Você está na página 1de 46

Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes





Mark D. Zoback 
Professor of Geophysics 


Week 2 Lecture 3
Pore Pressure

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline

Section 1
Pore Pressure and Reservoir
Compartmentalization

Section 2
Development of Overpressure

Section 3
Pore Pressure Prediction

Section 4
Geologic Factors Contributing to the
Macondo Well Blowout
2
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Definition of Pore Pressure

Figure 2.1 pg.28



3
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Overpressure at Depth

Monte Christo

Figure 2.2 pg.30


4
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Why is pore pressure important?

Stress Magnitudes/Mud Windows at Depth

5
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
Figure 1.4 d pg.13

Variations in Pore Pressure Within Compartments,
Each With ~Hydrostatic Gradients

Figure 2.4 pg.32


6
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Pore Pressure Variations with Location and Depth

c)

Figure 2.3 pg.31


7
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Gas Leakage Potential Field W

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 11.15 b pg. 368 8
Oil and Gas Production and
Coastal Subsidence

Golden Meadow Fault

Lapeyrouse
Field

9
(After Morton et al., 2002)
Gas Fields in Southern Louisiana

Figure 2.10b pg.39



10
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Severe Depletion Within Compartments

Figure 2.10a pg.39



11
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

South Eugene Island

Figure 2.5 pg.33


12
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

N-S Cross Section

Figure 2.6 pg.34



13
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

OI Sand

Figure 2.7 pg.35


14
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Production-Induced Pore Pressure Variations Within
Compartments

15
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Overpressure at Depth Can Gradients > Sv/z?

Monte Christo

Figure 2.2 pg.30


16
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

True Gradients vs. Apparent Gradients

17
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline

Section 1
Pore Pressure and Reservoir
Compartmentalization

Section 2
Development of Overpressure

Section 3
Pore Pressure Prediction

Section 4
Geologic Factors Contributing to the
Macondo Well Blowout
18
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Mechanisms of Overpressure Generation

Disequilibrium Compaction Aquathermal Compaction


(compaction and (temperature increase)
porosity loss due to
burial is faster than fluid
flow and pressure Mineral diagenesis
equilibrium) (dehydration reaction
such as smectite to
Tectonic Compression illite)
(rapid increase in
tectonic loading) Hydrocarbon maturation
(volumetric expansion
Hydrocarbon column heights of kerogen to oil/gas)
(buoyancy of oil and gas)

19
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

N-S Cross Section

Figure 2.6 pg.34



20
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Diffusion Times and Distances Compaction
Disequilibrium in Shales

2 2
l
(f + r )l
= =
k
Equation 2.2


pg. 41

log = 2 log l log k 16


Equation 2.3


pg. 41

21
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Diffusion Times

1-2 km distances

22
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Pore Pressure in Wells in a Field in the
Northern North Sea
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
2600 2600

A
Pore Pressure in Wells in a Field
in the Northern North Sea B
C
D
2800 2800
E
F
G
H
I
3000 J 3000
K
L

3200 3200

Hydrostatic
Pore Pressure
3400 Gradient 3400

3600 3600
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Pore Pressure (MPa)
23
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Variations of Pressure in South Eugene Island

Figure 2.8 a pg.36


24
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

The Centroid Effect

Figure 2.12


pg. 43

25
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline

Section 1
Pore Pressure and Reservoir
Compartmentalization

Section 2
Development of Overpressure

Section 3
Pore Pressure Prediction

Section 4
Geologic Factors Contributing to the
Macondo Well Blowout
26
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Shale Porosity as a Function of v

Figure 2.13


pg. 46
27
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Comparison of Compaction Trends for Shales
and Sands

28
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Estimating Pore Pressure 1

Overpressure Results in Undercompaction


(Abnormally High Porosity) at Depth

Figure 2.14 pg.48



29
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Empirical Methods for Determining Shale Pore Pressure
from Sonic Data

x
"$ 1 - v %
P = Sv - ( Sv - P
p
sh
p
hydro
)# 1- n &
where,
x is an empirical coefficient
v = porosity from shale travel time
n = porosity from normal trend

M. Traugott (unpublished)

30
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Empirical Method for Determining Shale Pore Pressure
from Resistivity Data

( Sv " Sv Pphydro% " Ro % 1. 2 +


P = z* $
sh
'
& # Rn & -,
p
) z # z z
where,
Ro = observed shale resistivity
Rn = expected resistivity from
normal trend

M. Traugott (unpublished)

31
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Estimating Pore Pressure 2
Estimating Pore Pressure from Sonic-Derived Vint

vi = 5000 + AB (after Bowers, 1994)


where vi is the interval velocity
and is effective stress
= 0.93 z - Pp
(0.93 psi/ft is the overburden gradient)
1
# v - 5000 & B
Pp = 0.93z - % (
$ A '
where A =19.8 and B = 0.62

(after Stump and Flemings, 1998)

32
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

33
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

34
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

35
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Potential Problem with Using Compaction Trends

Figure 2.18a


pg. 54
36
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Shale Compaction Trends-Mahakam Delta, Indonesia

Figure 2.18
b pg. 54
37
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Estimating Pore Pressure 3

Estimating Pore Pressure from Interval


Velocity in Sands (with clay)

16.7
Vp = 5.77 6.94 1.73 C + 0.446( e )

16.7
Vs = 3.70 4.94 1.57 C + 0.361( e )

Eberhart-Phillips, Han and Zoback (1989)

Equations 2.11
& 2.12 pg. 53

38
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline

Section 1
Pore Pressure and Reservoir
Compartmentalization

Section 2
Development of Overpressure

Section 3
Pore Pressure Prediction

Section 4
Geologic Factors Contributing to the
Macondo Well Blowout
39
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Geologic Factors (Pore Pressure and Stress) Contributing to the
Macondo Well and Deepwater Horizon Accident

40
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

41
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Drilling in the
Presence of
Increasing Pore
Pressure Frac Gradient

Pore Pressure

Fig. 10.3a

42
42
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Essentially no Window for safe cementing

5 sands at markedly different


pore pressures that decrease
with depth.
Drilling accidentally fracd the
low pressure sands while 14.1 ppg

drilling with 14.3 ppg mud and


lost circulation.
Lowering the mud weight to
14.17 ppg allowed them to 12.6 ppg

finish drilling.
Frac gradient ~14.2-14.3 ppg
Requires ~18% N2 in mud to
lower density

44
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Essentially no Window for safe cementing

Requires ~18% N2 in mud to


lower density of foamed cement
and stratified column of fluids of
exactly the correct volumes and
14.1 ppg

densities, etc.

It is possible that the open hole


section was hydraulically 12.6 ppg

fractured during cementing

45
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Essentially no Window for safe cementing

Requires ~18% N2 in mud to


lower density of foamed
cement and stratified column
of fluids of exactly the correct
14.1 ppg

volumes and densities, etc.

It is possible that the open


hole section was 12.6 ppg

hydraulically fractured during


cementing

46
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu