Você está na página 1de 10

Real-Time Pore-Pressure Evaluation

From MWD/LWD Measurements and


Drilling-Derived Formation Strength
J.C. Rasmus,

SPE, Anadrill,

and D.M.R.

Gray Staphans,

Schlumberger

Cambridge

Research

Caoqqs
Summary.
Traditieml pore-pressure inte~retstions in tertiary undercompacted shales have been based onempirical relationships
bemveena particular measurement(such as resistivity) and pore pressure in pounds per gdlOII. It is WeU-known, however, that the
measurementssre responding to the excess porosity in the shaferatherthanto the pore pressuredirectly. Anew technique is illustrated in which all available measurementsare first chamctem ed in terms of this excess porosity snd fitholon with measurement-response
equations. This allows a matbematiczi minimht ion technique to solve simultaneously the various measurernent-respxtseequations
for tiis pormily and lithcdogy on a foot-by-fcot basis. A cenventioezl compaction porosiiyleffecdve-stress mOdelis then used to determine the additional pore pressure caused by this excess porosity. The result is a singfe pore-pressure estimate that is independent of
the number of measurementsand thst has an accmscy tiat impreves with the total number of measurementsused in the interpretsdon.
The interpretationcan be performed at the weUsitein red time by useof rateof penetration(ROP), measurementwhile driIling (MWD),
and logging wbife drifling (LWD) measurementsor afterdrilling by me of thesemeasurementsin cnnjrmcdcmwith wireline measurements.

Introduction

Technique

The traditional empirical relationships that have been developf


betweena particularmeasurementandpressursme usuallydisplayed
as a series of lines or trendsthatthe user places over the mea.muement. Excursion of a measurement fmm the oormal hydrostatic
trendis then interpretedas abnormal pressureand is automatically
scaled in terms of pore pressure in pounds per gallon, wfdch is the
equivalentmud &nsity nwessary te balancetheformationpm pressures. This metbcd has been used sumessfufly in the U.S. gulf coast
by skifledinterpreters.This method has ssveral shottcondngs, however. It cm lad to as many pore-pressure estimates as there are
mea.wrementsto evahratti the empiricaf relationships are locafly
cmdined andare.not generallyapplicableoutsidethe U.S. gUKWJaSG
and Iitbologicsf variationsirtthe shalesand theireffects en the measurementsare not accounted for, causing additionaluncertaintiesirt
the pore-pressure estimates.
The use of ROP for pore pressure (theD expanent1, bas proved
ditlkult to apply because of variations irrMbology, bit wear state,
surface.te-dowrdmle weight transfer efficiency, and b]t types. A
new approach fmt corrects ROP for bit wear by use of downhole
measurementsof weight and torque. ROP is SISOnommdized for
bit lype, dmvnbole weight, and surface revolution per minute. This
produces an apparentformation strengththat is.a measurementof
tie mck fzifurew.istance.to thebit teeth. previous altemptsto characterize and quantifythis strengthin terms of Iaboratoty-meamred
rock pmperdes have been largely unsuccessful because the bit teeth
do not fail the formation in the same manner as a laboratory load
cell. fn our new approach, the formation strengthis characterized
by tradkional interpretationvolumctrics. A thorough analysis of
tie formation strengthshows that it is a stmrtgfunction of the fitbology and effective pormi~ of the formation. Evidence of the
natureof theserelationshipsis feund in &ts whsre the classic shaly
sand beomerang seen on the neutron-density crossplot is also
seen on a fOnnatiOn-strength/gammamy cressplot. This unique
analysis allows the formation strengthto be interpretedin a manner consistent with conventional log analysis where clay, matrix,
and effective parosi~ volumes are derived. The formation strength
is also quantitled in terms of Orein-situ stzess stateof the fOrmation, which is largely a function of the mud pressure snd near-bit
pore pressure.
Comb@
the fonnaden-.skengthmeaswementwith etherMWD
and/or LWD measurementsaflows thepore pressure, Mbology, effective porosity, and saturationof the formation to be computed
in real time during drilling and allows decisions to be made that
premote safer and more efficient drilling.

MerprdationMotfeL
A formationcan te descrii

copyright

2.54

{99!

eddy

of

Petroleum
Ewlnwrs

by thevolumes
shown in Fig. 1, which reprrsent the majoriq of the constituents
of sedimental recks. The volumes determined by the interpretation progmm described in this paper are ilfustmtedon the rightside
of F]g. 1. When the interpretationprogram has determined thata
shale is present, matrix (usually quartz), wet clay, overpressure
poresiv, and effective pxosi~ volumes are solved for. The saturation is set equal to unity in shales. w%en the program has determined &at porous sands are present, matrix, wet clay, effective
porosity, and water salutation are solved for. The pore pressure
cemputed in the shale above the sand is mnsidered to apply to the
sand interval also.
OverP-e
POresity to Pre35rrreCfraracteri2sfi0n. The effective stress2 and equivalent depth3 concepts are illustratedin F%.
2. k a normal pressureenvironment(rightside of Fig. 2), the r.xk
~ mmp-and
wateris expild as the overburdenstress
incresses.The watercontainedwithinshakesconsistsof waterbaud
to the clays and nonbound or free. water contained within the
pore space. The water expelled during compaction consists
predominantly of the ties water. Conventional log interpretation
nomenclature defies an effective porosity consisting of this free
water and any hydrocarbons. Although effective porosity may
not be the best term to describe shale porosity, it UN be used
thoughout the folfowing discus3i0n3in keeping with normal mage.
As the free water escapes, the effective poresity decreases snd the
effective stress on the grains increases. This stress is modeled by
Nur2 as

P ~gr=po,b crpw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (1)


Tbe Biot constant is givem as
a=l.o(Kdf/Kgr).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(3

The vafue of Kg, can be estimated from the Iitbology. Because


Kq depends on the porosity and grain cementation of the rock, it
wilf changeas the effective stress(or depth)increases. Tertiarydeltaic sedimentswill generally have a K@ K r Tiwrefom, the Biot
constant is generzlly taken to be unity in t%ese environments.
Data published by Magara4 show that in normally pressured
s+wfiments
the poroshy decrea$e caused by the increasing P,~8, is
@~
by
D=c1O++.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...@)

The overpressure csse is shown on the left side of Fig. 2. The


sbzfe has been sealed at 5,OOOft, meaning that no additiond
water is 2U0wed to w+capeupon further brmizf. This implies that
tbe shafeeffective porosity remainsconstant with depth. Thus, the
sbzle contains a porosity cafled an excess effective ~roshy that
SPEDrillingEngineering,December1S91

II

Povb.Wr3

m %ii@z@-

,ml,

@@
2675

2325
W-,.,.

-2675

2325

Pob.10wO
2MQQ!
@@

Povb.150C0
Pwb.imoo
i
l$!w
a=-id
,$

,g

Fig. 2Water takes up the Overbmden stress in undercom.


patted shales when permeability is low enough to prohibit
its escane.
mmation Strength. Normafimtion for Bit Wear, RaIe of Turn,
Id Weight on Bit. When ROP decreases below expected levels,

is greater than the porosity of a normally compacted shale. whh


tie watertrapped,the s~e cannot compact andthe effective grainto-gmin stress dces not increase with depth. The water bears tie
increasing overburden stress, resul~g in a pore pressure greater
than hydrostatic pressure.
Expressing depth in terms of effective stress in Eq. 3 and combining it with Eq, I resuft in an expression for pore pressure in
pounds per square inch, PW, as a function of ovcrpressureporosiCJ, $Op:
&p=(l/-b)bJg[(po,b

-p~)/(p.,b-pm)].

..

(4)

lle interpretation p;ogram determinesthe quantity+OPfrom all


Me availablemeasurementsand convem tldsto pressurewith F.q.4.

Measurement Characterization
Resistivity Characterization. fn sands, the resistivity is chamcterizedin termsof saturation,wet clay volume, and effective porositywiti the following modified Simandoux5 &qm.tiou
1
c mea

Yc,sw

Sg+p

. . . . . .. . . . .

+.

R mea,

R.,

,. (5)

alfw

fn normally pressured shales, the resistivity remains relatively


constantover thousandsoff&t, 3 but with vmiations caused by Iocal changes in wet clay vs. silt volumes. Thesevariations are described by the Vcl/Rc[term in Eq. 6. When an overpressuredshale
is encountered, the measured resistivelydecreases because of the
overpressvre porosity, +Op, Jn shales, therefore, the resistivity is
characterized by the folfowing equation
c em=+=~+~.

-,

. . . . . . . . ... ....<.......(6)
Rcl

SPEDriffingE@&rir,g,

u%+
Deaanber 1991

e driller first suspects a worn-out bh. Many times other factors


e responsible, and frequently a suitably good bit is pulled out of
t hole, resulting in lost drilling tine. To address this problem,
IrEessand f-ess06 develomd a mcdel to intermet the wear state
&Ued tootli bits in sbale~. The model mes tie MWD measure.mts of downhole torque and dowmholeweight on bit WOB) and
the surface measurementsof ROP and rateof turn (ROT) in revolutiom per minute, in addition to the wear state of the bit, he model
also computes the apparent formation strength as
o *eb=WbV,40AlEd/Vpdb.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ...(7)

This equation produces a formation strengththatis independent


of the wear stateof milled tooth bits and other measurabledrilling
variables m long as adequate bit cleaning is maintained.7
When applied to polycrystalline dwond compact (PDC) bit run
data, the model is not used to determinebh wear (Ed is unity), but
is still used to compute the apparent formation strength.
EnYironrnentatEffects. Historically, it has been acceptd that
ROP is a strong function of the difference. between the mud and
formationpore-fluid pressuresas weUas the mud weight itself. The
greater the overbalance (mud pressure > pore pressure) and the
higherthemud weight, the slowerthe ROP. In thefield, mud weight
and mud pressure are dependent variables and it is difficult to
separatethetwo effects, To circumventthis, laboratorystudieswere
conducted in drifling machines where the anmius pressure could
be maintainedby a choke ig the returnline, therebykeeping it in&pendent of the mud weight. f?arly studies were performed with
microbits (1.25-in. diameter)and did not scale up accuratelyto fuL
size bits.
Cheatiam8 illustratedthe Iaboratmydetermined effects of mud
weight and pressure on ROP for a WI-size 6%-in. -diameter roller
bit drilling Mancm shale. There were no attemptsto monitor or
to control the pore pressure of the shale dwig drilliig. The shale
was not filly saturatedand, therefore, in a drained state, the pore
pressure was assumed to be atmospheric. To determine the influence of elevated shale pore pressureson drilling response, a simfe
drilling program was undertakenat Schlumberger Cambridge Research. A hard shale was drilled with 8.5-in. roller< one and PDC
bits in a fdf-scale drilfimgmachine, and two hard andone soft shale
265

and zero differential pressure. Fig. 3 shows the results of the


fleatbam &ta, where theFOrepressureis assumedto be ahnospheric because of the dmined stateof the shale. The &m for tie sotl
shalesfall along the ssme trendswhen differentialprsssore is used.
The following equation describes theseenvironmentalefftcts on
the meazured formation strength.x

16
~
?
J
_

14
12
10

0-=
-iS8
E
S6
a
?4
0

(O~W)g,0[2.CQ(W#.0)-l.@ .l[0.COZ(P~-PW)+l.0].
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(8)

0
-1000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Pm- Pw (PSI)
Tg. 3Mud weight and preszurs effesfs on the measursd fornatkm strsrmth.

weredrilledwith 3.5-in.roller-cone bits in a small drillingmachine.


Pmbinmy resuftsindicatethattie labmato~ ROP in the soft shale
is a function of tie differential pressure or the difference between
the mud and formation pore Pre;sures. This response would be expected when young sodlor undercompacted shales, which are the
subject of this paper, are drilled.
The ROP, torque, snd WOB from the roller-cone experiments
were used to compute the formation strengthswith I@ 7. These
formationstrengthswere then.ormdi?ed to thestm@ at 9 lbmlgal

The second term in Eq. 8 accounk for the effect of decreasing


ROP, with increasing mud weights and was derived from rollercone aid PDC laboratory data. The thirdterm accounts for the effect of decreasing ROP with increasing differential pressure aid
was derived tiom roller-cgne laborato~ data. bitial observaticms
from tield datahave shown thatthis term applies to PDC bits also.
Li.%Iogy Effects. The measured apparentformationstrengthhas
been found to be a function of pore, clay, snd ma@x volumes. ~s
is best i!.lusmatexl
by comparingthe formationstrengthres+mnsewith
the wirelioe neutrondensity rssponse. Ffg. 4 shows ? classic
neutmndensity boomerang plot througha section of shsle and bar
sands from offshore the U.S. gulf coast. Tbe wet &d dry clay,
water, sod matrixpoints as shown on the crossplot. The very silty
sties (the hard shale point) correspond to the bottom shaly portion of the bar sands, where the clays have a tendency to be. dis~med withintheformatioo. Channelsandsdo not havethiscoherent
patternbecause of their more laminated sandkhde structure.Ffg..
5 shows a (.SmeJ9,0 vs. gamma ray plot over the same intefval.
The silty shsle trend is seen on thisplot also. This allows themea6ured formation strengthto be writtenas a function of matrix md
clay volumes. The effective porosity also influences the formation

WATER

J
?
~
E

2
~
3
In
@
POROUS
E
a

%
=
a)
c
~
Y
3

QUARTZ

D~YCUY

3
100

0
Neutron-porosity

measurement

(W)

Fig. 4TypicaI neutron-density boomerang In a shalelsand Interval.


266

SPE Ddiliw E@neeriag, December1991

300
O!JAR=

~
Q
m
o
z
[

~~~

z
G
z
w
u
5.

5
~
P
<
g

80

GAMMA RAY (countslsec)

ig. 5The shalelsand boomerang allows the formation strength to ba characterizedin term!
>ftraditional volumetric.
s&engthin a manner similar to clay but to a much greaterdegree.
The increasing effective porosity trend is seen as a trendof points
to the southwest on Fig. 5. The characterizatiouof formation
strengthinto porosity, wct clay, andmatrii volumes isacbieved
with the following response equationderived fmm the crossplot
trends:

The neutron measurement is characterized as


(4N)mw=V,tdNcI +Vidm +v2$N2+%o$e~Nmf
+(l-sxJ@e+~+dop!+Nw.

. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. (12)

Sonic.Velocity Characterization

Vcz
(omm,)gJ= Om Om om
(vc~)exl

4.

om~
+ext
(AJext

, . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9)

Field experience has shown thatEqs. 7 and 9 apply to PDC bits


when they have thesame drilliig characteristics asa roller-cone
bit, such as an increase in ROP with an increase in WOB, ROT,
foniumion porosity, or formation clay content.

transittimesare availablefrom wireline measurements,


Whensonic
they can be incorporated with&e LWD/MWD measurementsand
used in the program. The sonic measurementis characterized by
three response equations for the user to choose from. The WyUie
equation is
tm

= VdGltcI+
VIZ*+ v2t~+(+, +v&+@.p)tmf Fq.

The simplified Hunt-Raymer-Gardner equation is

Gamma Ray Characterization

($, + bw++op)

The gamma ray measurementmay be obtainedfrom LWD, MWD,


or wireline measurementsand is characterized as

%a.$

Lna

0.625tm

7mas=vc/7cl+v171

+v272.

Bulk-Density and Neutron-Porosity


Characterization
measurement is characterized as

Pmas = vcfPct+ VIP1 + v2Pz+s.&P~


+(lsx&$epfi+&ppw.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (11)

SPE DriJlingEn@eering, December1991

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(14)

tw is compnted with

. . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . ..(10)

~m=

Thebti-demitv

(13)

Vdc/tcl
+ v~q + v~q

. . ...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . ..(15)


V*J+ v, + V2

The full Hunt-Raymer-Gardner equation is


1

.
k,

[1 (&+Vti+@.p)120

GM

+ (~c+vbw+%~)

,,, ~1~

hf
267


~g. 6-PtOg~

computations through ap overpressured shale and hydrocarbon-bearing sand made with MWD msistlvity,gamma

8Y, and formation-stmngth measurements.


268

SPE Drilling F.r@&ing,

December1991

000

.=.

100

200

300,

mvlry
20,00

-La- -
[01

m)

).,0

UNCWTNNIYOF

ETEo REs!s ,,,,,


[OHI M.M)

20,00

Q4,,.W.E7ED

.AMlh

RAY [CPS)

>,00

100.0
D, ILL,W3 FLUD DENSITY

MEASURED FORMATION

HYDROCARBONS

WATER
[VN)

400.0

..---

am

$VERAQW

[INTERPRETED

PORE PRESSURE ILWQ

---------!NTERFBE, ED FORMATIOA
,,00

{LW.3 AL)

,00

. ------

STRENOTH (KP.S)
>,00

(V/Vi

M%

PORE PRESSURE

-.-

,00,0

(,)

QAMMA RAY

STRENGTH

18,00

.00

,00,0

MWD PORE PRESSUFIE +


,00

SIGMA
iLStOAL)
18,00

MWD PORE PflESSURE ,00

SIQMA
(LWGAL)
,8,00

,.

me

6,00

,O,AL

.QAS (%}
0,00

19. 7Pm9mm cOmPtiations showing underbalanced drllllngthrough an overpressured shale and hydrocarbon-beating sand ~
mde with MWD reslstivity, gamma ray, and formation-strength measurements.

SPEDrillingEngimaing, December1991

269

.,

lg. SProgrim coniputations made with MWD formation-strength, LWD resistivlty, gamma ray, neutron, and density meaewements.

270

SPEDrillingEngineering,December1991

t3LGBAL Interpretation

Process

A program has been developed to solve the above measnrementrespcmseequations based on tie GLOBAL9 technique. The

GLOBAL techniquerequires thatthe measurement-responseequations be writtenas functions of the un!movm volumes (Ilg. 1) and
thek associated response parameters, as shown in &Is. 5 through
16 (response parametersare the measurements re~onse to a particular volume when onfy that voltie is p~esent). T&$ GLOBAL
~cbnique determinesthe volumes that representthe best solution
to the measurement-response equations. ~ accomplish this, the
program minimizes an incoherence funmon given as

Is.,=
-..

[Czi-fi(x)]z + ~

z ~
i=*

atew:

k= 1

8k(x~2
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(17)

r:

A unique feature of tie GLOBALtechnique is the computation


of theoreticalmeasurements,fi(x), by use of the computed volumes
and& user-suppliedresponseparameters.The volumes thatsatisfi
the set of equadons as a group may not be the best solution for
a particular individual measurement:responseequation. The fust
term in Eq. 17 is a measure of how well the theoretical measurement resembles the actual measurement. Iffhe volumes solved for
satisfy the individualmeasurement-responseequationsand descnie
the maj@y of the formations lithology and porosity, and the
response parametersare well chosen, thenthe theoreticalmeasurements will overlay the input measurements. When the fit is gcod,
the computed total incohwence is smail. The user relies on these
two observations todetermine the quafity of the answer.

Data Presentation
Fig. 6 illustratesa computation made with the MWD formation
strength,gamma ray, andresisdvilythroughan overpressuredshale.
Track 1 dkplays the volumetric computations from left to right of
Vcl, VI (taken to be qwqtz), C$e,,~op, and @w. Track 2 displays
the measured and theoretical resistmmies,and Track 3 shows the
measured and Oieomticaf gamma ray and formation strength. A
fishtail PDC bit was used over the interval ilfustrat@ The high
activity of the formation str.mgth.iscm.wd makdy by ROP fluctuations that are a resultof !iOmlogical and porosity variations. fhe
computed pore pressureis displayed in Track 4 along with the mud
weight and incoherence. The shading encompassing the porepressurecuwe representstie uncetity of tie computedpressure.
It decreases as the number of input measurements increases, the
volume of overprcssure porosity increases, and the incoherence
decreases.
This interv~ was drilled as a $detsack to a well where a kick
bad occurred at the equiv~ent depthof 475 ft in this sidetrackwefl.
The kick resultedin the bottomhole assembly (BHA) beimglost in
the wefL The original hole was drifkd with 13.2 Ibm/gal mud and
the kick was measured at 16 lbm/ga3. The analysis of the sidetrack
shows thattheoriginal wdf was being drilfed sfigb!ly underbalanced
just before the kick was taken. The sidetrack analysis shows pore
pressuresas high as 15.8 Ibm/gaf from 460 to 620 ft and thatsuffl
cient overbalance was being maintained. Track 4 afso cm.aim fhe
measured mud gas, which at a depth of 610 ft correlates wefl with
the hydrocarbon show cakufated by the program.
Elg. 7 illustratesan overpressuredshalebeing drilledwithapdkd
tooth bit slightlyunderbab.needfrom 000 to 105 ft. fbe mid weight
was 13.5 lbtigal and the computed pore pressure is 14 Ibm/gal.
A hydrocarbon-bearing sand is drifled at 105 ft, and a small kick
resultedin the mud weight being raised m 14.2 ibm/@. Note also
the mud/gas show in Track 4. After drilling to 150 ft, a bit trip
was made and a fishtail PDC bit and mud motor were used to drill
the remaitig interval shown. The apparentformation strengthis
much lower for ~s bit runbecause of the greaterROP for a given
WOB compared with the milled tooth bit and is accounted for by
use of a lower Om parameter in Eq. 9. The mud weight remains
slightfybelow thepore pressureand is subsequentlyraisedin incrementsin respons to thehydrocarbon-bearingsanddrilled tlom 275
to 300 ft. Sufficient overbalance is maintained for the remainder
of the interval.
SPBDrillingEngineering,December1991

Fig. 8 illustratesthe computation with MWD and LWD measurements displayed with other interpretationsand measurements
at the weflsite in real time during drilling. Track 1 displays BHA
Mctionaf factors10computed from the downhole-measured weight
and torque. Notice the sliding friction increases untfl,the pipe was
worked at 325 tl, afterwbich it stabilizes.Track 2 containstheBHA
with theLWD tools and fbeir measure points displzyed inside the
coflars. The resisdvityigamma ray is the lowermost point and the
uPPeImostiSthe ne~tmndensity measure point. Track 3 COn,f&IS
the Iitbolofl, porbsuy, and saturatmnanalyses from this program,
with Track 4 showing the resulting pore pressure in pounds per
gallon. Track 4 also contains tie mud gas and the difference between thetotal mud flow in and out. Track 5 contains the measurements of gamma ray, formation stm@b, and ROP.
From the bit depth to the LWfJ resistivi~/gamma-ray sensor
depth, the Iithology is determined from the downhole weight and
torque % simpfy sand or shafe.11 The interpretationprogmm cOmputesa pore pressurewith the formationstrengthmeasurementwith
MS. 4,8, and 9, asimning a constant volume of wet clay for the
Mhology. Using only one measurementand assuming a constant
fitlolo~ account for the Imgeuncertaintyassociatedwith thispOrepressure computation. At the LWD resistivity/gamma-ray sensor
depth, the program incorporatestheseadditiond measurementsand
computes the volume of wet clay, quartz, effective porosity, water-.
fdled porosi,~, and overpressure porosity, as shown in Track 3.
The wet clay volume is shaded with the Mhology determined from
a predefmed data base. 12 This segmentation helps provide the
Iithologica.1boundaries for the assignment of cuttingsdescriptions.
At the LWD neutron-density-measurementsensor depth, the program recomputes and redisplays the answers, incorporating tlese
additional measurements. The Iithology spikes in Track 3 representthinbeds determinedfrom a curvdmpe anafysisof theueumndensi~ measurements, TIE d~play wrolls upwind as drilfing continues, providing a foot-by-foot analysis and picture of the formaIion characteristics and their effects on drillstring behavior. This
pmvidcs a clear indicationof when to change themud weight, make
wiper hips, and initiate other drilliig decisions.
c0nclu810ns
An interpretationprofgam thatUWtbe GLOBALtechniquebas been
devefoped for analyzingdownhole drilling, ROP, MWD, and LWO
measurementsin terms of pore pressure, MIIO1OSY,
porosity, and
saturation.This eliminatesthe need for a trend-typepore-pressure
analysis for undercompactedshalesandprovides a fcot-by-foot evaluation during drifling. Knowing these formation athibutes during
drilling helps determine the,mud weight necessary for safe, and
yet efficient, drilling.

Nomenclature
~ = fom~tion fa@or ~~~~~t
ai = Measurement i

A, = gouging component of bit torque


b = constant
~ = ~om~t,

ft

cm = measured conductivity, S
db = bit diameter, in.
D = depth, ft
Ed = bk efficiency based on tooth wear
fi(x) = Response Equation i as a function of x
Fq = sonic compaction factor
g.&x) = COn@aint Equation Number k as a function
10$ = incoherence function
Kdf = bufk modulus of dry frame
Kg, = bulk modulus of grains
m = cementation exponent

of x

m+ = cemen?tion exponent of overpressure porosity


n = saturationexponent
Om = formation sqenglb of 100% Mineral 1 andfor
Mineral 2
0 meal= measwed formation strength, psi,
271

John G

Rasmus

specialist
worldng

with
on

pora-pre.ssure

AnadrOl

1$

an

engineering

in Sugarland,

TX,

volumetric

and

MWD/LWD
interpretation.

He

has

of

positions,

engineeringfrom IowaState U. Photo

($N)rraas

n@J@O.-pO~@

m~r.ment

4N~f

ne@wwrOsiW

r=pODse

6Nw

blogfaphlcal
information
on D.M.R. tlray
Steiahens are unavailable.

t.hh J2-, = sonic responses to 10% of the respective

ndnenis

= sonic transit time of 100% Mineral 1 and/or

Mineral 2
= sonic transit time measurement
VP = ROP, ft/br
v.. = ROT.. revlmin
Vbw= vc~
(r&)c*
(Vti)d = volume of bound wafer in 100% wet clay,
fraction
vc~= volume of wet clay
Vcl,VI ,V2 = volume solved for
(Vc& = extrapolated volume of clay where (OmW)g,O=O
Vdcl = volume of dry clay= Vd VbW
Wi = user supplied uncertainty of Measurement i
Wb = downboIe WOB, Ibm
Wm = mud weight, ibm/gal
Z = vector of solution
a = BiOt~On~~t
ms

an = Biot ,constant for normal pressured shafe


aop = Blot constant for overpmssmed sizale
YcbY I,72 = g-a
raY r~ponse tO 100% Of fie leipe~Yc
mineral
7=,

= g-a

ray measurement
M,P I A = buk-density response to 100% of the respective
mineral
PA = bu~-density response to 100% hydrocarbon
p.= = bufkdensiw measurement
Pti = b~k-densiq response to 100% md ~~~
p. = bull-density response tG lKI% shale water
Ui = internally computed uncetity
of Meamrcment i
rk = uncctity
on constmint equ2tion
@ = porosity

172

100%

mud

ffl~ate.

shale iwwer
40P = excess effective porosity in zn overpreswred shale
@w = free water volume, fraction

and

(Oma,)9,0 = measured formation strength at 9 ibm/gal and


O psi
pm = mud pressure, psi
Po,b = overburden pressure, psi
Pm = pressure of pore water in normal pressured
shale, psi
P ~ = water pressure in tie pores, psi
Ping, = normal effective pressure on grains, psi
Rcl = resistivi~ of 100% wet clay, Wm
Rm=, = measured resistivi~, Q
R.,. = resistivitv of free water. Q/m
R.+ = resistivity of water contained in the overpressure
porosity, Wm
SW = saturation of effective porosity
S..(4,) = volumeof mud fdhate

= ex~po~$~

Ovewewre
Pwsiw where
(O_)9,0
=0, fraction
4~ = hyd-bon
volume, fraction
4Nh = neuEon-pOrO~@ re-wense to 100% hydrocarbons

held

including appllcafions development engineer and product


development manager with Schlumberger. He holds a SS degree in mechanical
a variety

neU*owemsitY

response

tb

NO%

Acknowledgments
We thank Anadrill/Schlumberger for permission to publish this
paper and the various oil companies for providing the data.

References
1, Jorden, J.R. and Shirley, O.J.: Applicationof DrillingPerformance
Data to Overpressure Detection, JPT (Nov. 1966) 1387-94.
2. Nur, A. andByerke, I.D.: b Bxag Eff4ve StressLawForElasResearch(Sept.
ticDeformationof Reck With Fluids, J. Geoplz.wical
1971).
3. Ham,H.H.: A Methcd of Esdmadng Formation Pressures Fmm Gulf
Coast Well Logs, Trans., Gulf Coast Assn. of Geological Societies
(1966) 16.
4. Magam, K.: Compacdon and Fluid M,@on,>, Ekevier science FUbIishers (1978).
en IDik
POEUX,
applicadm
5. Simmdoux, P.: Mesures di&Ct@l.S
3.la mesure dcssaturations
eneau,6h!dedu coniportwnent des massifs
argileux, Revuede 1Inst.Frm@s du P&role,SupplementmyIssue
(1963).
6, B&e&, T.M, andtiO, W.G.: MeasuringtheWearof MilledTc.xh
Bits by Use of MWD Torque and Weight-on-flit,, paper SPE 13475
presented at the 1985 SPElfADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
March 5-S.
7. white, D. B., Cuny, D. A., and Gavignet, A. G.: Effects of NozzIe
Configuration on Ro!.ler-Cone-Bit Performance> paper SPE 171SS
Pmsated at the 19g8L4DCJSPE Drilling Conference. Dallas. Feb. 2gM?.rch 2.
g. Chwtlmm, C.A.: Effects of Selected Mnd Properties on Kate of
Penetm.tionin FulMkale .%& Drilling Sirmdations,xpaper WE 13465
Preserted at the 1985 SPEIL4DCDrillingConference,New Odeam,
March 5-8.
9. Mayer, C. and Sibbit, A.: GI.OBC A New Approachto Cm@erProcessd Log Interpretation, paper SPE9341presentedatthe19S0
SPE AMIMITe&icaI Conferenceand Ex&ibidon,Dallas, Sept. 21-2A.
10. J.&sage,M., Fakoner,I.G., andW,&, C,: Ewkadng Drillingpractice
SPEDE(Sem.
inDeviatedWellsW& TomueandWeis%tDafa.33
. 19g8)
24S-52.
11. Burgess,T., Falconer,I.G., andSheppird,M.: SepaatingBitand
LithologyEffectsFromDrillingMechanicsData,,,paperSPE17191
presented
atthe19SSIADC/SPEDrilfingConference,Dal&.,Feb.28Ma,ch

2.

12. DeUiner,P.C., Peyret,O., andSerra,O.: AutomaticDetermination


of Lith@y FromWell Lags,,, SPEFE (Sept.19S7)303-10.

S1 Metric Conversion Factors


Cycleskc
ft
in,
Ibmfgal
psi
W4nvaslon

x
x
X
X
x

factor1s exact,

1.0
3.04S*
2.54*

1.19S 264
6.894157

E+OO
E01
E+I3O
E+02
E+OO

=
=
=
=
=

Hz
m
cm
kg/m3
kpa
SPEDE

mm,crl@ reca[vedforwl~ SsPt, 23,1990, PaPer ,cce@ed far ~blica.


110
Sw.t.24,?991,RevisedrmumriPt,ecslvedS,PI, 17,1S91PaQ,r(SPE2C443)
fitst
Presenteda: Ihe 1990WE AnnualTechnio? Con fwen.e and ExMbl!lon held In New
Origlnd SPE

Ormm.

Sept. 22-28.

SPEDri!JingEn@eering, December1991

Você também pode gostar