrealistic and should be used with
extreme caution. Only when regional corrections have been established and analysis
made to define the correct wear coefficients will these formulae be valid. It is
therefore preferable to make no corrections to the Dc exponent.
Using the Dc Exponent
Never apply
instantaneous
data
Calculate using averaged depth-based data through homogenous formations: under

no circumstances should instantaneous drilling data be applied to calculations. For
the corrected d exponent it is recommended that the average mud weight out is used
or if available the calculated ECD.
Notes on plot
parameters
In order to establish an accurate compaction trend the plot should be started as soon
as possible, preferably from the 30 inch shoe. The effects of jetting are more than
likely to produce erratic data in the upper hole section but by starting data
acquisition early ensure that the start of compaction is recorded, i.e., 500-1000 m in
offshore situations.
Plot using points
Mitchell & Mouchet (1989) recommend plotting data points rather than joined-up
points as there is no lithological justification for doing so. In fact, fixing the normal
compaction trend becomes easier if the data is displayed as points.
Two plot
methods
Two different approaches can be taken to the analysis of the Dc exponent. Either a
normal compaction trend is fitted to each bit run and the gradient is maintained for
each geological age or the raw Dc exponent values can be shifted to remove the
influencing factors to produce and end-to-end Dc exponent plot.
Method use
varies
Neither of the above methods is right or wrong and the use of each is evenly
divided; each method has relevance in certain situations.
February 09
Revision D
5-19

5.4.5
Trend shift
guidelines

Shifting of Dc Curves
The process of shifting Dc can be single stage, i.e., hole size, or multi-intervalbit
run. A trend shift should only be made after interpretation of other data and by the
following method:
Align the first stand drilled with the previous section on a trend/trend basis. Do
not align end to end as the start and end points are often spurious.
Dc1
.
Dc 2
Move the rest of the points by the appropriate ratio derived from
Do not shift the trend for coring, as the ROP is often too variable.
Do not shift for hydraulics in the top hole. The actual trend is too variable to
ensure reliability.
Dcx trend shift

illustration
Figure 3-9. Dxc trend shifting

Note on
unconformity
5.4.6
Unconformities represent a special case in the interpretation of the Dc exponent as

they often change the slope of the normal trend line. It is important to be aware of
such phenomena either by prior knowledge or good geological control.
Resistivity Normal Compaction Selection
Description
The resistivity is expected to increase with depth as increasing compaction results in

less formation fluid present. Pore pressure increases caused by undercompaction
have correspondingly more pore fluid trapped than a normally compacted formation
at the same depth, therefore the resistivity response will be lower.
Resistivity
measurement
Resistivity measurements are one of the oldest techniques employed to detect

abnormal pressures. However, the following factors can influence the tool response.
continued
5-20
February 09
Revision D


Resistivity Normal Compaction Selection, continued

Problems with
data
Potential problems with resistivity data are:

Any variation in salinity for whatever reason will radically affect the resistivity
tool response and thus masks any variation due to pore pressure trends. In the
North Sea salinity variations cause erratic tool responses, making it virtually
impossible to construct a normal compaction trend through the data, especially
in top hole sections. Overton and Timko (1969) proposed that as clays dewater,
the conductivity of the water changes, as they believe the clay acts as an ionic
membrane allowing only fresh water to be expelled until the shale becomes salt
saturated. This results in a reversed trend. Lithology variations within a shale
sequence will also influence the resistivity data, often making it impossible to
use such plots.
Proximity to adjacent formations. Ensure the bed is thick enough for an accurate
response from the tool and determine the boundary at the mid-point of the
response change.
The resistivity of the mud in the borehole. Changes in mud types across casing
points can cause significant shifts in the resistivity response with especially
large contrasts between oil-based mud and high-salinity water-based mud.
The depth of invasion by mud filtrate. Normally the deepest depth of
investigation resistivity is used to reflect the actual formation properties.
Hole enlargement. Care must be taken when the hole is out of gauge, as this will
produce anomalous responses. Where possible all FEWD data or wireline data
should be referenced to the caliper log.
Formation anisotropy and polarisation. This will affect the resistivity readings at
higher hole angles or in highly dipping beds where the beds are not parallel to
the tool.
Changes in the salinity of formation waters. This is particularly problematic in
proximity to salt, as the higher formation salinity will cause a decrease in the
resistivity unrelated to a pore pressure change.
Temperature increases with depth resulting in a decrease in the water resistance
for a given salinity. This will cause a non-linearity in the normal compaction
trend line.
Presence of hydrocarbons considerably increases the resistivity as do organic
matter and coal. Analysis should be referenced to background gas levels,
cuttings and any oil shows in the samples.
Small changes in the lithological composition can cause errors when applying a
normal trend such as the presence of pyrite.
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-21


Resistivity Normal Compaction Selection, continued

Minimizing the
problems
5.4.7
Tool design attempts to minimise these effects. Generally, combination resistivity

tools such as ISF (Induction Spherically Focused) or DIL (Dual Induction
Laterolog) are run. These consist of three resistivity tools each with a different
depth of investigation (deep, medium and shallow) reading concurrently. The deep
reading tool will generally indicate true formation resistivity while the shallow
readings will indicate the degree of invasion by mud filtrate and allow corrections to
be made accordingly. Shale resistivity should therefore be read from one of the deep
indicators.
Sonic Normal Compaction Selection
Description
The sonic response with increasing depth is faster transit times because increasing
compaction reduces the volume of pore fluid and the matrix transit time is faster
than the pore fluid transit time. Overpressure is indicated by slower transit times, as
more pore fluid is present.
Problems with
sonic data
A potential problem with sonic data is:

Cycle skipping. If the sonic signal is very weak then only the one receiver will
be activated and the other receivers will wait until triggered by a stronger signal
from a subsequent cycle. This will cause excessively high values appearing as
sharp deflections on the log. Cycle skipping is often caused by vuggy porosity
and fractures in the formation, and also by gas bubbles in the mud, all of which
attenuate the sonic signal.
BAT tool
The BAT tool is designed to eliminate wave transmission through the body of the
tool. It has two transmitters and 14 receivers and identifies peaks by a process
known as semblance. With this type of tool cycle skipping is not an issue.
Lithological variations in the claystone (changes in silt or carbonate contents)
have the effect of reducing transit times and thus causing a shift in compaction
trend. For this reason interpretation of the NCT should be made with reference
to lithology and gamma ray data.
5.4.8
Description
Density Normal Compaction Selection

The Density log response with increasing depth is an increase in density as the
formation becomes more compacted. Undercompaction is identified by reductions
in density.
continued
5-22
February 09
Revision D


Density Normal Compaction Selection, continued

Density data
problems
Potential problems with density data are:

The shallow investigation of the density tool means that measurements are often
affected by factors other than lithology and porosity, i.e., condition of the
borehole walls, cake thickness, clay hydration, hydrocarbons especially gas.
The normal compaction trend may also prove difficult to establish as density
logs are seldom run in top hole, often restricted to reservoir sections only.
On the wireline log track or data source there will be a compensation curve to
show the reliability of the readings which depends on caving and mud cake
thickness. Where this value exceeds two divisions, the results will tend to be
dubious and should be ignored. These values are automatically corrected onto
the log. In heavy mud with a high barite content, a negative correction will be
made, which makes the density readings unusable.
Plot scales
Plotting the Density/Neutron (FDC/CNL) will show little divergence between the
two trends if the correct scales and processing are used. In the North Sea a
limestone correction is used and the neutron is plotted on a scale of 15 to 45 and
the density is plotted on a scale of 1.95 to 2.95. In a clean, tight carbonate, neutron
porosity is zero and density around 2.7 g/cc. In the Gulf of Mexico a sandstone
correction is used and the neutron is plotted on a scale of 0 to 60 and the density on
a scale of 1.65 to 2.65.
Density vs.
neutron
measurement
In a gas-filled pore space the separation becomes extreme with the neutron tool
moving to the right indicating low porosities (often even negative). The opposite is
true in shales, which have high hydrogen content. The neutron will move far to the
left of the density.
Mechanical
contact
The tool has a pad contact to the borehole wall and inaccurate readings will occur if
the contact is broken. Therefore, data should be assessed with reference to the
caliper log.
February 09
Revision D
5-23

Overlay Techniques
5.5
5.5.1

Overlay Techniques
Ratio Method
Applying the
ratio method
The ratio method can be applied to the following data:

d exponent
shale density
sonic log
resistivity log
density log
Description
The principle of the ratio method states that the difference between the point on the
normal trend line and the actual value at the same depth is proportional to the
increase in formation pressure.
5.5.2
Formula for
non-sonic
Calculating Pore Pressure

The formula to calculate pore pressure from all of the data sources except sonic is:
Observed Pore Pressure =

Normal Pore Pressure
Formula for
sonic
Parameter Value on NCT

Observed Parameter Value
For sonic data the formula is:
Observed Pore Pressure =

Normal Pore Pressure
Parameter Value on NCT
Correction factor It is also possible to add a correction factor to the ratio method so if the pore
pressure is known at a given depth (RFT, Kick), the relationship is aligned to the
known pressure. Care must be taken when deciding on a new correction factor. If
possible, more than one pressure measurement should be used.
continued
5-24
February 09
Revision D


Overlay Techniques
Calculating Pore Pressure, continued

Corrected
formula
The formula then becomes:
Observed Pore Pressure=

ParameterValueon NCT
C NormalPore Pressure
Observed ParameterValue
where C = the correction coefficient.
Correction
coefficient
The correction coefficient is derived by dividing the actual pressure measured by

the calculated pore pressure at the depth of the pore pressure measurement. E.g. the
calculated pressure using the overlay method is 10 ppg and the measured pressure is
12 ppg.
The correction coefficient is then
5.5.3
12
= 1. 2
10
Calculating Overlays
Description
The pore pressures can be assessed graphically by plotting a set of isodensity lines
at varying mud weights showing the expected value of the parameter for a given
pore pressure.
Formula for
non-sonic
To calculate the isodensity lines for an overlay, the formula for all data except sonic
is:
Parameter Value on Overlay =

Normal Pore Pressure C Parameter value on NCT
Required Pore Pressure
Formula for
sonic
The formula for sonic data is:
Parameter Value on Overlay =

Required Pore Pressure Parameter value on NCT
Normal Pore Pressure C
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-25

Overlay Techniques

Calculating Overlays, continued

Pore pressure
plots
The required pore pressure value is the pore pressure of the isodensity line you wish
to draw.
By repeating this process at various depths over the well, a set of points can be
connected for each isodensity pressure line, producing the following plot.
Pore pressure
ratio example
Figure 3-10. Ratio overlay

Note on software By using software, it is possible to calculate the pore pressure for each data point
relative to the normal compaction trend.
5-26
February 09
Revision D

5.5.4

Overlay Techniques
Calculating the NCT Position
Description
If the calibration factor has been established as accurate in the given region, errors
may occur through inaccurate placement of the NCT line. If actual pressure
measurements are available, the position on the NCT can be calculated at the depth
of the pressure measurement using the formulae that follow.
Formula for
non-sonic
For all data except sonic:
Value on NCT =
Formula for
sonic
For sonic data:
Value on NCT =
5.5.5
Observed Value Observed Pore Pressure

Normal Pore Pressure Correction Factor
Normal Pore Pressure Correction Factor Observed Value

Observed Pore Pressure
Eaton Overlay
Applications
The Eaton method can be applied to the following data:

d exponent
sonic log
resistivity log
density log
shale density
Description
The Eaton overlay is an extension of the Ratio method that takes into account the
variations in Overburden pressure using the Terzaghi and Peck equation. It also
introduces a calibration factor called the beta factor that adjusts the ratio of the
observed value to the value on the NCT based on empirical studies.
5.5.6
Eaton method
Calculating Pore Pressure

The Terzaghi and Peck relationship S = + P can be rewritten as P = S . It is
this relationship that the Eaton method uses with the normal matrix stress calculated
from the formula normal = S Pnormal
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-27

Overlay Techniques

Calculating Pore Pressure, continued

Description
Eatons formula solves the problem of estimating the actual pore pressure by
adjusting the normal matrix stress by the ratio of the observed parameter value /
normal parameter value. The result of the ratio is adjusted by the beta factor.
Formula for
non-sonic
The formula to calculate pore pressure for all indicators except sonic then becomes:
Formula for
sonic
The formula to calculate the pore pressure from sonic data is:
5.5.7
1.2

Pressure Observed = S (S P normal)

Normal Parameter Value
3.0
Normal Parameter Value

Pressure Observed = S (S P normal)

Calculating the Beta Factor
Description
It is possible to recalculate the beta factor if the pore pressure is known at a given
depth (RFT, Kick).
Formula for
non-sonic
For all indicators except sonic, the recalculation is:
Formula for
sonic
For the sonic Log the formula is:
S Pressure Observed
Log
S Pressure Normal
Beta factor =
Value Observed
Log
Value Normal
S Pressure Observed
Log
S Pressure Normal
Beta factor =
Value Normal
Log
Value Observed
continued
5-28
February 09
Revision D


Overlay Techniques
Calculating the Beta Factor, continued

Example data
For example:
An RFT was taken at 10,000 ft and showed a pore pressure of 6240 psi, (12 ppg
EMW RT).
The overburden pressure at that depth is 9200 psi, (17.7 pg EMW RT)
The normal pore pressure is 9 ppg. (4680 psi @ 10,000 ft)
The D exponent the value on the normal compaction trend at that depth was 1.6 and
the actual D exponent value at 10,000 ft was 1.18.
Example
calculations
The beta factor is then recalculated:
9200 6240
Log
9200 4680
Beta factor =
1.6
Log
1.18
Beta factor =
Log 0.65486
Log1.35593
Beta factor =
0.18385
0.13223
Beta Factor = 1.39 (the negative polarity is ignored)
5.5.8
Calculating Overlays
Description
pore pressure. To calculate the isodensity lines for the overlay the following
formulae are used.
Formula for
non-sonic
For all indicators except sonic:
Formula for
sonic
For sonic the formula is:
S P required
Observed Parameter Value = Normal Parameter Value 1.2
S
P
normal
S P normal
Observed Parameter Value = Normal Parameter Value 3.0
S
P
required
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-29

Overlay Techniques

Calculating Overlays, continued

Description
The required pore pressure value is the pore pressure of the isodensity line you wish
to draw.
Eaton plot
example
By repeating this process at various depths over the well, a set of points can be
connected for each isodensity pressure line producing the following plot:
Figure 3-11. Eaton overlay
5.5.9
Calculating the NCT Position

If the B exponent has been established as accurate in the given region, errors may
occur through inaccurate placement of the NCT line. If actual pressure
measurements are available, the position on the NCT can be calculated at the depth
of the pressure measurement using the following formulae:
continued
5-30
February 09
Revision D


Overlay Techniques
Calculating the NCT Position, continued

Formula for
non-sonic
For all data except Sonic:
Normal Parameter Value =
Formula for
sonic
For Sonic Data:
Normal Parameter Value =
5.5.10

S P required
1.2
S P normal

S P normal
3.0
S P required
Equivalent Depth Method
Application
The Equivalent depth method can be applied to the following data:

Seismic interval velocities
d exponent
Shale density
Sonic log
Resistivity log
Density log
Any direct or indirect measurement of clay porosity
Theory
The equivalent depth method again uses the Terzaghi and Peck relationship but
solves the problem in a different way.
The principle of the method states that any point vertically below a point on the
normal compaction trend (when plotted log / lin) must have the same degree of
compaction. As the porosity is the same for any point on the vertical line, all of the
increase in overburden pressure with depth must be borne by the pore fluid.
Explanation
Using the relationship S = + P the matrix stress must be the same at depth A
and depth B as point B is vertically below point A and represents the same porosity
(Figure 3-12).
Matrix stress
calculation
If the overburden and normal pore pressure is known at depth A, the matrix stress
can be calculated:
at A = Overburden at A Pnormal
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-31

Overlay Techniques

Equivalent Depth Method, continued

Pore pressure
calculation
The calculated value for the matrix stress can then be used to solve for the pore
pressure at depth B:
Pore Pressure at B = Overburden at B at A

Example diagram
Figure 3-12. Equivalent depth method

Combine
formulas
By combining the two formulae the following can be used:
Example
calculation
For example the normal pore pressure at depth A is 9 ppg, the overburden pressure
at A is 18.4 ppg and the overburden at B is 19 ppg. Depth A = 8000 ft and depth B
= 12000 ft.
PP at B = Normal PP + (Overburden pressure at B Overburden pressure at A)
PP at B = (9*0.052*8000) + [(19*0.052*12000)-(18.4*0.052*8000)]
PP at B = 3744 psi + (11856 psi 7654.4 psi)
Pore Pressure at B = 7945.6 psi
Pore Pressure EMW = 7945.6 / (0.052 * 12000) = 12.7 ppg
Pore Pressure Gradient = 7945.6 psi / 12000 = 0.662 psi / ft
continued
5-32
February 09
Revision D


Overlay Techniques

Pore pressure
calculation
It is also possible to calculate the pore pressure using gradients and the depths using
the following formula:
PP gradt at B =
Depth A
Oburden Grdt at B -
(Oburden Gradt at A - Norm PP gradt )
Depth B
Example
calculation
So using the above example:

Normal pore pressure gradt at A = 9*0.052 = 0.468 psi/ft
Overburden Gradient at A = 18.4*0.052 = 0.9568 psi/ft
Overburden Gradient at B = 19*0.052 = 0.988 psi/ft
8000
PP gradt at B = 0.988 -
(0.9568 0.468)
12000
PP gradt at B = 0.988 - 0.6666 0.4888
PP gradt at B = 0.662 psi/ft

Graphic plot
pore pressure.
Note
One drawback with this method is that the overburden gradient is assumed as
constant over the entire length of the well. As illustrated earlier, this is not the case
as the overburden gradient will vary depending on the situation (see Figure 3-3.).
Care must be taken when applying this method in the shallower part of the well.
continued
February 09
Revision D
5-33

Overlay Techniques


Creating
iso-density lines
The steps to create isodensity lines are:

1. Extrapolate the normal compaction trend back to depth zero so it intersects the
X-axis.
2. Choose a point (Point A) on the Normal compaction trend and note the depth
(Depth A).
3. Using an assumed constant overburden gradient (1 psi/ft), the normal pore
pressure gradient for the region (9 ppg = 0.468 psi/ft) and the gradient of the
isodensity line you wish to draw (10 ppg = 0.52 psi/ft) calculate the depth the
isodensity point is at equilibrium (Depth B) using the following formula:
Overburden Gradt - Normal PP Gradient
Depth B = Depth A
Overburden Gradient - Isodensity line Gradient
For example, Depth A = 5000 ft
1 psi/ft - 0.468 psi/ft
Depth B = 5000
1 psi/ft - 0.52 psi/ft
Depth B = 5000 1.108333
Depth B = 5541 ft
4. Repeat step 3 for each increment of the isodensity lines you wish to draw then
plot points on the log vertically below Point A using the calculated depths in
step 3.
5. Connect the plotted points to the intersection of the normal compaction trend
with the X axis.
continued
5-34
February 09
Revision D


Overlay Techniques

Equivalent depth
illustration
Figure 3-13. Equivalent depth overlay
February 09
Revision D
5-35

References
5.6
References

References
Alixant, J.L., Desdrandes, R.: Explicit Pore Pressure Evaluation Concept and
Application, SPE 19336. SPE Drilling Engineer, Sept. 1991.
Bellotti, P., Giacca, D.: Pressure Evaluation Improves Drilling Program. Oil and
Gas Journal, 11 Sept. 1978.
Bowers, G.L.: Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Accounting for
Overpressure mechanisms Besides Undercompaction, SPE 27488. IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, Tx,15-18 Feb. 1994.
Cronkhite, D.P. 1984 Calculating Porosity from Sonic and Bulk-Density Logs. Oil
& Gas Journal Vol. 82 No. 8 pp. 70-71.
Dumont, A.E. & Purdy, V.S. 1976 Use of Seismic Data Can Cut Arctic Drilling
Costs. World Oil Vol. 182 No. 1 pp. 71-74.
Eaton, B.A.: Graphical Method Predicts Geopressures Worldwide. World Oil, May
1976.
Eaton, B.A. 1972 A Theory On The Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopressure
Prediction from Well Logs. JPT Aug., pp. 929-934.
Fertl, W.H. 1974 Practical Formation Pressure Evaluation from Well Logs. Petrol
Eng, Vol. 46 No. 4 pp. 56-70.
Fertl, W.H. 1981 Open Hole Crossplot Concepts - A Powerful Technique in Well
Log Analysis. JPT March, pp. 535-549.
Fertl, W.H, 1983 Gamma Ray Spectral Logging: A New Evaluation Frontier, Pt 6,
Clay Analysis in Shaly Sands. World Oil Vol. 197 No. 5 pp. 99-112.
Foster, J.: Pore-pressure Plot Accuracy Increased by Multiple Trend Lines. Oil and
Gas Journal, 7 May 1990.
Gill, J.A.: Well Logs Reveal True Pressures Where Drilling Response Fails. Oil and
Gas Journal, 16 Mar. 1987.
Greene, K.: Normalising Technique helps Plot Pressure from Logs. Oil and Gas
Journal, 23 Oct. 1978.
Hamouz, M.A. & Mueller, S.L. 1984 Some New Ideas for Well Log Pore-Pressure
Prediction. SPE 13204.
Herring, E.A. 1973 Estimating Abnormal Pressures from Log Data in the North Sea.
2nd Annual SPE of AIME Europe Mtg. Reprint No. SPE 4301, 8 pp.
Hottman, C.E. 1965 Estimation of Formation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale
Properties. JPT Vol. 17, June, pp. 717-722
Lang, W.H. (Jr) 1980 Determination of Prior Depth of Burial Using Interval Transit
Time. Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 78 No. 4 pp. 222-232.
continued
5-36
February 09
Revision D


References
References,
continued
Lane R.A. & McPherson L.A. 1976 A Review of Geopressure Evaluation from
Well Logs - Louisiana Gulf Coast. JPT Vol 28 Sept, pp 963-971.
Matthews, W.R.: How Well Logs Indicate What Pressure To Expect. Oil and Gas
Journal, 13 Dec 1971.
Matthews, W.R.: How to Calculate Pore Pressure Gradients from Well Logs for the
U.S. Gulf Coast. Oil and Gas Journal, 1 Oct 1984.
Pennebaker, E.S.: Seismic Data Indicate Depth, Magnitude of Abnormal Pressures.
World Oil, No. 166, 73-78, 1968.
McKee R.E. & Pilkington P.E. 1974 Pressure Prediction and Detection Conclusion:
If in doubt, log to confirm overpressures. Oil & Gas Journal, Vol 72 No 51 pp
29-31.
Overton H.L. and Timko D.J. 1969 The Salinity Principle, A Tectonic Stress
Indicator in Marine Sands. The Log Analyst, Vol 3, May-June, pp 34-43.
Ransom, R.C.: A Method for Calculating Pore Pressures from Well Logs. The Log
Analyst, Mar-Apr 1986.
Wallace, W.E.: Abnormal Subsurface Pressures Measured from Conductivity or
Resistivity Logs. Oil and Gas Journal, 5 July 1965.
Waters S. & Moore N. 1978 Pore Pressure Predictions from High Resolution
Seismic Data. 10th Annual SPE of AIME Offshore Technical Conference. Reprint
No. OTC 3220, pp 1443-1454.
Zoeller W.A. 1983 Pore Pressure Detection from the MWD (Measurement While
Drilling) Gamma Ray. 58th Annual SPE of AIME Technical Conference. Reprint
No. SPE 12166, 16 pp.
February 09
Revision D
5-37

Fracture Gradient Calculations

Chapter 6 Fracture Gradient Calculations

Scope

Course.
Course title

6.1

6.1.1
6.1.2
6.2
Principles of Formation Fracture.................................................................6-3

6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
6.3
Gamma Ray..................................................................................6-21
References .................................................................................................6-22
6.5.1
February 09
Revision D
Hubbert and Willis (1957)............................................................6-15

Eaton (1969).................................................................................6-15
Daines (1982) ...............................................................................6-16
Calculation of Tectonic Stresses from Daines .............................6-19
Breckels and Van Eekelen (1981) ................................................6-19
Vshale Calculation ....................................................................................6-21

6.4.1
6.5
Introduction ....................................................................................6-3
Formation Fracture.........................................................................6-3
Leak-Off Test .................................................................................6-7
Lost Circulation..............................................................................6-9
Borehole Collapse Mechanisms ...................................................6-11
Horizontal Well Stresses ..............................................................6-13
Fracture Calculation Methods ...................................................................6-15

6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.4
Introduction ....................................................................................6-2
Objectives.......................................................................................6-2
Calculations..................................................................................6-22
6-1

6.1


Scope
6.1.1
Introduction
Fracture
pressure
Formation fracture pressures are the second limiting factor when drilling a well, the
formation pore pressure being the first. Mud weights and ECD must be kept
between the two to avoid drilling problems.
Estimating is
complex
Estimating the fracture pressure of rocks is a complex problem and must take into
account the mechanical properties of the rock, the fluid pressures within the rock
and the natural stresses generated in the formations from deposition, diagenesis and
tectonic activity.
Methods
described
All of the methods presented in this course are only suitable for normal fault regime
basins as they are based upon empirical relationships derived from actual fracture
pressure measurements related to known overburden pressure, pore pressure and
lithologies.
6.1.2
Chapter
objectives
6-2
Objectives
Describe the factors influencing the fracture pressure of a given formation and
be able to explain the following:
Normal stress regime
Poissons ratio
The effect of pore pressure on fracture pressures
The effect of hole angle on fracture pressures
Understand and describe the stages of a leak-off test and the difference between
fracture initiation pressure and propagation pressure.
Explain how the fracture pressures are calculated using the following methods:
Hubert and Willis
Eaton
Daines
Breckels and Van Eekelen
Be able to calculate the Vshale content of a sand-shale formation and explain
the influence this has on fracture pressure.
February 09
Revision D

6.2
6.2.1

Principles of Formation Fracture

Introduction
Fluid pressure
The mud weight must be maintained high enough to balance formation fluid
pressures in the open hole and low enough so that penetration rates are not affected.
Attention must also be paid to potentially fragile zones where high mud weights can
result in lost circulation or fracturing. When drilling with a progressively increasing
pore pressure requiring increases in mud density, there comes a limit at which the
density cannot be increased further without mud losses to fractures or previously
drilled weak zones in the open hole.
Fracturing
The weaker zones may be porous or already fractured and have a pore pressure that
is lower than the required mud weight deeper in the well. These zones may have
already been identified and their presence will place a limit on the mud weight, or
because the excess mud pressure is sufficient to overcome in-situ stress and induce
fracturing.
Essential for
planning
Having knowledge of the formation pore pressure and the fracture pressure profile
at the well planning stage is beneficial in optimising the casing design and
minimising the potential for well control problems.
Methods used in
normal fault
regimes
Different methods have been developed to estimate the fracture pressures and all of
the methods discussed can be used only in normal fault regimes.
6.2.2
Formation Fracture
Least principal
stress
A formation can be made to fracture by the application of fluid pressure on the

borehole wall to overcome the least principal stress. This causes a fracture to
develop in a direction perpendicular to this line of least strength. Observation of the
fault and fold activity in a region can indicate the direction of the least principal
stress. Alternatively, analysis of breakout from caliper logs can be used (see
Chapter 4.2.5).
Stress regime
At any point in the formation there exists a stress regime consisting of three
perpendicular stresses:
1 Maximum, 2 Intermediate, 3 Minimum
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-3


Formation Fracture, continued

Normal geologic
conditions
Where the geological setting is subject to normal conditions of horizontal bedding,

elastic formation and horizontal constraints, the maximum stress 1 is vertical and
equal to the overburden pressure of the overlying rock. Stresses 2 and 3 will be
equal and horizontal. However, in reality there are very few regions where this is
likely to be observed and inequalities develop between 2 and 3.
Horizontal stress Where a tectonic stress is imposed in the horizontal direction, 2 and 3 will
become unequal such that 2 is parallel to the tectonic stress and 3 is normal in the
horizontal plane.
Higher horizontal If this tectonic stress in the horizontal plane exceeds the vertical stress caused by the
stress
overburden, then 1 becomes horizontal and equal to the tectonic stress. When 3
becomes vertical, the pressure required to cause fracture will be higher than the
overburden pressure and the fracture will be horizontal. The fractures will propagate
along the path of least resistance defined by a fracture plane normal to the minimum
principal in-situ stress.
Stress and
fracture diagram
Figure 4-1. Distribution of stress planes and fracture direction

continued
6-4
February 09
Revision D



Active regions
Tectonically active regions are often associated with areas of active faulting, salt
domes or foothill regions. The principal stresses are not necessarily oriented in the
vertical or horizontal plan but can be rotated in varying angles. For this reason
borehole stability and fracture problems are significantly increased.
Mean stress
estimate
Determination of the fracture gradient involves evaluating the minimum component

of the in-situ stress 3. Deformation and fracture are controlled by the effective
stress , theoretically defined by the difference between the total stress S and the
pore pressure P, and an estimate of the mean stress supported by the solid matrix is
taken as:
=S-P
Minimum
effective stress
The minimum effective stress can be defined as:
Minimum
effective stress
equation
In most cases the minimum stress is considered to be horizontal and in the most
simple form defined by the equation:
3 = S3 - P
S3 = 3 + P = K3 + P
where:
= the effective vertical stress equal to the weight of overlying sediments
K3 = the ratio of effective stress (horizontal to vertical)
Theoretical limits Theoretically, pore pressure is limited by the stress conditions of the enclosing
formation, i.e., overburden and horizontal stresses. If the pore pressure was higher
the overlying formation would fracture and dissipate the pressure, thus it cannot be
higher than the minimum horizontal stress.
Vertical stress
component
The vertical stress component is adequately defined by the overburden, and

assuming the pore pressure has correctly been estimated the only unknown is K3.
Discussion of
studies
The majority of currently used methods consider the K3 coefficient, either from
regional empirical studies of fracture tests (Hubbert and Willis, Matthews and
Kelly, Eaton) or as function of the Poissons ratio, , (Anderson et al) derived from
in-situ rock considered to be of uniform physical properties in all directions
(isotropic). However these are generalised and ignore the consideration of lateral
deformation through tectonic stresses. Daines attempted to resolve this missing
factor by introduction of the factor. Brekels and Van Eekelen developed empirical
correlations for different regions using LOT and fracture measurements.
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-5



Fracture cause
Fracture occurs when pressure in the borehole exceeds the tensile strength of the
rock. The size of the fracture initiation pressure and propagation pressure is usually
unequal.
Fracture
propagation
pressure
In this case, the pressure exerted by the mud on the borehole wall is called the
fracture initiation pressure. If this pressure is exceeded, a point is reached where the
fractures extend into the formation, resulting in mud losses. This is referred to as the
fracture propagation pressure.
Closing fractures If the pressure is then reduced the fracture will close. To reopen the fracture a
pressure lower than the fracture initiating pressure is required because the fracture
already exists. It is only the stresses acting perpendicular to the wall that hold the
fracture closed, as the tensile strength of the formation has been reduced to zero.
Fracture
development
Once initiated, the fracture can then develop beyond the zone of influence of the
borehole. It will be orientated perpendicular to the minimum component 3 of the
in-situ stresses. When the induced pressure is allowed to fall, the pressure at which
the fracture closes again is taken as an estimate of this minimum in-situ stress 3.
Pressure
dependencies
The initiation and propagation pressures are dependent upon the hole geometry and
drilling conditions. In particular in a zone where in-situ stress conditions are such
that the horizontal stress is less than the vertical stress the fracture initiating
pressure decreases with the inclination of the hole caused by redistribution of the
stresses around the hole.
Horizontal vs.
vertical
fracturing
In such an in-situ stress field a highly deviated or horizontal hole will potentially be
subject to greater problems due to fracturing losses than a vertical hole in the same
formation. This disadvantage makes it necessary to adopt the closing pressure as the
fracture gradient.
6-6
February 09
Revision D

6.2.3

Leak-Off Test
Purpose
A leak-off test is usually carried out after setting casing to determine the maximum
pressure that the formation can withstand at the casing shoe for the next section
without losing circulation. As this is the shallowest depth in the hole section it is
mistakenly believed to be the weakest part.
Pore pressure
decrease
If the pore pressure decreases below the shoe the fracture gradient will similarly
decrease. More realistically, a casing shoe may be set in a competent formation such
as Shale with a high Poissons ratio, then the hole drilled into sandstone with a
lower Poissons ratio, in this example, the assumption of the weakest formation at
the shoe is incorrect. When a potential weak zone is penetrated, a pressure test may
be conducted to supplement the test at the shoe. However, there is nothing to
indicate exactly where the fracture has occurred.
Pressure profile
diagram
The following graph shows the typical LOT profile of pressure against volume:
100
C
90
80
70
Pressure
60
50
40
30
20
10
Pump Stopped
0
0
20 Volume
40
60
80
Time
100
120
Figure 4-2. A typical leak-off test pressure profile

Line from A to B From A to B, the linear pressure increase is developed because of the elastic
properties of the formation.
Point B
At point B, the reduced gradient of the curve indicates fracture initiation or start of
leak-off. This is the point at which the pressure is equal to the pore pressure plus the
total minimum horizontal effective stress.
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-7


Leak-Off Test, continued

Line from B to C From B to C, the reduced pressure per unit volume pumped indicates fracture
propagation and fluid loss to the formation.
Point C
At C, the pumps are stopped and pressure falls to D as fractures extend until a
pressure equal to B (pore pressure plus the total minimum horizontal effective
stress) is achieved.
Point E
When the excess pressure is bled off at E, the fractures should close and mud
returns should equal the original volume pumped.
Points D and B
If the shut-in pressure at D is less than B, it is possible that the fractures are still
open possibly prevented from closing by cuttings or mud contaminants.
Line A-B
In the case of a permeable formation, the line A-B will not always be linear. Instead,
for each unit volume pumped, the resultant increase in pressure will be smaller
because of fluid invasion to the formation. The immediate effect is to increase the
pore pressure of the formation adjacent to the borehole wall and in turn reduce the
stress concentration, resulting in a lower fracture initiation pressure. Once fracture
occurs and extends into the undisturbed stress field, the fracture pressure increases
to the point as if no invasion had occurred (Hubbert & Willis 1957).
Leak-off tests
Leak-off tests conducted in offshore wells in shallow unconsolidated formations

may often be abnormally high. In these conditions wet clay behaves as a liquid such
that the Poissons ratio is close to 0.5. Because the clay platelets are surrounded by
water and thus not in contact there is negligible shear strength. The pore pressure
will be close or equal to the pressure of the overlying sediment, and when combined
with a high Poissons ratio the calculated fracture pressure will equal the
overburden pressure. Under these circumstances a horizontal fracture would result,
lifting the overburden.
6-8
February 09
Revision D

6.2.4

Lost Circulation
Definition
Lost circulation occurs when mud from the annulus is lost to the formation, and
occurs at differing rates depending upon the formation and mud properties.
Causes
The main causes of lost circulation are:

1. The circulating pressure of the drilling fluid has exceeded the fracture pressure
of a formation in the open hole.
2. Excessive tripping speeds, especially for casing, causing annular surge pressure
to exceed the fracture pressure.
3. A zone of under-pressured formation is entered, causing either fracture or
excessive overbalance, resulting in higher than normal rates of filtration to
permeable formation.
4. The bit drilled into a formation with open fractures or faults connected to zones
of lower pressure, or the formation is vuggy.
5. Poor hole cleaning causing a build up of cuttings in the annulus eventually
leading to a pack off where the pressure builds to exceed the fracture pressure
below the pack off.
Mud properties
The properties of the mud may be significant in controlling the rate of loss via:
Higher than normal filtration rates
High overbalance
Poor or weak filter cake
Highly permeable formation
High fluid loss values
Results
The result is a continual mud loss while drilling and over-fill on trips. The reservoir
formation may also be damaged through reductions in permeability (skin damage),
caused by plugging of filtrate interaction with clays in the reservoir pore spaces.
Reduced returns
Returns may be reduced or lost completely depending upon the mechanisms. If a

fractured or vuggy formation is entered, and a high overbalance between mud
pressure and formation fluid pressure exists, losses will occur and continue until
these pressures are equalised.
Equalizing
pressure
The quickest way to achieve this will be to reduce the mud density until a balance is
achieved. If communication is present between the vugs and fractures then serious
measures may be required to prevent losses, as the capacity for losses may be
significantly higher than the availability of mud to fill the hole. In this case the
addition of lost circulation material (LCM) may stem losses. Failing this, a cement
squeeze job may be necessary.
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-9


Lost Circulation, continued

Reducing mud
weight or flow
Where the mud hydrostatic pressure exceeds the fracture pressure losses will occur
and are often rapid. This is remedied by reducing the mud weight or reducing the
mud flow rate to lower the effective circulating density (ECD) and allow the
fractures to close. Alternatively, the mud properties may be changed to reduce the
circulating pressure.
Results of
fracture
A similar situation may be encountered when a zone of underpressure is penetrated

thus causing a relatively rapid change in the overbalance and fracture results when
the reduction in pore pressure causes the fracture pressure to fall. This situation also
presents the hazard of stuck pipe because of the highly permeable nature of the
formation. This will require a reduction in the mud weight, that in turn may be
limited by the pore pressures of the overlying formation leading to sloughing shales
or a kick if the mud weight is reduced. Situations such as this may be costly to the
operator and often require the setting of an intermediate casing string.
Surges during
casing runs
During trips pressure surges produced by the drill string movement may lead to
hydraulic fracturing requiring continual hole fill. At the end of the trip or as a result
of reducing the surge pressures the fractures will close and returns may be observed.
This will be more noticeable while running casing when surge pressures are higher
than those for running a drilling assembly. This should be avoided wherever
possible as the fractures may lead to a poor cement job and communication behind
the casing.
Keeping the hole

full
In the event of lost circulation occurring, the hole should be kept full to maintain the
hydrostatic pressure above the open hole pore pressure. Generally this will be
through the addition of weighted mud or water. However the latter will lead to a
gradual reduction in the hydrostatic pressure which must be taken into account.
Analyse
circulation
Through careful analysis of the nature of lost circulation this data may be used to
estimate both the fracture gradient and back-calculate Eaton and Andersons
Poissons ratio. It also serves to check the validity of the estimated fracture gradient
through permeable formations such as sands.
6-10
February 09
Revision D

6.2.5

Borehole Collapse Mechanisms
Borehole collapse Although this section is concerned with formation fracture it seems relevant to
include some discussion on borehole collapse being the result of in-situ stresses
leading to compressional failure.
Causes
Formations at depth, as previously detailed, exist in a state of compressive in-situ

stress. When a well is drilled the rock surrounding the borehole must support the
load that was previously taken by the removed rock. As a result the hole produces
an increase in the radial stress around the borehole wall (Figure 4-3). If the rock is
not strong enough the borehole will fail through compressive failure. Normally prior
to collapse there are associated tight hole, cavings, high torque and drag and stuck
pipe problems. In many cases the rock is weakened by interaction with drilling mud.
Illustration of
stress
Figure 4-3. Stresses around an elastic borehole

Initiating
fracture
To initiate a fracture, the minimum principal matrix stress at the borehole wall must
be tensile and exceed the formation tensile strength.
Preventing
failure
To prevent failure, a mud that doesnt interact with the formation is used and the
pressure in the borehole is increased by weighting up the mud and adding filtrate
control so that the borehole pressure takes on some of the load imposed by the insitu stresses. Increasing the mud weight too far may result in tensile failure fractures
leading to lost circulation.
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-11


Borehole Collapse Mechanisms, continued

Borehole failure
Stress-induced borehole failure can be grouped into three classes:

Hole size reduction due to plastic flow of the rock (shales and salts)
Hole enlargement due to rock failing in a brittle manner and falling in
(sloughing shales)
Fracture due to the tensile splitting of rock from excessive borehole pressure
Borehole size
In many cases a drilled vertical borehole may not be circular but rather highly
elliptical because of the differences in the stresses in the horizontal plane. It can be
expected that the maximum borehole size will be along the minimum stress
direction and the minimum borehole size along the maximum stress direction
(Figure 4-4).
Borehole damage
diagram
Figure 4-4. Borehole damage (high shear and extension)

Caliper log
Observations of the caliper log can indicate the direction of the least principal stress.
A caliper tool with six arms or a dip meter will be most useful in this respect.
Altered stress
conditions
At the wall of the borehole, stress conditions may become altered from the in-situ
formation stress conditions and are dependent upon:
Initial in-situ stress conditions
Borehole geometry and orientation with respect to the principal stresses
Mud characteristics (rheology, density, composition, temperature, and flow
rate)
Properties of the formation, a plastic regime may be established at the walls.
6-12
February 09
Revision D

6.2.6
Borehole
inclination

Horizontal Well Stresses

Borehole inclination presents slightly different problems when interpreting stress
regimes and the fracture gradient.
Increase in stress As the borehole deviation increases towards the horizontal, the deviatoric stress
increases since the horizontal stress component remains constant, but the second
stress component perpendicular to the borehole gradually becomes the vertical
stress.
Note
The actual equations and models to explain the mechanisms are beyond the scope of
this course.
Limiting
borehole failure
It has also been shown that the azimuth of the borehole in relation to the principal
horizontal stresses is significant in limiting the mud weight range, i.e., the lower
limit being compressive rock failure and the upper limit of tensional rock failure
being fracture.
Borehole
When the well is oriented in the Hmax direction (Figure 4-5), the available range
direction a factor of mud density decreases, while the reverse is true when the well is oriented in the
Hmin direction. This effect is due to changes in the effective stress around the
borehole and is dependent upon in-situ stress field and the formation properties.
Borehole stress
diagram
Figure 4-5. Simplified stress directions on a horizontal borehole

continued
February 09
Revision D
6-13


Horizontal Well Stresses, continued

Inclination
affects required
mud
Figure 4-6 shows how the minimum mud weight required to prevent collapse
increases non-linearly with hole inclination, while breakdown fracture pressure
decreases with increasing borehole inclination.
Fracture and
collapse diagram
Figure 4-6. Illustration of fracture and collapse pressure with inclination

Note for
horizontal
drilling
6-14
When drilling a horizontal well, the direction of the principal stresses must be taken
into account. Indeed, reservoir engineers will account for this in the event the
reservoir is fractured to stimulate production.
February 09
Revision D

6.3
6.3.1

Fracture Calculation Methods

Hubbert and Willis (1957)
Theory of
method
The authors assume that the fractures produced are approximately perpendicular to
the least principal stress. In tectonically relaxed areas the least stress is horizontal
and the fracture orientation is therefore vertical. The fracture initiation pressure is
less than that of the overburden pressure or vertical stress. The authors estimated the
weaker horizontal stress to be between 0.5 to 0.3 of the effective overburden
pressure after comparing LOT and fracture information to the overburden pressure.
Overburden
pressure
As previously stated, the overburden pressure is equal to the sum of the formation
pressure and vertical stress effectively supported by the matrix, given by:
S = P +
Stress ratio
From this Hubbert and Willis defined the formula:
F = P + ( (S P ) 0.3)
Where the value 0.3 is an estimate of the maximum ratio of horizontal to vertical
stress that will give the minimum fracture pressure, i.e., fracture induction.
Modified ratio
A later amendment increased the stress ratio coefficient to 0.5:
F = P + ( (S - P ) 0.5)
6.3.2
Eaton (1969)
Theory of
method
Eaton introduced the use of variable overburden pressures and an empirically

derived Poissons ratio as a controlling factor on the fracture gradient. This
empirical relationship surmounted the problem of predicting or measuring the
Poissons ratio for every rock in-situ.
Modified
Poissons ratio
Eatons Poissons ratio is not a function of the rock but of the regional stress
regime, i.e., the horizontal to vertical stress ratio. In the previous methods this ratio
was considered to be constant with depth and approximately equal to one third,
corresponding to a Poissons ratio of 0.25:

+ P
F = (S - P )
1
Where = Eaton Poissons ratio
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-15


Eaton (1969), continued

Eatons method is limited to regions where the Poissons ratio curve has been
established and is therefore restricted to explored basins.
Limits
Curve derivation The empirical curve was derived by calculating the matrix stress coefficient from
the leak-off test results, lost circulation pressure, bulk density logs and known
pressure points via rearranging the equation above.
6.3.3
Daines (1982)
Theory of
method
Daines uses the same basic relationship as Eaton but with the addition of a
superimposed tectonic stress coefficient. This method attempts to remove the
constraints of empirical data required by the Gulf Coast models which can only be
applied with confidence to similar geological basins, and where sufficient drilling
has occurred to provide the necessary data to derive empirical relationships.
Difference
between theory
and practice
For example, applying empirical constants derived by Hubbert and Willis and Eaton
representing the stress ratio is likely to give results very different from the actual
fracture gradient in wildcat wells.
Assumptions
Daines method makes the assumption that the well being drilled is vertical and that
the bedding planes of the formations are approximately horizontal. This means that
the well bore walls are perpendicular to the normal horizontal stresses and parallel
to the normal vertical stress. Any alteration of the direction of the borehole relative
to these stresses will have a corresponding effect on the measurement of
superimposed tectonic stress, which is assumed to be horizontal.
Formula
Using Daines method, fracture gradients are calculated using the following
formula:

+ P
F = T + (S - P )
1 -
Where T is a superimposed tectonic stress calculated from the leak-off tests. The
superimposed stress coefficient attempts to quantify the difference between the
theoretical fracture pressure calculated using Eatons method and the actual fracture
pressure. Daines also used Poissons ratios derived from laboratory experiments
conducted by Weurker (1963).
Reason for
differences
The difference in theoretical and actual pressure is regarded as being caused by

variations in the relationship between the vertical and horizontal stresses compared
to a classical normal fault regime.
continued
6-16
February 09
Revision D


Daines (1982), continued

One value for the The superimposed tectonic stress once determined is then constant for the well.
well
Subsequent leak-off tests can be used to update or revise the T value but only one
value is used for the whole well:

+ P
1
T = F (S P )
Stress ratio
This value is then converted to a ratio of superimposed tectonic stress T to vertical

stress v where v = S P:
T
V
Revised stress
calculation
For any depth, T can be calculated from the factor and the associated S and P by:
Modified
Poissons ratio
With the use of lithology-dependent Poissons ratios obtained from laboratory

experiments on the propagation of shear waves, the fracture pressure calculations
became independent of regional empirical data and more applicable to real-time
drilling situations.
Each rock type

different
Care must be taken with their selection as they can introduce errors especially when
selected for calculating T. Each rock type has its own unique Poissons ratio and
other mechanical properties. The values in Table 4-1 are presented only as guide.
Determine the
rock matrix
When two or more minerals are intermixed, e.g., sandy shale, the matrix forming
the rock type must be determined.
Sand lithology
If the lithology is a sand with the grains in contact with one another and the matrix
is clay (clay content 30%), Poissons ratio is dependent on the sand type.
Clay content
If the clay content is greater than 30% so that the sand grains are not in contact but
supported in the clay matrix, Poissons ratio is dependent on the clay type.
Calcareous clay
Similarly, if clay is highly calcareous (>50%), the carbonate content may have a
significant effect on the mechanical properties, so that the Poissons ratio for a shaly
limestone may be more appropriate.
T = (S - P )
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-17


Daines (1982), continued

Poissons ratios
in different rock
types
Soil type
Comment
Poissons ratio
Clay very wet
0.50
Clay
0.17
Conglomerate
0.20
Dolomite
0.21
Greywacke
Limestone
Sandstone
Shale
coarse
0.07
fine
0.23
Medium
0.24
fine
0.28
medium
0.31
porous
0.20
stylotitic
0.27
fossiliferous
0.17
bedded fossils
0.17
shaly
0.17
coarse
0.05
coarse cement
0.10
fine
0.03
very fine
0.04
medium
0.06
poorly sorted
0.24
fossiliferous
0.01
calcareous
0.14
dolomitic
0.28
siliceous
0.12
silty
0.17
sandy
0.12
Siltstone
0.08
Slate
0.13
Tuff
0.34
Table 4-1. Poissons ratio after Weurker 1963
6-18
February 09
Revision D

6.3.4
Three tectonic
stresses

Calculation of Tectonic Stresses from Daines

Certain clients who use Daines require that the fracture gradient be used to define
three tectonic stresses. It is doubtful whether the latter two terms have universal
validity:
1. Effective vertical stress
2. Horizontal gravitational stress
3. Horizontal tectonic stress
Vertical stress
Effective vertical stress, after Terzaghi:

=S-P
Horizontal
gravity stress
Horizontal
tectonic stress
Horizontal gravitational stress:
Hg = (S P )
The horizontal tectonic stress is the Superimposed Tectonic Stress multiplied by the
effective vertical stress:
T= (S - P)
6.3.5
Breckels and Van Eekelen (1981)
Definition
Breckels and Van Eekelen studied data from the Gulf coast, Venezuela, Brunei, the
North Sea and onshore Holland to determine the relationship between horizontal
stress and depth and also the relationship between horizontal stress and pore
pressure. The aim was to determine a set of equations that define these
relationships.
Limitation on
equations
Unlike previous authors, there is no attempt to relate the horizontal stress to the
vertical stress. This means that the equations are only suitable for the regions and
depth ranges where they were derived.
continued
February 09
Revision D
6-19


Breckels and Van Eekelen (1981), continued

Representative
formulae
For the following formulae, depths are in meters and pressures are in Bars.
Gulf Coast:
Depth < 3500m
S h = 0.053 D 1.145 + 0.46(Po Pn )
Depth >3500m
S h = 0.264 D - 317 + 0.46(Po Pn )
Venezuela:
Depth 1800m < D < 2800m
S h = 0.0565 D1.145 + 0.56(Po Pn )
Brunei:
Depth < 3000m S h = 0.061 D1.145 + 0.49(Po Pn )
where D = Depth
Sh = Horizontal stress
Po = Observed Pore Pressure
Pn = Normal Pore Pressure
Note on formulae The authors state that the formulae for the Gulf Coast can be applied to the North
Sea and onshore Holland with a fair degree of confidence, excluding the
carboniferous formations.
6-20
February 09
Revision D

6.4

Vshale Calculation
Vshale Calculation
Definition
This is more commonly associated with interpretation of wireline for hydrocarbon

potential. However Vshale is also a requirement for fracture gradients in that the
shale content of a formation will affect the Poissons ratio.
Benefits
The calculation of a Vshale curve is also beneficial in the identification of shale

points for trend analysis in Dxc and wireline interpretation.
6.4.1
Description
Gamma Ray
The Gamma ray detects formation radioactivity. If the formation clay composition
does not vary significantly and no other radioactive minerals are present, then the
borehole corrected gamma ray maybe linearly correlated to clay content of the
formation.
Calculating shale The common practice is to calculate shale volume (Vsh) from the gamma ray via
the following relationship:
volume
Vsh =
GR GR clean
GR sh GR clean
Where GRclean is the value where no shale is present and GRsh is the value for 100%
shale.
Repeat
calculation
February 09
Revision D
The Vshale curve should be calculated for each log value and then used in the
selection of shale points for the application of normal compaction trends and for
Poissons ratio selections.
6-21

References
6.5
6.5.1
References

References
Calculations
Aadnoy, B.S., Chenevert, M.E.: Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes, SPE 16052.
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans. 15-18 Mar. 1987.
Anderson, R.A. Ingram, D.S. & Zanier, A.M. 1972 Fracture Pressure Gradients
Determination from Well Logs. 47th Annual SPE of AIME Fall Mtg, Reprint No.
SPE 4135, 15 pp.
Biot, M.A. 1955 Theory of Elasticity and Consolidation for 2 Porous Anisotropic
Solids J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 26 No. 2 pp. 115-135.
Cesaroni, R. Giacca, D. Schenato, A. & Thierree, B. 1981, Estimation of
Overburden and Fracture Gradients in Clastics from Drilling Parameters On-Site
Processing. Pet. Eng. Intl. June pp. 60-86.
Christman, S.A. 1973 Offshore Fracture Gradients and Casing Setting Depths. JPT
August, pp. 910-914.
Constant, W.D., Bourgoyne Jr., A.T.: Method Predicts Frac Gradient for
Abnormally Pressured Formations, Petroleum Engineer International, Jan. 1986.
Constant, W.D., Bourgoyne Jr., A.T.: Fracture-Gradient Prediction for Offshore
Wells, SPE 15105. California Regional Meeting, Oakland, 2-4 April 1986.
Daget, P. & Parigot, P. 1979 Using Log Data to Predict Leak-Off Test Pressures.
World Oil Vol. 188 No. 2 pp. 48-52.
Daines, S.R. 1982 Prediction of Fracture Pressures for Wildcat Wells. JPT Vol. 34
No. 4 pp. 863-872.
Eaton, B.A. 1969 Fracture Gradient Prediction and its Application. Oilfield
Operations. JPT October, pp. 1353-1360.
Fertl, W.H. 1976 Predicting Fracture Pressure Gradients for More Efficient Drilling.
Petrol. Eng., Vol. 48 No. 14 pp. 56-71.
Hubbert, M.K. & Rubey, W.W. 1959 Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of
Overthrust Faulting. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. (Feb. 1959) Vol. 70 pp. 115-206.
Hubbert, M.K. & Willis, D.G. 1957 Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing. Trans.
AIME Vol. 210, pp. 153-166.
Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Technology. Pennwell Books 1991.
Krynine, D.P., Judd, W.R.: Principles of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics,
Chapt. 2, pp. 46-79 McGraw-Hill 1957.
continued
6-22
February 09
Revision D


References
Calculations, continued
References,
continued
Matthews, W.R., & Kelly, J. 1967 How to Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture
Gradient. Oil & Gas Journal Feb., pp. 92-106.
Mouchet, J.P., Mitchell, A.: Abnormal Pressures while Drilling, Chapt. 4.3 pp. 208229, Elf Aquitaine, Boussens 1989.
Nolte, K.G. & Smith, M.B. 1981 Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures. SPE of
AIME Rocky Mt Reg Mtg (Casper, Wyo) Reprint No. SPE 8297, 8pp.
Ottesen, S., Kwakwa, K.A.: A multidisciplinary Approach to In-Situ Stress
Determination and its Application to Borehole Stability Analysis, SPE 21915.
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 11-14 Mar. 1991.
Prats, M. 1981 Effect of Burial History on the Subsurface Horizontal Stresses of
Formations Having Different Material Properties. SPEJ Vol. 21 No. 6 pp. 658-662.
Santarelli, F.J., Dardeau, C., Zurdo, C.: Feasibility Study for a Horizontal Well in a
High Pressure and Temperature Environment, SPE 25051. SPE European Petroleum
Conference. Cannes, France. 16-18 Nov. 1992.
Steiger, R.P., Leung, P.K.: Quantitative Determination of the Mechanical Properties
of Shales, SPE 18024. SPE 63rd Ann. Tech. Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
TX. 2-5 Oct. 1988.
Taylor, A.H.1978 NEC Gas - Internal Memo.
Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W. & Anderson, R.A. 1973 Estimation of Formation
Strength from Mechanical Properties Log. 48th Annual SPE of AIME Fall Mtg.,
Preprint No. SPE 4532, 14 pp.
Wong, S., Kenter, C.J. et al.: Optimising Shale Drilling in the Northern North Sea:
Borehole Stability Considerations, SPE 26736. SPE Offshore European Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, 7-10 Sept. 1993.
Weurker, R.G. 1963 Annotated Tables of Strength and Properties of Rocks. Drilling
SPE Petroleum Trans. Reprint Series No. 6.
February 09
Revision D
6-23

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formation Pressure Evaluation

Document No. USOP0107

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling

This is Chapter 1 of the Distributed Learning Formation Pressure Evaluation

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

This chapter contains the following information:

Introduction and Objectives ........................................................................1-2

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling ..................................................1-4

Spudding a Well Formation Competency ................................................1-5

Shallow Water Flows ..................................................................................1-7

Maintaining Rate of Penetration/Differential Pressure .............................1-14

Shear Failure (Pressure Cavings) .................................................1-15

Borehole Ballooning / Breathing...............................................................1-19

Formation Damage ....................................................................................1-19

Drilling Kicks/Underground Blowouts .....................................................1-20

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Introduction and Objectives

Inaccurate estimates of formation pressure can significantly increase the costs of a

The accurate determination of pore and fracture pressures is an iterative process,

The immediate benefits from accurate predictions are:

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Spudding a Well Formation Competency

For shallow water depths, it is normal to pile-drive a surface conductor from a

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Spudding a Well Formation Competency, continued

Figure 1-1. Shallow and deepwater overburden and fracture gradients

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Shallow Water Flows

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Shallow water flows, continued

Compaction disequilibrium caused by rapid sedimentation rates forces fluid out of

Low Permeability Seal Slow Deposition Rate

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Shallow water flows, continued

Differential compaction occurs in deltas or continental slopes where the different

2001, Sperry Drilling Services

Effects of Formation Pressure on Drilling Operations

Formation Pressure Evaluation Distributed Learning

Reasons for lost

The second method is the hydraulic fracturing of formations with no permeable

2001, Sperry Drilling Services