Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TM
Abalt Solutions
Methods of evaluation
• Most methods are based on the principle of comparing the
undercompacted clays with a normal compaction state.
• It means that the normal compaction trend must be obtained.
• Detection methods: (Quantitative Evaluation)
• formation tests, (direct measurement of the pressure),
• seismic interval velocities,
• drilling rate: “d” exponent, Sigmalog, normalised drilling rate,
• shale density,
• gas shows,
• kicks/mud losses: mud flow measurements, pit levels,
• wireline logs: resistivity/conductivity, sonic, density.
PA SA - B
Copyright © 2008 Abalt Solutions Limited. All rights reserved.
Formation Pressure Evaluation: Equivalent Depth Method
Establishing isodensity lines
• extend the normal compaction
trend (XY) to the depth origin (X)
• choose a point (B) located on the
normal compaction trend
• for a selected value of deqlA
calculate depth A using:
1.26ZB
ZA
2.31 d eql A
• position point A on the vertical from
B, then draw a straight line XZ
passing through A
Principle:
• the difference between observed
values for the compaction
parameter and the normal
parameter extrapolated to the same
depth is proportional to the
increase in pressure.
d cn
d eql d eql n *
d co
Where
• deql n: normal equilibrium density
• dcn: “normal” “d” exponent
• dco: observed “d” exponent
• A set of isodensity lines can be
drawn, so that the equilibrium
densities can be read off directly.
d eql n
d co d c n *
d eql
Copyright © 2008 Abalt Solutions Limited. All rights reserved.
Formation Pressure Evaluation: Ratio Method
Establishing isodensity lines
• take a point (A) located on the
normal compaction trend XY
• calculate the value of dc which
would be observed at point A for a
given equilibrium density
• using this value (B) draw a straight
line KY' parallel to XY.
Application:
• For interval velocities, “d” exponent, resistivity/conductivity, sonic.
• It may also be extended to: shale density, log density.
Principle:
• the relationship between the observed parameter/normal parameter ratio
and the formation pressure depends on changes in the overburden
gradient.
R observed
P GG 0.535 sh
Where: sh
R normal
• P: formation pressure gradient (psi/foot)
• GG: overburden gradient (psi/foot)
• Rsh: shale resistivity
Conductivity 1.2
C normal
P GG GG Pn
C observed
“d” exponent d observed
1. 2
P GG GG Pn c
d c normal
3 .0
Sonic log normal
P GG GG Pn t
t observed
Comparison of Methods
• Determination of pore pressure on site using mud logging or wireline
data brings the problem of choosing one method.
Equivalent depth, ratio or Eaton?
• Calculate r
Z
*
1000
Sigmalog evaluation
• calculate F: r
F
t
• calculate P: 2 1 F 1
P *
1 1 F n
2
Where:
• n = time factor for cleaning the bit face.
• Calculate the equilibrium density corresponding to the pore pressure:
P * 10
d eql d m
where dm = mud density. Z
Gas:
• By monitoring the gas, especially in shales, it is often possible to
evaluate well equilibrium satisfactorily.
• As long as mud weight is close to the equilibrium density, it is
possible to monitor:
• Background gas, connection gas and the effect of mud weight
adjustments on gas shows,
• Continuous evaluation of formation pressure.
Mud losses
• Lost circulation may arise due to:
• excessive filtration of mud into a very permeable formation subjected to
high differential pressure,
• fracturing of weak horizons (or opening of pre-existing fractures) caused
by excessive P.
• Losses may occur while drilling, or be caused by excessive pressure
loss due to surging while tripping.
• Observing the losses with the well stable under static conditions,
provides an accurate picture of well equilibrium.
• Well balance depends as much on the differential pressure as on the
fracture pressure.
Kicks
• A kick indicates that formation pressure is greater than the pressure
of the mud column at a given moment.
• Only bottomhole kicks should be taken into account for formation
pressure evaluation.
• Estimation can be more accurate if the mud weight is adjusted
gradually.
• If a major kick makes it necessary to shut down the well, formation
pressure can be deduced from the shut-in drill pipe pressure:
Where:
d mud * Z
• P: formation pressure (kg/cm2) P PT
• dmud : mud density (kg/I) 10
• Z: depth (metres)
• PT: shut-in drill pipe pressure (kg/cm2)
Copyright © 2008 Abalt Solutions Limited. All rights reserved.
Formation Tests
Data selection
• Satisfactory evaluation depends on the quality of the data used:
• Log densities (FDC, LDT, etc.) are the most reliable as long as recording
conditions are satisfactory.
• The density of the surface sediments can be estimated without too
significant an error in the gradient.
• In some cases an approximation may be obtained from the density of the
cuttings.
• Isolated low density horizons (<10 m) can be ignored when
calculations are done manually.
t log t m
where t is estimated at 200 μsec/ft:
153
Copyright © 2008 Abalt Solutions Limited. All rights reserved.
Formation Tests
t log t m
1.288
• sands: t log 200
t log t m
• clays: 1.568
t log 200
• Formation fracturing occurs when the stress at the wall exceeds the
tensile strength of the rock.
• The pressure which is in this case exerted on the walls by the mud is
called the fracture initiating pressure (FP1).
• If the pressure is suddenly reduced, this fracture closes up again.
• To reopen it, pressure needs only to be increased to value (FP2).
• This is lower than the fracture initiating pressure because the fracture
already exists.
• In fact only the perpendicular stresses at the wall hold it closed.
• FP2 is the fracture reopening pressure.
• The fracture can then develop beyond the zone of influence of the well.
What direction will the fracture propagate?
• It will be orientated perpendicular to the minimum component of the
in situ stresses.
• If the hydraulic fluid flow to the well is shut off the pressure will fall and
the pressure at which the fracture closes again (FP3) is taken as an
estimate of this minimum in situ stress.
S3 3 P K 3 P
K3
1
• : effective vertical stress equal to the weight of the overlying sediments
• K3 : ratio of the effective stresses (horizontal to vertical).
Copyright © 2008 Abalt Solutions Limited. All rights reserved.
Evaluation of the Fracture Gradient
S P v
v S P
F S P P
1
F to S P P
1 1
4 2
F P
1
S P
F 2S 3P
= 1 — Cr/Cb
Cr = compressibility of solid matrix
Cb = compressibility of porous rock
can be approx. D
where Ish = shale index; S sonic porosity and D density log porosity.
• If data are available for overburden gradient, formation pressure
gradient, sonic and density logs, then the fracture gradient can be
calculated from:
• Biot's formula
• Eaton's formula
AIsh B
Pilkington (1978)
• He defined an effective stress coefficient Ka which represents the
statistical mean of the values of Ki and μ/(1-μ).
F K i P
Daines (1982)
• Taking up the work of Eaton, introduced a superimposed tectonic
stress correction.
F t P
1
where 1 superimposed tectonic stress.
• The value of t may be evaluated from the first leak off test on drilling.
• It is regarded as being constant for the rest of the well.
Courtesy of (Exlog)
Bryant (1983)
• This method is limited to modifying Ki, in the Matthews & Kelly
formula to take account of the contribution of pore pressure to the
mechanical properties of the matrix.
• if P < 1.4 Pn, Matthews & Kelly's data are used.
Fracture Orientation
• Its orientation and position depends on the stress field and the
orientation of the hole relative to that field.
• For vertical wells:
• If the minor component is vertical, the fracture in the borehole wall will be
perpendicular to it, and therefore horizontal.
• If the minor component horizontal, the wall fracture will be vertical, in the
direction of the stronger of the two horizontal components.
Summary
• The fracture gradient cannot be estimated correctly.
• This estimation is acceptable when use of regional interpretation of
hydraulic pressure limit measurements are performed on the initial
wells in a field, in terms of the in situ stresses.
• When carrying out a LOT it is necessary to evaluate:
• the fracture gradient obtained relates to leak-off into the formation,
• a leak-off limit (pressure plateau),
• a formation breakdown (pressure drop),
• a propagation pressure or a closing pressure.
• Thermal and hydraulic stresses must be taken into account in the
interpretation of the minimum in-situ stress.