TAMU - Pemex

Well Control

Lesson 7
Pore Pressure Prediction
 Contents
 Porosity
 Shale Compaction
 Equivalent Depth Method
 Ratio Method
 Drilling Rate
 dC-Exponent
 Moore’s Technique
 Comb’s Method 2
 Pore pressure prediction
methods

Most pore pressure prediction

techniques rely on measured or inferred
porosity.

The shale compaction theory is the

basis for these predictions.

3
Pore pressure prediction methods
Measure the porosity indicator (e.g.
density) in normally pressured, clean
shales to establish a normal trend line.
When the indicator suggests porosity
values that are higher than the trend, then
abnormal pressures are suspected to be
present.
The magnitude of the deviation from the
normal trend line is used to quantify the
abnormal pressure.
4
 Porosity should
decrease with
depth in normally
pressured shales 1. Establish “Normal”
Trend Line in good
“clean” shale

Transitio
n
2. Extrapolate
normal trend 3. Determine the
line magnitude
of the deviation

5
Older shales have had
more time to compact,
so porosities would
tend to be lower (at a
particular depth).

Use the trend line

closest to the transition.

Lines may or may not

be parallel.

6
 Equivalent Depth Method
The normally compacted
shale at depth De has the
same compaction as the
De abnormally pressured
shale at D. Thus,
σ V =σ Ve

i.e., σ ob - pp = σ obe - pne

pp = pne + (σ ob -σ obe )

D
σ ob =σ V + pp

7
 Example 2.6
Estimate the pore pressure at 10,200’ if the
equivalent depth is 9,100’. The normal pore
pressure gradient is 0.433 psi/ft. The
overburden gradient is 1.0 psi/ft.

At 9,100’, pne = 0.433 * 9,100 = 3,940 psig

At 9,100’, σ obe = 1.00 * 9,100 = 9,100 psig

At 10,200’, σ ob = 1.00*10,200 = 10,200 psig

8
 Solution
 pp = pne + (σ ob -σ obe ) ……………. (2.13)
= 3,940 + (10,200 – 9,100)
pp = 5,040 psig

 The pressure gradient, gp =

5,040/10,200
= 0.494 psi/ft
 EMW = 0.494/0.052 = 9.5 ppg
9
 The Ratio Method
uses (Xo/Xn) to predict
the magnitude of the
abnormal pressure
We can use:
• drilling rate
Depth

• resistivities
• conductivities
• sonic speeds
Xn Xo

10
Shale Porosity Indicator
Pore pressures can be
predicted:

 Before drilling (planning)

 During drilling.

 After drilling

11
 Before drilling the well
(planning)

 Information from nearby wells

 Analogy to known characteristics of the

geologic basin

 Seismic data

12
13
Table 2.6 – Cont’d

14
Seismic Surveys, as used in conventional geophysical
prospecting, can yield much information about underground
structures, and depths to those structures. Faults, diapirs, etc.
may indicate possible locations of abnormal pressures
15
Typical Seismic Section

16
Under normal
compaction, density
increases with
depth. For this
reason the interval
velocity also
increases with
depth, so travel
time decreases
∆ t = ∆ tma (1-φ ) +
∆ tf φ

17
Sound moves faster in
more dense medium
In air at sea level,
Vsound = 1,100 ft/sec
In distilled water,
Vsound = 4,600 ft/sec
In low density, high porosity
rocks,

Vsound = 6,000 ft/sec

In dense dolomites,
Vsound = 20,000 ft/sec

18
 Example 2.7
Use the data in Table 2.7 to determine
the top of the transition zone, and
estimate the pore pressure at 19,000’
using the equivalent depth method
using Pennebaker’s empirical correlation

Ignore the data between 9,000’ and

11,000’. Assume Eaton’s Gulf Coast
overburden gradient.
19
 Solution
Plot interval travel time vs. depth on
semilog paper (Fig. 2.31)

Plot normal trend line using the 6,000-

9,000 data.

From Fig. 2.20, at 19,000’, gob = 0.995

psi/ft

(σ )
ob 19,000 = 0.995 * 19,000 = 18,905 psig
20
 Equivalent Depth
Method:
From the vertical line,
Use De = 2,000’

Ignore σ obe = 0.875 * 2,000

=1,750 (Fig. 2.20)
But,
pne = 0.465 * 2,000
= 930 psig
∆ tn ∆ to pp = 930 +
(18,905-1,750)
pp = 18,085 psig 21
 Fig. 2.30 Pennebaker’s
correlation for Gulf
Coast sediments
Higher travel time means
more porosity and higher
pore pressure gradient

Example 2.7 (Table 2.7)

∆ to = 95 µ sec/ft @ 19,000’
∆ tn = 65 µ sec/ft @ 19,000’
∆ to/ ∆ tn = 95/65 = 1.46
0.95 pp = 0.95 * 19,000
= 18,050 psig
22
 Comparison
Pore Pressure at a depth of 19,000 ft:

 Pennebaker:

18,050 psi or 0.950 psi/ft or 18.3 ppg

 Equivalent Depth Method:

18,085 psi or 0.952 psi/ft or 18.3 ppg

23
 While Drilling
 dc-exponent

 MWD & LWD

 Kicks

 Other drilling rate factors (Table 2.5)

24
TABLE 2.5 -

25
Penetration rate and abnormal pressure

Bits drill through overpressured rock

faster than through normally pressured
rock (if everything else remains the
same).
When drilling in clean shales this fact
can be utilized to detect the presence
of abnormal pressure, and even to
estimate the magnitude of the
overpressure.
26
 TABLE 2.8 -

Note, that many factors can influence the drilling rate,

and some of these factors are outside the control of
the operator.

27
 Effect of bit weight and hydraulics
on penetration rate Drilling rate
increases more
or less linearly
with increasing
Inadequate bit weight.
hydraulics or A significant
excessive deviation from
imbedding of this trend may
the bit teeth in be caused by
the rock poor bottom
hole cleaning

0
28
Effect of Differential Pressure on Drilling Rate

Differential
pressure is the
difference between
wellbore pressure
Decrease can be due to:
and pore fluid
• The chip hold down effect pressure
• The effect of wellbore
pressure on rock strength

29
Drilling
underbalanced
can further
increase the
drilling rate.

30
The chip hold-down effect
The mud pressure
acting on the
bottom of the hole
tends to hold the
rock chips in
place

Important hold-down parameters:

Overbalance Drilling fluid filtration rate
Permeability Method of breaking rock (shear or crushing)
31
 TABLE 2.9 -

• Drilling rates are influenced by rock strengths.

• Only drilling rates in relatively clean shales are useful for
predicting abnormal pore pressures.
32
σ ob is generally
the maximum in
situ principal
stress in
undisturbed rock

33
Stresses on Subsurface Rocks

σ ob , σ H1 , σ H2 and p all tend to increase

with depth
σ ob is in general the maximum in situ
principal stress.
Since the confining stresses σ H1 and σ H2
increase with depth, rock strength
increases.
34
Stresses on Subsurface Rocks
The pore pressure, p, cannot produce
shear in the rock, and cannot deform
the rock.
Mohr-Coulomb behavior is controlled by
the the effective stresses (matrix).
When drilling occurs the stresses
change.
σ ob is replaced by dynamic drilling fluid
pressure.
35
The degree of
overbalance now
controls the
strength of the
rock ahead of the
bit.

36
 Rock failure caused by roller cone bit.
The differential pressure from above provides
the normal stress, σ o

Formation fracture is resisted by the shear stress, τ o,

which is a function of the rock cohesion and the friction
between the plates. This friction depends on σ o.
37
 Fig. 2.41 - Differential Pressure 0.1 in below the bit.
Vertical Stress = 10,000 psi
Horizontal Stress = 7,000 psi
Pore Pressure = 4,700 psi
(Induced
Wellbore Pressure = 4,700 psi Differential
Pressure in
Impermeable
rock.
FEM Study)

When σ ob is replaced by phyd (lower) the rock immediately below the

bit will undergo an increase in pore volume, associated with a
reduction in pore pressure.
In sandstone this pressure is increased by fluid loss from the mud. 38
 Drilling Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
Penetration rate depends on a number of different
parameters.

R = K(P1)a1 (P2)a2 (P3)a3 … (Pn)an

A modified version of this equation is:

d
W 
R = K 3 N  
 db 
39
Drilling Rate as a Pore W 
d

R = K 3 N  
Pressure Predictor  db 

 R 
Or, in its most  log 
d = 60 N 
used form:  12W 
 log 106 d 
 b 

R = ft/hr
N = rpm
d = d − exponent
W = Bit Weight, lbf
d b = Bit Diameter, in
40
 d-exponent
The d-exponent normalizes R for any
variations in W, db and N

Under normal compaction, R should

decrease with depth. This would cause
d to increase with depth.
Any deviation from the trend could be
caused by abnormal pressure.

41
 d-exponent
Mud weight also affects R…..
An adjustment to d may be made:
dc = d (ρ n /ρ c)
where
dc = exponent corrected for mud density
ρ n = normal pore pressure gradient
ρ c = effective mud density in use
42
 Example
 While drilling in a Gulf Coast shale,
R = 50 ft/hr
W = 20,000 lbf
N = 100 RPM
ECD = 10.1 ppg (Equivalent Circulating Density)

db = 8.5 in
 Calculate d and dc

43
 Solution
 50 
log    
 60 * 100  − 2.079  log R 
d= = d= 60 N 
 12 * 20,000  − 1.554 
log
12 W 
log  6  
 10 6 d b 

 10 * 8.5 
d = 1.34

 ρn 
 0.465  d c = d  
dc = 1.34    ρc 
 0.052 * 10.1
dc = 1.19
44
 Example 2.9
 Predict pore pressure at 6,050 ft (ppg):
from data in Table 2.10 using:
 Rhem and McClendon’s correlation

 Zamora’s correlation

 The equivalent depth method

45
TABLE 2.10

d-EXPONENT
AND MUD
DENSITY DATA
FOR A WELL
LOCATED
OFFSHORE
LOUISIANA

46
Step 1 is to plot the
data on Cartesian
paper (Fig. 2.43).

Transition at 4,700 ft?

…or is it a fault?

Seismic data and

geological indicators
suggest a possible
transition at 5,700 ft.

47
 Fig. 2.43
Slope of 0.000038 ft-1

48
 Rehm and McClendon
 gp = 0.398 log (dcn-dco) + 0.86

= 0.398 log (1.18 - 0.95) + 0.86

gp = 0.606 psi/ft

ρ p = 0.606 / 0.052 = 11.7 ppg

49
 Zamora
From Fig. 2.44
 gp = gn (dcn/ dco )
= 0.465 * (1.18/.95)
1.18
gp = 0.578 psi/ft 0.95

 ρ p = 0.578/0.052
ρ p = 11.1 ppg
50
 Equivalent
Depth Method

 From Fig. 2.20, at

6,050 ft,

gob = 0.915 psi/ft

σ ob = 0.915 * 6,050
= 5,536 psi

51
 Equivalent
Depth Method
 From Fig. 2.43,
Equivalent Depth
= 750 ft
 At 750 ft,
σ obe = 0.86 * 750
= 645 psi
pne = 0.465 * 750
= 349 psig
52
 Equivalent Depth Method
 From Eq. 2.13, at 6,050 ft
 pp = pne + (σ ob - σ obe )
pp = 349 + (5,536 - 645) = 5,240 psig
 ρ p = 19.25 * (5,240 / 6,050) = 16.7 ppg

Perhaps the equivalent depth method is not

always suitable for pp prediction using dc !!

53
Overlays such as this can be
handy, but
be careful that the scale is
correct for the graph paper
being used;
the slope is correct for
normal trends;
the correct overlay for the
formation is utilized.

54
To improve pore pressure predictions
using variations in drilling rate:
Try to keep bit weight and rpm relatively
constant when making measurements
Use downhole (MWD) bit weights when
these are available. (Frictional drag in
directional wells can cause large errors)
Add geological interpretation when
possible. MWD can help here also.
55
 Improved pore pressure
predictions
Keep in mind that tooth wear can
greatly influence penetration rates.

Use common sense and engineering

judgment.

Use several techniques and compare

results.
56
Moore’s Technique
Fig. 2.45

Moore proposed a practical

method for maintaining a
pore-pressure overbalance
while drilling into a
transition.

Drilling parameters must be

kept constant for this
technique to work.

57
 Comb’s Method
 Combs attempted to improve on the
use of drilling rate for pore pressure by
correcting for:
 hydraulics
 differential pressure
 bit wear

 in addition to W, db, and N

58
 Comb’s Method
aW aN aq
 W   N   q 
R = R d       f ( p d ) f ( t N )
 3,500 db   200   96 db dn 
q = circulating rate
dn = diameter of one bit nozzle
f(pd) = function related to the differential pressure
f(tN) = function related to bit wear
aW = bit weight exponent = 1.0 for offshore Louisiana
aN = rotating speed exponent = 0.6 for offshore Louisiana
aq = flow rate exponent = 0.3 for offshore Louisiana 59
Tooth wear factor

Correction
would depend
upon bit type,
rock hardness,
and
abrasiveness

60
Differential pressure factor

Method is too complicated and too site specific. 61