1 Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure - 2018

2/24/2018
Pore and Fracture Pressures

Dr Masood Mostofi Sem 1 2018
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Copyright Regulation 1969
WARNING
This material has been copied and communicated to you by or on
behalf of Curtin University of Technology pursuant to Part VB of
the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act)
The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under

the Act. Any further copying or communication of this material by you
may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act.
Do not remove this notice
Pore and Fracture Pressure


CRICOS Provider Code 00301J 1
2/24/2018
Have you ever thought about
Why blow out occurs?
How to determine the required mud weight?
How to determine the fastest possible tripping?
How to predict pore and fracture pressure?

Have you ever thought about
Why blow out occurs?
Insufficient mud weight yields to kick and eventually blow out.
How to determine the required mud weight?
Pore pressure estimation is one of the key element of mud weight

design.
How to determine the fastest possible tripping?
Surge and swab pressures should be taken into consideration. Fracture

and Pore Pressures are important.
How to predict pore and fracture pressure?


2/24/2018
Pore and Fracture Pressures Detection: A

Serious Task
• About a quarter of non-productive time is related to poor pore
pressure estimation (Dodson et al. (2004))
• The non-productive time (NPT) definition

• Examples of events leading to NPT (kick, loss, ...)
• Number of kick incidents is correlated to proper pore pressure

calculation (Holand and Skalle (2001))
• 48 kicks for 83 wells drilled in deep water reservoirs in Gulf of

Mexico
• 21% of them led to loss of all or part of the well

Pressure – Wellbore Hydrostatic Drilling Fluid

and Pore Pressures
pore fluid drilling fluid

pressure, P1 pressure, P2
?
Connectivity resistance
(permeability, mud cake,
Mud
cement,…) cake
Factors controlling the valve position: impermeable, permeable, mud cake
Related to filter press experiment for drilling fluid


2/24/2018
Pore Pressure and Drilling Fluid Weight
Assuming permeable rock:
 Kick and under balanced drilling
 Overbalanced drilling
Mud
50 to 300 psi cake
Differential pressure =

Differential Pressure: Application of the

Terminology
Differential pressure:
• Formation of mud cake
• Mud filtrate invasion and formation
damage
• Negative differential pressure
• Static and dynamic condition
• High differential pressure leading to fluid
loss and hydraulic fracturing  fracture
pressure
Mud
cake

2/24/2018
Safe Mud Weight Window
In this unit, the focus is on pore pressure and fracture pressure calculations

Demonstrating Pore and Fracture Pressure

Pressure gradient [psi/ft]
Pressure [psi] Mud weight [ppg]
dry rock
water
saturat
ed rock
Depth
Depth
0.052
10

2/24/2018

Pressure [psi]
dry rock
water
saturat
ed rock
Depth
0.052
11

dry rock
water
saturated 0.052
Fluid1
pressure?
Fluid2
Depth
Depth
0.052

CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Exercise Book
12

2/24/2018
Pore Pressure Estimation

Background

Pore Pressure: All About The Fluid in Pore

Space
saturated by:
water oil gas

14

2/24/2018
Pore Pressure: A Million Year Story

ground
surface
Hydrostatic
column of
D pore fluid
(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)
The source of normal pore pressure

pressure?
pore fluid
rock grain

15
Pore Pressure: A Million Year Story

Sedimentation Compaction
Sediments and compacted rocks
saturated in water

16

2/24/2018
Normal and Abnormal Pore Pressure

ground surface
water column
Normal pressure: surface
0.052
Subnormal pressure: Hydrostatic

column of D
0.052 pore fluid
Abnormal pressure:
0.052
Is D the same as TVD?
The source
Pore of normal
and Fracture Pressure pore pressure:
the density of saturating brine

17
Total Vertical Depth and Pore Pressure

Bell nipple to shale shaker
ground surface
water column
surface
TVD
Hydrostatic
column of D
pore fluid
Normal pore pressure = 0.052

Hydrostatic mud pressure = 0.052
18

2/24/2018
Normal Pore Pressure Gradient

abnormal
pressure
Depth
Depth
subnormal
pressure
Normal pressure gradient depends on the salinity of the pore fluid in the region.
19
Normal Pore Pressure Gradient

abnormal
pressure
Depth
Depth
subnormal
pressure
Normal pressure gradient depends on the salinity of the pore fluid in the region.
20

2/24/2018
Example
Calculate the pore pressure at 30m, 600m, and
dry rock
1100m.
If mud weight is 8.341? ppg, calculate the hydro 30m
static pressure of drilling fluid at these depths.

water
saturated
Density of drilling fluid is less than pore
600m 8.6
fluid density. Could this cause a kick?
1100m

21
Example
dry rock
Pore pressure at 30m:
@ 0
Mud pressure at 30m: 30m
.
@ 0.052 8.341 30 42.7
600-30 = 570 m
water
At 600m:
. saturated
@ 0.052 8.6 836.3
@ 0.052 8.341 600
.
853.9 600m 8.6
At 1100m: 1100-30=1070 m
1100m
.
@ 0.052 8.6 1570.0
.
@ 0.052 8.341 1100 1565.4
Any kick?
22

2/24/2018
Example
dry rock
Pore pressure at 30m:
@ 0
Mud pressure at 30m: 30m
.
@ 0.052 8.341 30 42.7
water
At 600m:
. saturated
@ 0.052 8.6 836.3
@ 0.052 8.341 600
.
853.9 600m 8.6
No kick
At 1100m: 1100m
.
@ 0.052 8.6 1570.0
.
@ 0.052 8.341 1100 1565.4
Kick

23
Examples of Normal Pore Pressure Gradient
Location Pressure
Gradient (psi/ft)
West Texas 0.434 Link to exercise book.
North Sea 0.452 Offshore Perth Basin
Malaysia 0.442 pressure gradient will be
calculated.
California 0.439
Gulf of Mexico 0.465
Fresh water 0.433

24

2/24/2018
Socrative Quiz
AD Drilling Eng – Pore Pressure P1

25
Direct Pore Pressure Measurement

Accuracy,
resolution
• Direct measurement after drilling
and scale
• Different tools with different depth resolutions and invasion
scales.
• Dynamic and Static measurement
• Output of the direct measurement:
• Static and dynamic pressure, reservoir fluid sample,
Water/oil, gas/oil contacts, permeability,…

Resolution, precision and accuracy.
26

2/24/2018
Precision, Accuracy and
http://kaffee.50webs.com

27
Direct Pore Pressure Measurement: Tools

• Repeat Formation Test (RFT) run
by wireline tools
• Different service companies
have different name
• Modular Formation Dynamics
Tester (MDT) for Schlumberger
• Reservoir Description Tool
(RDT) for Halliburton
• Drill Stem test
• Well tests: Shut-in well head
pressure
Source: www.slb.com

28

2/24/2018
Direct Pore Pressure Measurement: Wireline

tool
• Short scale (Less than 10 ft range)
Source: www.slb.com
• Preserved sampling
• Good depth resolution
• Embedding other sensors detecting
fluid type & composition,
permeability, temperature, … Ayan et al. (2001)
• Minutes to hours test

29
Direct Pore Pressure Measurement: Drill

Stem Test (DST)
• Introduced at 1920s
• Basic components:
inflatable packer,
pressure sensor and a
down-hole valve
Source: www.slb.com
• Longer radius 1000 ft
• Reservoir scale Which one you
choose for
• Poor depth resolution predicting pore
pressure gradient?
• A day to month test
https://www.osha.gov
30

2/24/2018
Example of Direct Measurement
(Zhang, 2011)
31
Socrative In Class Quiz

32

2/24/2018
Abnormal or Subnormal Pressure and

Sealants
Volume of
environment environment is
much more than
the container.
pore fluid
pressure, P1
Valve open  pressure equilibrium

Valve close  pressure difference To have an
pressure difference
(abnormal or
subnormal), a
closed valve is
required.
33
The Impermeable Formations: The Sealants
Compaction process: fine-grained sediments becomes a sealants
Typical sealants are shale formations and evaporates.
Evaporates: water-soluble! Sediments, e.g. carbonates (limestone, dolomite),

sulfates (anhydrite and gypsum), and chlorides (halite)
Shale formations: fine grain rock, made of clay size minerals (smaller than
2 m)
shale calcite
Definition of clay!

34

2/24/2018
Mechanisms Leading to Abnormal Pressure
• Compaction effects
• Diagenesis effects
• Density variation effects
• Fluid migration effects

35
Compaction Effects
• The variation of the pore pressure as the depth of burial increases
• A journey through millions of years, during the sedimentation
Geological time: more and more sediments

ground surface
ground surface
more sediment,
more geostatic load
ground surface
Sealant required!

36

2/24/2018
Compaction Mechanism - Simple Experiment
The variation of the pressure in

the chamber as the piston moves
down:
P • Valve is open
• Valve is close

37
Compaction Mechanism: Simulating The

Situation Overburden pressure: the weight of all
overlying sediments and water
Pore pressure
Springs acting as the

resistance of the rock
grains to compaction,
i.e. rock
compressibility. Sealing status:
Permeability of the
formations around the
rock
Compare when Valve is Open or Close.

38

2/24/2018
Compaction Mechanism: Simulating the

situation
Valve is closed.
Sealing around the formation:

 pore volume does not
change
 permeability and porosity

remains unchanged!
 permeability and porosity will

be larger than the other rocks
without sealing, i.e. normal
pressure.
Porosity and permeability would be signature for abnormal pressure
39
Differential Density – Field Example
At oil/water contact, the pore pressure is normal. Zhang (2011)

40

2/24/2018
Exercise Book: Obtaining Pressure
Estimation of the pore pressure
based on the water/oil and
oil/gas contact point and the
densities of each fluid.
Zhang (2011)

41
Fluid Migration Effect
• Man-made connections leading to abnormal pressure

• Responsible for a lot of blow out due to unexpected pressure at the shallow
depth
Bourgoyne et al. (1986)

42

2/24/2018
Diagenetic Process
More Montmorilonite Illite

sediment,
higher T and P
Temperature and Pressure
Montmorilonite
transformation
Releasing
water
Pore pressure
increase
43

44

2/24/2018
Overburden Pressure – The Key to Pore

Pressure
Knowing and , can be estimated.

45
Estimation of Overburden Pressure

• Rule of thumb, overburden stress
gradient of 1 psi/ft
• The rule of thumb can be very
inaccurate.
• Estimation of overburden stress from
bulk density of rock
• Petro-physical logs can be used to
determine the bulk density

46

2/24/2018
Bulk Density and Estimation of Overburden

Pressure ℓ
, ,
ℓ ℓg ℓ
ℓ

Calculating at this point
Pore and Fracture Pressure ℓ

47
Example:
0m
Calculate the overburden stress for below rock
1.5 gr/cc
configuration at the depth of 100m and 1200m:
100 m
1.75 gr/cc
200 m
1.85 gr/cc
400 m
2.2 gr/cc
1200 m

48

2/24/2018
Example:
0m
Calculate the overburden stress for below rock
1.5 gr/cc
configuration at the depth of 1200m:
100 m
1.75 gr/cc
@ 0.052
200 m
8.341 3.281
@ 0.052 1.5 100
1 / 1
1.85 gr/cc
@ 213.5
400 m
Stress and pressure have the same dimensions but
they are fundamentally different!
2.2 gr/cc
1200 m

49
Example:
@
0.052 @ @
@ @
3493.7 psi 0m
1.5 gr/cc
100 m
1.75 gr/cc
200 m
1.85 gr/cc
400 m
Pore and Fracture Pressure 2.2 gr/cc

50
1200 m

2/24/2018
Example:
Calculate the overburden stress for the below rock 0m
configuration at the depth of 1250m: 1.1 gr/cc

50 m
1.5 gr/cc
150 m
Unlike the previous example, here a column of
1.75 gr/cc
water is over the top of the first formation, i.e.
250m
offshore environment. 1.85 gr/cc
450m
2.2 gr/cc
1250 m
51
Example:
@
0m
1.1 gr/cc
0.052 @ @ 50 m
@ @ 1.5 gr/cc
@ 150 m
1.75 gr/cc
3571.9 psi
250m
1.85 gr/cc
The hydrostatic pressure of the sea water is
also added to overburden. 450m
2.2 gr/cc
1250 m
52

2/24/2018
Offshore Drilling – Overburden Pressure

Onshore Offshore

53
Integration Background

Area under the curve =

54

2/24/2018
Area under the curve = A

55
Area under the curve = A

56

2/24/2018
Exercise Book: Calculation of Overburden

Stress
A set of density log would be provided, using which
the overburden stress would be calculated.
It includes writing formulas in Excel and making plot
illustrating the variation of the overburden stress.
https://www.spec2000.net


57
Overburden Pressure and Porosity

For the cases that density is not available for entire column…
• Grain density vs bulk density
1
Matrix or
Deriving this equation? grain
density
Fluid density
Bulk density as Grain density of

small as 1.2 gr/cc 2.65 gr/cc Effect of adding water to
sack of sand?

58

2/24/2018
• The density log is not often available for the entire well
• Bulk density can be obtained based on variation of the porosity:
1
Matrix or
• Assuming a constant and grain
density
across the entire depth
• Characterising porosity
Fluid density
exponentially vs depth
• bulk density can be estimated

is the depth below the surface

59
Variation of Porosity with Depth

Bulk density [gr/cc] Porosity
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0 0 Offshore
5000 5000
Depth [ft]
Depth [ft]
10000 10000
15000 15000
20000 20000
25000 25000
The trends?
Exponential and linear curve fitting
in petroleum engineering, example?
60

2/24/2018
Natural Logarithm Background
 log 1 1
lim 1 or
→ !
ln log
2.781  natural number

 ln
ln ln ln
1
 ln ln

61
Natural Logarithm – Variation of Porosity
ln ln ln ln ln
ln
ln ln
ln
ln ln
62

2/24/2018
Variation of Porosity with Depth

Logarithmic illustration
Porosity Ln (porosity)
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00
0 0
5000 5000
10000 10000
Depth [ft]
Depth [ft]
15000 15000
ln ln
20000 20000
25000 25000
Maximum porosity at the surface?

63
Example:
Characterise the variation of porosity with depth for below data set:
Depth (ft)
0 0.29
100 0.27
300 0.26
500 0.25
700 0.24
900 0.235
1100 0.23
1500 0.225
1700 0.217
2000 0.215
2500 0.18
2800 0.175
3000 0.17
3500 0.16
4500 0.13
5500 0.12
6500 0.105
7500 0.095
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology 8500 0.085
9500 0.075 64

2/24/2018
Example:
Phi
Depth (ft) ln
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 0.29 -1.23787
0
100 0.27 -1.30933
300 0.26 -1.34707 1000
500 0.25 -1.38629
700 0.24 -1.42712 2000
900 0.235 -1.44817 3000

1100 0.23 -1.46968
1500 0.225 -1.49165 4000
Depth (ft)
1700 0.217 -1.52786
5000
2000 0.215 -1.53712
2500 0.18 -1.7148 6000
2800 0.175 -1.74297
3000 0.17 -1.77196 7000
3500 0.16 -1.83258
8000
4500 0.13 -2.04022
5500 0.12 -2.12026 9000
6500 0.105 -2.25379
7500 0.095 -2.35388 10000
8500 0.085 -2.4651
9500 0.075 -2.59027
65
Phi
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Example: 0
1000
2000
3000
Depth (ft)
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Please pay attention to axes.

Depth (ft)
0 ln ln
0 5000 10000
‐0.5
ln 1.3134
‐1 .
y = ‐0.000141x ‐ 1.313443
0.269
Ln (Phi)
‐1.5 0.000141
‐2 .
0.269
‐2.5
‐3
66

2/24/2018

Offshore
1
Combining above equations:

67

Offshore
Combining above equations:
to be
1 compared
with
and
1
Field units
0.052 1

68

2/24/2018
Exercise Book – Characterising the Variation

of Porosity with Depth
from •Integration
•
vs depth •
Calculating
from
model
• model
Comparing •Direct use
of

69
Pore Pressure Estimation

Methods of Estimation


2/24/2018
Pore Pressure: Estimation & Abnormality

Detection
Pore Adjusting mud weight,
trip operating
Pressure condition, …
Direct measurement is Direct measurement

expensive Indirect is restricted to limited
vs data points
Direct
Where the pore Based on
pressure is deflection
deflected from pore
normal trend pressure to
Detection Estimation be estimated

71
Concept of Indirect Methods

W
Pore pressure –
indirect
methods
N
Petro-
physical/geo- Drilling
physical logs
T
R
Porosity Related

72

2/24/2018
Indirect Methods – Porosity Related

Abnormal
Pressure
Fluid receives
more stress
Less compaction
Less
Higher Porosity

73

Parameters
Porosity
Transient time or Velocity
Density
Resistivity or Conductivity
How are these
parameters function
of porosity?
The variation of these parameters vs depth is: X(D)
74

2/24/2018

Parameters
Porosity
Transient time or Velocity

1
Density 1
Resistivity or Conductivity
The variation of these parameters vs depth is: X(D)

75
Detection of Abnormal Pressure vs

Estimation of Pore Pressure
available information Build your own story
Interpretation: Building argument based on
Qualitative
Abnormal Deviation from
Pore Pressure the normal
Detection trend
https://writersfield.wordpress.com
Quantitative
Abnormal The
Pore Pressure estimation of
Estimation pore pressure
Correlations or
concept of effective
matrix stress
76

2/24/2018
Conceptual: Abnormal Pressure Detection

from Porosity Related Parameter
Shale Resistivity Log Shale Pore Pressure
Normal trend,
increases with
depth, why?
Zhang (2011)

What if R increases?
77
Example of Abnormal Pressure Detection –

Detection and Practice Logarithm scale
Resistivity (ohm.m) Pore Pressure Gradient (ppg)
Zhang (2011)
Are we going to have kick
in the first 2000 ft?
78

2/24/2018

Detection and Practice Logarithm scale
Resistivity (ohm.m) Pore Pressure Gradient (ppg)
http://fasttrakinc.com/
Zhang (2011)

79
Cyan dash lines are not part of cited reference.

Transient time NCTL: Normal compacted transient log
transient time ( s/ft) Pressure Gradient (ppg)
predictions
Direct
measurement
vs prediction
Why does
overburden
pressure line
stop at depth
of 4,000 ft?
Zhang (2011)
80

2/24/2018

Transient time
transient time ( s/ft) Pressure Gradient (ppg)
predictions
Direct
Normal trend
measurement
vs prediction
Abnormal trend
Zhang (2011)
normal trend
Cyan and green dash lines are not part of cited reference. 81

Porosity
porosity Pore Pressure Gradient
Zhang (2011)

82

2/24/2018
Example of Abnormal Resistivity

decreasing
Pore pressure
increasing
Pressure Detection –
Resistivity
Zhang (2011)

Lesso Jr. and T.M. Burgess (1986) 83
Example of Abnormal Resistivity

decreasing
Pore pressure
increasing
Pressure Detection –
Resistivity
• The gamma ray log does not show
a clear change in pore pressure.
• Resistivity decreases, suggesting
that there is an increase in porosity
and therefore, existence of an
abnormal zone
Zhang (2011)

Lesso Jr. and T.M. Burgess (1986) 84

2/24/2018
Example of
Abnormal Pressure
Detection –
Conductivity
Zhang (2011)

Evers and Ezeanyim (1983) 85

86

2/24/2018
Estimation of Pore Pressure

Abnormal
pressure
detected!
Concept of Pore
Effective pressure Correlations
Equivalent estimation
matrix stress
The correlations input: X( ), X( )

Output: Pore pressure in terms of ppg, psi/ft, or psi

87
Estimation of Pore Pressure – Equivalent
Concept of Equivalent matrix or rock effective stress:
Points at different depths having the same porosity

dependent value, are subjected to the same matrix stress.

88

2/24/2018
Equivalent - Concept
http://www.clag.org.uk/
is perceived by the springs

Distance between the pistons ≡
Sonic
Ruler
With ruler we can quantitatively say how much

stress is on the springs. Using sonic, just
quantitatively.

89
Equivalent - Concept
• , and are known.
• ONLY is known, and and are desired.
• The sonic tools show the same pattern  the same distance between pistons
• Thus:
• We have and we know   and are known
• Thus: we know and
open ? ?

90

2/24/2018

X( ) A porosity dependent parameter
Normal trend
(does it need to be linear ?)
Points having the same

X( )
Abnormal zone
(it can have a transition interval)
The point where the ∗
pore pressure needs to
be determined
Knowing the matrix effective

stress, pore pressure can be
determined
91

X( ∗) X( )
At depth D∗ : ∗ ∗ ∗
At depth of : Normal trend
Equivalent matrix assumes that:
If ∗  ∗ Abnormal zone
∗
Thus:
∗ ∗

92

2/24/2018
Exercise Book: Pore Pressure – Equivalent
• Normal
zone
Detection • Abnormal
zone
Finding
equivalent
• Abnormal
Calculation pressure

93
Estimation of Pore Pressure – Empirical

Correlations
X( ∗) X( )
Normal trend
Abnormal zone

Curve fitting logics for each case study

94

2/24/2018
Estimation of Pore Pressure – Empirical

Correlations – Resistivity Example

95
Petroleum Engineering Department

The capability to measure the
variation of sonic velocity at
different pore and confining
pressures.
Other capabilities:
P-wave [m/s]
Dynamic mechanical properties

Static mechanical properties
Confining pressure [psi]

Pore and Fracture Pressure AL-Towairqi, et. al. (2015)
96

2/24/2018
Case Study: Topic 1

Eaton’s method vs modified Eaton’s method
(Postgraduate Presentation)
Eaton’s Comparison
Correlations method Modified • Paper data
review • Resistivity Eaton • Field data
• Sonic
is gradient.
is pore pressure gradient (psi/ft)
n varies from 0.6 to 1.5, and normally is 1.2.

Eaton assumed a constant number for
Zhang (2011) characterised the variation as a function of depth :
97

98

2/24/2018
Pore Pressure Estimation:

Correlation vs Equivalent Effective
Correlations
Equivalent
Which one to
select?

99
Indirect Methods – Drilling

WOB
Abnormal
RPM Pressure
Less confining Lower differential

pressure pressure
TOB
Higher ROP
ROP
Increasing rock strength
200
2
Axial stress, 1 (MPa)
150
1= 4.63 3+42.67
100
Drilling Break
50
UCS = 42.6 MPa, C = 9.90 MPa, 40.28o
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 Detournay and Atkinson (2000)
Confining pressure, 3 (MPa)

100

2/24/2018
Indirect Methods – Drilling

200
Axial stress, 1 (MPa)

Increasing rock
150
1= 4.63 3+42.67
100
strength
50
Decrease in UCS = 42.6 MPa, C = 9.90 MPa, 40.28o
Drilling 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Performance Confining pressure, 3 (MPa)
Chip hold down
2
effect
Detournay and Atkinson (2000)

http://petroleumsupport.com/ 101
Pore Pressure Prediction – Drilling Data

Bit/rock interaction: W
Bingham Drilling model:
TOB
Application of drilling models? ROP

102

2/24/2018
exponent W
log log
TO
B
ROP
log
log
log 60
log
10

103
Drilling Data – and Exponents
log
60
log
10
exponent, a parameter Variation of the exponent with

to monitor the drilling • pore pressure?
efficiency. • Mud weight?

104

2/24/2018
Variartion of and Exponents Logarithm scale
• Usually shown in semi-log form
• The normal trend?
• Response to drilling brake?
• Abnormal pressure detection
• Correlations to obtain pore pressure
• Effect of rock material and operating condition

105
Pore Pressure Correlations - Exponents

Example:
Rehm and McClendon (1971)
7.65 log 16.5
Zamora (1972)
: equivalent pore pressure [ppg]

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/

106

2/24/2018
- exponent – Field Examples

- exponent - exponent
old bit
http://www.offshore-technology.com/
Stena Clyde Semi-submersible rig

Depth [m]
Depth [m] Water depth of 372 m
new bit
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/

107
Exercise book - vs Exponents
•Calculating
d exponent •Plotting
•Calculating
exponent •Plotting
Detection of
Abnormal
zone
Pore
Pressure
Calculation

108

2/24/2018

109
Fracture Pressure Estimation


2/24/2018
Safe Mud Weight Window

111
Concept of Fracture Gradient
• Bottomhole pressure should be

lower than fracturing pressure
• After a threshold of down hole
pressure, fractures will be
induced.
• Hydraulic fracturing (HF) a
http://cartss.colorado.edu/
common well stimulation

operation.
112

2/24/2018
Direction of Fracture
• Perpendicular to
minimum horizontal
stress, that is
minimum resistance
http://veeveeayusim.blogspot.com.au/
How much is ?
Minimum stress to initiate a fracture

113

a) Correlations: b) Hoop Stress and Geomechanics
Tensile strength of rock
?
2 2
Hubbert and Willis Eaton’s Correlation
Mathews and Kelly

114

2/24/2018
Geomechanics Background: In-situ Stresses

1
1
is poisson’s ratio
is the vertical stress applied on rock, which is the same as matrix stress
115

1
1
However, and can be different, and larger (or smaller) than
116

2/24/2018
0 0.5
0
Assuming 1 / and 0.44 /  0.66 /
Valid only for shallow depth and much higher at tectonically active fields

117
Geomechanics Background - Stresses
before drilling after drilling
: vertical stress
: tangential stress
: radial stress

118

2/24/2018
Geomechanics Background - Stresses
Fjar et al. (2008)

wellbore wall
2 The answer from Geomechanic

point of view

119
Fracture Pressure – Hubbert and Willis Eq
For shallow wells with normal stress regime:
3 2
3
3

120

2/24/2018
Fracture Pressure – Mathews and Kelly

X( )
Correlation

121
Fracture Pressure – Elastic Estimation for

Eaton Correlation The magnitude of
horizontal stresses
1 from elastic
assumption
Eaton’s assumption
1
1 2
1 1

122

2/24/2018

Hoop Stress and Geomechanics
?
2 2
2
Hubbert and Willis
1 Eaton’s Correlation
3
Mathews and Kelly 1
Effective stress, matrix is equal ideal

stress, grain stress horizontal stress!
is function of depth
123
Example:
Pore pressure gradient is 0.45 psi/ft in the region.
If overburden stress gradient is 0.89 psi/ft,
calculate the fracture pressure at the depth of 4000
ft if Poisson’s ratio is 0.3.
For Mathew and Kelly correlation, use Louisiana
Gulf Coast line.
Assume a tensile strength of 400 psi, and the
horizontal stress has a gradient of 0.6 psi/ft

124

2/24/2018
Example:
0.45 4000 1800
0.89 4000 3,560
1,760 Mathews and Kelly
Hubbert and Willis

586.7 psi
Kelly and Mathew

0.5 880
Eaton’s correlation:
0.3
0.439 772.6
1 1 0.3
125
Example:
0.45 4000 1800
0.89 4000 3,560
1,760
Hubbert and Willis

586.7 psi 2386.7 psi
Kelly and Mathew

880 2680 psi
772.6 2572.6 psi

126

2/24/2018
Example:
1800
3,560 2
1,760
0.6 4000 2400
2 2400 1800 400 3400

Hubbert and Willis
2386.7 psi
Hoop Stress:
Kelly and Mathew 3400
2680 psi
2572.6 psi

127
Fracture Pressure Measurement


2/24/2018
Tests with Similar Procedures

Casing Also known
Integrity
Test as limit test
or limited
Important Info for:
leak-off test
• Cement &
Casing check
• MW design
• Kick tolerance Extended Drilling Formation
and well control
Leak-off Injection Integrity
Test test Test
Leak-off
Drill off test? Test

129
Casing Integrity test

cement
• After setting the cement
• Increasing the bottom hole drilling fluid
pressure
casing
• Monitoring the pressure
cement plug
variation
floating
• Ensuring any leakage both for collar
casing couplings and casing.
casing
coupling
130

2/24/2018
Leak-off Test, Formation Integrity and

Extended Leak-off Test
cement
• Drilling cement collar, shoe
and cement drilling fluid
• Continue drilling for 10-20 ft
casing
• Increase the bottom hole
pressure by injecting
cement
• Dynamic and static injection collar
method
10-20 ft

131
Leak-off Test, Formation Integrity and

Extended Leak-off Test
Extended LOT Few cycles
LOT
FIT
FIT vs LOT
Additional Info
from Extended
LOT
Fu (2014)
132

2/24/2018
Some Logistics for LOTs

• Complete circulation of the drilling fluid to clean the hole
• Closing the BOP around the drill pipe
• Setting a limit during the test: numbers to consider like overburden stress,
casing burst limit
• Pressure gauge selection : minimum accuracy of 0.5% and resolution of 2%
• Drilling fluid selection with low-end rheology to minimise the friction loss
• Compare MW in and out
• Formation breakdown pressure – must be avoided due to the consequences
• But the value is the minimum tangential stress plus the rock tensile can be
obtained if the fracture pressure is exceeded
Let’s see the positive side of it

133
LOT: Surface to Bottom-hole
• Bottom hole pressure to be inferred from surface

measurement
0.052 Δ
Δ : the pressure drop at very small flow rate
Low end rheology is better, leading to smaller Δ

134

2/24/2018
LOT: Friction at Low Rheology
60
Shear stress (lbf/100ft2)
50
40
30 1421
20
1422
10
Lab
0
0 500 1000 1500
Shear rate (hz)
(Mostofi, 2015) (Barnes et al., 1989)

135
LOT Calculations/Prediction Application of the slope?
1
Compressibility
Component Compressibility ( )
Water 3.0 10
Oil 5.0 10
Solids 0.5 10
Pore and Fracture Pressure Sources of error?

136

2/24/2018
Fracture Pressure – Data from Australia
(Van Ruth, 2006)

137
Exercise Book: Leak-off Test
• Plotting the surface data points

Mapping • Plotting the guidelines
• Inferring bottom hole

Analysing pressure
• MW design
Design from the
LOT results

138

2/24/2018
Case Study Topic 4:

Information from Extended LOT
LOT vs XLOT Breakdown Diagnosis Case Study

• Plotting the Info • Cement vs Interpretation
surface data • Inferring bottom Formation • MW design from
points hole pressure the LOT results

139

140

2/24/2018
Casing Setting Depth

Casing Setting Depth

Pressure [ppg]
• Pore pressure vs fracture pressure
Fracture
depth
pressure
Pore
pressure

142

2/24/2018
Fracture Pressure – Concept

Pressure [ppg]
• Pore pressure vs fracture pressure
Fracture
depth pressure
Pore
pressure

143

• Pore pressure vs fracture pressure Pore, fracture pressure and MW [ppg]
fracture
kick
depth
Pore
pressure
Fracture
lower MW lead to kick pressure
higher MW lead to fracturing
144

2/24/2018

depth Pore
pressure
Fracture
pressure
Shallow formations are protected by
cement and casing
145

depth
Pore
pressure
Fracture
pressure

146

2/24/2018
Casing setting depth

pressure [ppg]
Casing Point
Casing Point
Which one to choose?
• This is only based on pore and fracture

pressure
• Other possible reasons for setting the
casing are: safety, troublesome
formations, and regulations.
• Will be discussed in casing design. depth

147
References
Ayan, C., Hafez, H., Hurst, S., Kuchuk, F., O’Callaghan, A., Peffer, J., . . . Zeybek,
M. (2001). Characterizing permeability with formation testers. Oilfield Review, 13(3),
2-23.
Bourgoyne, A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., & Young, F. (1986). Applied
drilling engineering.
DODSON, J., DODSON, T., & SCHMIDT, V. (2004). Gulf of Mexico'trouble

time'creates major drilling expenses: Use of cost-effective technologies needed.
Offshore, 64(1).
Fjar, E., Holt, R. M., Raaen, A., Risnes, R., & Horsrud, P. (2008). Petroleum related
rock mechanics (Vol. 53): Elsevier.
Fu, Y. (2014). Leak-off test (LOT) models.
Holand, P., & Skalle, P. (2001). Deepwater kicks and BOP performance. Unrestricted
version.

148

2/24/2018
References
Mostofi, M. (2015). Quality Control of Bentonite Samples of Australian Mud
Company. External report submitted to AMC.
Mitchell, R. F., & Miska, S. Z. (2011). Fundamentals of drilling engineering.
Rehm, B., & McClendon, R. (1971, January 1). Measurement of Formation Pressure
from Drilling Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/3601-MS
Van Ruth, P. (2006). Geomechanics: Vlaming Sub-basin, Western Australia.

CO2CRC Report number RPT06-0043.
Zhang, J. (2011). Pore pressure prediction from well logs: Methods, modifications,
and new approaches. Earth-Science Reviews, 108(1-2), 50-63. doi:
10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001

149


1 Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure - 2018

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

1 Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure - 2018

Загружено:

Авторское право:

2/24/2018

Pore and Fracture Pressures

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Copyright Regulation 1969

The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under

Do not remove this notice

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Have you ever thought about

Why blow out occurs?

How to determine the required mud weight?

How to determine the fastest possible tripping?

How to predict pore and fracture pressure?

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Have you ever thought about

Why blow out occurs?

Insufficient mud weight yields to kick and eventually blow out.

How to determine the required mud weight?

Pore pressure estimation is one of the key element of mud weight

How to determine the fastest possible tripping?

Surge and swab pressures should be taken into consideration. Fracture

How to predict pore and fracture pressure?

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Pore and Fracture Pressures Detection: A

• The non-productive time (NPT) definition

• Number of kick incidents is correlated to proper pore pressure

• 48 kicks for 83 wells drilled in deep water reservoirs in Gulf of

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Pressure – Wellbore Hydrostatic Drilling Fluid

pore fluid drilling fluid

Factors controlling the valve position: impermeable, permeable, mud cake

Related to filter press experiment for drilling fluid

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Pore Pressure and Drilling Fluid Weight

Assuming permeable rock:

 Kick and under balanced drilling

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Differential Pressure: Application of the

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Safe Mud Weight Window

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Demonstrating Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Demonstrating Pore and Fracture Pressure

Demonstrating Pore and Fracture Pressure

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Pore Pressure Estimation

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Pore Pressure: All About The Fluid in Pore

water oil gas

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Pore Pressure: A Million Year Story

(Bourgoyne et al., 1986)

The source of normal pore pressure

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Pore Pressure: A Million Year Story

Pore and Fracture Pressure

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

Normal and Abnormal Pore Pressure

Subnormal pressure: Hydrostatic

Is D the same as TVD?

the density of saturating brine