SPE 109219
Integration of Pore Pressure/Fracture Gradient Prediction Methods and Real-Time
Annulus Pressure Measurements Optimizes Drilling in Deltaic Environments
Jeremy A. Greenwood, SPE, Sperry Drilling Services, and Mohamed Abdallah, Halliburton
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October1 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Pore pressure and fracture pressure prediction represent one of
the largest challenges in drilling in deltaic environments. They
place constraints upon the design and ultimately on the cost of
a well. They can also be a source of significant amounts of
non-productive time in the drilling operation. Inaccurate
estimates of formation pressure can significantly increase the
costs of a well from over-engineering the well design,
taking kicks, differential sticking, and lost circulation, to
losing hole sections.
The pore pressure and fracture gradient prediction model
described in this paper has been applied in numerous wells
drilled in deltaic environments, both on and off shore and in
ultra deep water, with outstanding success.
Using a balanced stress strain algorithm not dependent on
geologic age or burial environment, an accuracy that is better
than ppg can normally be achieved. Utilizing pressure while
drilling (PWD) measurements alongside the pore
pressure/fracture pressure prediction provides both a method
of verifying the pore pressure and fracture pressure predictions
and managing the drilling fluid static and dynamic pressures.
Such information also provides an improved method of
optimizing many aspects of the drilling process.
This paper will compare the pore pressure/fracture gradient
methodology utilised here to other commonly used pore
pressure methodologies and will illustrate the development
and calibration of the model within an actual deltaic
environment. The benefits achieved through the integration of
these models with real-time PWD measurements, in
optimizing the drilling process, will also be described. Finally,
the latest developments in downhole sensor technology which
may further improve this process will be discussed.
Introduction
Pore pressure and fracture pressures prediction represents one
of the big challenges in drilling in deltaic environments. They
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
of formation pressure can significantly increase the costs of a
well from over-engineering the well design, taking kicks,
differential sticking, and lost circulation, to losing hole
sections. 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.
Managing the drilling fluid static and dynamic pressures is
as important as determining the upper and lower formation
pressure limits. Pressure while drilling (PWD) tools were
developed to help address these management requirements and
are now a well-established part of the measurement while
drilling tasks (MWD). In places where the margins between
pore, collapse, and fracture pressures are narrow, PWD has
proven to be valuable through reducing the uncertainties in
equivalent circulating density (ECD) prediction. Benefits from
monitoring of hole cleaning with PWD have also been
described. In riserless deepwater drilling, PWD has been
applied to identifying and mitigating troublesome shallow
water flows.
This paper will compare the pore pressure/fracture gradient
(PP/FG) methodology to other commonly used pore pressure
methodologies and will illustrate the development and
calibration of the PP/FG model. It will then go on to describe
the range of applications for PWD measurements and field
examples of how PP/FG and PWD measurements have been
integrated.
Pore Pressure Prediction
Normal pore pressure at depth is equivalent to a hydraulic
potential measured with respect to the Earths surface.
Abnormal pressures either overpressures, which are higher
than normal, or underpressures, which are lower than normal
are generated by over 14 identified mechanisms.
Subsurface pore pressure systems are highly dynamic system,
building up or declining in response to burial and to tectonic
and thermally induced stresses. Thermally induced diagenetic
2 SPE 109219
changes can lead to overpressures or underpressures at depth.
Pressurised fluid can also fracture sealing formations and, in
leaking, can redistribute through permeable zones at rates
dependent on the system permeability. In the Far East, the
pore pressure values greatly differ with both depth and
location.
In the early sixties, identifying increases in the penetration
rate (ROP) was the most common method of detecting the
abnormal pressure. This methodology is only applicable to the
detection of abnormal pressures generated by the
undercompaction pore pressure mechanism. This mechanism
occurs when the pore fluid cannot escape from a compacting
argillaceous formation, and compaction stresses are
transferred from the rock matrix to the pore fluid. Additionally
the porosity decrease through compaction in these
overpressured zones is less relative to an equivalent normally
pressured zone. The relative decreases in formation
compaction and increases in formation porosity and pressure
were identified through increased ROP in overpressured
zones.
The raw penetration rate is influenced by many other
factors so that it proved too inconsistent to be used as a
prediction method directly. Various other methods of
normalizing penetration rate have been formulated. Their aim
was to eliminate the effects of variations in drilling parameters
and to arrive at a representative measure of the ability to drill
through a formation that reflects varying compaction rates
within argillaceous formations. The most popular method
known as the dc exponent was developed by Rehm and
McClendon (1971)2 based on the d exponent developed by
Jorden and Shirley (1966).3 which in turn solved the Bingham
(1964)4 general drilling rate equation.
Other methods were developed by utilizing measured
petrophysical data, resistivity, sonic and density
measurements, all of which also respond to the relative
differences in porosity and compaction within overpressured
and undercompacted zones. These include the Ratio Method,
Eaton Method5, and Equivalent Depth Method.
Quantifying the pore pressure from all of these techniques
is achieved by solving the Terzaghi and Peck (1948)6
equation: Overburden pressure (S) = Matrix stress () + Pore
Pressure (P). (Fig. 1). The relationship can be solved in terms
of pore pressure through establishing a normal compaction
trend line (Fig. 2).
There are over 250 methods that have been identified of
operator fitting the normal compaction trend.7 The normal
compaction trend is the expected parameter value if
equilibrium compaction has occurred, and clay or shale has
dewatered without restriction (Fig. 2). Once the normal
compaction curve is defined, the pore pressure prediction
involves comparison between observed and normal
compaction attributes, a comparison which reflects changing
porosity.8 The comparison is made at the depth of interest
when using Eatons method or the Ratio Method, or
comparison of the same attribute value on the normal
compaction curve when using the Equivalent Depth Method.
Of the previous calculations, Eatons Method is generally
the most widely used and can be applied to several sources of
data, e.g., dxc, resistivity and sonic. The general form of the
equation is:
P = S (S-Pn) (Aobs/Anorm)x
Where Pp is the pore pressure; Sv is the total vertical stress
(overburden); Pn is the normal or hydrostatic pressure; Aobs is
the observed attribute; Anorm is the attribute when pore
pressure is normal, X is an empirical constant, namely 3 for
velocity data and 1.2 for resistivity and dc exp.
Some of the limitations of these techniques are that normal
compaction trend is developed by plotting the parameter
against depth and not plotting the parameter against stress, as
it is stress that drives the compaction. The relationships are
also only applicable to clean shales, and the empirical
constants can differ from basin to basin.
PP/FG Methodology
The PP/FG methodology also relies upon solving the Terzaghi
and Peck equation but achieves this through using the porosity
measured at a specific depth rather than from a trend line and
relating this information through known stress - strain
relationships for lithologic mixtures of shale-sand and shale-
limestone.
The advantage of this concept over the other trend line
methods is that it does not require establishment of a normal
trendline versus depth, a practice which is largely tentative
and human dependent. The concept also accounts for variable
overburden. The two earth stresses (S and v) are calculated
from rock physical properties: porosity (), and shale volume
(V-shale). These two rock parameters describe solid and fluid
volumes and densities which, when integrated over depth,
determine rock compressibility and stress calibrations.
Effective vertical stress (v) has been calibrated to solidity
(1- ) for all lithologies in the shale-sand and shale limestone
continuum using a compactional stressstrain relationship
(Fig. 3). This figure shows a free body diagram for the
Terzaghi relationship as well as the stress-strain relationships
used to implement it for pore pressure prediction. These
relationships are based on rock physical properties which are
independent of rock age and previous compaction rate. This
procedure is in sharp contrast to most of the trend line pore
pressure prediction approaches mentioned earlier.
Vshale and porosity are solved using standard petrophysical
equations
GR log GR min
Vshale =
GR max GR min
The porosity ( ) is calculated either using the deep
resistivity data or density data. With the assumption that the
formation is 100% water saturated the porosity is calculated
using the modified Waxman and Smits formula from
resistivity.
1
(Cw + Vsh x BQv ) m
=
Co
Care needs to be taken in employing resistivity data for
porosity calculations as it can be greatly affected by shale
intervals which are organically rich or by formations
containing hydrocarbons.
SPE 109219 3

In the case of the density data, a modified formula for h

porosity calculations which are corrected for shale volume is =1 .
used: v
Fp= (1- )v + P
b ma
= Expressed as
fl ma This relationship overcomes the shortcomings of
traditional methods because horizontal stress is a direct
ma b ma sh function of effective stress, not a depth pseudo-function. The
= Vsh
ma fl ma fl equation honors both upper and lower minimum horizontal
stress observed in sandstones through porosity rather than
Poissons ratio.11 Although some objections arise about the
With the density data, other challenges come from the correctness of the relation h =v (1- )12 , the reality is that
variable clay mineralogy, dehydration, and transformation as this simple equation honors Carrols13 (1980) average-stress
well as the organic fraction: all affect the matrix density (ma). theorem at both upper and lower porosity limits where the
In addition, the quality of the density data taking into maximum principal stress is vertical.
consideration hole conditions such as hole enlargement and World wide, the PP/FG method has achieved excellent
shale reaction add another challenge to the operator. results with some constraints in cases adjacent to salt domes or
The matrix stress () is derived from the calculated where there is a dominance of hydrocarbons. The results
porosity and a set of power law stress-strain relationships. obtained from processing good density data have revealed
The effective vertical stress (Sv ) is then calculated using better results, as the water salinity anomalies near the salt
the formula: domes and the hydrocarbon effect on the resistivity value are
diminished.
S = surface [ma * (1 ) + (fl * )]
Depth

PP/FG Application
This formula accounts for variable overburden composition The model is widely accepted by operators in many areas of
though the use of the weighted matrix density derived from the world including the Nile and Niger Deltas as the tool to
the vshale calculation. track pore pressure and to use for mud weight determination.14
The older, traditional methods for fracture pressure Since it was introduced to the market in 90s, the PPFGTM
prediction use empirical fracture, pseudo-stress relationships. program was applied to more than 500 wells in different parts
They use depth as a pseudo function to estimate effective of the world both onshore and off shore. It has also been
horizontal stress (h). PP/FG programs compute the fracture applied in the ultra deep water; more than 1500m, with
propagation pressure, the pressure at which naturally outstanding success. It proved its validity as the program gave
occurring fractures will propagate; and it is a guide for a results within 0.5 ppg in pore pressure prediction compared to
lower, safe limit fracture pressure for drilling.9 observed values; and within 0.3 ppg for fracture gradient
Another unique feature of the approach favored in this prediction.
paper is that fracture pressure is calculated from effective The application of the program is subject to three stages of
stress. Fracture pressures are calibrated to effective vertical preparing, extracting, and improving the data before use in
stress rather than depth and are well-specific. This feature each different lease. Application of the method in each new
offers a more accurate and direct measure for fracture pressure concession was preceded with a pre job stage which includes
determination. collecting and evaluating the calibration data.
Effective horizontal stress has a relationship to effective
vertical stress through the DruckerPrager (1959) failure Pre-Drilling Setup. The necessary data included
criteria. This criterion relates effective vertical stress (v) to petrophysical data such as density, deep resistivity, porosity
horizontal stress (h) and is lithology dependent. The general and sonic, with the minimum requirements being gamma and
concept for fracture pressure prediction is the assumption that deep resistivity the routine logging data commonly
the effective borehole stress (Fp) required to propagate an available from most wells. Other important data includes
existing vertical fracture is pore pressure (P) plus the effective formation water conductivity values, repeat formation test
horizontal stress (h)10 values, mud logs, PWD logs, previous drilling history as well
as geologic maps and cross sections.
Fp = P + h The first step in the pre-drilling preparation is to locate the
well in relation to the nearest offsets and select the ones which
This relationship assumes that the principal matrix stress is seem to be geologically more analogous.
vertical, as it is in relaxed tectonic regions; and there is no Drilling experience history log and events, tight hole,
fluid invasion. flows, cavings and connection gases versus depth and mud
Because solidity is a measure of grain matrix strain and the weight were examined from all available offsets. These data
h were commonly used as control points for the intervals which
relationship of with depth approximates the same
v lack measured MDT/RFT values or for intervals within shaley
sections.
h Water conductivity values (Cw) at several depths normally
relationship, solidity can be used to represent . So:
v come from the nearest-location MDT water sample data. In
4 SPE 109219
the case of the lack of such data, attempts have to be made to
construct a continuous profile by back calculation from known
pressures in offset wells.
It is important to mention that the accuracy of the results
was greatly improved by the availability of Cw measurements
Sensitivity mapping for Cw is also performed with a typical
variation in the Cw in the range from 10-20 mmho resulting in
a formation pore pressure variation of 0.5 PPG in the
shallower sections and 0.2 PPG in the deeper sections.
BQv values, representing the electrical activity of the
claystones, present another challenge. In cases of available
CW, data attempts are made to back calculate the BQv. For
example in the Mediterranean Sea, shale surface area values
increase with depth in the Kafer El Sheikh formation as
smectite volumes increase. This effect was reflected in
increasing of the BQv. Deeper down, the smectite has largely
been diagenetically altered to illite; and the surface charge
effect is much reduced, producing a lower BQv.
Sensitivity mapping is also performed on the BQv with
typical ranges in the order of 0.7 ppg.
After completing these preparations, self quality control
(QC) checks are conducted. Although checks on the
MDT/RFT points are the main quality control, they are
restricted to the permeable zones such as sand and fractured
carbonates. For the rest of the well path, other quality controls
are required. These controls are performed by comparing the
available measured porosity, density, and sonic logs with the
same calculated parameters generated by the PP/FG program
during its processing.
While Drilling Calibration. Once drilling commences at the
rig site, the preliminary, real-time model framework
established from the previous, pre-drilling phase is applied.
This model frame work is subjected to modifications to match
the onsite measurements and the specific LWD tool responses.
One common change to the model is to the gamma ray
baseline values. The gamma ray responses may differ. The use
of long intervals for the calibration will be recorded inside
casing, a difference which is likely to reduce these values
compared to those recorded in open hole.
Another factor is that the formations encountered in the
subject wellbore may encounter lateral facies changes which
were not covered with the original data provided for
calibration.
Drilling to depths which were not reached by the pre job
data represents another challenge. Then, available calibrations
are in fact an extrapolation of previous values and commonly
need to be adjusted. When additional direct pressure
measurement data becomes available, the porosity transforms
are adjusted with the help of the available MDT/RFT pore
pressure points and the drilling history logs.
In the case of other available real time petrophysical data
such as density, porosity, or sonic, such data is used
immediately for a real time QC by comparing it to the offset
data. Using these techniques, accuracies of values less than 0.3
ppg were reached in ultradeep water wells in the same lease of
the western province of the Mediterranean.
(Fig. 4)
Post Drilling Review. Once drilling has concluded, the
analysis is evaluated by comparing real time results to
documented events. The direct pressure measurements from
the MDT/RFT results are compared directly with those values
predicted by the PP/FG application and are the most
commonly accepted QC by the customer. For those intervals
lacking these direct measurements, such as impermeable shale
sections, quality control is still required. The application
calculates porosity, a bulk density from the resistivity derived
porosity, and a pseudo sonic. All are compared directly with
available measurements.
One other important aspect of the post-drilling review is to
interpret anomalous responses. One example is very low
resistivity (<0.2 ohm-m) measured in the sand bodies,
especially at the shallower sections of the well. These
anomalous measurements are close to the response of sea
water and are caused by the sand bodies being loose and
naturally uncemented. Lack of cement and being loose result
in enlarged holes with a diameter beyond the depth of true
investigation of the resistivity tool. This conclusion can be
confirmed from comparing the caliper readings against those
intervals with anomalous very low resistivities.
Additional indications exist from the drilling data to
support the conclusion with the PWD measurements after
passing those intervals exhibited pulses of high annulus
pressure as the loose material enters the annulus increasing the
circulating density.
It is important to emphasize that the program cannot
predict correct values within depleted reservoirs. However, the
pore pressure predicted by the program for depleted intervals
was generally found to be very close to that pressure recorded
when that interval was drilled before depletion (Fig. 5).
Pressure While Drilling Measurements
Pressure while drilling tools (PWD) are a drilling performance
tool (Fig. 6) that provide continuous downhole measurement
of internal and annular pressure under pumps-on or pumps-off
conditions. These pressure measurements provide information
on downhole hydraulics and fluid performance that help to
avoid drilling problems and also help to optimize drilling
performance. Their smart sensor electronics:
1- Detect pumps-on and pumps-off transitions
2- Measure annular and internal pressure across the
range of 0 to 22500 psig
3- Sample and record both annular and internal
pressures at rates from 1 to 220 seconds per sample
4- Measure annular and internal transducer temperature.
The tool can withstand a temperature as high as
175C with a resolution 0.05% of the full scale.
The measurement taken is an absolute pressure measurement.
To make this data easier to compare with mud properties,
surface readings and pressure gradients, the surface software
converts the pressure to psig and then to equivalent mud
weight (EWM). Of course, this transformation is sensitive to
depth and survey errors.
SPE 109219
Application of PWD with Pore Pressure Prediction
Using the previously explained approach, accuracies between
0.5 to 0.3 ppg can be obtained for pore pressure and fracture
pressure predictions. This accuracy is extremely important
when the margins between the pore pressure and fracture
pressure are very small (Fig. 7), when the window is as
narrow as 1.4 ppg EMW, and when managing the mud
pressures (both when the pumps are on and off) becomes
crucial.
It must be stressed that during drilling operations, the
engineer utilizes all available measurements to optimize the
drilling process. The measurements from the PWD tool have
been applied for the following applications to provide
verification of the pore pressure model and prevent other
drilling problems from escalating.
1- Picking the precise pressure of Formation Integrity
Test (FIT) and Leak Off Tests
2- Measuring pumps-off surge and swab pressures and
gel pressure to determine the actual minimum and
maximum pressures exerted on the formation
3- Monitoring hole cleaning, i.e., cuttings load in the
annulus to prevent exceeding the fracture pressure
and inducing losses
4- Detecting the warning signs before complete hole
packoff occurs and confirming it if it happens
5- Mud weight optimization monitoring to ensuring a
stable EMW maintained between the fracture
pressure and pore pressure
6- Measuring the mud condition, identification of
unplanned fluctuations in mud weight and ECD
under stable circulating conditions
7- Providing information to analyze the causes of
drilling problems; for example, the cause of
formation fracture, the cause of stuck pipe, the cause
of hole to collapse, the cause of a kick
8- Detecting the formation fluid influxes which appear
as a decrease or increase in the EMW depending on
the density contrast between the mud and the
intruding fluid. (Fig. 8)
9- Detecting formation instability such as
unconsolidated sand pulses or hole collapse
Through integrating the pore pressure, PWD, and drilling
measurements, drilling can be optimized in other ways as
illustrated in the following examples.
Using pore pressure predictions, ROP, and PWD
measurements to differentiate between bit dulling conditions
and bit balling. Both exhibit the same surface character and
both produce a reduced rate of penetration. When comparing
the pore pressure values calculated by the PP/FG application
(which utilizes petrophysical data) with the behavior of the
rate of penetration when bit balling is occurring, the opposite
relationship is found: namely an increase in the calculated
pore pressure while the ROP slows. If the internal pressure is
5
available from the PWD tool, it should show a progressively
increasing trend if bit balling were the cause of slowing or stay
almost steady if bit dulling were the cause.
Another important use of the PWD readings is the value of
the pumps off measurements for pore pressure prediction.
They can be used to directly refine the predicted pore pressure.
Simply stated, in permeable formations the predicted pore
pressure can not be higher than the minimum pumps off value.
To aid in critical decisions concerning increasing the mud
weight where there is a narrow window between the fracture
pressure and the mud weight, an accurate determination of the
formation leak off test value is needed. Fig. 9 shows a value of
100 psi difference in the maximum pressure reached as
calculated from pressure measurements at the surface
compared to the actual pressure exerted on the formation
measured downhole.
Another common phenomenon is alternating mud losses
while drilling which are followed by mud volume increase
during connections when the pumps are off. Some times this
phenomenon has been interpreted incorrectly as a well kick.
Later this phenomenon was clarified and interpreted as the
ballooning effect.
PWD measurements can recognize these phenomena via
the tracking of the pumps shutdown and operating behavior.1
A normal connection typically has a square shaped pressure
profile when the pumps are stopped and started. When
ballooning occurs, the ECD pressures are greater then the
fracture opening pressure, and drilling fluid (mud) is forced
into the formation. When circulation stops, the static weight of
the drilling fluid is below the fracture closure pressure and is
forced out of the fractures. As this loss/gain phenomenon
develops, the PWD connection signature changes from a
square profile to a curved profile. When the pumps are turned
off, the EMW slowly decays to the static mud weight as mud
bleeds back from the formation. When circulation is re-
established, the EMW slowly builds up to the ECD level as
fractures are slowly re-filled.
In many cases, identifying PWD spikes in the annular
pressure are good warning alarms for a potential drill pipe
pack off. This condition is commonly identified as repeated
spikes in the ECD. Identification of this condition in the past
has commonly stopped drilling, and the hole was swept with
high viscous mud pills to remove the cuttings from the hole.
Another example of the use of PWD data (Fig. 10) is the
comparison of actual measurements and the expected ECDs
modeled for expected penetration rates. This comparison
allows the determination of effective hole cleaning. The
example is from the drilling of an 8.5-in. section using a rotary
steerable tool and full triple combo MWD tool with 5 7/8-in.
drill pipe. A discrepancy was seen from the modeled ECD
data at various ROPs and the actual ECD readings from the
PWD tool. Initially the model was questioned but was
separately confirmed as being accurate against two other
models. It was then believed that the increasing ECD reading
with depth was a result of poor hole cleaning due to
continually increasing inclination from 40o at section start to
horizontal by 12000ft.
However, poor hole cleaning in high inclination boreholes
typically results in a reducing ECD trend as the cuttings fall
out of suspension to the low side of the hole and stay put. This
6 SPE 109219

is clearly not the case. What can also be seen is that when the References
RPM was reduced from 150 rpm to 123 rpm, there was an 1. Ward, C. and Beique, M, 2000, Pore and Fracture Pressure
immediate decrease in the ECD readings over and above what information from PWD data. 2000 AADE Drilling
would typically be expected from rotational friction. Technology Forum.
The explanation for the higher than modeled ECD readings 2. Rehm, W.A. and McClendon, R., 1971, Measurements of
Formation Pressure from Drilling Data. SPE 3601
was believed to be the result of mud spiraling around the 3. Jorden, J.R., Shirley, O.J., 1966, Application of Drilling
drillstring when higher RPM is used in sections with smaller and Performance Data to Overpressure Detection. Journal
annular clearances. In this instance the drillstring was of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 18, No. 11, pp.1387-1394.
comprised 5 7/8-in. DP with 7-in. tool joints. 4. Bingham, M.G., 1965, A New Approach to Interpreting
The final example (Fig. 11) illustrates poor hole cleaning Rock Drillability. The Petroleum Publishing Company.
from a 12 -in. hole section drilled with a rotary steerable 5. Eaton, B.A., 1976, Graphical Method Predicts
assembly. During the section the inclination was planned to Geopressures Worldwide. World Oil, May. .
build up from 20o to hold at 80o by 7000 ft. Throughout the 6. Terzaghi and Peck, R.P, 1968. Soil mechanics in
section, the ECD is seen to be decreasing despite a relatively engineering practice. John Wiley and Sons.
7. Holbrook, P., 2001, Pore Pressure through Earth
steady ROP of 150 ft/hr. The initial assessment of the Mechanical Systems. Force Balanced Publication, p. 136.
decreasing ECD was improved hole cleaning compared to 8. Swarbrick, R.E., 2002, Challenges of Porosity-Based Pore
section start. Pressure Prediction. CSEG Recorder, p. 74-77.
The actual conclusion was determined to be poor hole 9. Ward, C.D, 1993, Pore and Fracture Pressure Evaluation.
cleaning as inclination increased with depth. The cuttings were Euroil, 27-29
not being transported efficiently and were dropping out of 10. Hubbert, M.K. and Willis, D.G. 1957 Mechanics of
suspension to form semi-permanent cuttings beds on the low Hydraulic Fracturing. Trans. AIME Vol. 210, pp. 153-166.
side of the hole. Further evidence of this can be seen in the 11. Ward, C.D. and Holbrook, P.W., 1995, Authors Reply to
pick-up weight friction factor increasing with depth. This Discussion of Brief: Pore and Fracture-Pressure
Determinations: Effective-Stress Approach. JPT. P. 914-
shows the additional friction of cuttings beds, as the friction 918.
factor calculated account for the inclination change with 12. Yasser, N., 1995, Discussion of Brief: Pore-and Fracture-
depth. Pressure Determinations: Effective-Stress Approach. JPT,
As a result of the poorer hole cleaning, the BHA was pp. 913-914
backreamed out of the hole to the previous casing shoe to 13. Carroll, M.M., 1980, Compaction of dry or fluid-filled
ensure the borehole was fully cleaned prior to running casing. porous materials, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, J.
Back reaming out was only undertaken once the cause of the Engineering Mechanics Div.
reducing ECD was determined. Failure to fully clean the 14. Calis, H. and Priestley, J., 2002, Lessons Learned and the
borehole by back reaming could possible have led to stuck Way Forward In DW Drilling as a Result of
Shell/Bapetcos 1st drilling Campaign in NEMED, AAPG,
pipe. It was determined that the back reaming time was p. 6.
quicker than the time to circulate and clean the well bore at
TD conventionally. Nomenclature
formation porosity
Conclusions b measured bulk density (g/cc)
The integrated application of accurate pore pressure/ fracture
fl fluid bulk density (g/cc)
prediction and PWD Tool measurements of annulus pressure
have proved their validity in drilling optimization and in their shale shale bulk density (g/cc)
reliability for predicting and warning for potential hazards ma matrix bulk density (g/cc)
while drilling. h horizontal matrix stress (psi)
By applying an effective stress approach to pore pressure v vertical matrix stress (psi)
prediction and using measured petrophysical data, the model Anorm value on normal compaction trend line
proved its accuracy in giving results which are better than 0.5 Aobs observed value
ppg in pore pressure prediction and greater than 0.3 ppg in BQv shale activity
fracture pressure prediction. The only limitation is the ability Co conductivity observed (mmho)
to predict precise values in depleted intervals. Cw water conductivity (mmho)
The PWD Tool provides continuous downhole GRlog measured gamma ray (API)
measurement of internal and annular pressure under pumps-on GRmax measured gamma ray (API)
or pumps-off conditions. These pressure measurements GRmin measured gamma ray (API)
provide information on downhole hydraulics and fluid P formation pressure (psi)
performance that help avoid drilling problems and optimize Pn normal pore pressure (psi)
drilling performance. S overburden pressure (psi)
Vshale shale Volume %
Acknowledgements
The authors thank International Egyptian Oil Company
(IEOC) and Ermenegildo Possamai, well operations manager
at IEOC, for permission to publish the information reported in
this paper.
SPE 109219 7

Figures

Fig. 1-Terzaghis effective stress equation.

Dc Exp,
Resistivity
Sonic Density

(Fig. 2) Normal compaction trends

Fig. 2-The normal compaction trend expected from each parameter in red, and the expected log response in blue for an initially normally
pressured sequence which then cuts back to an overpressured response.
8 SPE 109219

Fig. 3-Effective stress method and power law compaction curves.

Fig. 4-Accuracy range for some shallow, deep, and ultra deep wells in Nile Delta.
SPE 109219 9

Fig. 5-A post-job quality control investigation comparing predicted and measured pore pressure. The under-predicted interval, S1, is a
depleted sand zone.

Fig. 6-PWD tool configuration.

10 SPE 109219

Fig. 7-Illustration of narrow mud window on Mediterranean well. The fracture pressure is displayed in yellow, the actual ECD is displayed in
green, the surface mud weight is in blue and the calculated pore pressures are displayed in black. RFT measurements from the sands are
blue dots and LOT measurements are red dots.

Fig. 8-An example of water and sand influxes in the annulus.

SPE 109219 11

Fig. 9-Comparison between the pressure recorded on surface and that recorded downhole by the PWD tool.
12 SPE 109219

Fig. 10-Sudden reduction in annular pressure with a 27 rpm reduction.

SPE 109219 13

Fig. 11Reduction in ECD through poor hole cleaning.