A Sound Approach to Drilling
Of the many decisions drilling engineers make, selecting an optimal mud
Jeff Alford
Roger B. Goobie
Colin M. Sayers
Ed Tollefsen
Houston, Texas, USA
Jay Cooke
Helis Oil & Gas
Houston, Texas
Andy Hawthorn
John C. Rasmus
Sugar Land, Texas
Ron Thomas
PPI Technology Services
Houston, Texas
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Ron
Blaisdell, New Orleans; Lennert den Boer, Calgary;
Joaquin Armando Pinto Delgadillo and Egbonna Obi,
Youngsville, Louisiana; Nick Ellson and Dale Meek,
Sugar Land, Texas; and Ivor Gray, CJ Hattier and
Sheila Noeth, Houston.
APWD (Annular Pressure While Drilling), CDR (Compen-
sated Dual Resistivity), FPWD (Formation Pressure While
Drilling), PERT (Pressure Evaluation in Real Time),
sonicVISION, StethoScope and TeleScope are marks of
Schlumberger.
1. For more on the development of sonar devices:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/sonar
(accessed February 6, 2006).
2. For more on sonic logging: Brie A, Endo T, Hoyle D,
Codazzi D, Esmersoy C, Hsu K, Denoo S, Mueller MC,
Plona T, Shenoy R and Sinha B: “New Directions in Sonic
Logging,” Oilfield Review 10, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 40–55.
3. Barriol Y, Glasser KS, Pop J, Bartman B, Corbiell R,
Eriksen KO, Laastad H, Laidlaw J, Manin Y, Morrison K,
Sayers CM, Terrazas Romero M and Volokitin Y: “The
Pressures of Drilling and Production,” Oilfield Review 17,
no. 3 (Autumn 2005): 22–41.
4. For more on underbalanced drilling: Bigio D, Rike A,
Christensen A, Collins J, Hardman D, Doremus D,
Tracy P, Glass G, Joergensen NB and Stephens D:
“Coiled Tubing Takes Center Stage,” Oilfield Review 6,
no. 4 (October 1994): 9–23.
68
weight is one of the most challenging and far-reaching. Today, sonic logging-
while-drilling tools are instrumental in making these decisions.
Generations of drilling engineers have struggled
to visualize the dark and formidable downhole
drilling environment. Today, engineers and
geoscientists rely on increasingly sophisticated
sensors to gather data from deep beneath
the Earth’s surface, understand subsurface
lithology, identify geologic features, locate
hydrocarbons and make a host of drilling and
completion decisions.
Even though our sense of sight is highly
developed, it has its limitations. So, early in the
20th century, scientists began development of
technologies that would allow visualization of
environments that could not otherwise be seen.
In 1906, Lewis Nixon invented the first sound
navigation and ranging, or sonar, device, as a way
of detecting icebergs.1
Early sonar devices were passive; they could
only listen. However, between 1914 and 1918,
World War I accelerated interest in and develop-
ment of active sonar tools for submarine detection.
The first active sonar technology transmitted
a sound, or ping, through water. Multiple
receivers called transponders detected the
returning sound echo, providing data on the
relative positions of static and moving objects.
Today, advanced acoustic technologies have
many uses in areas such as medicine, military
applications and oil and gas exploration and
production (E&P).
Acoustic-based logging-while-drilling (LWD)
tools provide data that help reduce uncertainty
and allow engineers to make effective and timely
drilling decisions. Data from sonic LWD tools not
only help establish pore-pressure gradients, but
also help define porosity and permeability, detect
and type hydrocarbons, evaluate borehole
stability, interpret lithology changes, monitor
fluid-flow effects in the borehole and pick
accurate casing-setting depths.2
More importantly, these data are available in
real time to help engineers and geoscientists
make critical decisions that affect drilling cost
and efficiency (see “Acting in Time to Make the
Most of Hydrocarbon Resources,” page 4). In this
article, we describe how advanced sonic tools
and interpretation techniques are helping to
better define the safe mud-weight window, drill
deeper and optimize casing-setting depths. Field
examples from the Gulf of Mexico and offshore
Australia show how operators are using real-time
acoustic data and wellsite-to-shore telemetry
systems to limit risk and uncertainty while
reducing well cost.
A Pressing Need for Pressure Prediction
Key to the well construction process is an
understanding of the subsurface pressure
environment.3 Changes in the normal pressure
gradient affect drilling safety, casing design and
setting depths, and in particular, the mud-
weight window.
Engineers restrict the mud-weight range to
sustain borehole stability, control downhole
pressures and optimize casing-setting depth.
Most often, the mud weight is maintained above
the formation pressure—at a level required to
control formation stress and prevent kicks or
influxes that can lead to costly well-control
problems—and below the fracture gradient to
prevent the formation from breaking down and
losing returns. Wells are also sometimes drilled
with the static mud weight below formation
pressure, or underbalanced.4
Oilfield Review
W
 Spontaneous
Potential (SP) Depth Resistivity
N al trend
Normal t d
line
R i tii it
Resistivity
deviation
i
> Electric log analysis to predict pore pressure.
In normally compacted sediment, electrical
resistivity will increase with depth along a
normal trend line (red). A deviation in resistivity
from the normal trend may indicate abnormal
formation pressure.
The optimal mud-weight range is frequently
narroww and difficult to define; this is especially
true in tectonicallyy stressed regions and in
deepwater environments. Within this narrow
mud-weight window, engineers balance several
factors, including the minimum flow w rate
required for hole cleaning, downhole motor and
telemetryy operations and equivalent circulating
and static densities. Drilling fluids such as oil-
base and synthetic-base muds frequentlyy exhibit
Formation resistivityy depends on porosity, the
type off the fluid within the pore space and its
ionic strength. Under normal compaction
conditions, an increase in shale resistivityy with
depth corresponds to a reduction in porosity
(left). An anomalous change in formation
pressure is usuallyy associated with a shift in the
normal compaction trend, indicated on an
electric log byy a reduction in resistivityy associ-
ated with an increase in porosity.
For the purpose off maintaining safe mud
weight while drilling, information about
abnormal pressure needs to be available while
drilling. Although formation resistivityy is one of
the most common LWD measurements, several
factors can have a significant effect on the data,
potentially masking changes in the normal
compaction trend and hindering the detection of
abnormal pressure.5
Changingg temperature in the borehole with
depth alters the resistivityy off formation water,
while the presence off hydrocarbons considerably
increases resistivity. Large deposits off organic
matterr mayy also increase resistivity, obscuring
undercompaction indicators. Changes in the
condition off the borehole, such as an increase in
borehole diameter due to washout or caving,
furtherr increase resistivityy measurement error.
Although manyy off these effects can be
Distance, km
compensated for, reliance on resistivityy data
alone forr pore-pressure prediction significantly
increases drillingg risk.
Geoscientists can often identifyy abnormally
pressured formations using seismic velocities.
For a given lithology, acoustic velocityy usually
depends on porosity: the greater the porosity, the
lower the acoustic velocity. In normallyy com-
pacted sediments, compaction increases with
depth. Porosity, in turn, decreases with depth,
and so the velocityy off sonic and seismic waves
traveling through the formation generally
increases with depth (below). Deviations from
this trend can often be attributed to layers of
sediments that have not compacted, signaling
abnormallyy high pressure, called overpressure.
However, uncertainties in seismic velocities
commonlyy result in depth errors, making it
difficult to define exact distances to drilling
hazards and geological targets.
Velocityy models created from seismic dataa can
be improved byy adding high-resolution informa-
tion from sonic measurements obtained while
drilling (next page). Today, geoscientists and
engineers combine while-drilling and wireline
5. Aldred W, Bergt D, Rasmus J and Voisin B: “Real-Time
Overpressure Detection,” Oilfield Review 1, no. 3
(October 1989): 17–27.
Checkshot
Tomography
Interval velocity
0 calculated from
stacking velocity
0.5
1.0
1.5
Depth, km

0 9
thermomechanical and compressibilityy properties 0 2.0

that varyy with depth, making it difficult to 1

2.5

optimize drilling efficiencyy while maintaining 3.0

Depth, km

mud weight. 2 3.5

Operating within the mud-weight window 4.0
3 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
allows engineers to improve drilling efficiency Velocity, km/s
and set casing at the best possible depth. If 4
casing is set too shallow, well-construction cost
typicallyy increases, well depth is limited,
production rate mayy be compromised and, in > Predicting pore pressure in the Gulf of Mexico 16
some cases, the target mayy not be reachable. with seismic data. In this example, the initial 0.5 15
Pore pressure, lbm/galUS

Maintaining the mud weight within a specific velocity model based on conventional stacking- 1.0 14
windoww relies on accurate determination and velocity analysis (above leftt) predicts the 1.5 13
Depth, km

prediction off anomalous changes in formation presence of overpressure (black circle). 2.0 12
Although pore-pressure predictions based on 2.5
11
pressure. The analysis off shale resistivityy using this information are not sufficiently accurate for 3.0
10
wireline log data is one off the oldest methods for drilling, a higher degree of seismic-velocity 3.5
9
detecting abnormal pressure. resolution can be obtained by using tomographic 16
analysis and checkshott data to refine the velocity 14 8
12 16
model (above rightt). Further data processing 10 14
12
allows construction of a three-dimensional (3D) y, k 8
m 10 km
6 6 8 x,
pore-pressure cube (bottom rightt).

70 Oilfield Review
 Gamma Ray Attenuation Resistivity
0 gAPI 150 0.2 ohm.m 2.0
Rate of Penetration Depth, Phase Shift Resistivity Sonic LWD ∆t
Normal compaction
p 50 ft/h 0 ft 0.2 ohm.m 2.0 150 µs/ft 50
t d
trend
8,800

9,000

9,200
Divergence
9,400
Onset of
overpressure
9,600

9,800
O erpress
Overpressured
p redd
zone
10,000

10,200

150 50
∆t 10,400

MD, ft Mud Weight

Overburden Gradient
Fracture
0 psi 5,000
Maximum Stress
Losses Fracture
0 psi 6,000 Unconfined
Minimum Stress Compressive Strength
Kick Shear Failure: Breakout Overgauge
0 psi 5,000 0 psi 5,000
Poision’s Ratio Tensile Strength Caliper
Breakout Shear Failure: Echelon
0 () 0.5 0 psi 6,000 5 in. 25
Gamma Ray Depth, Vp/Vs Ratio Friction Angle Diameter
Shear Failure: Knockout
30 gAPI 150 ft 0 () 6 0 deg 50 5 lbm/galUS 25 5 in. 25
7,680

7,700
Safe mud-
7,720 weight window

7,740

7,760

7,780

7,800

7,820

7,840

7,860

> Defining mud-weight windows. Sonic velocity can be used to predict changes in the normal compaction trend that is often an
indicator of abnormal pressure (top leftt). Unlike resistivity measurements, sonic velocity is unaffected by changes in borehole
temperature and salinity. Real-time compressional-slowness measurements from sonic LWD tools are used to predict pore
pressure and help define kick and borehole breakout limits (top rightt). Adding sonic shear measurements (bottom), available in
fast formations, helps determine kick and mud-loss potential, fracture limits, and the safe mud-weight window shown in white
(Track 4). Various types of shear failure can also be defined (Track 5).

Winter 2005/2006 71
 Sonic Acoustic Synthetic
Density slowness impedance Reflectivity Wavelet seismogram

> Placing a bit on the seismic map using synthetic seismograms. Sonic LWD slowness data are inverted with the density
measurement to produce an acoustic-impedance (AI) measurement (process from left to rightt). The AI is converted to
reflectivity and convolved with a 35-Hz wavelet at each reflector to obtain the synthetic seismogram (rightt). Geophysical
analysis of the seismic data determines the wavelet frequency. With increasing depth, higher frequency seismic signals
are attenuated, so a lower frequency, generally 20 Hz instead of 35 Hz, is used to correlate the sonic LWD data to surface
seismic measurements. This helps engineers and geoscientists place the bit on the seismic map more accurately.

sonic data with checkshots to generate synthetic
seismograms that are then correlated with
predrilling seismic measurements, providing the
drilling team with a way to locate the drill bit
within the geophysical environment (above).6
These real-time processes help engineers prepare
for pressure changes before drilling into them.
Generating a synthetic seismogram from LWD
data involves combining transit-time (∆t) data
with density measurements, to produce an
acoustic impedance (AI) model. This model is
converted into a seismic reflectivity sequence,
and then convolved with a selected wavelet to
produce a synthetic seismogram.7 A synthetic
seismogram is much more useful when it is
depth-calibrated with either a wireline or while-
drilling checkshot or vertical seismic profile
(VSP). Although the synthetic seismogram can
be generated at the wellsite, more often, the real-
time data are transmitted to an engineering
center for processing.
Correlating a synthetic seismogram with
surface seismic traces helps geoscientists and
engineers place the borehole trajectory on a
seismic section. Calculation of the spatial position
of the borehole relative to seismic markers, or
reflectors, allows the drilling team to look ahead
to abnormal changes in formation pressure.
Sonic Measurements While Drilling
Soon after the introduction of sonic LWD
measurements in the late 1990s, an operator
experimented with using sonic LWD measure-
ments to improve drilling efficiency in several
major operating areas. On an exploration well in
the Gulf of Mexico, USA, in an area known for
abnormally pressured formations, sonic and
density LWD data were transmitted from the rig
to the operator’s office. There, geoscientists
generated a synthetic seismogram, which was
correlated to the surface seismic section imaging
the target zone and an overlying overpressured
zone.8 The synthetic seismogram indicated that
the top of the overpressured zone was 60 ft
[18 m] deeper than what the seismic section
predicted. This information allowed engineers to
place the casing shoe significantly closer to the
overpressured zone, optimizing casing-setting
depth and improving the safety and drilling
efficiency of subsequent borehole sections.
In another early example, BHP (now BHP
Billiton) and Schlumberger demonstrated the
use of sonic LWD measurements not only to
calibrate seismic reflections, but also to update
pore-pressure calculations ahead of the bit.9
Several exploration wells offshore Western
Australia had been abandoned prematurely due
to wellbore-stability problems associated with
overpressured formations.
As the bit approached the predicted
overpressured zone, acoustic velocity acquired
while drilling was used to continuously update
the velocity models derived from existing surface
seismic and VSP surveys. Simultaneously,
engineers at the wellsite used real-time CDR
Compensated Dual Resistivity data, sonic LWD,
weight-on-bit (WOB), rotary torque and rate-of-
penetration (ROP) measurements, in conjunc-
tion with the PERT Pressure Evaluation in Real
Time program, to monitor changes in pore
pressure a few meters behind the bit. This
information was used to calibrate the pore-
pressure predictions from the seismic and
VSP data.
Using multiple techniques for pore-pressure
prediction, the operator accurately predicted
changes in formation pressure, identified mini-
mum mud-weight requirements and optimized
casing-setting depth to construct a successful
well in this hostile environment.
Narrowing the Window of Uncertainty
Drilling in technically demanding areas is usually
associated with high cost and elevated levels of
risk and uncertainty.10 Sonic LWD data available
in real time play a key role in reducing cost, risk
and uncertainty by updating models created
before drilling. However, creating those models

72 Oilfield Review
in the first place can be a bottleneck. In 2000,
geoscientists began looking at opportunities to
increase the speed and accuracy of while-drilling
pore-pressure modeling and prediction.11
In the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM),
overpressure causes major drilling hazards.
Overpressure is caused by Mississippi River
sedimentation that is rapidly buried compared
with the time it takes for sediments to expel
pore water. This prevents sediments from
compacting as they are buried and causes the
pore fluid to become overpressured. In under-
compacted sediments, sediment grain contacts
are weak, causing low rock strength and low
acoustic velocities.
Accurate determination of pore pressure is a
key requirement to making optimized drilling
decisions in these overpressured environments.
Before drilling, pore pressure can be predicted
using seismic velocities—assuming there is a
seismic survey available and processed—
together with a velocity-to-pore-pressure trans-
form calibrated to offset-well data. However, this
procedure takes considerable time. Synthetic
seismograms can be generated quickly, compared
with the time needed for analyzing seismic
velocities and creating a pore-pressure cube.
As engineers focus on ways to reduce risk and
uncertainty, the time required to process and
correlate seismic and sonic LWD data becomes
critical. To speed up this process for prospects in 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
the northern GOM, Schlumberger geoscientists Pore pressure, lbm/galUS
developed a pore-pressure cube for the entire
> Building a three-dimensional (3D) mechanical earth model in the Gulf of Mexico.
area using data released by the Minerals
Seismic, checkshot and sonic data released by the Minerals Management Service
Management Service (MMS) (right).12 (green dots) were gathered from wells in the Gulf of Mexico (top) where pore pressure
Checkshot data from the MMS in the Gulf of exceeded 10 lbm/galUS [1,198 kg/m3] and the predicted velocity error was less than
Mexico were inverted to obtain compressional ± 1,200 ft/s [± 366 m/s]. The data were then trend-kriged to predict pore pressure, and
then plotted in a 3D model (bottom).
velocity versus depth below the mudline. These
velocity functions were then combined with
upscaled sonic logs from deepwater wells and
kriged to populate a three-dimensional (3D) 6. A checkshot is a type of borehole seismic survey 10. Malinverno A, Sayers CM, Woodward MJ and
mechanical earth model (MEM) displaying both designed to measure the acoustic traveltime from the Bartman RC: “Integrating Diverse Measurements to
surface to a known depth. Formation velocity is Predict Pore Pressure with Uncertainties While Drilling,”
velocity and levels of expected uncertainty.13 measured directly by lowering a geophone to each depth paper SPE 90001, presented at the SPE Annual
By applying a threshold to the predicted of interest, emitting energy from a source on the surface Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
and recording the resulting signal. A checkshot differs September 26–29, 2004.
kriging error, maps of undercompaction and from a vertical seismic profile in the number and density 11. Sayers CM, Johnson GM and Denyer G: “Predrill Pore
overpressure can be restricted to specific areas of receiver depths recorded; geophone positions may be Pressure Prediction Using Seismic Data,” paper
widely and irregularly located in the wellbore, whereas a IADC/SPE 59122, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
of interest. For commercial projects, a confi- vertical seismic profile usually has numerous geophones Conference, New Orleans, February 23–25, 2000.
dential client subcube may be extracted from the positioned at closely and regularly spaced intervals in
12. Sayers CM, den Boer LD, Nagy ZR, Hooyman PJ and
the wellbore.
full GOM pore-pressure cube. Any additional Ward V: “Regional Trends in Undercompaction and
7. A wavelet is a pulse representing a packet of energy Overpressure in the Gulf of Mexico,” Expanded
information provided by the operator and data from the seismic source. Abstractss, 75th SEG Annual Meeting, Houston
acquired during the drilling process with sonic 8. Hashem M, Ince D, Hodenfield K and Hsu K: “Seismic (November 6–11, 2005): 1219–1222.
Tie Using Sonic-While-Drilling Measurements,” 13. Kriging is a statistical technique used with two-point
LWD and real-time pore-pressure tools is used to Transactions of the SPWLA 40th Annual Logging statistical functions that describe the increasing
update the client model, increasing resolution Symposium m, Oslo, Norway, May 30–June 3, 1999, paper I. difference or decreasing correlation between sample
9. Tcherkashnev S, Rasmus J and Sanders M: “Joint values as separation between them increases, then to
Application of Surface Seismic, VSP and LWD Data for determine the value of a point in a heterogeneous grid
Overpressure Analysis to Optimize Casing Depth,” from known values nearby.
presented at the EAGE Workshop: Petrophysics Meets
Geophysics, Paris, November 6–8, 2000.

Winter 2005/2006 73
 1 2

500 500

1,000
1,000 1,000
1,000

1 500
1,500 1 500
1,500

h m
h m

Depthh,
Depthh,

De
De

2 000
2,000 2 000
2,000

Sonic
2 500
2,500 2 500
2,500

3 000
3,000 3 000
3,000

1 500
1,500 2,000
2 000 22,500
500 3 000
3,000 10 15 20 1 500
1,500 2,000
2 000 2,500
2 500 3 000
3,000 10 15 20
Vp, m/s
/ P pressure gradient
Pore-pressure
Pore gradient,
di t lbm/galUS
lb / lUS Vp, m/s
/ P pressure gradient
Pore-pressure
Pore gradient,
di t lbm/galUS
lb / lUS

3 4

500 500

Mud weights Mud weights

1,000
1,000 1,000
1,000

1 500
1,500 1 500
1,500
h m

h m
Depthh,

Depthh,
De

De

2 000
2,000 2 000
2,000
Pore-
pressure
Sonic Sonic data
2 500
2,500 2 500
2,500

3 000
3,000 3 000
3,000

1 500
1,500 2,000
2 000 22,500
500 3 000
3,000 10 15 20 1 500
1,500 2,000
2 000 2,500
2 500 3 000
3,000 10 15 20
Vp, m/s
/ P pressure gradient
Pore-pressure
Pore gradient,
di t lbm/galUS
lb / lUS Vp, m/s
/ P pressure gradient
Pore-pressure
Pore gradient,
di t lbm/galUS
lb / lUS

> Reducing uncertainty with pressure data from multiple sources. The degree of uncertainty in a pore-pressure gradient is exemplified by the width and
low resolution of the compressional-velocity (Vp) and pore-pressure gradient curves (1). Velocity data from sonic checkshots are added to the model,
somewhat reducing pore-pressure uncertainty (2). Adding mud weights from drilling reports (3) and physical pore-pressure measurements (4) refines
estimates and dramatically improves pore-pressure resolution.

and reducing pore-pressure uncertainty both in
the immediate drilling environment and ahead of
the bit (above).
Along with improved modeling, technological
advances in LWD tools and telemetry systems are
yielding more accurate real-time measurements
and in greater quantities. The sonicVISION, new
generation sonic-while-drilling LWD tool intro-
duced in April 2004 has increased confidence
in the accuracy of real-time compressional-
wave velocities.
Until fairly recently, many believed that it
would be impossible to achieve sonic measure-
ments while drilling. Engineers thought that the
fast acoustic-signal arrival down the tool collar
from the transmitter to the receivers would
dominate all the arrivals, making it impossible to
discriminate and record formation arrivals.
With this in mind, the designers of first-
generation sonic LWD tools focused on mitigating
direct collar arrivals. To accomplish this, the
tools were designed around what is referred to as
the hoop-mode frequency range of the collars.
This frequency depends on the collar thickness
and diameter, but for most tools, falls in a narrow
band between 11 and 13 kHz.
At the hoop-mode frequency, acoustic waves
attempt to expand the collar rather than travel
down to the receiver, thereby attenuating the
collar arrivals at the receivers. By designing the
transmitters to fire within the narrow hoop-mode
frequency band and filtering received data to the

74 Oilfield Review
same range, engineers hoped to receive clean
and discernable formation arrivals, free from
distortion caused by collar arrivals.
This technique proved somewhat satisfactory
for fast formations where the excitation
frequency falls within the appropriate range.
However, for slower formations, larger hole sizes
and for lower frequency components of the wave
train, such as shear and Stoneley waveforms,
these first-generation tools did not excite the
formation at the optimum frequency and were
discarding data outside of the narrow band
around the hoop mode (right).
1,000 Stoneley energy
Narrow-band processing also promoted
spatial aliasing, a condition in which non-

Amplitude, mV
formation arrivals, or processing artifacts, 100
Collar attenuation
appear within the slowness time coherence
(STC) search-band window. Aliasing depends on 10 Compressional and
the frequency of the transmitted pulse, the shear energies
recorded waveform frequencies and the inter-
1
receiver spacing. With an almost monofrequency 0 5 10 15 20
system, aliasing was well-developed and led to Frequency,
Previous tool frequency kHz
incorrect picking of events that were not
range
formation arrivals.
Misinterpretation of signal arrivals can also sonicVISION frequency
limit the usefulness of acoustic data. Previous range
tools analyzed all acoustic arrivals within a time
window associated with a depth. So within this
dataset, there could be compressional, shear,
mud, collar and aliased arrivals. The tool’s
downhole processors then discriminated the
compressional arrival from other signals based
on the coherency of those events. With compres-
sional arrivals being one of the smallest events
discernible in the wave train, their coherency is
> Frequency range of the new tool design. The frequency ranges of previous
typically low when compared with other arrivals
tools were narrowly aligned within the collar attenuation frequency. Newer
(below right). Early tools often confused or tools have an expanded frequency range covering a broader spectrum of soft
misidentified the data, sending incorrect values and hard formations (yellow bar). Lower frequency arrivals such as Stoneley
to the surface. and leaky-P (not shown) are now captured.
To mitigate these problems, Schlumberger
engineers designed the sonicVISION tool to
transmit and receive wide-band acoustic signals
in a frequency range from 3 to 19 kHz, a range Total Shear Mud
more likely to generate a measurable response transit time arrivals arrivals
from most formations. Acoustic shear waves are
difficult to acquire with narrow-band tools
because they contain lower frequencies than
Amplitude

compressional waves. The sonicVISION tool

frequency is optimized to excite the formation Time, s
Transmitter
across a significantly wider frequency band than firing
that of previous tools. This allows both shear and
compressional measurements to be routinely
made while drilling in faster formations. Power- Compressional Rayleigh Stoneley
arrivals arrivals arrivals
output levels were also increased 10-fold to more
> Acoustic wave train. Once an acoustic signal is transmitted, it travels through the formation, annular
effectively couple the wide-band acoustic energy
fluid, and to some degree the tool, ultimately arriving at the receiver array. Low-amplitude compressional
to the formation. signals (red) arrive first, followed in harder rock by the shear arrival. Newer tools take advantage of
slower arrivals such as Rayleigh and Stoneley.

Winter 2005/2006 75
 To speed data to the surface, Schlumberger
Min Amplitude
p Max Slowness Time Coherence Peaks
recently released the TeleScope high-speed
0 Slowness Projection 1 Maximum and Minimum ∆t Compressional telemetry-while-drilling service. This new
Label Limits
Recorded Mode
Min Amplitude
p Max measurement-while-drilling (MWD) system is
40 µs/ft 240 Maximum and Minimum ∆t Shear Label Limits capable of providing enough power to run eight or
0 Slowness Projection 1
∆t Shear from Receiver Array Real Time more LWD tools while offering up to a fourfold
∆t Shear from Receiver Array
40 µs/ft 240 increase in data rate over comparable tools. Field
40 µs/ft 240 µs/ft 240
∆t Compressional from Depth, application of these new hardware technologies,
Receiver Array ft ∆t Compressional from Receiver Array ∆t Peak 1 Compressional Computed Uphole, Real Time
in combination with improved pore-pressure
40 µs/ft 240 40 µs/ft 240 40 µs/ft 240
modeling described earlier, promises to enhance
X,300
drilling efficiency and reduce geologic and well-
construction uncertainty.
Advancements in sonic LWD tool design and
telemetry systems have overcome many of the
inadequacies previously inherent in while-
drilling sonic measurements. New data proces-
sing techniques and improvements in telemetry
systems have minimized earlier limitations,
allowing real-time access to while-drilling sonic
compressional measurements in almost any
drilling environment.

Seismic, Sonic and Pressure Measurement—

Defining the Mud-Weight Window
In many GOM fields, pore pressure changes
rapidly with depth, and tight mud-weight
windows make drilling and completion difficult,
or even impossible. One example of an extremely
difficult environment is the Vermillion offshore
area. Here, mud weights often reach 18 lbm/galUS
X,400 [2,157 kg/m3], the risk of wellbore instability
> Compressional and shear peaks available in real time. Because of improvements in downhole tool and lost circulation is high, and six or more
and telemetry systems, slowness time coherence peaks can now be sent to the surface for casing strings are typically required to reach
evaluation and labeling while drilling (Track 2). Previously, the semblance projection was available target reservoirs.
only by processing tool memory after the tool was pulled from the borehole (Track 1). The semblance
projection based on the real-time peaks (Track 3) is consistent with the memory-mode data. Station
Today, operators use data retrieved during
measurements of compressional ∆t (white circles) acquired during quiet periods, such as when drilling from sonicVISION, StethoScope formation-
pumps were off during pipe connections, also confirm the accuracy of the real-time data. The pressure-while drilling service and other LWD tools
sonicVISION system has the unique capability to modify label limits (Track 2) at surface for better to help improve well-construction efficiency and
extraction of compressional data, and for the first time, real-time shear data. These improvements in
real-time quality control make the compressional input, used for pore-pressure calculation of reduce cost by accurately defining and managing
minimum mud weight, more robust. Combining the real-time compressional and shear data also the effective stress and mud-weight window.
enables geomechanical calculations of the maximum mud-weight window. Sonic LWD, real-time formation pressure and
other while-drilling tools were successfully used
The new design also transmits real-time ination of arrivals improves pore-pressure to reduce risk and operational uncertainty while
coherent events, called peaks. The sonicVISION measurement and allows geomechanical inter- drilling a well in Vermillion Block 338 during
tool can send up to four peak arrivals uphole at any pretation based on while-drilling compressional, 2005. In this well, which was owned by Helis Oil &
given time, enabling engineers at the surface to shear and density data. Gas LLC and operated by PPI Technology
accurately differentiate arrivals rather than relying Acoustic data can now also be further refined Services, engineers planned and executed an
on downhole processing. These peaks are then by acquiring data while the pumps are off. aggressive drilling program. This program
assembled to form an STC projection log that helps Background noise of the same frequency as sonic extended both the 95⁄ -in. intermediate casing and
improve data accuracy and provides a significant measurements, generated by drilling and 7-in. liner strings to sufficient depths to eliminate
step forward in data quality control (above). circulation, can be problematic for making a string of casing common to wells in the area, in
STC projection logs help engineers accurately accurate acoustic measurements. During a this case, a 5-in. casing string. These efforts not
differentiate compressional, shear and other drillpipe connection, the sonicVISION tool can only reduced well cost, but more importantly,
modes in real time. The novel design of the acquire real-time formation velocity measure- eliminated the difficulties associated with
sonicVISION tool now allows engineers to modify ments in a quiet environment, increasing slimhole drilling and the completion limitations
label limits at the surface thereby improving confidence in the STC projections and potentially inherent in small production casing.
extraction of the compressional ∆t and also allowing engineers to observe velocity changes
providing real-time shear data. Accurate discrim- caused by flow-induced stress variance.

76 Oilfield Review
 2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
Depth, 1,000 ft
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5

Depth, 1,000 ft

Depth, 1,000 ft

Depth, 1,000 ft
6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Pressure gradient, lbm/galUS Pressure gradient, lbm/galUS Pressure gradient, lbm/galUS Pressure gradient, lbm/galUS
A B C D

> Telemetry to engineering centers. The wellsite engineer collects drilling, mud and sonic LWD data,
then transmits this information to the engineering center where a team of experts analyzes and
processes the data. Once the results are returned to the wellsite, initial pore-pressure predictions
(A) are updated with pore-pressure estimations (B), ultimately reducing the cone of uncertainty
(C) and providing more accurate predictions of pore pressure ahead of the bit (D).

Accurate prediction of geologic target depth
and pore pressure is essential to the success of
aggressive drilling plans. Helis and PPI engineers
based their initial well design on mud weights
from wells in the area. They next approached
Schlumberger to refine these predictions using
the GOM 3D mechanical earth model, to be
further refined with while-drilling sonic data.
While-drilling data were transmitted by
satellite to a remote operations and collaboration
center where the wellbore hydrodynamics and Correlating data acquired from the
geomechanical earth models were updated in sonicVISION and FPWD tools significantly
real time using data from the rig (above). To increased confidence in the real-time pore-
account for variations in lithology and sediment- pressure prediction model. These measurements
compaction rates, the nonlinear normal compac- allowed predrilling uncertainties associated with
tion transform established during predrilling the velocity-to-pore-pressure transform to be
planning was validated and recalibrated while properly defined while drilling. The calibrated
drilling using sonicVISION data and direct transform was then applied to revise and update
pressure measurements from the FPWD
Formation Pressure While Drilling tool.

Winter 2005/2006 77
the predrilling pore-pressure model, both behind
and ahead of the bit (right).
The results, including the mud-weight
recommendations, were then conveyed to the rig,
and action was taken to ensure that the surface
mud weight, the equivalent circulating density
(ECD) and the equivalent static density (ESD)
were kept within the limits of the mud-
weight window.
The initial requirements for setting the 95⁄ -in.
casing were constrained by a 13-lbm/galUS
[1,558-kg/m3] fracture point derived from
previous experiences in the field. However, the
calculated fracture gradient derived from while-
drilling formation velocity and density measure-
ments indicated that the rock strength was
substantially higher, and capable of accom-
modating a heavier drilling fluid.
The mud weight was increased to
13 lbm/galUS based on the real-time pore-
pressure analysis as drilling approached 6,800 ft
[2,072 m]. Using real-time sonic LWD data,
while-drilling pressure measurements and
advanced data processing techniques, geo-
scientists at the remote collaborative center
established a safe mud-weight range that allowed
the driller to reach a depth of 8,187 ft [2,495 m]
before running 95⁄ -in. casing; at casing depth, the
ECD was within 0.1 lbm/galUS [11.98 kg/m3] of
the calculated fracture gradient.
Once the 95⁄ -in. casing was set, drilling
resumed with an 81⁄ -in. bit. At 9,500 ft [2,896 m],
the annular pressure exceeded the fracture
gradient, and circulation was lost. Time-lapse
resistivity analysis indicated two zones near the
previous casing shoe where the formation had
probably been damaged.
On further evaluation, engineers believed
that the cost of remedial squeeze operations
outweighed the risk of drilling ahead with tight
hydraulic control and a maximum mud weight of
17.5 lbm/galUS [2,097 kg/m3]. Carefully moni-
toring and maintaining the annular pressures
within an accurately calibrated hydraulic-
pressure envelope allowed the operator to com-
plete the well at 12,507 ft [3,812 m] in the target
reservoir without an additional string of casing.
The combined efforts of Schlumberger, PPI
and Helis engineers eliminated the preplanned
5-in. casing string and avoided the difficulties
associated with slimhole drilling and completion.
Sonic LWD, while-drilling pressure measurements
and careful hydrodynamic monitoring using the
APWD Annular Pressure While Drilling tool
succeeded in identifying pore-pressure changes
and fracture points, and allowed drilling to
proceed within the constraints of a narrow mud-
weight envelope.
78
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Depth, ft
9,000
10,000
Predrilling pore pressure
Real-time ∆t (sonic) pore pressure
Real-time mud weight
11,000 Real-time equivalent circulating density
Real-time ∆t (sonic) fracture gradient
Equivalent static density
12,000 Formation integrity test
Formation pressure while drilling data
Casing point
13,000
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Pore pressure, lbm/galUS
> Drilling in a narrow mud-weight window. The top of the pore-pressure ramp
is confirmed at around 6,800 ft by the sonic (red) and formation pressure while-
drilling measurements (green diamonds). Between 7,000 and 8,000 ft
[2,134 and 2,438 m], a significant divergence between the predrilling model
(green curve) and actual pore pressure represents an example of the
importance of using real-time measurements to update the predrilling model.
As drilling progressed below 9,000 ft [2,743 m], accurate pore-pressure
prediction, pressure measurements and hydraulic modeling allowed the
drilling team to maintain the mud weight (black curve), equivalent static (blue
diamond) and equivalent circulating (purple curve) densities within a narrow
window just below the real-time fracture gradient (gold curve).
Engineers significantly reduced the uncer- Today’s sonic LWD systems are providing
tainty associated with pressure-prediction accurate acoustic data that in turn, are being
models by updating the predrilling velocity-to- processed in real time to reliably determine pore
pore-pressure transform using sonic LWD data pressure and the geophysical limits of formations
and measuring true formation pressure. The being drilled. When combined with seismic and
critical 95⁄ -in. casing depth was pushed 1,187 ft other real-time data, this information helps
[362 m] deeper than planned, eliminating an geoscientists see ahead of the bit to the next
entire casing section and reducing well cost by geologic horizon and beyond. Defining the mud-
more than US$ 1.7 million. weight window while drilling enables engineers
to deviate from predrilling casing designs,
A Sound Future for While-Drilling pushing casing seats to greater depths and
Acoustic Tools significantly reducing well cost.
A new generation of sonic LWD tools is helping Much like the development of sonar early
drillers, engineers and geoscientists make many in the 20th century, advances in modeling
decisions that facilitate safe and cost-effective software, acoustic tool design and decision-
well construction. By supplying timely infor- processing utilities are helping engineers
mation on formation velocity, while-drilling see the unseen and make sound drilling
acoustic tools have proved to be a valuable asset decisions, reducing cost and increasing well-
to the well-engineering team. construction efficiency. —DW
Oilfield Review