Lecture 3 - Final For Posting PDF

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

Definition of Pore Pressure
Figure 2.1 pg.28

3

Overpressure at Depth
Monte Christo
Figure 2.2 pg.30

4

Why is pore pressure important?
Stress Magnitudes/Mud Windows at Depth
5
Figure 1.4 d pg.13

Variations in Pore Pressure Within Compartments,
Each With ~Hydrostatic Gradients
Figure 2.4 pg.32

6

Pore Pressure Variations with Location and Depth
c)
Figure 2.3 pg.31

7

Gas Leakage Potential Field W

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

Severe Depletion Within Compartments
Figure 2.10a pg.39

11

South Eugene Island
Figure 2.5 pg.33

12

N-S Cross Section
Figure 2.6 pg.34

13

OI Sand
Figure 2.7 pg.35

14

Production-Induced Pore Pressure Variations Within
Compartments
15

Overpressure at Depth Can Gradients > Sv/z?
Monte Christo
Figure 2.2 pg.30

16

True Gradients vs. Apparent Gradients
17

Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
18

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

N-S Cross Section
Figure 2.6 pg.34

20

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

Diffusion Times
1-2 km distances

22

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

Variations of Pressure in South Eugene Island
Figure 2.8 a pg.36

24

The Centroid Effect
Figure 2.12

pg. 43

25

Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
26

Shale Porosity as a Function of v
Figure 2.13

pg. 46
27

Comparison of Compaction Trends for Shales
and Sands
28

Estimating Pore Pressure 1
Overpressure Results in Undercompaction

(Abnormally High Porosity) at Depth

Figure 2.14 pg.48

29

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

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

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

33

34

35

Potential Problem with Using Compaction Trends
Figure 2.18a

pg. 54
36

Shale Compaction Trends-Mahakam Delta, Indonesia
Figure 2.18
b pg. 54
37

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

Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
39

Geologic Factors (Pore Pressure and Stress) Contributing to the
Macondo Well and Deepwater Horizon Accident
40

41

Drilling in the
Presence of
Increasing Pore
Pressure Frac Gradient

Pore Pressure

Fig. 10.3a

42
42


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


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


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

Lecture 3 - Final For Posting PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Lecture 3 - Final For Posting PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes

Figure 2.1 pg.28

Figure 2.2 pg.30

Stress Magnitudes/Mud Windows at Depth

Figure 2.4 pg.32

Figure 2.3 pg.31

Golden Meadow Fault

Figure 2.10b pg.39

Figure 2.10a pg.39

Figure 2.5 pg.33

Figure 2.6 pg.34

Figure 2.7 pg.35

Figure 2.2 pg.30

Disequilibrium Compaction Aquathermal Compaction

Figure 2.6 pg.34

log = 2 log l log k 16

Figure 2.8 a pg.36

Overpressure Results in Undercompaction

Figure 2.14 pg.48

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

vi = 5000 + AB (after Bowers, 1994)

(after Stump and Flemings, 1998)

Estimating Pore Pressure from Interval

Eberhart-Phillips, Han and Zoback (1989)

5 sands at markedly different

drilling with 14.3 ppg mud and

Requires ~18% N2 in mud to

It is possible that the open hole

fractured during cementing

Requires ~18% N2 in mud to

It is possible that the open

hydraulically fractured during

Você também pode gostar

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes