David Watson
. Consultant Engineer
Southern International Inc.
Terry Brittenham
:
(
President
...,
Southern International Inc.
Preston L. Moore
Consultant
Richardson, Texas
2003
SPE Textbook Series
The Textbook Series of the Society of Petroleum Engineers was established in 1972 by action of the SPE
Board of Directors. The Series is intended to ensure availability of highquality textbooks for use in
undergraduate courses in areas clearly identified as being within the petroleum engineering field. The work
is directed by the Society's Books Committee, one of the more than 40 Societywide standing committees.
Members of the Books Committee provide technical evaluation of the book. Below is a listing of those who
have been most closely involved in the final preparation of this book.
Book Editors
Waldo J. Borel, Devon Energy Production Co. LP, Youngsville, Louisiana; Chairman
Bernt S. Aadnoy, Stavanger U. College, Stavanger
Jamal J. Azar, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa
Ronald A. Behrens, ChevronTexaco Corp., San Ramon, California
Ali Ghalambor, U. of LouisianaLafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana
James E. Johnstone, WZI Inc., Plano, Texas
Gene E. Kouba, Chevron'Iexaco Corp., Houston
William R. Landrum, ConocoPhillips, Houston
Eric E. Maidla, Noble Engineering & Development Ltd., Sugar Land, Texas
Erik Skaugen, Stavanger U. College, Stavanger
Sally A. Thomas, ConocoPhillips, Houston
ISBN IM5SS631010
ii
David Watson is a consultant petroleum engineer with Southern International Inc. in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. He holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering from Texas Tech U.; after graduating, he went to
work for Unocal Corp. and was with Unocal for 12 years. Watson's professional experience includes
responsibilities in production and reservoir engineering, but most of his career has been in drilling. He has been
an instructor in numerous industry schools on drilling practices and well control and has authored or coauthored
papers and articles on pipe design, horizontal drilling, and well control. Watson is a registered professional
engineer in Oklahoma.
iii
Terry Brittenham is the president and owner of Southern International Inc. He holds a BS degree with honors
from the U. of Wyoming and was employed by Continental Oil Co., Monsanto Co., and Grace, Shursen, Moore
and Assocs. before cofounding SII in 1982. Although practiced in many aspects of petroleum engineering,
Brittenham has considerable experience in petroleum, geothermal, and scientific drilling operations, including
management, engineering, and extensive assignments as a well site supervisor. Brittenham has taught drilling
practices and wellcontrol short courses since 1979 and has authored or coauthored several technical papers,
articles, books, and manuals on drilling. He is a registered engineer in Oklahoma and Wyoming.
iv
Preston L.Moore has been active in the drilling business since 1949, including 14 years of teaching petroleum
engineering at the U. of Oklahoma. Moore received the SPE Drilling Engineering Award in 1993 and was
named a Distinguished Member in 1996. He is known throughout the world for his drilling practices schools,
which he initiated in 1959. Moore has written three books on drilling practices and has authored more than 100
articles in various trade magazines. He is coowner of three patents concerning well control and is a recognized
authority on well control. Moore remains active in the oil industry and is currently helping to develop a school on
deepwell drilling and associated costs.
v
Introduction
Wellcontrol fundamentals have been understood and taught since at least the early 1960s. Accident statistics
have demonstrated the merits of training, and most individuals involved in drilling or other well operations have
received some wellcontrol training. Yet, for various reasons, wellcontrol problems and blowouts persist in the
industry. The consequences of a blowout (personnel safety, environmental impact, and financial outlays) more
than justify efforts to develop effective countermeasures. This book addresses almost all phases of well control,
and we hope that its content will contribute to those efforts. We anticipate that the book will be used as a text to
train young engineers and as a reference for working engineers and supervisors.
vi
Acknowledgments and Dedications
David Watson
First, I would like to thank Terry Brittenham and Southern International Inc. for providing the commitment and
resources necessary to get this book written and in its present form. A special thanks goes to our draftsman, Don
Willis, for his fine work on the charts and illustrations. Many mentors, associates, and coworkers have been an
inspiration to me over the years. There are too many to mention here, but those who have particularly sparked
my interest in well control include Mac Laurie, Dennis Black, and Preston Moore. Thanks to Hans Juvkam
Wold for his valuable comments and to Juliana Brandys for her sharp editorial pencil. Finally, this project con
sumed a lot of time that would otherwise have been spent with my family, and I would like to thank them for their
patience and understanding.
Terry Brittenham
To my children, for understanding why Dad spent half his life, and most oftheirs, "at the rig" ... and to Perry L.
Moore, my lifelong friend and partner, who forgot more about drilling than most will ever know .... "happy
trails," PL.
Preston L. Moore
I dedicate my portion of this book to my wife, Mary 10 Moore. Mary 10 has always supported my activities dur
ing our 53 years of marriage. Drilling operations place a substantial demand on a person's time; Mary Jo ac~
cepted these demands and was always a source of encouragement and support.
vii
Contents
2. Pore Pressure
2.1 Introduction 27
2.2 PorePressure Origins 27
2.3 Overburden and Effective Stress Concepts 33
2.4 Conventional PressurePrediction Concepts 37
2.5 Pressure Prediction by Analogy 38
2.6 AbnormalPressure Prediction From Seismic Data 39
2.7 Penetration Rate 42
2.8 Other Drilling Indications 58
2.9 Conventional Log Correlations 68
2.10 EffectiveStress Models 75
Problems 82
3. Fracture Pressure
3.1 Introduction 93
3.2 Basic Principles From Rock Mechanics 93
3.3 Stress and FracturePressure Relationships 98
3.4 Prediction Methods 112
3.5 Field Measurements 124
Problems 128
5. WellControl Complications
5.1 Introduction 190
5.2 Volumetric Control and Lubrication 190
5.3 OffBottom Well Control 196
5.4 Problems During a Conventional Kill 201
5.5 Techniques Devised to Reduce Annulus Pressure 205
Problems 212
6. Special Applications
6.1 Introduction 216
6.2 Underbalanced Drilling 216
6.3 Unconventional Wellbores and Drilling Practices 222
6.4 Completion, Workover, and Well Servicing Operations 228
viii
6.5 Casing and Cementing Operations 237
Problems 241
7. WellControl Equipment
7.1 Introduction 246
7.2 HighPressure Equipment 246
7.3 Control System Equipment and Design 253
7.4 BOPE Inspection and Test Considerations 257
7.5 LowPressure Equipment 258
7.6 Equipment Arrangement: Design and Philosophy 260
Problems 264
8. Offshore Operations
8.1 Introduction 267
8.2 Equipment Used in Floater Drilling 267
8.3 WellControl Procedures From a Floater 276
8.4 Shallow Gas Hazards 281
8.5 Trends in Deepwater Well Control 292
Problems 296
temperature (PVT) relationships of that fluid. One of the sim The application of ideal gas concepts is demonstrated in the
pler equations for gas was firstdescribed in the 17thcentury by following problem.
Robert Boyle, who found by experiment that, at constant tem
perature, the volume of a quantity of gas is inversely propor
tional to its pressure. Boyle's law may then be expressed by Example 1.1. A 20bbl gas influx has entered a well at a bot
tomhole pressure of 3,500 psia.
P1V1 = pzVz =constant, (1.1) 1. Determine the volume of this same influx when it exits
wherep and Vare the pressure and volume of the gas at condi the well if atmospheric pressure at the well location is 14.4
tions 1 and 2. psia and the gas temperature does not change:
Charles later discovered the direct proportionality between 2. Recalculate the volume at atmospheric conditions as
the temperature and volume of a given quantity of gas. suming an initial gas temperature of 1500P and a surface tem
Charles' law is given by perature of 65F.
Solution. 1. Using Boyle's law,
~: "" ~: =constant. (1.2) V = (3,500)(20) = 4 861 bbl
2 (14.4) , .
All PVT relationships require the use of absolute pressure
and temperature. The absolute pressure is simply the gauge 2. For the second case, Eq. 1.6 yields
pressure plus the atmospheric pressure. Given the imprecise
nature of well control predictions, the use of unadjusted gauge
V = (3,500)(20)(525) = 4 183 bbl
2 (14.4)(610). ' .
pressures is probably acceptable in most cases. Exceptions to
this generalization include those situations where pressures
are low or approach atmospheric conditions. The density of a gas or any other material is its mass per unit
Absolute temperatures are referenced to absolute zero and volume, or
are determined in customary oilfield units by
R=oF+460, (1.3) p =~ = nif, (1.7)
Rearranging Eq. 1.9 and substitution into Eq. 1.8 leads to a pV = znRgT. ., , (1.12)
convenient relationship for gas density, Real gas adjustments for Eqs. 1,6, 1.8, and 1,10 follow as
29yg]J PIVI = PlVl
pg = R T' , ,,, ,,, (1.10) z;r; z;:t;' ' , , (1.13)
g
ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
4
700
Substituting 80.275 for Rg in Eq. 1.15, the gas density in
Ibm/gal is
Yg[)
650 P = 2.77zT (1.22)
Therefore
.!l1 600
8. (0.60)(3,500)
!f~
~ P = (2.77)(0.892)(610) = 1.39 Ibm/gal.
d: 300
]
''0Q
il
The arrival of computers to the oil industry in the early
II! 500 1960's led to the introduction of equations for calculating z,
i At least 13techniques have been published thus far. Some are
F
! more accurate than others for a given range of pseudoreduced
iIII 450 values and some require more computing power than oth
'"E
t'!
ers.10 Of these, the most common approach is to mathemati
] cally describe the empirical data presented by Standing
iii
g 400
and Katz.
""~
J! Dranchuk and AbouKassernl! used an EOS to develop a
numerical model with coefficients to fit the Standing and
350
Katz data. Their equation follows:
Eqs. 1.20 and 1.21 yield the pseudoreduced properties, fez) =z [1 + CJ(Tprlor + C2(Tprlo~
Ppr = 3,500/677 = 5.170
 C3(Tprlo; + C4(p" Tpr)] = O. .. .......... (1.30)
and
Taking the derivative with respect to z yields
Tpr = 610/352 = 1.733.
fez) az 
_ ilf(z) _

().o
1 + C1 Tpr r/Z + 2C2 ( Tpr).02r/Z
The z factor is found to be 0.892 in Fig. 1.6.
, , :
:1
cJ,u
~ ,
..
Ill!
'':'
,, '1+
'"
,,
" ,
:
, ,
I+.
=+= , ' ~
0,1
::;: \:\,
1.7
, .
, ~L ' ,
0,7 U
; ,
~
G.4 ~
, ,, ~ , 1.5
~ ~..j.' ~
' ,
,' (:OJ :;~
ft
1.4
;
, ('I' , , 1"'':'
, '
,
,
, ''"
1.3
i~
:,~
~ t:
~
0,3 1,2
, ., ,;.. '.i<
III
I~ ,<
,
it
1.1 1.1
to 1.0
of
n~i;~~I:I~:~
M A
7
9 10 11 12 13 1~ T<
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
...
oj
..
=~
e
.:3 I.
1.
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
18 23 24
PSludo reduced prenure
r. p,
\~r_)
T
h,
p,=p,+g,h,
T II,
j p,=p, + g.h,
h,
t p,=p,+g"h,
h.
T
400ft
h,
_L
y
D = 12,000 ft
Fig.1.10PressureIn a stalic wellborethat containsstratified
fluid layers. Fig.1.11Schematlcofthewellboredescribedin Example1.5.
yg(D2  DI)]
P2 = PI exp [ 53.3ZT . . (lAO)
(0.6)(12,000) ]
7,465 = pcsexp [ (53.3)(1.0)(620)
Pes = 6,004 psia.
Now average the pressures and determine the averagez factor.
= (7,465 + 6,004) = 995
Ppr (2)(677) .' ,
10 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
The constant 19.25 becomes 102.0 when expressed in SI met
P.
ric units.
Example 1.7.Take the hypothetical well from the last two ex
amp~es and determine the equivalent density at total depth
and at 6,000 ft [1828.8 m]. Assume the average temperature
from surface to 6,000 ft is 120F [49C] for the case where the
hole is filled with gas.
Solution. The bottomhole pressure is 7,465 psia, which is
approximately 7,450 psig if the surface location is near sea
level. The equivalent density at total depth is therefore
P.q ;:::: (19.25)(7,450)/12, 000 ;::::12.0 Ibmlgal.
The pressure at 6,000 it is 2 3
P6.000 = 500 + (0.0519)(11.5)(6, 000) = 4,081 psia Fig. 1.13Effect of gas migration on wellbore pressure.
= 4,066 psig, mediately after a well has been shut in on a gas influx. Drill
which yields an equivalent density of pipe has been left out of the picture for demonstration
purposes, but its presence is irrelevant to the discussion. The
P,q ;::::(19.25)(4,066)/6,000 = 13.0 Ibmlgal. idealized single phase bubble has an initial volume VI at pres
sure PI. Assume for now that the wellbore is sealed and that
The surface pressure of the gasfilled hole has been calculated gas volume remains fixed as bubble migration occurs. There
as 6,163 psia. Assume that the average z factor from surface
fore, Boyle's law tells us that the bubble pressure at Stages 2
to 6,000 ft is 1.137 and compute and 3 will be the same as at Stage 1:
depends on the depth at which the determination is made, thus sure is 14 psia.
depth must be specified whenever the term is used. Also note Solution. 1. The temperature and pressure at the top of the
that applied pressure causes the EMW to increase with shal influx are
lower depth if the well bore fluid density is consistent. This is Tg6S0 = 70 + (0.011)(8,650) + 460 = 625R and
demonstrated in the second shutin condition where we see
that the equi valent densities are the same for both cases at to
tal depth. Up the hole, however, P.q increases substantially.
P8,6S0 = 14 + 50 + (0.0519)(9.6)(8,650) = 4,374 psia.
Eqs. 1.18 and 1.19 give the pseudocritical properties
1.5 Gas Migration Tpc = 378R and ppc = 663 psia. The pseudoreduced proper
Gas, because of its lower density with respect to the drilling ties at bottomhole conditions are
fluid medium, will tend to migrate upward in a well. Failure Tp, = 625/378 = 1.65
to expect and manage this fact of nature can lead to excessive
wellbore pressures, possibly to the point that subsurface or
surface control of the well is lost.
andppr = 4,374/663 = 6.60.
Refer to the well bore schematics in Fig. 1.13 for an illustra The compressibility factor zg,650 is determined as 0.934. The
tion of the problem nature. Stage 1 shows the condition im bubble pressure at surface temperature must be obtained by
GAS BEHAVIOR AND FLUID HYDROSTATICS 11
iteration. We first assume zo is 1.0 and solve for PO using
Eq.1.13.
4,374V = PoV
(0.934)(625) (1.0)(70 + 460),
Po = 3,971 psia.
Now determine zo at this pressure.
Tpr = 530/378 = 1.40,
_ (4,374)(530)(0.829)  3 292 .
Po  (625)(0.934) , psra.
Fluid loss in permeable stratum
A few more iterati ve steps results in zo 0.729 and PO = 2,895 =
psia.
2. The gas density at surface conditions is determined as
_ (0.7)(2, 895) _
pg  (2.77)(0.729)(530)  1.89lbmlgal.
Fig. 1.14Wellbore and mud volume changes resulting from an
The bottomhole pressure can now be obtained using Eq. 1.37. increase in pressure. .
12 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
Open Hole Flow Annular Flow
Fig.1.15Depiction of gas void fraction in openholeand annu
larflow.
o
o
void fraction larger than 25%,assume a bullet nose shape and, o
o 0
as shown in Fig. 1.16, migrate along the high side of the hole
o
with concurrent liquid backflow down the opposing side.
These socalled Taylor bubbles are influenced by the pipe and
hole boundaries and will rise faster in liquid than smaller gas
bubbles. Smaller bubbles are not influenced by the bound Fig.1.16Liquld backflow adjacent to migrating gas bubble.
aries and are more dispersed in the drilling fluid medium. A
transition from small, dispersed bubbles to larger Taylor16 One finding common to all of the investigations, and per
bubbles was noted to begin at a void fraction of about 12%. haps the most important contribution to the industry, is that
Rader, Bourgoyne, and Ward17 studied the migration of gas tends to rise through a static or moving column of water
large Taylor bubbles and the factors that affect slip velocity or mud faster than we once believed. The experimental results
in 1975. From laboratory observations, they concluded that have also been verified by measurements in the field. An op
hole geometry, mud viscosity, circulation rate, and hole in erator who expects relatively rapid gas movement during a
clination were most important. Based on their findings, we wellcontrol event is in a position to make better decisions
would expect gas slip velocities to increase with increased an concerningjob planning and execution, and will not be caught
nular clearance (hole diameter relative to pipe diameter), in unaware in that critical period when the gas approaches and
creased velocity of the liquid medium, and reduced liquid vis reaches the blowout preventers.
cosity. Hole inclination was also significant with maximum
migration rates observed when when the test chamber attitude 1.6 Gas Solubility
was close to45. Changing the gas and liquid densities did not An assumption in most wellcontrol problems is that an influx
have a major effect onmigration rate as long as thegas density does not react to any degree with the drilling fluid and that the
was small in comparison to that of the liquid. PVT properties of the formation fluid at wellbore conditions
More recently, Johnson and White15 constructed a larger, correspond to its surface properties. In other words, gas law
improved model and measured gas rise velocities in both wa predictions at any point in a well can usually be made as if the
ter and viscous mud. One of their conclusions which would initial influx volume was the same as the volume gained in the
seem to conflict with the earlier study was that gas migrated surface pits. This reasoning does not hold true if the influx is
through a static column of viscous mud at approximately the gas and a significant proportion of the gas is dissolved in the
same rate as measured in water. Another unexpected finding drilling fluid. Hydrocarbon gas will dissolve to some extent
was that the migration rates through the viscous mud did not in any drilling fluid, but the effect can generally be ignored
depend on the bubble void fraction. Gas bubbles in the thick with a waterbasemud. A gas kick in an oilbase mud, howev
mud tended to be longer at the small void fractions and had er, is a different matter as are kicks that contain an appreciable
an observed size that was independent of the void fraction. quantity of C02 or H2S into either mud type.
Enhanced bubble stability deriving from the medium viscos O'Brienlf was one of the first to discuss the problems
ity was believed to be the reason for this phenomenon. associated with well control and oilmuds, which all derive
Hovland and Rommetveitl'' measured gas migration rates from the fact that gas readily dissolves in the oilphase. Failing
through water and oilbase muds in a 7,317ft [2230.2m] de to consider gas solubility can lead to confusion, misapplied
viated test well by injecting gas through coiled tubing and techniques, and potential disaster. An operator drilling with
tracking its movement up the hole with a series of pressure a diesel, mineral oil, or synthetic mud system must therefore
transducers.Many of the previous conclusions based on labo be equipped with an understanding of how gas behaves in
ratory work were validated by these fullscale tests. For ex these fluids.
ample, the gas void fractions in viscous mud were found to
have little impact on the migration rates. However, the test 1.6.1 Solubility Limits and Bubblepoint Pressure. The sol
well results differed from the laboratory observations in one ubility of a gaslliquid mixture is generally expressed as the
significant respect in that hole inclination did not seem to amount of free gas in scflbbl that can go into solution at a giv
make much of a difference. This is a question that could use en temperature and pressure. The solubility of gas in liquids
some additional research. is a function of the gas and liquid composition, pressure, and
....1
. ~Ho.4!O""
In No,2 Diosel
;
.'l00'F
I G,OOO
800 .. ~:. 1' ".,~,~,,,
'T~''
,
;
, "
t
,
i
,1",,,,,,
,,
i 4,000
i
.._..._.._.._j.__
. ~ooo
~fl !
i I I j
Solution, Fig. 1.17indicates a solubility limit of 530 scflhbl
at the stated conditions. The free gas volume at standard . 300
conditions is therefore i i
.~ .,.,.,.
J ..1 ..  l.,....
Vgsc = [(8,000/10)  530](10) = 2,700 scf.
t'.L..........~
.
i/'
200 1 .. " ].
14 ADVANCEDWELL'CONTROL
~O~~~~~
......... ,., ,.,u ,_,' ,__ _...
. _.. _' . , .
/
I i
I Moth""~So~mIY
'InM;~lor28au :
400  .. ....... __._ ...... i i . 400
! ;
i ;
i!
I
 i,: Vi',/'~
~:
Y~'i
' ... looF
. l': 2OO'F ' .
,.300F L
200
, 1"" 1~l+... 200
,ro=I_ ,
E Natural Ga. Mlxluro
100 _..
"'''j
1 ,_ 'u, __ ,._ __ u._~_,'.1.~,,~_
'. I I
i~. ,
"'~"'""'r"'"
.
,.'"_'''''_'''''''_''''T
. .. . .. ."........"."....... . .... ~._u"."
..".".,..
i
~L ~= ~ ~
1,000 2.000 3,000 1,000 2.000 3,000
PreS8L1re. pete Pressure. psla
used for any hydrocarbon gas mixture with little practical 40 .. ; .. j .. , l ...
consequence. Gas solubility in water decreases with salinity
and a chart for adjusting the results from Fig. 1.22 is included l i I
as Fig. 1.23.
C02 and H2S are soluble in both water and oil, but with
much higher solubility in the common base oils. Matthews25 24
discussed wellcontrol considerations for these gases, pri
marily for oilbase mud applications, and presented the diesel
solubility data shown in Fig. 1.24. As indicated, H2S is ex 16
Sofu~lltv,~
where a, b, and c are constants that depend on the gas and liq
I uid type. Values for a and b can be obtained from Table 1.3.
j i The value for c is unity if the determination is made for C02.
0,20 ... " " ..." .l..
'I ! " .... !, Otherwise, c is calculated using Eq. 1.46 or 1.47:
i ,I
\
! ! c = 0.3576 + 1.168Yg + (0.0027  0.00492Yg)T
0,15l... Il ! _
'L_':._ ___.l
 (4.51 x 106  8.198 X lO6yg)f2, ..... (1.46)
10 20 30
Total Dissol ved Solids, %
for hydrocarbon gases dissolved in oil, and
Fig. 1.23Salinity correction factors for natural gas solubility in
water (after McKetta and Wehe24).
c = 0.40 + 1.65yg  1.0Ir;, (1.47)
poses when we consider the inaccuracies inherent to most for hydrocarbon gases dissolved in the emulsifier. The tem
wellcontrol predictions anyway. perature in these relations is in degrees Fahrenheit. The equa
At minimum, a weighted invert emulsion mud contains oil, tions do not apply across the entire pressure spectrum and
emulsifiers, brine, and solids. Gas will not dissolve in solids should only be used when the pressure is less than half of the
mixture critical pressure.
and its solubilty in water is minor,so we would expect the gas
solubility in an oil mud to be less than that of the base oil. This
is demonstrated in Fig. 1.28, which compares methane solu Example 1.11.A 13.0lbmlga170:30invert emulsion oil mud
bility in Mentor 28 with two weighted muds made from the consists of (by volume) 54% diesel, 23% CaCh water, 4%
same base oil. Solubility is reduced with increasing mud emulsifiers, and 19%solids. Estimate the natural gas solubili
weight because of the higher solids content. ty in the mud at 150Fand 2,000 psia if the gas contains 95%
hydrocarbons and 5% C02. Assume the brine phase has
The gas solubility in any mud system can be estimated by
200,000 ppm totaldissolvedsolids (IDS) and use a gas spe
summing the respective solubilities of each component on a
cific gravity of 0.65.
volume fraction basis. Solution. We will use Eq. 1.45 to estimate the gas solubili
rsm = forso + fwr SlY + fer... . (1.43) ties in the oil and emulsifiers. The a and b constants for C02
are obtained from Table 1.3 and c has a value of 1.00.Hence,
Fsm through rse respectively describe the solution gas/compo
1.0
nent ratios of the mud, baseoil, water, and emulsifier.The vol
ume fraction of each component (to throughfe) is determined r.Jco_J,,) = 2,000 = 950 scflbbl.
'\ u [ {0.059)(150)O,7134
]
by material balance calculation or retort analysis. Any other
mud additives that are capable of dissolving gas can also be Substituting the C02 constants for the emulsifier yields
incorporated in the relation. 1.0
The combined solubility of the hydrocarbon gas, C02, and
H2Sin each of the mud components (oil, water, and emulsifi
2, 000 = 241 scflbbl.
[ (0.135)(150)8217
]
er) can be estimated using Eq. 1.44,
Now use Eq. 1.46 to determine c for hydrocarbon gas in oil.
........ (1.44)
c = 0.3576 + (1.168)(0.65)
where the subscriptedfterms represent the mole fractions of
the natural gas constituents. + [0.0027  (0.00492)(0.65)](150)
The solubility curves offered in this textbook or elsewhere
 [4.51 x 106  (8.198 X 106)(0.65)]050)2
may be used to estimate gas solubilities. As another tool,
O'Bryan et al.22 presented the following empirical relation = 1.0605.
16 ADVANCED WELL CONTROL
1
I
10,000 psi i
9000
8000
7000
6000
110
==
.0
150
.0
;:;;
U
......
lit
N
8....
C 120

:0.
:5
~
:I
CI.l
t ,
1 .
Temperature rF)
Fig. 1.25C02 solubility in distilled water (courtesy of Halliburton Energy Services).
Use this result and the constants from Table 1.3 to predict hy Eq. 1.44 can now be used to determine the natural gas mix
.\ drocarbon gas solubility in the base oil . ture's solubility in the oil and emulsifiers.
j 1.0605
rso = (0.95)(408) + (0.05)(950) = 435 scflbbl
r
s{hlo}
= [
2,000
(1.922)(150)0.2552]
= 408 scflbbl
.
and
The hydrocarbon gas solubility in the emulsifiers is determined:
r se = (0.95)(252) + (0.05)(241) = 251 scflbbl.
c = 0.40 + (1.65)(0.65)  (1.01)(0.65)2 = 1.0458 The hydrocarbon gas solubility in fresh water is 12 scflbbl
and from Fig. 1.22. Applying the salinity correction factor from
1.0458 Fig. 1.23 yields
2 000
r
s(hlt)
=' [ (4.162)(150)0.1770] = 252 scflbbl
. r~/l/w) = (12)(0.40), = 5 scflbbl.
i I
i ,
35.000 ppm.
O.B  .. .  ... .. _. __ . "l r . "r ..
I
I
! 100.000 ppm I
~
If 0.7
0.4
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature, OF
d~R4>Sg]J
qgs<= 310zT' (0.80),
The pressure, temperature, and compressibility factors are at Vg! = 1.5 bbl.
circulating bottomhole conditions. Finally, the gas/mud ratio
in scflbbl is obtained when we divide the gas entry rate by the Using the gas law, the free gas volume when released from the
mud circulation rate qm (bbllmin). mud at bubblepoint pressure is
I ~
...++,/.
1.3 : . i'
r,
.. L; ~
; I I
1.2
j
I
.. I
I
1.0
:. 't,
i : f:! '1"'1 i
,'... ,.. .. 1.I.~..... ,:,,";,.,1. ~., "'_.:. .j... ..A .... I.,. ~ .1..L...
.. n: r :.~
t .~.,.l,1,.,.1 .. : ..... ~..:.. LLL:~J ,.I~,.~.~.:;::l
:L ~~.1
..~..1:1 1IJ : '1" 1
:~::;:t!~~:1 : .: :,: ..
i ".~ i
o 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Pressure, psia
Fig. 1'.31Volume. factors and solubility characteristics of methane/diesel mixtures at 200F (after O'Bryan and Bourgoyne29).
1.8 Determine the density of methane in Ibmlgal at conditions 1.15 Refer to Eq. 1.34c and derive the constant term relating
of 4,500 psia and 160F. Assume ideal behavior. mud density to hydrostatic,gradient.
COMPRESSIBI LITY
FACTOR
NITROGEN
AFTER SAGE & LACEY
API PROJECT No. 37
THERMODYNAMICPROPERTIES
OF HYDROCARBONS
;1...
,1.6
Ii
II
~1.3
fL.
.~ 1.
1.2000
1.16The mud density in your horizontal well is 11.1Ibmlgal. mine the equivalent density at the perforations for the gas well
Determine the bottomhole pressure if the present depths are in Problem 1.18.
10,500 ft MD and 7,700 ft TVD.
1.20 You need to pull the well described in Problem 1.18 and
1.17 A cementing program calls for 500 ft of 12lbmlgal the well is to be killed with 2% KCIwater, which has a density
spacer followed by 2,000 ft of 15.61bmlgalcement. The mud of 8.43 lbmlgal. Estimate the KCI water level after the pres
density is 9.9lbmlgal and the top plug will be displaced with sures have equalized assuming open perforations and high
fresh water. permeability rock.
a. Ignore friction losses and determine the pressure at the
float collar depth of 9,900 ft immediately prior to bumping 1.21 You have taken a gas kick on a 15,OOOftwell and a
the plug. 300psig initial shutin casing pressure is recorded. The mud
b. Calculate the surface pump pressure at this point in density is 10.2 lbmlgal and the gas bubble occupies a height
the job. of 500 ft. Assume the bottomhole temperature is 210F.
a. Estimate the equivalent mud weight at the kicking forma
1.18 Your 8,OOOftgas well has been shutin for several
months because of a marketing problem. The well is com tion.
pleted without a packer and the shutin casing pressure is b. Determine the equivalent density at the last casing depth
1,300psig. A fluid level survey is shot on the annulus and 500 of 3,500 ft. What hazard could this situation pose?
ft of water is discovered over the perforations. Estimate the
1.22 Rework Example 1.8 except consider the effect of the
reservoir pressure if the wellbore temperature is
70F + 1.2FIl00 ft. Assume thatthe well produces a 1.1spe volumetric changes that occur as result of the mud's com
cific gravity water and that the gas specific gravity is 0.7. pressibility. Assume the average borehole capacity is 0.1458
bbIJftand the mud has a compressibility of6.00 X lOQpsiI.
1.19 Determine the equivalent density attotal depth and at the Specify any other assumptions you need to make to solve
cement topfor the well described in Problem 1.17.Also deter this problem.
1.26 Under which of the following comparative conditions 1.35 Refer to the volume factors with gas in Table 104.
would you expect Eq. 1.42 to more accurately predict a. Prepare another table that includes columns showing cal
gas migration velocity? Explain the reasoning behind your culated values for Bog  Bong and r~o'Use the plot constructed
answers. in the last problem to interpolate the needed Bong values.
a. Deep well or shallow well? b. Plot Bog  Bong for each GOR as function of pressure.
b. Shallow casing or deep casing? c. Plot r:" for each GOR as function of pressure.
c. Cemented casing or uncemented casing? d. Compute the pit gain per bbl of methane influx for
d. Large hole or small hole? each entry.
e. Clear water or drilling mud?
f. Waterbase or oilbase drilling fluid? 1.36 The following conditions apply to a gas kick on a well
g. Tight rock or permeable rock? being drilled with an oilbase mud.
h. Gascut mud or gasfree mud? Verticaldepth = 8,000 ft,
mud density = 12.0 Ibm/gal,
1.27 Based on the findings of Rader et aI., would you expect base oil type = No.2 diesel,
a gas bubble to migrate faster in a 10.0lbm/gal mud or a oil volume fraction in the mud = 0.64,
l2.0Ibm/gal mud? circulation rate = 10.0 bbl/min,
circulating bottomhole temperature = 200F,
1.28How much gas migration would you anticipate in a hori circulating bottomhole pressure = 5,400 psia,
zontal wellbore? bit diameter = 12.25 in.,
gas type = methane, and
1.29 In Fig. 1.28, why is the methane more soluble in the gas entry rate = 3,500 scf/min.
13.0lbm/gal oil mud than in the 18.0lbm/gal mud? Assume the compressibility and thermal expansion charac
teristics of the mud's water phase are negligible compared to
1.30 Use the correlation described by Eq. 1045 to predict the the diesel. The solubility characteristics and volume factors
solubility of methane inNo.2 diesel at 100Fin 500psi incre can be obtained from Fig. 1.31. Answer the following.
ments from 1,000 to 5,000 psi. Plot your results and compare a. Does all of the gas go into solution?
to the experimental data reflected in Pig. 1.17. b. Determine the pit gain volume per 1,000 scf gas entry.
c. The pit level monitors are set to give an audible alarm at
1.31 A 1Olbm/gaI85:15invert emulsion drilling fluid has re a pit gain of 10 bbl. Determine the total influx volume in bbl
spective component volume fractions of: 0.724 diesel, 0.133 when the alarm is heard.
CaCl2 brine (200,000 ppm TDS), 0.037 emulsifiers, and
0.106 solids. Prepare a gas solubility calculation spreadsheet 1.37 Refer to Fig. 1.31 and assume that the bottomhole pres
for the pressures 50, 100,500, 1,000,and 2,000 psia. Assume sure exceeds the miscibility pressure of the methane/diesel
the gas specific gravity is 0.65 and that it contains 97% hydro mixture. How might this situation affect the observed pit gain
2.1 Introduction wherePn and Bn are normal pore pressure and normal pressure
Pore pressure and wellborefracture pressure substantially af gradient, respectively.
fect, indeed control, a drilling operation. The driller usually What is considered normal pressure depends on the geo
attempts to offset formation pressures with some minimum graphic area or depositional basin. For example, a normal
hydrostatic pressure supplied by the drilling fluid. A maxi pressure gradient is considered to be 0.465 psi/ft in the gulf
mum wellborepressure limitation, however, is dictated by coast region of the U.S. Midcontinent regions of North Amer
the fracture integrity of the rock. The allowable mud density ica and other continents often exhibit a 0.433psilft normal
or combination of applied and hydrostaticpressure across any porepressure gradient, which is equivalent to that of fresh
hole interval has an upper and lower bound. Knowing or hav water. Table 2.1 lists normal porepressure gradients for
ing some reasonable prediction of these limits is essential to some of these areas. Because normal gradients may vary, the
well planning and subsequent plan execution. values given should not be considered absolute. .
These topics have received much attention over the past 40
years. Theories and explanations have been proposed and Example 2.1. Determine the pore pressure of a normally
predictive techniques have been presented in the literature. pressured formation in the Gulf of Mexico at a depth of 9,000
Some have been accepted and applied universally, while oth ft. What would be considered normal at the same depth for a
ers have not. Many procedures work well in a given area or well drilled in the North Sea?
depositional environment but less so or not at all in others. Solution. In the Gulf of Mexico, the normal pore pressure
This chapter focuses on the more common or accepted con at the designated depth is
cepts. Chapter 3 discusses fracturepressure prediction and
measurement. P = (0.465)(9, 000) = 4, 185 psig,
whereas in the North Sea,
2.2 PorePressure Origins
Pore pressure, sometimes called formation or formationfluid
P = (0.452)(9,000) = 4,068 psig.
pressure, is defined as the pressure contained in the pore space
of subsurface rock. Pore pressures can be classified by the
magnitude of the corresponding pressure gradient in a given 2.2.2 Subnormal Pore Pressures. A subnormal pore pres
area as normal, subnormal, and abnormal. sure is less than what would be considered normal for the area.
Hence, the pore pressure in a normally pressured rock in
2.2.1 Normal Pore Pressures. Normal pressure gradients Oklahoma would be considered subnormal at the same depth
correspond to the hydrostaticgradient of fresh or saline water, in south Louisiana. One reason for subnormal pressures is
Fig. 2.1 shows a normally pressured rock where a formation
seen in areas displaying uneven surface terrain characteris
stratum was deposited in a marine environment. The bulk
tics. Fig. 2.2 depicts an aquifer outcropping below the surface
rock includes the grain framework or matrix plus interstitial
drilling location that results in a piezometric water table at
water within the pore space, Assuming that the porosity is in
some depth below the kelly bushing (KB) datum of the rig.
terconnected and extends back to the ground surface through
The pore pressure above the water level is near atmospheric,
the overlying sediments, the pore pressure at a point in the
which lowers the pore pressure gradient of the rock to virtual
rock element is the product of the vertical depth D and the hy
ly nothing. These occurrences are common in mountain
drostatic gradient of the pore water,
regions and create severe lostcirculation problems at shal
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.1) low depths.
PORE PRESSURE 27
Ground Surlace
H)'drostallc
Communication
Between St.d<ed
o RoellLayers
.~,:.:,:.:J~:.,,:,,.:.::~::,::'.:'~'.~:'.:'~~.:.:.:
.;. "':'" Fig. 2.2Subnormally pressured aquifer resulting from a de
pressed outcrop.
. .
: '. :  Producing Zone : . :'. :
Normal
Pore Presaure
Subnormal
Pore Pre68ure
. . , , .
: _ : Deeper Prospect. : _: . : _ : . : . : : : _ : . : . : _: . : . : : : : . :
.
Fig. 2.38 ubnormal pore pressures res ulting from asealed nor Fig. 2.4Reservolr pressure depletion as a reason for subnor
mal fault. mal pore pressures.
PORE PRESSURE 29
Massive Shale Section
. ,....
.. .. ..
~ ., . Massive Shale
Sealing Fault
Isolated Sand Lenses
~.
~
: ,
.....#
..
, ..
1
(a) (b)
A Dense Caprock
Shale Shale
/\
Salt
Dlapir
/\ /\
/\
/\
/\
(c) (d)
tonic activity is redistribution of rock stress and rock de duce porewater volume, thereby lowering the pore pressure
formation. Compression associated with rock deformation unless gas existed in the pore space before uplift.
serves as a geopressuring agent if pressures do not dissipate Fig. 2.10 depicts a geopressure source associated with
through any created fractures or "leaky" fault planes. normal growth faulting. The dashed line indicates the top of
The thrust fault depicted in Fig. 2.9 shows twosands shifted the transition zone before the fault movement. After the
block on the left shifts downward, strata that were normally
upward relative to their previous positions in the normal fault
pressured before the tectonic event are exposed to abnormal
shown in Fig. 2.3. Being elevated, Sands A and B would be
pressures on the other side of the fault. Thus, a lateral flow
abnormally pressured if they retained their original pore pres
gradient into the downthrown side is created. Abnormal
sure. However, tectonic uplift, as an origin of abnormal pres pressure occurrences in the Niger delta appear to have been
sures termed paleopressures, has some serious weaknesses. created in this manner.>
An uplift likely would be associated with fracturing and the A common tectonic event is a salt diapir that plastically
means to dissipate pore pressures back to hydrostatic equilib "flows" or extrudes into the younger sediments. Fig. 2.11
rium. The effect of reducing the system temperature is to re shows the overlying strata deformed and perhaps failed in
Devonian Upper, Middle, Fig. 2.6A lithological sequence that sometimes results in a
and lower 405 pore pressure reversal.
Silurian Upper, Middle,
and lower Oulcropplng AquHer
1,OOOft
Normal
Pore Pressure
Top of Gas Sand
Sealing Faun
PORE PRESSURE 31
Marker Bed
Normal
Pore Pressure Shaded Sands
Rep.... n1AbIIormaJ
PorePr8CIure
Marker Bed
Abnormal
Pore Pressure
1\
Fig. 2.1GAbnormal pressu re source across a growth fau It.
Rock diagenesis often has been cited as a source for abnor Fig. 2.11Rock deformation and compression adjacent to a salt
dome.
mal pore pressures. As defined by Pettijohn.f "Diagenesis de
notes the processes leading to the lithification of a rock, or the
conversion of newly deposited sediments into an indurated for these pressures and that the mechanism was secondary to
rock." Postdepositional diagenetic processes that either in undercompaction.
crease pore water or reduce pore volume can lead to geopres Barkerl? proposed that thermal expansion of pore water
sures. Processes attributed as geopressure sources are the re was a viable and substantial source of abnormal pressures.
lease of water from gypsum during the conversion to This is a controversial topic with regard to its significance in
anhydrite and the precipitation of cementing materials from shale geopressures. Thermal expansion must fulfill several
porewater solution. requirements to be a major source of abnormal pressures, in
Powers 7 and Burst'' discussed the role of clay diagenesis in cluding completely impervious beds and for the heating to oc
causing the abnormal pressures seen in deep Gulf of Mexico cur after the beds have been sealed ,11,12 Its importance, while
Tertiary sediments. At elevated temperatures and with an probably real, is more likely secondary to other processes. 13
available potassium ion source, montmorillonite converts to . Osmosis refers to the flow potential of lowsalinity to
illite and releases its tightly held interlayer water into the pore highsalinity water across a semipermeable membrane.
space. In the process, the water undergoes a volume increase Young and Low14 demonstrated experimentally that natu
arid thereby increases pore pressure. However, Magara? con rally occurring clays or shales serve as a semipermeable
vincingly argued that clay diagenesis alone could not account membrane by allowing water molecules to pass but blocking
salt ions. The flow potential could result in overpressuring
OrIgInal Ground ElevatIon a shal~ and has been attri buted as a source for abnormal pres
sures in the San Juan basin.l>
Shale as a semipermeable membrane is thought to be a rea
Currant Ground Eleva!lon son for the dense caprock seals often seen beneath a shale sec
tion. Fig. 2.13 shows that a possible mechanism for caprock
formation results from the pressure gradient driving the up
ward flow of water. Ion exclusion from the mobile water leads
r to the precipitation of carbonate and silica minerals at the base
of the shale membrane.
Biochemical processes refer to the formation of gas and
graphite by thermal cracking of kerogen or oil.16 The com
Fig. 2.12Abnormal
cesses.
pore pressure resulting from erosion pro

Fig. 2.13Caprock mineral growth resulting from water flow
across a semipermeable membrane into a shale.
~
l~i s.~~ 1/ :
.:.J
,.M 'i'
s ~
~:
.
.~
.,
::.:: :'",'>_,
i tIt,;
l ~:'_:..o.>~::_.,;... .. :.;...':('J 'l!' . ..,..:... . .: ~.:....;_. .._.:... .. ~fj
(a)

(b)~.~
''"
(c) ,_1.
Fig. 2.15 Three examples of shallow formations being charged
with deeper gas.
other sources.
Waterflooding and other secondaryrecovery methods in :::=::=::===::=::=::=======::=::=======:=E=::=======::=:=::=::=
crease the pore pressure of the flooded zone if fluid input ex __
_ _ ....___..__ ____ ......
:================:=======:=::===:===================
__
ceeds reservoir withdrawals. One example of this is seen in a
7,900ft Pennsylvanianage sandstone in the Texas panhan
dle. A waterflood was initiated at a time when primary pro
i~i~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:============:
~~::~=~=~~~~~~~~~
\ \.
Overburden load
duction had reduced the average reservoir pressure to subnor _._<
mal levels. Since that time, the average sand pressure has
increased to the point where mud densities in excess of 12 ._=,.___=____   ___
=:=::=::=:=::=::===::===::===:=::=
 Intel8litlal
Pore Auld
Ibm/gal are required for infilldrilling projects.
Another particularly dangerous manmade event occurs
where shallow formations inadvertently or unknowingly are
charged with deeper gas. Fig. 2.15 shows three of these situ
ations. Fig. 2.15a shows an underground blowout where a Fig. 2.160verburden support in a sedimentaryrock element.
PORE PRESSURE 33
The matrix stress presented is designated as ae and refers to and a 1.07specificgravity pore fluid. Assume the sand and
the effective stress reaction in the direction of the applied shale matrix specific gravities are i65 and 2.60, respectively.
compressive stress, a. The latter term is the overburden stress Solution. Combining Eqs. 2.5 and 2.8 for the sandstone ob
if applied to subsurface rock in the vertical direction (if the tains
overburden is the maximum principal stress). Terzaghi dem
onstrated that effective stress rather than total principal stress gob = [(2.65)(8.33)(0.80) + (8.33)(0.20)]/19.25
controls matrix behavior with regard to the effect on rock = 1.004 psi/ft.
properties and strain deformation.
Terzaghi worked in unconsolidated soils, not rock. Eq. 2.3 Combining Eqs. '2.5 and 2.8 for the shale obtains
is modified by the Biot18 relationship to account for the ob gob = [(2.60)(8.33)(0.70) + (8.33)(1.01)(0.30)]/19.25
served effect of grain cementation on the ability of rock pore
pressure to counteract the overburden or other loading. Eq. = 0.926 psi/ft.
2.4 is a more accurate expression for effective vertical stress
in consolidated rock.
Example 2.3 shows that the overburden stress at any depth
........................... (2.4) depends on the bulk rock constituents and porosity. A com
where s = the poroelasticity constant. The poroelasticity posite overburden gradient of 1 psi/ft often is assumed for
constant is a rock property that theoretically can vary between sediments and works well in many older hardrock areas. But
zero and one but is commonly taken to be one. It has been it should be obvious intuitively that this assumption can be
shown to be near unity for shales. Because porepressure pre greatly in error. The best way to obtain the overburdenstress
dictions generally use shale measurements, Eq. 2.3 is the gradient in an area is to measure and integrate the bulk densi
working expression for effective stress. ties from a density log. Most major wireline companies pro
Chap. 4 discusses the use of effective stress to characterize vide this service.
fracture gradients, however, effective stress is important in Eaton20 determined composite bulk densities from numer
several other respects. The overburden at any depth is un ous density logs along the gulf coast and Santa Barbara chan
changing within our portion of the geologic time scale, so ma nel and published the two curves shown as Figs. 2.17 and
trix stress remains constant unless something happens to de 2.18, respectively. The effect of compaction on the young
crease or increase the pore pressure. Eq. 2.3 states that Tertiary sediments is clear. Near the surface, the most recent
reducing pore pressure by production leads to an increased sediments have low bulk densities deriving from their high
matrix stress. This is not a problem where rock grains are porosity. Porosity reduction with depth is evidenced thereaf
wellcemented and the matrix has adequate compressive ter by the increasing density values.
strength. However, loosely consolidated or weak formations In shales, water may exist in the pore space as free water or
are subject to compressive failure and consequent problems be held tightly between clay layers by electrostatic forces.
such as permeability reduction, perforation collapse, sand This bound water constitutes part of the porosity; its complete
production, and surface subsidence. 19 removal from a montmorillonite clay lattice can be accom
Eq. 2.5 relates the bulk density, Ph, of a rock to the constit plished but only at extreme pressures or through diagenesis.
uent grain and fluid densities. Free water, on the other hand, is relatively mobile and can be
expelled readily during compaction. This partially explains
.................. (2.5) the asymptotic character of the Eaton density curves.
Eaton's curves were based on the composite or combined
where Pma = grain or matrix density, PI = porefluid den
bulk densities of the different rock strata. However, not all
sity, and = porosity. The composite overburdenstress
rocks exhibit the same degree of compactibility (i.e., porosity
gradient at any depth is obtained by integrating the relation,
reduction under compressive loading). For example, shales
D are more compactible than sandstones and young shales are
gob "'" i>;c J PbdD, (2.6)
more compactible than older shales. Limestones and dolo
mites typically have little or no intergranular porosity and are
o only slightly compactible. Fig. 2.19 demonstrates the relative
where g = the acceleration of gravity and gc = the proportion difference between representative shales and sandstones.
ality constant necessary to preserve dimensional consistency. In the same work, Eaton averaged the densitylog data
Eq. 2.6 reduces to Eq. 2.7. over 1,000ft increments and developed overburdenstress
D
gradient correlations for the two areas. The curves in Figs.
2.20 and 2.21 reflect total overburdenstress gradient rather
g"b(psi/ft) = . 19.i5D J Pb(lbm/gal)dD(ft). . .... (2.7) than incremental values so that the desired overburden gra
dient at the depth of interest can be read directly from the se
o
lected chart.
Eq. 2.8 is obtained if the bulk density of the rock is constant Mitchell22 approximated Eaton's overburden relationship
to the depth of interest. for the gulf coast with the curvefitting equation,
g"b(psi/ft) "'" Pb(lbm/gal)/19.25. . (2.8)
gob = 0.84753 + 0.01494(1,gOO)  O.OO06(I,goof
4,000
~" ....
'\\ ....
....
....
....
6,000
....
....
.... \\\
, ,~
....
\
,\
, \
\
\
\
\ \
8,000
\
\
\
I UpperLImit
\
~\; of all Data Points
10,000
12,000
Lower Limit of all Data Points.....
~\
,\ \ ,\'
.\
\
\
\
\ \
\
\ \
\
\
\
\
14,000 ~
\
11 \
16,000
\
I
\
I
I \\
18,000
I
I
I
\
\\ \
I
I
I
20,000
1.9 2.0 2j ~2 2~ 2.4
\\ 2,5
I
I
I
_1
2.6
. Bulk Density, g/cm3
Fig. 2.17Composite bulkdensity curve for the U.S. gulf coast.2D
The expression in SI metric units is given by tionship between shale porosity and depth is a common as
sumption that leads to some useful relationships.
In 1959, Rubey and Hubbert24 started with an earlier trea
gob = 19.172 + 1.l09(1,gOO)  O.146(1,goof
tise25 and developed Eq. 2.10 as an expression of sediment
porosity with depth,
2,000
3.000 \
4,000 1\
5,000 \
6,000 ~
7,000 \
8,000 \
9.000
\
10,000 \
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 .2.5 2,6 2.7
Bulk Density, g/cm3
Fig. 2.18Composite bulkcfensity curve for the Santa Barbara channel.20
Solution. Eq. 2.5 is rearranged to solve for porosity. Sediment porosity in the Santa Barbara channel declines
much faster with depth than in the gulf coast.
<P = ~::  ~;. . (2.11)
The unit system is arbitrary but, for convenience, convert Using Eqs. 2.5, 2.7, and 2.10, Constant and Bourgoyne26,27
terms to densities in g/cm3. Table 2.1 gives the normalpres derived the relation for overburden stress as
sure gradient for the area as 0.452 psi/ft. The porefluid and
matrix densities are, respectively,
(pma  PI)4>O[ ( )]} . .
(Job = 0.0519 { PmaD  K.p 1  exp  K;D
P, = (0.452/0.433)(1.0) = 1.044 cm3
and Pma = (2.60)(1.0) = 2.60 cm3. . ~ (2.12)
Fig. 2.18 shows Eaton's bulk densities in 500ft increments.
Table 2.4 lists porosities computed withEq. 2.11. The results The constant 0.0519 expressed in SI metric units is
are plotted in Fig. 2.23. Fitting a straight line to the data shows 9.81 x 103. Example 2.5 shows one application ofEq. 2.12.
that the surface porosity, <Po,is 0.37 from the line intercept at
surface. The line slope l\p is determined with the porosity at Example 2.S. Calculate the overburden at 7,200 ft in the San
10,000 ft. ta Barbara channel. Compare this result to Eaton's prediction.
In 4>0 In 0.370
Solution. The surface porosity and porosity decline
0.074 constant were found to be 0,37 and 1.61 X 104 ft" 1 in Ex
s, = D _ 0 = 4
10,000 _ 0 = 1.61 x 10 ftI ample 2.4. Substituting variables into Eq. 2.12 yields
36 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
o "pure" shales (i.e., those shales with a minimum of other
7 rock constituents). Application of these procedures be
1,000
//; I
comes more difficult, if not impossible, in areas having a
scarcity of clean shales.
After establishing a normal trend line, any measured data
2,000 1/ I
I
I that deviate into higher porosity indicate a transition into ab
normal pore pressure. The parameter trend depicted in Fig.
2.24 is a straight line on semilogarithmic graph paper. Loga
II
I
I which usually indicates a change in the geologic age of the
I shale. The older shales have compacted and therefore exhibit
4,000
I a lower porosity for the applied geostatic load. Going from
Tertiary into Cretaceous, for example, would be reflected by
5,000 / f
I
Sands OMS
a new normalcompactiontrend line. The newly established
trend line, which becomes the basis for the deeper predic
/
tions, mayor may not be parallel to the previous line.
I
Fig. 2.26 demonstrates the equivalentdepth method for
I quantifying abnormal pore pressure. Every data point in the
6,000 II
undercompacted region has a counterpart in the. normally
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
pressured. section. For example, the abnormally pressured
Porosity shale at Depth D is under the same state of compaction as its
Fig. 2.19The effect of compaction on shale and sandstone counterpartat Dg; Itis a reasonable conclusion thattheshales
porosity.21 at D and Deq' have the same matrix stress.
aVe = aVeleq)'
aob = 0.0519{(2.60)(8.33)(7,200) where aVeloq)= effective (matrix) vertical stress at the equiva
lent depth. From Terzaghi's relationship, we obtain
(2.60  1.044)(8.33)(0.37) Gob  Pp = Gab(eq)  Pn(eq)'
0.000161
where a ob{eq) and P n(eq) = overburden stress and porepressure at
the equivalent depth, respectively. Rearranging terms yields
x [1  exp(  0.000161 X 7,200)l}
Pp = Pn(tq) + [aOb  aOb(eq)]. (2.13)
= 7,032 psig.
Example 2.6 demonstrates the the equivalentdepth method
Eaton's predicted overburdenstress gradient is obtained
for quantifying abnormal pore pressure.
from Fig. 2.21 as 0.995, giving
aob = (0.995)(7,200) = 7,164 psig. Example 2.6. Shale porosity indicator data are obtained and
The difference between the two results lies in the straightline plotted on a graph similar toFig. 2.24. Estimate the pore pres
fit of the calculated porosity data and to a lesser extent, the sure at 10,200 ft if the vertical extrapolation from this depth
matrixdensity assumption. intersects the normal trend line at 9,100 ft. The normalpore
pressure gradient for the area is 0.433 psi/ft. Assume that the
overburden gradient is a constant 1.000 psi/ft.
Solution. At 9,100 ft, the overburden stress is 9,100 psig
2.4 Conventional PressurePrediction Concepts and the pore pressure is
Other than direct readings, most porepressureprediction or Pn(eq) = (0.433)(9,100) == 3,940 psig.
detection techniques rely on measured or inferred shale po
rosity. The compaction theory is the basis for most predic The overburden at 10,200ft is 10,200 psig. Substitution inEq.
tions, and abnormal pressures arising from other sources gen 2.13 yields
erally are more difficult to identify or determine. Actually, the Pp = 3,940 + (10,200  9,100) = 5,040psig.
degree of shale compaction depends on factors other than
burial depth and pore pressure. The soft shales, Pliocene and In terms of gradient,
Miocene for example, compact more than the older, harder gp = 5,040/10,200 = 0.494 psi/ft.
shales like the Pennsylvanian. As expected, pore pressures
are easier to predict in the more compactible shales.
The approach common to most compaction methods is to Fig. 2.27 illustrates another standard approach that uses an
measure porosity indicators in normally pressured shales empirical correlation that relates pore pressure to some func
and to establish a normal compaction trend with depth on tion involving the observed parameter in the abnormally pres
a graph similar to the one shown in Fig. 2.24. For accuracy, sured interval and the value taken from the normaltrendline
it is important that measurements be taken in "clean" or extrapolation. The observed and normal porosity indicator
PORE PRESSURE 37
o
2,000 \
4,000 \
6,000 ~
:I:::
6,000 \
~
0
Q)
10,000 \
12,000 \
14,000 \
16,000 \
18,000 \
20,000
\
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0,95 1,00 1.05
OverburdenStress Gradient, pslltt
Fig. 2.2DOverburdenstress gradients for the U.S. gulf coast.20
values, Xo and Xn respectively, are obtained from the plot at theoretical underpinnings, when they should be applied, and
the depth of interest and are used in an empirical equation to any inherent weaknesses in or limitations to their use.
predict the pore pressure. The limitation to any empirical
method is that the correlation is developed for a specific area 2.5 Pressure Prediction by Analogy
and lacks universal application. Operators who attempt to ex Pore pressures and fracture gradients usually control well
tend empirical relationships beyond their intended applica design and impact well costs. The number and setting depth
tion create problems. of the casing strings, hole diameters, equipment pressure
Porepressure predictions may be grouped into three broad ratings, muddensity requirements, and other elements
classifications: (1) those relied onin planning a well, (2) those constituting a well plan rely on an accurate assessment of
that can be applied while drilling, and (3) afterthefact tech the expected pore pressure and fracture gradients. Every ef
niques. Methods falling into the first two categories are most fort should be made to gather all available information and
beneficial to the design and operation of a drilling project. to use sound engineeringjudgment in applying the relevant
During the wellplanning stage, an operator is limited to using information to the well plan. Anything less can lead to ma
information from offset wells, geological analogy, and seis jor difficulties or, in the extreme situation, a blowout or
mic data. Several manifestations of abnormal pore pressure junked hole.
may be available after drilling operations begin. Table 2.5 Table 2.6 lists a few of the numerous information sources
provides a partial list of quantitative and qualitative indica available for planning and drilling oil and gas wells. Direct
tors. Many of these are discussed in detail, including their pressure measurements are superior to a correlation that in
2,000 \
3,000 \\
4,000 ~
:::
~ 5,000 \
\
CD
c
6,000
7,000 \,
8,000
9,000
10,000
0.7 0.75 0.6 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.0 1.05
OverburdenStress Gradient, psilft
FIg. 2.21Overburdenstress gradients for the Santa Barbara channel.20
directly irifers pore pressure. Drillstem tests, shutin pro wells. The conscientious drilling engineer learns as much as
ducing well pressures, and recorded pressures during a possible about the expected lithology, potential pressure
wellcontrol operation help to establish the known pore seals, tectonic features that might impact rock stress, and oth
pressures in a given prospect provided that the information er variables. However, there are likely to be unknown or at
is timely and the lithology correlates to the proposed drill least questionable data, even in the most scientific of pros
ing location, Known data points can be used to fine tune pects. Prudence dictates a rank exploration well be planned so
other, more indirect methods. that one or more additional casing strings can be set if actual
Offsetmud densities are available from a variety of sources, well conditions so dictate.
but the information should be used cautiously. Mud weights
depend on several factors other than hydrostaticpressure bal 2_6 AbnormalPressure Prediction
ance, including hole stability and operating practices. The in
From Seismic Data
formation can be valuable, however, in helping to establish
the range of allowable mud densities across a given hole sec A valuable exploration tool for predicting pore pressures and
tion. Accurate lithological correlation is essential for mud other potential drilling problems is a seismic survey. Seismic
densities or any other offset data to be beneficial. surveys, as used in conventional geophysical prospecting,
Without any direct offsets, an operator may need to rely on take known or computed velocities of sound through rock me
region or basinwide analogy to anticipate conditions in a new dia to determine depths to subsurface reflector beds. Structur
hole. Open lines of communication between the drilling de al characteristics then may be delineated across the line of
partment and the exploration or geophysical group is always shot points. Structural information alone can be useful in an
important, but even more so when planning these types of ticipating potential porepressure anomalies. Salt domes,
PORE PRESSURE 39
II
1,000 I~
p
,V Iv
2,000
3,000
~I
Ii /
4,000
y
I
I /1 7/
I
::'
%
~
5,000 I
v
i/ II
6,000
V v
VI
I
t j
7,000 I
V
8,000 t
I 0 Permian  Oklahoma
/ (!) Lias (Lower Jurassic)  Germany
9,000 4 Miocene and Pliocene  Po Valley
10,000 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I
0.01 0.1 1.0
Shale Porosity
shale diapirs, faults, and other tectonic features .oftencan be be as low as 6,000 ftJsec whereas the velocity in a dense dolo
identified clearly by the geophysicist and can be factored into mite may exceed 20,000 ftlsec. Seismic velocity, therefore,
the well plan as depths where abrupt changes in pore pressure can be considered to be an indirect measure of porosity and
are possible. used to predict pore pressure.
The use of seismic as a method for detecting and quantify The desired sonic velocity information is the velocity in
ing abnormal pressure involves the relationship between duced in a specific interval. Stacked or rootmeansquared
computed sound velocity and the degree of sediment compac
(RMS) average velocities (see Fig. 2.28) can be converted to
tion. Pennebaker'f first described the approach in 1968. The
velocity of sound in a medium increases with the density of interval velocities with the Dix29 equation if some assump
that medium. For instance, the sonic velocity is approximate tions are made concerning the lithological sequence.b' Sedi
ly 1,100ftlsec in atmospheric air and approximately 4,600 ftl ment densities and average interval velocities increase with
sec in distilled water. For sedimentary formations, the sonic burial depth under normal compaction. Fig. 2.29 plots a nor
velocity in a lowdensity rock like highly porous shale may malcompaction trend for average interval velocity.
PORE PRESSURE 41
0.01 O.OZ OD) 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.)0 0.40 0.10' t.OO
(/.
1
i.
r
/
~
/
~,ooo 1
T
I
0,000
"
I
I
I
&'COO
,.1
/
01
/
~I
~I
I
0/
/
7,'#1 ~I
./
I
/
/_
I,COO J
8.000
,
I
tO,OOO t:
0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 O.tO 0'0 OM 0.50 1.00
Porosity
Fig. 2.23Calculated sedimentporosity data for the Santa Barbara channel.
sit time does not support a semilogstraightline extrapolation stack (DMBS) processing can compute interval velocities
except across relatively short intervals. This technique is directly from the seismic data as opposed to using the Dix
more successful when greater emphasis is placed on the data conversion and can deal with lateral velocity variations better.
points closest to the transition. Other advances, such as 3D DMBS processing, will provide
Structural complexity adds to the difficulty in obtaining further capabilities in more. geologically complex areas.
useful pore pressures from seismic. The basic assumption in Given all of the current limitations to seismic predictions,
the Dix conversion from RMS velocity to average interval ve DMBS may be the only tool available to the drilling engineer
locity is that beds are flat and of uniform velocity throughout for an exploration prospect. In most cases, accurately predict
the lateral investigative distance. Compressive rock stress in ing the magnitude of the pore pressure is less important than
duced by tectonic events produces anomalously low travel establishing the likelihood and probable depth of undercom
times for the burial depth and introduces complications to the paction. More precise measurements normally become avail
procedure. Lateral facies changes and high bed dips also vio able in the process of drilling the well, and operations can pro
late the Dix assumption. ceed safely when these potential transitions are incorporated
Seismic porepressuredetection techniques are most appli into the well plan.
cable in younger deltaic areas where normal faults predomi
nate and where thick, horizontal shaly layers are prevalent. 2.7 Penetration Rate
However, recent developments in both acquisition and pro All other factors being equal, bits drill faster through over
cessing technology have extended seismic capabilities be pressured rock than through normally or subnormally pres
yond their traditional application.U Depthmigrationbefore sured rock. The most applied porepressureprediction meth
1/
/
,"
/
Shale Porosity Indicator
Fig. 2.24Normalcompaction trend and ind ieation of transition Into abnormal pore press ures.
ods involve correlations related to penetration rate. One strength. Effectively ruling out or normalizing other variables
advantage to using drilling rate is that any changes are im as contributors to drillrate variations is an important aspect
mediately apparent to the driller, while most other methods of correlations based on penetration rate.
involve lag time. For example, shalecuttings density mea Another need that must be met is sufficient bottomhole
surements canbe a useful tool if done correctly, but there is cleaning at the selected weightonbit (WOB) and rotating
considerable delay because of the time it takes to circulate the speed. The bit must be continually in contact with fresh or
cuttings to surface, physically prepare the sample, and mea undrilled formation to realize accurate predictions. Other
sure the density. wise, changing formation conditions can be masked if much
Thble 2.8 lists factors governing how fast a bit will drill of the energy expended by the bit is involved in regrinding
through rock. Some of the factors are at least partially con old cuttings.
trolled by the operator, while others are strictly a function of A simple field technique demonstrates whether current hy
the rock and burial depth. Important factors from the stand draulics are providing adequate bottomhole cleaning. At
point of pressure prediction are the differential pressure constant rotating speed and lithology, the drilling rate can be
across the bit face, the state of rock compaction, and rock considered to be directly proportional to the bit weight over
PORE PRESSURE 43
__ Normal Trend line
f
1/
i/ L Transition
1\
I
II
a specific range of conditions. Starting with low values and proceeds in a normal compaction trend and, as a result, pe
at the desired rotating speed, the bit weight increases incre netration rate suffers. Undercompacted rock has higher po
mentally and the penetration rate is recorded for each step un rosity than normally pressured rock under the same overbur
til the desired WOB is achieved. The data then are plotted den stress and therefore exhibits higher drillability. Another
similarly to the chart shown in Fig. 2.32. A flattening of the factor becomes apparent when the effective or matrix stress
curve indicates one of the following conditions: more cut of an abnormally pressured rock is comparedwith a normal
tings are being generated than can be swept away by the mud ly pressured rock at the same overburden. From Terzaghi's
stream or the bit cutting structures are embedded fully in the law, higher pore pressure results in lower matrix stress and,
rock. Operators should avoid bit flounder and maintain drill hence, reduced strength.
ing parameters within the straightline portion of the curve. The differential (or overbalance) pressure between the
The obvious question at this point is how pore pressure af
wellbore and pore fluid is one ofthe more significant factors
fects penetration rate. There is no single simple reason and
listed in Table2.8. Rock drillability decreases with increasing
a combination of causes has been demonstrated. However,
the mechanics break down into three or four major elements. overbalance for two primary reasons: the socalled chip hold
One is related to the inverse relationship between rock drill down phenomenon and the effect that wellbore pressure has
ability and compaction. Rock porosity decreases as drilling on the rock strength immediately ahead of the bit. This subject
ADVANCED WELL CONTROL
44
II
DOlI           
II
ic II ,
I
I
I
II
/ i\1\
I ~
/
D    I    ..1\1
/ i
/ IJ
Shale Porosity Indicator
requires some explanation because of its relative importance influences penetration rate; Fig. 2.33 shows that the effect be
in influencing penetration rates. comes more pronounced with decreasing overbalance. In
Investigators began studying how rocks drill under pres addition, they were among the first to offer chip holddown as
sure in the laboratory in the mid1950s. Murray and Cun a theory for reduced jenetration rate. Garnier and van Lin
ningham32 conducted one of the earliest series of microbit gen35 and Robinson discussed the secondary effect of how
drilling experiments and found that drilling rates decreased rock strength is enhanced by overbalance pressure.
with increasing hydrostatic pressure under constantpore Vidrine and Benit37 corroborated earlier laboratory work
pressure conditions. They came close to discovering the with field observations. They made drillingrate measure
true role of wellbore pressure, but it was left to Eckel33 to ments in shale at variable differential pressures on eight
demonstrate experimentally that drilling rate was in south Louisiana wells and found that the penetration rates
fluenced more by differential pressure than by hydrostatic generally followed an exponential decline similar to that de
pressure in the borehole. picted in Fig. 2.33. Fig. 2.34 shows one of their examples,
Three independent papers presented greatly advanced the normalized for tooth wear; bit weight, and rotary speed.
understanding of how overbalance influences rock failure Their data suggest that penetration rates continue to increase
and removal mechanics.3436 Cunningham and Eenik34 con when the differential pressure becomes negative (i.e., pore
cluded that the differential pressure is the only pressure that pressure> wellbore pressure).
PORE PRESSURE 45
II
.c
II
c
1 II
II
/ 1\1\
/ 1\
/
x. ~      \4x
\
/
/ /
Shale Porosity Indicator
Fig.2.27Emplrlcal approachfor quantifying abnormalpore pressure.
Fig. 2.35 shows a rock chip created by the indentation of a ment within or on the surface of the body into normal and
rollerconebit tooth. Some means of equalizing the pressure shear stresses acting on itsorthogonal planes. The element
below the chip to the wellbore pressure must be provided be can be oriented so that the plane shear stresses vanish. The
fore the chip can be dislodged easily and removed by the mud normal stresses acting on these two planes are defined as the
stream. If it is not, the rock fragment is effectively "held principal stresses and represent maximum and minimum nor
down" by the pressure from above. It should be apparent that mal stress, O'max and O'min, respectively.
the degree of overbalance is a significant component of chip Fig. 2.36 graphically depicts with a Mohr's circle the nor
holddown. Other important variables include formation
mal and shear stresses on an arbitrary plane given by the angle
permeability, mudfiltration properties, and whether the bit
Q, O'aand fa, respectively. The plane angle on the element cor
removes the rock predominantly by shear or by crushing.
Recall that the rock below a drill bit actually gets stronger responds to angle 2a on the circle. The maximum and mini
when the overbalance pressure is increased. A review of some mum principal stresses on the circle have zero shear and are
rock mechanics fundamentals is in order.These concepts will at relative positions 1800 apart (900 apart on the element).The
be used in a discussion of fracture theory in Chap. 3. Take a maximum shear stress, .max, acts on the plane that is posi
piece of rock (or any other solid) and apply loads in an arbi tioned 450 from the principal stresses on the element (900 on
trary fashion. Recall that we can resolve the loads on an ele the circle).
46 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
TABLE 2.5PORE PRESSURE INDICATIONS TABLE 2.6PORE PRESSURE AND FRACTURE GRADIENT
WHILE DRILLING INFORMATION FROM OFFSET WELLS
Indicator Correlations Data Source Information Provided
Penetration rate dexponent Mud logs Instantaneous penetration rates
Modified d exponent LIthologicalsequence
Combs'43method Measured shale densities
Gas concentration in drilling fluid
Bourgoyne and Young's46method Wellcontrol events
A exponent Openhole logs Shalecompaction parameters
Sigmalog LIthologicalsequence
Prentice's50 method Wireline pressure tests
Moore's52.53method Casing paints
Other correlations Mud density at casing point
Postclrculationtemperatures
Cutting characteristics Boatman's8l density correlation
Sonic logderived rock properties
Qualitative indicators
Mud recaps Mud densities
Hole conditions Qualitative Wellcontrol events
Gascut mud Qualitative Casing points
Change in mud properties Qualitative Bit records Mud densities
Flowline temperature Qualitative Casing polnts
MWD/LWD Openhole log correlations Scout tickets Drillstemtest pressures
Pseudoporosityor strength Casing points
correlations Initial test pressures
Direct Measurements Toursheets Mud densities
Casing points
WellcontrOlevents
A brittle rock specimen typically fails in a laboratory uniax Leakofftestdata
ial compression test by breaking along a shear plane similar Public record Annual test pressures
to that illustrated in Fig. 2.37. The MohrCoulomb failure cri sources Casing points
terion is often used in rock mechanics to describe the behavior Production and injection data
of a rock under compression and to predict its compressive Technical papers Case histories
strength at a given confining pressure. In practice, the com and articles .
pressive strength of a rock is determined under at least two Service company Miscellaneous porepressureand
database records rockproperty data and correlations
confining stresses and a Mohr's circle is drawn at the point of and studies
failure for each condition. In Fig. 2.37, the specimen failed at Daily drilling reports Mud densities
the vertical stress Gmaxwhen the circumferential confining Casing points
pressure was Gmin.The smaller circle represents failure of an Wellcontrol events
unconfined specimen. Leakofftestdata
Fig. 2.37 shows that the compressive strength of rock is
highly dependent on the confining stress. As a corollary Fig. 2.39 shows a rock element at the bottom of a wellbore.
statement, the confining stress must be specified whenever A column of drilling fluid replaces the overburden, and the
the strength of a rock is given. Table 2.9 lists tensile, shear, minimum principal stress acting on an element near the bot
and compressive strength ranges for various rocks.38 Note tom of the hole is now the wellbore pressure. On the basis of
that the MohrCoulomb criterion for buried sediments is not the MohrCoulomb model, the wellbore pressure can be con
applicable to total stress. Pore pressure cannot produce sidered as the confining pressure, which implies that the de
shear, nor can it deform rock. Hence, the MohrCoulomb be gree of overbalance controls the strength of the rock immedi
havior in rock penetrated by a bit is controlled by the effec ately ahead of the bit.
tive or matrix stresses. Maurer's? experimental study of rock failure by roller
Fig. 2.38 depicts a buried rock element. The maximum in cone bitsprovides additional insight into the rockstrengthen
situ principal stress is the overburden and confining stresses
in the horizontal direction, GHmax andGHmin,respectively, are
provided by the surrounding rock. The confining stresses are
related to the overburden and increase with burial depth. The
compressive strength of rock also increases with depth be
cause confining stress controls the strength.
~~
Shot PoInt ~r
Geophone Su~~
Normal Compaction
Inlervall
Interval 3
____________ ~ R~e~r3 AverageIntervalVelocity
PORE PRESSURE 47
0.4 TABLE 2.7AVERAGE INTERVALTRANSIT TIMES FOR A
SOUTH LOUISIANA MIOCENE PROSPECT28
Average
Interval Midpoint Transit TIme
(ft) (ft) (esec/ft)
0.5 4,000 to 5,000 4,500 98
5,000 to 6,000 5,500 93
\
16,000 to 1B,OOO 17,000 95
18,000 to 20,000 19,000 95
20,000 to 21,000 20,500 93
21,000 to 22,000 21,500 93
0.8
for the condition where the farfield pore pressure is equiva
lent to the wellbore pressure (i.e., a balanced situation). The
induced differential pressure remains fairly constant at 1,400
psi from the center of the hole (r/rw = 0) out to approximately
0.9 ~ half the distance toward the wellbore wall. Near the corners,
deviator stresses also begin to influence the effective stress.
The induced overbalance postulated by Warren and Smith
"'" ~
may be a contributing factor to why weak shales often drill
slower than strong, but permeable, sandstones.
In summary,the two fundamentalporepressurerelatedfac
tors that affect penetrationrate are compactionand differential
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 pressure. Of the two, differentialpressure generallyis conced
ed to be more significant. However, recent laboratory work
l!.t/Mn suggestspenetrationrate is independentof differentialpressure
Fig.2.3~Pennebaker's28 gulf coastcorrelation betweeninter in lowpermeability rock with low compactibility (hard
valtransittime and porepressuregradient. shales)."! The two factors are interrelated in soft shales, and
distinguishingthe predominantmechanismmay not be impor
ing mechanism. Fig. 2.40 shows a bittooth indentation into tant if the selected drillrate correlation works for the area.
a rock just before the creation of a fracture along the dashed
shear plane. The differential pressure from above provides a 2.7.1 DrillRate Models. Given all the factors listed in Table
normal stress, O'a, along the potentially failed shear plane.. 2.8, some means of relating penetration rate to a common ref
Fracture formation is resisted by the shear stress, 'ra, which is erence must be used if penetration rate is to be a useful pres
a function of the rock cohesion and friction between the top sureprediction tool. A normalized drilling rate based on a
and bottom planes. The cohesion is a constant rock property, mathematical model provides the key. A penetrationrate
but the friction depends on the magnitude of O'a. which. in model expresses the relationship between penetration rate, R,
tum, depends on the overbalance pressure. The same and the controlling variables in a general form by
strengthening concepts apply to drag bits, such as the poly
crystaUinediamondcompact (PDC) types. R = K(fl)(f2)(f3) (f,;), (2.15)
Warren and Smith40drew some interestingconclusionsfrom where j;=functions of the variable parameters. K=a
their analysis of stresses at the bottom of a wellbore. After constant of proportionality and includes the effect of all the
wellbore pressure replaces the overburden, the rock immedi variables that are not accounted for in the selected model.
ately ahead of a bit undergoes an increase in pore volume be Numerous penetrationrate equations of varying complex
cause of the bulk rock compressibility.If the rock is a shale or ity have been presented. One of the simpler models, ex
otherwise relatively impermeable, the porefluid mass in the pressed as Eq. 2.16, considers only the effect of bit weight and
affected region is fixed leading to a localized area of reduced rotating speed.
pore pressure. The effective stress in this region increasesand
results in a strongerrock. In effect, a differentialpressure is in
duced in the rock that may be higher than the difference be R = K(%fWNDN, .......... , (2.16)
tween the wellbore pressure and farfield pore pressure.
The finiteelement method (FEM) was used to predict in where W = applied bit weight, dt, = bit diameter, aw = bit
duced differential pressures at a distance 0.1 in. below the weight exponent, N = bit rotating speed, and 'N = rotating
hole surface under various conditions. Fig. 2.41 is their curve speed exponent.
6,000 _......... .. .. _..
8,000  _ ..
vf,l
10~ ==~::~c_=rl::t:::~~===~
=~~~=.=~:_~=::~: Transition 
I
12,000  J .
+I
........................................................................... .
14,000
, 1"
I
_.... ...
,~
........_ , I
.
16,000
" _ .
............................ , _ ..
18,000
,
I
I _ .
I
.dIn : 1 I .dID
................................................................ ::::::,""1 IIC ..
20,000
,
1
, .
1
1
....................................................... 1 ..
I
22,000 L..__ JL.._....L...l_.l....LL...L...J..'L..
1
" __ l __ ....L....l._.lJ.....JL...J....LJ
10 20 40 80 . eo 100 200
Fig. 2.31lntervaltransit times for the drilling prospect described In Example 2.7.
A graphical procedure can be used to evaluate the bit gives a straight line on logarithmic graph paper. Hence, the
weight and rotatingspeed exponents in Eq. 2.16. For exam value for aN can be obtained by plotting Rand N on loglog
ple, suppose that the objective is to determine the rotating paper and measuring the slope of the line. In practice, obtain
speed exponent. A penetration rate in consistent lithology, ing reasonable values for the drillingrate exponents is not as
typically shale, is measured over a short interval. Additional difficult as it might appear. In many cases, exponent values
measurements are made at other rotating speeds while hold for shales of the same geologic age and at similar depths can
ing the bit weight and other raterelated variables constant. be assumed equivalent.
These other factors are lumped into the proportionality Porepressure ..prediction methods that rely on changes in
constant and Eq. 2.16 is then expressed as normalized penetration rate have been introduced or modi
fied from the early 1960s forward.42S4 Most of the correla ..
R = K'(N)QN, tions were developed in a given rock hardness or geographic
where K' = constant. An alternative form of the equation, region and an engineer must be judicious when assessing their
applicability. A standard relating to almost all drilling perfor
]og(R) = log(K') + QNlog(N), mance procedures is that measurements are made and trends
PORE PRESSURE 49
TABLE 2.8FACTORS AFFECTING PENETRATION RATE 2.7.2 d Exponent and Modified d Exponent. The d expo
nent introduced by Jorden and Shirley42 in the 1960s is the
Controlled by Operator Out of Operator's Control
most widely used (and misused) drillingrate prediction
Hole diameter Lithology method. The technique was developed initially as an empiri
Bit type, design, and wear Rock strength cal relationship intended for application in the softrock areas
AppliedWOB Confining stress
of the gulf coast. Its use, however, has spread to all areas. The
Rotating speed, rev/min Formation permeability
widespread application of d exponents is a mistake, however,
Bit hydraulics Porosity (degree of compaction)
particularly when the attempt is made to use the technique in
Wellbore differential pressure
Drillingfluid properties hardrock areas.
Personnel and equipment Jorden and Shirley started with the Bingham55 model,
d
noted in clean shales. Space does not allow discussion of each R = KN(%) , (2.17a)
of these in detail, and we encourage those who wantto pursue
the subject to review the cited references. Ref. 1 describes =
where d bit weight exponent. The constant was described as
Bourgoyne and Young's method and provides examples. being a function of the formation characteristics, although it
should be apparent that other factors (e.g., bit type, bit wear,
...
and hydraulics) are involved .
.........
........+ Bingham's model assumes that drilling rate is directly pro
... + portional to rotating speed, which may be a reasonable
....+ approximation in soft rock. However, the drillingrate rela
tionship in harder rock is expressed more accurately by Eq.
'~s~ F1?Un<I,,'E_ e.gl" 2.16 with an aN value of less than one. Therefore, using the
conventional d exponent in hard shales is inaccurate for
200 ~~~~~~r~
, . ii,
I ,I 8114 in. roller~onebit '
1 COnstaI'IIROIatingSpood I
160 + _ _....l .. I
=
Bit weight= 30,000 Ibt
RotatingSpeed 100rev/min..."..
~ 120 ..
I 0 I
_l........r....__
........ I I
t_.........._ ..T....
_.._
.._ i
..1....
BftWelght a: ! I ! !
o~t+
i
" JJl~~
12 ~~~~~,
10 ..tI _
__
.. I .. 1_
.._r ' .. +I __ _ Iii
I . I
;1
!
i
Indiana Limestone
o i I
in. rollerconebit
o +400 +800 +1,200
 1 i
1114
Bit Weight= 1,000Ibf
RotatingSpeed = 50 rev/min
DHfersntlal Pressure,
Fig.2.34 Theeffect of differential pressureon normalizeddrill
psi
4
I .._
i .. ....1_
j.. Ij _ _ . ..
Tensile Compressive
Nonna! Stress Normal stress
"a '
" ""t"
Fracture Plane
PORE PRESSURE 51
. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . ,
:==__=============_=_====:

__
: ....:;:,____:::. 1:==========::===
.
. . . ,
.. .
.' . ..
..
, . ,
,
,
__
.. _____ ~
  ___..
.'
. . .
. . , . .
. . . . . . . .. , ... , .....
. , ...  _ 
:====== ============
 ====================
:==================== ====================
  
:==========
._ === =======
_________ =========:
:==::=::===::=::===::=::===
.. a".,
' . .
Example 2.8. A penetration rate of 50 ftIhr is recorded in a where deo and den = the observed and extrapolated normal de
gulf coast shale with an applied bit weight and rotary speed exponents, respectively.
of 20,000 lbf and 100 rev/min, respectively. Calculate the d Zamora45 presented a different relationship.
exponent and modified d exponent if the ECD is 10.1Ibm/gal
and the bit diameter is 8V2in.
gp = gn(dcn/dco). . ....................... (2.21)
Solution. The d exponent is obtained from Eq. 2.18a as Eaton47,48 included the effect of a variable overburden in his
equation.
d = log[50/(60)(100)J = 1.34.
log[(2)(20,000}/(106)(8.5)1 gp = gob  (gob  gn)(dco/dcn) 1.2. ........... (2.22)
The normal porepressure gradient in the gulf coast is 0.465
psi/ft. Thus, 4,000
BltTooIh
VerticalStre..  10,000 psi
3.000 Horizontal Stress =
7.000 pal
'8. PorePressure = 4,700psi
2,000 WeUborePr_ure  4.700 psi
!
'>~./ ! 1.000
~ 1.000
2,000
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Fig.2.40 The effect of overbalancepressure on crater forma Fig.2.41FEM prediction ofthe Induceddifferential pressureIn
tion forces beneatha bit tooth. Impermeablerock for a balancedweUboreconditlon.40
PORE PRESSURE 53
Or~!~~~~~i~i,
!
I
i
I
II
I
I I, 'iii i
I! i
Ii
1,000
!
j............................ .. + _ _ _ 1.. .. .. ..
1
!
!!
I I
I! i
iii
i I I !
I . ! i I I
I: i l I I
!i II I
I
2,000 _ _ I....._.._ _ _.J ._ __ _.L _ l _ _.._.i...... ~.. ..  ..
I ! 1 i I I
,I .
I I iii
!: I I
~D
i l, I ill
i ..TI .... r.. _ '11.._ _ __...
4,000 TI l"
ft, : .. ..T_.. I
I I' i ! I !
I i \_tTranl!ltlOn~rFault? i I
5,000 _ L _L:! ~~\ ! L! : 1.. _ _1. .
I
I
1\ f
I
~ i
!
! \' ,I I ;
1 Actuai Transition ~, \. ! I I
i
6,000
\r.......r..
.....r~5=~~ll~\
t
t
I , .\
" \ \
I
!
!
T  r___
!
i
I
I \!, ; I
.. I'"
i I
7,000
I
!
...._..............\
..
I . r , ..
..1'...... ..  ..'.i..
......_.._
i! I
I !
....I............~.._...._.._ ....t .._ ......_ .._
I
I I I
\'I'! 71' . Possible Normal Trend lines
it' 1
i ! " i ! i
! ! ~ i I I
I ! I" ! I
8,000
Selected Normal Trend Line 
OT"....t~..
i .. t l
.._ t .. "i j
.........j "
!
j.
!. ~.  .. .
Iii i I
iI !I II ii
'! . i
9,000 _ lI i j.
!
; .." ! +I ,_ .
iii 1 i I
! ! I I!
10,000 L..
!
1
....
I
i..i
I
__,!.i ''
i
....I :.I
I .....I
Fig. 2.43Modified dcexponent data obtained from a well in South Marsh Island plotted on Car
tesian graph paper.
2. Fig. 2.44 shows the data as plotted on semilogarithmic and sound engineering judgment are valuable, of course, but
graph paper. Constructing a line with Zamora's slope as a these qualities alone may not be sufficient to solve porepres
guide shows den to be 1.18.Applying Eq. 2.21, the porepres sureprediction problems. Some knowledge of the geological
suregradient prediction at 6,050 ft is determined as sequence is essential for accurate pressureprediction work.
Also, any serious porepressureprediction effort should in
gp = (0.465)(1.18/0.95) = 0.578 psi/ft clude more than one or a combination of indicators to enhance
the interpretation. This is true particularly for d exponent in
and pp = (19.25)(0.578) = 11.1 Ibm/gal. terpretations because minor lithology changes and many oth
3. Eq. 2.9a yields an overburdenstress gradient of 0.919 er variables influence penetration rate.
psi/ft at 6,050 ft. Thus Eaton's equation gives The normalizing variables in the d exponent model may be
difficult to ascertain by surface measurements. For example,
gp :;:: 0.919  (0.919  0.465)(0.95/1.18(2 = 0.569 psi/ft the applied bit weight as read from the weight indicator may
not correspond to the downhole WOB in deep or directional
and P = (19.25)(0.578) :;::11.1 Ibm/gal. wells because of hole drag. Measurements from a floating
drilling vessel add more complications. Measurementwhile
drilling (MWD) capabilities offer some promise here. Bea
Example 2.9 shows that porepressure predictions in a real t056 discussed some modified d exponent interpretation diffi
world problem are subject to much interpretation. Experience culties in deepwater Gulf of Mexico operations and how these
Iii!
i ~
i I !
ill
I
! i
i I
i
1~ ~IifH+~
:
!
~~j!I,I:ri~,
i;'
: iii' II
...L
I iII
i I
! i
:
I!!
f :
!
iii!
i
llrrr~rrTrllT
II i!'I'
Pi
~I, !' i,
,i
'I' II I
, , !
I!
5.000
6.000
 ..
1.. ..i....<
t. rI:
i
I I I!Ii:
~
i j i f i
~
r+..
II
I :
Jt!
i.. 4..
l
.... i"....
1:~~f
!! I:::
i
i.
j
.iI'
I I f i
I!
I i"..!I~..
~
I I
I
t
t J
1 ; I I I Ii! 1 I :i:
7,000 "'' I' ',ll'l' . "r"
:
,I: l fr..
l"'rl..
;; , ; Ii; I I ' ! ; i I
8.00_+W...I...ILIL__jH4~
10,000
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0
Modified d Exponent
Fig. 2.44Modified dcexponent data obtained from a well in South Marsh Island plotted on
semllogarithmic paper.
were alleviated by measuring actual WOB with an MWD the operator has previous empirical evidence pertaining to the
tool. MWD also allows for more accurate lithology picks rock and bit types used in the area.
through the use of loggingwhiledrilling (LWD) data and a Finally, the shale compaction or differential pressure are
lithology correlation involving downhole torque. not included in the base equation because these are, in effect,
Drilling in extremely soft or unconsolidated rock can lead the indirect parameters measured with d exponents. Jorden
to interpretation problems. Making a hole in these formations and Shirley's42 equation is based on the assumption that all
can be achieved partially by the jetting action of the mud, a shales compact in the same manner when exposed to an in
crease in differential pressure. Ithas been established, howev
factor not considered in the base equation. For mill tooth bits,
er, that not all shales compact the same for a given change in
another factor that is difficult to describe mathematically is
differential pressure, even in the coastal regions.
the effect of tooth wear on penetration rate. Some penetration Despite the flaws in the base equation and possible inter
rate models include a means to normalize for tooth wear, and pretation problems, modified d exponents have worked quite
one of these functions could be used to adjust R before apply well in the gulf coast and other areas where young sediments
ing Eq. 2.18. However, published toothwear relationships predominate. A few guidelines are suggested for improving
may be difficult to apply in actual drilling conditions unless technique accuracy. Although the d exponent theoretically
PORE PRESSURE 55
creasing differential pressure and compaction, a drillrate
trend of constant slope can be expected as long as the opera
, tional parameters do not change. The transition depth into in
creasing pore pressure is indicated on the diagram by the fast
~ Shale er drill rates. The differential pressure continues to drop as
, drilling progresses into the transition, perhaps to a level that
invites an influx if a permeable section is encountered.
A means of regaining the lost differential pressure and re
storing the overbalance condition simply entails weighting up
the drilling fluid to a density sufficient to push drill rates back
~ onto the trend extrapolation. Fig. 2.45 shows the weightup
process and its effect on drill rates. A drawback to this uncom
< plicated approach, however, is that pore pressure at any depth
D in the transition is unknown. Lacking this knowledge, an op
< erator can only guess the mud weight and the speculation
< probably will be incorrect. In this figure, the final mud weight
< exceeds the desired mud weight because the resulting pe
netration rates fall to the left of the normal extrapolation.
< Shale Note; however, that the penetration rates with the excess mud
density ultimately return to the normal trend line as drilling
proceeds deeper into the transition.
The penetration rates shown on Fig. 2.45 represent actual
rates; however, pretransition normalized rates from an ap
propriate model may be used to compensate for changes in the
parameters. For instance, a model will have to be used to pre
< dict the target penetration rate if the operator control drills (re
duces bit weight and/or rotating speed) while increasing mud
<~ density. The drillrate equation adopted by Moore is
\:
( I
Example 2.10. Shale penetration rates for a well in the mid
continent U.S. are listed in Table 2.11 and plotted in Fig.
(: . 2.46. Bitoperating parameters before the transition were
,: 4,700 lbf/in. and 80 rev/min. Transition was detected at
9,100 ft and the operatorimmediately reduced the bit weight
to 2,900 lbf/in. and began to increase mud density. Deter
mine the target penetration rate at 9,250 ft at the reduced
Penetration Rate WOB. A J22 tungsten carbide insert (Tel) bit was used
throughout the plotted intervals, and bit hydraulics did not
Fig. 2.45Graphical method for maintaining an overbalance change appreciably past 8,000 ft.
condition in a pressure transition.
Solution. The extrapolated normalpenetration rate at
9,250 ft is 15.7 ftlhr, which would have been the target rate
normalizes for bit weight and rotating speed, better results are
had the bit weight remained constant. Eq. 2.23 yields the tar
achieved if an attempt is made to hold these parameters rela get penetration rate at the reduced bit weight.
tively constant. This is especially true for rotating speed, be
cause an exponentwas not incorporatedto the term in theBing
ham55 equation. Extreme overbalance pressures also lead to R = 15.7(~: ;~)(~grN = 9.7 ftlhr.
inaccuracies. Figs. 2.33 and 2.34 show that penetration rate is
not very sensitive to overbalance at high differentialpressure. The target rate reverts back to 15.7 ft/hr ifthe operator re
Hence, a modified d exponent calculation in this region of the sumes drilling at 4,700 lbf/in.
curve gives an erroneously high pressure prediction.
Obviously, some means of estimating the mudweight re
2.7.3 Moore's Technique. Moore5253 proposed a practical quirement would be valuable in implementing this technique.
method for maintaining a porepressure overbalance while Moore proposed a porepressureprediction method that rec
drilling into a transition. Fig. 2.45 depicts shale penetration ognizes the difference in shale compactibility and offers
rates plotted vs. depth on semilog graph paper. Because of in promise for all sedimentary basins. Eq. 2.24 was developed
(9.6)0.6810g(18.0)= p~q~810g(16.5)
P.q2 = 10.5  0.29 = 10.211bmlgal.
I
Hence, the corrected value for c is
and P eq'l = 4.800:68= 10.0 Ibm/gal.
10.21)C
( 9.5
= log(23.0) = 1 095
This represents an increase in 0.4 Ibm/gal over the normal log(17.5) . ,
ECD of 9.6 Ibm/gal. The porepressure gradient in density
equivalent is thus c log(1.075) = log(1.095),
..  !~:i ! i
_1 _. 1
! i
10 '.' ' .
11 . .I..
l..
j.i.'t.' . 1 .I"ILl.lrl
! i ! I Ii!
I .I:..t..;.1'..[
! ...."1..: ...,_. .
....}..~.~f~
!!.: ..: ~
.L...
J
1 i
....
12._ Li..t1_.L_.~._.+...L_.
i l+~~~jJjJ~.
13
! !
.~. ~.b. ~ +
......~~ I j i
J
1
. j 14 .. ...  .(.l.i.t..j.+.t ....+_.J'+
i I l+"r1ltr!r
'1'r+ Tt+jr..rr
~ ~ ~
i :",. : :i 15 
i !. I
.................... ~ ~ .,~ ~ + t .. ~ 16
!::rtri~t=rij~=.
9842
I ]"::: I I
I ! ! I I i ! I I 1
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
19 rTr~II..TI..I.., ,ri oo
20 I! ,
o ~ ~ ~ u ~ M
Shale Cutting DenSity,g/cm3
Pshn  Psho' g/cm3
Fig. 2.47Shale cutting densities with depth from offshore Ni Fig. 2.48Empirical gulf coast correlation between porepres
geria.s sure gradient and shalecutting bulk density.57
PORE PRESSURE 59
TABLE 2.13SHALECUTTING DENSITY MEASUREMENTS
termined by interpolating the chip position to the height of the
FROM A WELL IN SOUTH LOUISIANA57 nearest calibration beads.
Shale Density A less precise, though relatively fast, method does not re
Depth
quire any specialized equipment or chemicals. First, the rider
__@__ (g/cm3)
of a standard American Petroleum Inst. (API) mud balance is
11,100 2.39 positioned at the density of fresh water and shale is added to
11,200 2.44
the cup until the freshwaterdensity equivalence is obtained.
11,420 2.42
Then, the cup is filled with fresh water and the combined den
11,550 2.44
sity is recorded. The specific gravity of the shale originally
11,680 2.41
placed in the cup is obtained with
11,700 2.44
= ",., Pw
11,770 2.46
11,820 2.43 ')'sh
"fJw
_p shw
. ...................... (2.25)
11,890 2.46
12,140 2.47 The subscripts w and shw = the density of fresh water and the
12,190 2.42 measured shale/water mixture, respectively. Note that specif
12,220 2.48 ic gravity is equivalent to density if the latter is defined in
12,350 2.45 g/cm3 units.
12,410 2.48
12,500 2.49 Example 2.16. The rider of an API mud balance is positioned
12,520 2.47 at 8.33 Ibm/gal, and dry shale cuttings are placed in the cup
12,620 2.47 until the level is balanced. The cup is then filled with fresh wa
12,680 2.49 ter, and the mixture density is read as 13.3Ibm/gal. Determine
12,810 2.47 the shale density.
12,900 2.48 Solution. Eq. 2:25 yields
12,960 2.49
13,080 2.50 Psh = 8.33/(16.66  13.3) = 2.48 g/cm3.
13,190 2.49
13,200 2.52
13,250 2.49 A means of directly measuring the porosity of a shale sam
13,300 2.51 ple is available now through application of nuclear magnetic
13,400 2.50 resonance principles. Prepared shale cuttings are exposed to
13,450 2.52 a magnetic field, and the electromotive force originating from
13,560 2.51 the induced spin of any associated hydrogen atom nuclei is
13,610 2.49 measured. The energy released from the shale corresponds to
13,690 2.47 the amount of hydro gen in the rock, thus allowing porosity to
13,810 2.46 be determined.
13,910 2.44 Another way to estimate shale porosity is to measure the
14,000 2.44 moisture content of a dry sample. A prepared sample is
14,120 2.46 weighed carefully, then heated to release the pore water. The
14,250 2.45 sample's weight loss gives the moisture content of theshale
14,350 2.46 and porosity can be determined. This procedure assumes that
14,470 2.45 all the water, both bound and free, leaves the sample and ig
14,580 2.46 nores the effect of any retained salt ions.
14,700 2.47 Montmorillonite clays carry a predominant negative charge
14,890 2.48 on the basal surfaces of the individual crystalline layers. In the
14,920 2.46 natural state, sodium, calcium, or magnesium cations com
pensate for this charge deficiency and are adsorbed within the
wash the shale cuttings with fresh water and to dry with a tow interlayer structure. Water molecules readily penetrate the
el. Drying the shale in an oven liberates some of the bound space between the layers thus giving these clays their hydra
water and is to be discouraged. tion or swelling characteristics in the presence of water.
Small amounts of carbonate or heavy minerals within the In an aqueous environment, the interlayer cations may be
shale matrix can influence bulk density dramatically. Some displaced by other cations present in solution. A measure of
scatter of the points can be expected when considering the ef the cation substitution potential of a given clay is a property
fect of lithology and other possible errors in the procedure. It defined as the cation exchange capacity (CEe), expressed in
follows that more accurate trend lines result if shale densities cation meq/loo of dry clay. Comparatively, montmorillonite
are plotted from a large data base. has a much higher CEC than the nonswelling clays, such as
The most accurate of the four different methods for measur illite or kaolinite. The CEe of a shale sample can be approxi
ing shalecutting densities described involves using a mercu mated in the field from the amount of methylene blue dye
ry pump to measure the bulk volume of a known mass of cut absorbed by a clay suspension. This measurement, called
tings. The variabledensity column is another commonly the shale factor, is expressed in mL methylene blue/loo
applied procedure. A column of liquid that exhibits increas crushed clay.
ing density with depth is placed in a graduated cylinder. Cal A shalefactor trend with depth may be a useful tool in over
ibration beads of known density are put into the cylinder and all porepressure prediction. Generally, shale factors in Ter
float at a liquid column height corresponding to the bead den tiary basins decrease with increasing temperature as the clays
sity. The density of a cutting chip placed in the cylinder is de gradually convert from montmorillonite to illite. A reversal
! ! l
I ! ! j
!!
I"
i i! i!
12,000 .......................
_+ !
,
i
f
.. j
;
!.
!
i
..f.._
:
..
!i
I
I
!
;
i
j
I
!
I
I
..r........l..

.l
. ......t1....__
i ! ;
..
I
I
!! I! j
;
i
I
i I ! ~ i
13,000 ................................ 1.._ __ ._ _ JI
! !. ~ I ~
i ~
1 .
I Iii
! 1 i i
! i ! i
I! ! i
j Iii
! I ~ 1 i
.. ~.. ..i
ii~ _.
i 'I' j Transition I
!
1
'.
! i
1
i! !i
i
i
i
i
;
j.
i
;
I
!
!
~
Ii
14,000 ..................__ .t I................
!.. ..~ ..I
.......
_ .
I! I' i
I !
. I!
iii
, ! I ~
e
I,
i IIi! j ,
, I ! I
i I I :
.;.
.
15,000 ................................_ i..
..
I
_.j._..
. j I
.;.
I
1 .
i ~ I ! j
i! Ii Ii I! I;
2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70
of the observed trend into higher montmorillonite concentra Shale cavings also may signal an increase in pore pressure
tion implies a loss of dehydration efficiency often associated or, alternatively, a reduction in differential pressure. The
with undercompaction. Conversely, a relatively sudden in associated instability mechanism may, in fact, be a combina..
crease in shale factors indicates rapid conversion to illite and tion of processes. Chap. 3 covers the phenomenon in more de
the possibility of diagenetic abnormal pressures. Shale fac.. tail. Creating a hole in stressed rock causes a compressive
tors, although helpful, are not positive indicators and should stress concentration at the wellbore and a hole collapse
be considered only in conjunction with other signals given by relieves stress concentration exceeding the rock strength.
the well. Plastic rock, like soft clays and salt, collapses by squeezing
A large volume of shale at the flowline may indicate a bore into the wellbore. Brittle rocks, on the other hand, fail by
holestability problem. One form of instability is chemical in breaking loose from the wall of the hole as chunks (break
nature and arises from montmorilloniterichshale hydration outs). Abnormal pressure tends to weaken rock so it is reason..
at the walls of the hole. A swelling stress builds up over time able to conclude that an abnormally pressured shale will be
and can cause sloughing at the wellbore if the swelling pres more prone to collapse than a normally pressured shale.
sure exceeds the matrix strength of the rock. Using an inhibi.. Ifthe wellbore pressure is underbalanced, a pressure gradi
tive mud system generally solves or at least controls any ent from the formation to the well develops that may create
chemically induced instability problems. a high tensile stress normal to the wall of the hole in low..
,
PORE PRESSURE 61
permeability rock. Instability is promoted, and failure of the associated gas volumes typically are small, and are a function
rock may be explosive, (sometimes called "popping" shale). of hole diameter, circulation rate, pore pressure, gas pore vol
Typically, underbalanced shale spallings are long and splin ume, and penetration rate. Drilled gas normally does not
tery in appearance and have sharp edges. Conchoidal tension constitute a drilling hazard, and its presence is not an indica
fractures often can be seen in shales that fail in this fashion. tion of abnormal pressure. Note that gas formation cuttings do
Breakouts and intact sloughings, on the other hand, generally not always give a gas "show," and the absence of drilled gas
have a blocklike appearance. does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of gas produc
Evidence usually is available for determining whether an tion, be it desired or not. For example, in a permeable forma
unstable hole is the result of a chemical problem. Hydrating tion being drilled with highfiltrate mud at significant over
clays tend to disintegrate in the drilling fluid, thereby increas balance, the show is suppressed, if not elminated, by a
ing solids content, and reactivity tests can be run on the intact nearcomplete flushing of the hydrocarbon pore volume
shale samples. Also, chemical instability problems take some ahead of the bit.
time. perhaps days, before symptoms arise, whereas stressre Produced gas refers to any gas that enters the wellbore from
lated breakouts can occur almost instantaneously. However, the walls of.thehole. Gas may be produced into a well because
it may be difficult to differentiate between the other possible of a pressure underbalance (i.e., negative differential pres
causes by appearance alone. This highlights the need for con sure). Given sufficient permeability, an underbalanced zone
sidering all available evidence before making conclusions. may produce gas at a rate sufficient to cause a wellcontrol
As an example, an increase in drilling rate should accompany emergency. On the other hand, lowpermeability rock. such
or precede cavings generated by abnormal pore pressure. as a shale or tight sand, may continuously produce gas under
The lithological information obtained by the wellsite geol negative differential pressure without causing a measurable
ogist or mud logger often can suggest a change in pore pres increase in the mudreturn rate. The ability to manage the
sure. For example, the possibility of pressure seals should al associated gas depends on the flow rate and on the design of
ways be regarded when drilling through tight carbonates, the gasseparation equipment.
ca1cerous shales, anhydrites, or other potential caprock mate By definition, gas liberated from uphole cavings is also
rials. Undercompacted rock typically is associated with thick produced gas. Other possible sources include recycle gas
shales, so advancing a hole in a massive shale section should and contamination gas. Recycle gas is any wellbore gas. re
be done with caution. Finally, marker beds that correlate to gardless of its origin, that remains in the mud after at least
known pressure seals or transition zones may be identified by one pass through the pits. Contamination gas refers to gas re
the minerals or fossils present in the rock. leased from any volatile hydrocarbons intentionally added
to the system. Thermal breakdown of organic mud additives
2.8.2 Gas in the Drilling Fluid. Fig. 2.50 shows several ave and other downhole reactions also results in the release of
nues for gas to enter a circulating or static column of mud. combustible gas.
Drilled gas, also called cuttings or liberated gas, refers to the Gascut mud typically has a fluffy or grainy appearance in
gas released from rock cuttings generated by the bit. The the shaleshaker possum belly or pits, and gas bubbles may be
seen breaking out of the mud. Measuring the return mud
Recycle C3as
weight at the flowline gives a relative indication of the prob
lem severity. Measuring the mud density under atmospheric
conditions may lead to apparently alarming results and some
Gas Associated With Drilled Rock _ _ _ concern about a reduction in the annular hydrostatic pressure.
Severe gas cutting may be a warning sign, but its effect on the
total equivalent mud weight at the bottom of the hole is prob
ably negligible.
From a material balance of the system components (ex
cluding drilled cuttings), the density of a gas/mud mixture
is given by
Pmg = Pm{l  Ivg) + pJ'Vg. . (2.26)
where Pmg = density of the gas/mud mixture, Pm = uncut
mud density, pg = gas density, andfilg = the volume fraction
of the gas phase.
Eq. 2.26 holds true at the prevailing surface conditions
when the mud is weighed and at any point in the annulus. Eq.
1.15 states that gas density increases in response to higher
pressure. It follows that the density of a gascut mud escalates
with increasing depth in a wellbore. More importantly, the
gasvolume fraction also changes with increasing pressure.
Combining a given quantity of gas with a specified volume of
drilling fluid yields a gasvolume fraction of
Underbalanced Gas Flow
znRgT/p
..................... (2.27) _ = fVg.p.'lT In(Pmg+ p,)
fVg == 1 + znRgT/p' Pm Pmg (1 _ +' ) T P., ..... (2.28)
JVg. z, s
Example 2.17 demonstrates the combined effect of the gas where Pm = the hydrostatic pressure of a clean mud column,
volume and density changes with depth in a well. Pmg:::: the hydrostatic pressure of the gascut mud,Ngs = the
gas volume fraction at the top of the hole, Ps = surface pres
Example 2.17. A thick gas sand has been drilled at constant sure, 1's = surface temperature, ~ = the surface compressibili
penetration rate and circulation rate. Gas cutting of the drill ty factor, T= the average temperature in the annulus, and Z
ing fluid is noted on bottoms up, and a sample taken from the ::::the average compressibility factor in the annulus.
flowline weighs 7.0 Ibm/gal. Determine the mixture density Eq. 2.28 presumes a constant gas concentration throughout
in the annulus 2 ft below the flowline outlet if the clean mud the annulus, The hydrostatic pressure of a clean mud column
density is 12.0 Ibm/gal.The sample temperature is lOOFand can be used to determine the average z factor. However, the
atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psia. problem solution still requires iteration because Pmg is in the
Solution. Assume a gas specific gravity and calculate the logarithmic function. A recommended approach is to use a
gas density in the cup using Eq. 1.22. Pmg value on the right side of the equation equivalent to the
hydrostatic pressure of the clean mud and solve for the pres
(0.6)(14.7) sure difference on the left. Subsequent iterations then use cal
Pc == (2.77)(1.0)(560) = 0.00569IbmlgaI. culated values in the logarithm until the results agree.
Eq. 2.26 is rearranged to yield the gasvolume fraction.
Example 2.18. Estimate the change in hydrostatic pressure at
fVg == (12.0  7.0)/(12.0  0.00569) = 0.417. total depth for the well described in Example 2.17. Assume
the circulating mud has an average temperature of 150F.
Now Eq. 2.27 is rearranged to give the number of gas moles
Solution. The average annulus pressure given by a column
in 1 gal of the mud.
of 12.0lbm/gal mud is
_ 0.417
n  (1.0)(80.275)(560) (0.417)(1.0)(80.275)(560)
u= (14.7 + 6,248)/2 = 3,131 psia.
14.7  14.7 The z factor at the average pressure and temperature is ob
tained as 0.868 from Fig. 1.6. For the first iteration, assume
= 0.0002338 Ibm mol. that Pmg is 6.248 psia and solve for the pressure change using
Eq.2.28.
This concentration is constant throughout the annulus if the Annulus Mud Density,Ibm/gBl
downhole entry rate did not change. To simplify the problem, 7.0 B.O ~.n 10.n 11.0 12.0
t +
we assume that the mixture density is constant down to the
depth of interest. Thus the absolute pressure at 2 ft is
P2 = 14.7 + (0.0519)(7.0)(2) = 15.43 psia.
At this pressure, the gas density and volume fraction, respec
1~ i IlI
tively, are
2,000 _, __ __._.: .. . +.  ,   ",' ...
j.. ....
I ' !
and fi
(0.6)(15.43)
Pc = (2.77)(1.0)(560) = 0.00597 Ibm/gal
(1.0)(0.0002338)(80.275)(560)/15.43
 ..;....,...;_;_...;_;_:....;___;_!....,_=
t,rl ,
4,000 
.
..:.......
 ....
I
+I.... .......[,.........
I
..jI......T....
I 
!
Vg 1 + [(1.0)(0.0002338)(80.275)(560)/15.43]
I ! ! I I
=0.405.
~ 5.000 ........ 1'" ole .........J.......... .J ........... I ....
Therefore, mixture density at this depth is !
6,000  ..
I
. ..1.... 
I I I I
Y...........~.. ......~......._...f.... "'_
Pmc2 = (12.0)(1  00405) + (0.00597)(0.405) I ! I I I
= 7.141bm/gal. 7,000 J..... J..l...
I !
l..I
......j....i .... __ e.
I i ! i :
Fig. 2.51 is a plot of the computed annular mud densities
from surface to a depth of 10,000 ft for the conditions de
'"I..
B,OOO ....... .f.r..j......
.I..
.. . ..
scribed in the Example 2.17. We see that most of the gas ex i ! t
PORE PRESSURE 63
(0.417)(14.7)(0.868)( 610)
Pm  Pmg = (1  0.417)(1.0)(560)
6,248.+ 14.7)
X In ( 14.7
= 60 psi.
Solve for Pmg.
Pmg = 6,248  60 = 6,188 psia.
Another iteration yields
(0.417)(14.7)(0.868)(610)
Pm  Pmg = (1  0.417)(1.0)(560)
6, 188 + 14.7)
X In ( 14.7
= 60 psi.
A second iteration is unnecessary if the first assumed value
for Pmg is reasonably accurate.
R.O.P
e....... )
I
: i Ii.. i lill j
I
I
~. ~:I ;
l?!.
I'
I
I
,
I I
Ii
r j l::t
,,' ~.;, ,
i'
r! r. I
~
II:' i
1 ..
lJ..
. _u
i
j.
I
! I
I
([_
I
!
i
:El1r72 : ~) j
GI~3_01Q.PR1
:'!l~
~;:: I
I: li~~ I i
lliii!l.
~\::
~ tl I I: fi
I:.~
gb,
Fig. 2.53Example mud log, courtesy of Geoservices.
may seep into a well during a connection and a connection drilling through a thick shale transition. The increase in the
gas (CO) spike occurs on bottoms up. Tripgas (TO) readings amount of mud gas indicates a negative differential pressure
are normally higher than the nearby CO peaks because of the and the need to increase mud density. The relative strength of
time factor and the greater potential for reducing wellbore the gas measurements will be suppressed back to approxi
pressure. The relative magnitude of the measured gas units is mately the original readings after the wellbore achieves a bal
a direct function of the wellbore differential pressure. In fact, anced or overbalanced condition.
a highly overbalanced situation may suppress all the de
scribed gas indications. 2.8.3 Changes in DrillingFluid Properties. A change in
Fig. 2.54 depicts characteristic log responses to some gen mud properties may indicate contamination and an underba
eralized downhole environments. Fig. 2.54a indicates a gas lanced wellbore if formation fluids are the contamination
formation drilled at an overbalanced condition. BOO read
source. Gas cutting, a form of contamination, can influence
ings remain constant before and after the show as do the size
drillingfluid density and viscosity dramatically. Minor salt
of the CO peaks. Compare this response with that in Fig.
water flows or acidgas entries also affect various mud attrib
2.54b where the BOO attains a higher, although stable, level
after drilling the show. Note that subsequent CO readings utes. These changes may be sudden and noticed immediately
also are intensified. Continuing flow into the welIbore from or more subtle in nature and detected only by closely monitor
the penetrated sand is the most logical conclusion and, al ing the mud properties over time.
though the inflow rate is small, an underbalanced condition Small saltwater additions will increase the chloride content
is evident. of a freshwater mud progressively and flocculate bentonite
The track in Fig. 2.54c is more difficult to interpret. One clays. Flocculation is evidenced by an increased yield point,
possible inference that can be drawn from the size of the se high gel strengths, increased water loss, and a reduction in fil
cond CO response is that the annulus friction provided the tercake quality. Also, the system pH may be reduced in some
overbalance margin across the show sand. In other words, the cases. These signals are not definitive flow indications, how
well becomes underbalanced when the pump is shut down. ever. Mud salinity can arise from other sources (makeup wa
Alternatively, the static hydrostatic may be high enough but ter or drilled rock salt) and muds can flocculate for reasons
the newly exposed sand may be more permeable than the oth other than salt contamination.
er exposed rock or.the hole simply may have been swabbed Acidgas (C02 and H2S) contamination may result from
harder during the next two connections. slow seepage into a wellbore or from other nonformation
The track in Fig. 2.54d shows a steady increase in both sources. C02 detrimentally affects waterbased muds by re
BOO and CO readings withdepth. This is typical behavior for ducing the pH and providing a source of soluble carbonates.
PORE PRESSURE
65
Gas Units Gu Units ellS Units Goa Unite
CG
CG
BGG
Show
ic Show
;=:======~ ce
BGG,
:=========~ TO :=:=======> CG CG
another clay flocculant. Soluble carbonates may be detected across the abnormally pressured interval. Fig. 2.55 illustrates
by running a Garrett gas train analysis of the filtrate. this effect. Earth isotherms normally are perpendicular to the
H2S contamination is evidenced by pH reduction, a foul
odor, and a black appearance in weighted muds because of its
reaction with the iron minerals in commercial barite to form
iron sulfide. The presence ofH2S can be confirmed by sepa
rating the gas with a Garrett gas train and analyzing the sam
ple with a Drager tube. H2S is a deadly substance and highly
corrosive to steel goods when it is in solution form. It is .
imperative that immediate steps be taken to raise the pH and
precipitate any soluble sulfides with scavengers. Following
or coincident to the mud treatment, efforts should focus on
identifying and eliminating the problem source.
can assume that the heat flux is constant for a given area.
Hence, the temperature gradient in a rock stratum is depen
dent on its thermal conductivity.
Rock grains have a much higher thermal conductivity than
pore fluids;' and, under normal sediment compaction (poros
ity reduction), we would expect to see greater capacity to
transmit heat with increasing depth. Lewis and Rose60 pro '
FormationTemperature
posed that undercompacted beds act as an insulating layer be
cause of the lower thermal conductivity.Thus, heat is retained Fig. 2.55Effect of undercompact!on on formation tempera
in the rock and a temperature gradient anomaly is evidenced tures (after Lewis and Rose60).
End1oend plot
Flowline Temperatur6. F
FlOWlineTemperatura
Fig. 2.57Flowline temperature measurements used to detect a Fig. 2.S8Uslng an endtoend plotting technique to compen
porepressure transition on a North Sea well.61 sate for flowline temperature scatter.
PORE PRESSURE 67
2.8.5 Hole Conditions. Drilling torque and drag during trips
or connections result from friction between the drillstring or
0.4 r: I'1:"1:"'1 .
bit and the walls of the hole. Torque and drag increase natural
ly with depth, but a relatively sudden increase must have an
underlying reason and a prudent operator investigates to de
M ~~I..~it
I I! I
..~tl+ft
I ! r i
termine the cause, Hole instability is just one possible reason
for excessive torque and drag, though a rapid onset of hole
drag is fairly substantive evidence of an unstable hole. Circu
lating bottoms up and observing the samples furnish a more
direct indication of hole instability and may suggest a pore
pressure source. Torque and drag should be considered a sec
ondary tool for predicting pore pressures and only when ob
i 0.7 .+ +++t
. I I I
::;
;:, 0,7
<Jl
c.
~
0,6
1,5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 eo 60 100
li to  li tn Jisee/It
Fig. 2.60Matthews and Kelly67 transittime correlation for OligoceneEocene shales in the
south Texas gulf coast.
0,40 '~"'I~"""';I '1 ....! , TABLE 2.14SHALE ACOUSTICTRANSIT TIMES FOR A
WELL IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS66
0,150 ''~I'~~"'~
._.. _._i+.
INot1hSea .
Depth Transit Time
____@_ (,usecJf!)
i I I 2,820 158
s
II)
.. '":' '1' 3,210 153
c.
i 4,000 150
~ 0,70 i .+''1'
~ I
PORE PRESSURE 69
With some exceptions the grains that make up a rock matri x
generally are nonconductive, The fact that saline pore water
zooc +f,+
, I
. 'I!1
'i ! I !I' 1
is a conductor provides the basis for inferring porosity from
bulk resistivity or conductivity measurements. Under normal
shale compaction, a trend of increasing resistivity and de
4,000 "'"ir:" . r ;;~;;~~;'i''I"'" creasing conductivity should be noted with burial depth.
i ' I Ii' I
Deviation from the trend into lower resistivities with corre
sponding higher conductivities signals a porepressure transi
tion. However, factors other than porosity impact shale resis
tivity. Detecting a transition or predicting pore pressure with
electriclog measurements requires due consideration of oth
er effects.
10,000 ... __ ._ .. _. _
. !
L.. _... t:.. ..I
/
.J ,..
I
__L_ .....1..
I I
The porosity of watersaturated rock can be determined
with the classic Archie69 relationships. The formation resis
........................... (2.30)
s.eee ~trn~Ir
, I
, 1
,
1\1\
'\
I ::..
,Ii
Ill,
I' I. i
I 3,110
3,538
4,135
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.072
0.072
0.066
3,611
3,611
4,310
7.64
7.64
8.33
N;,~r
4,544 0.50 0.051 4,625 9.80
4,890 0.50 0.049 4,950 10.20
i 10,000 r ~ : 5,175
5,363
0.55
0.50
0.049
0.045
4,950
5,475
11.22
11.11
~ I I I '.: I
12,000  'T ]trfT\\ ~IT 5,867
6,041
6,167
0.50
0.50
0.54
0.041
0.041
0.041
6,100
6,100
6,100
12.20
12.20
13.17
14,000 rtTltt\,:,r
: I I i ~ [ ] " : 1
6,482
6,577
6,955
7,113
0.55
0.55
0.70
0.70
0.045
0.045
0.039
0.038
6,540
6,540
6,910
7,280
12.22
12.22
17.95
18.42
16.000  ...L.i.Jl_l'~~  II.~.~I 7,255 0.70 0.038 7,280 18.42
, ,I , \ 1\
   SW Loulslana Oligocene/Mlocene Shales \ 1 \ 7,696 0.71 0.030 7,900 23.67
 Jefferson County, TX Miocene Shales \\ i
    Iberia Parish, LA Miocene ShaleS! ; 8,200 0.76 0.028 8,400 27.14
18,000'_'_''1'"'1_i ''1'__ '_"'1 _' 8,342 0.85 0.028 8,400 30.36
0,2 0.4 _ 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 ~.O 8,767 0.80 0.029 8,600 27.59
Ro' Om 9,113 0.85 0.025 9,460 34.00
Fig. 2.63Normalcompaction resistivity trends observed in 9,492 0.91 0.025 9,460 36.40
gulf coast Miocene/Oligocene shales.66 9,665 0.86 0.025 9,460 34.40
9,996 0.80 0.025 9,460 32.00
conunon for some abnormally pressured sands to produce 10,217 0.85 0.024 10,700 35.42
nearfresh water. 10,485 0.92 0.024 10,700 38.33
10,659 0.91 0.024 10,700 37.92
Because Rw over a given depth range is not constant, the
10,989 0.90 0.024 10,700 37.50
proportionality between Ro and porosity is not the same at ev
11,162 0.91 0.016 11,400 56.88
ery depth. Therefore, a plot of normally compacted shale re 11,487 0.90 0.016 11,400 56.25
sistivities with depth would not be expected to fit a straight 11,588 1.20 0.016 11,400 75.00
line on semilogarithmic graph paper. This is evidenced by the 11,776 1.16 0.018 11,800 64.44
Hottman and Johnson66 composite data for the gulf coast 11,966 1.10 0.019 12,020 57.89
shown in Fig. 2.63.11should be apparent that shale formation 12,265 1.11 0.019 12,350 58.42
factors are more reliable porosity indicators than conductivity 12,470 0.96 0.D19 12,350 50.53
or resistivity measurements. 12,550 0.90 0.019 12,350 47.37
Foster and Whalen 's 72 Method. Foster and Whalen dis 12,785 1.06 0.019 12,880 55.79
cussed an effectivestress approach for predicting pore pres 13,069 0.91 0.019 12,880 47.89
sures with computed FR data. Ro measurements are obtained 13,385 1.10 0.019 13,290 57.89
in shales, and Rw values for these shales are estimated from 13,573 1.05 0.024 13,700 43.75
13,778 1.06 0.024 13,700 44.17
the spontaneous potential (SP) response in adjacent sands. FR
13,983 0.96 0.024 13,700 40.00
for each shale resistivity reading is determined by use ofEq.
14,188 0.96 0.034 14,300 28.24
2.30 and plotted vs. depth on semilog graph paper. Transition 14,487 0.71 0.030 14,500 23.67
into abnormal pressure is evidenced by deviation from the 14,566 0.80 0.030 14,500 26.67
normal compaction trend into lower FR values, and the equiv 14,833 0.80 0.037 14,680 21.62
alent depth procedure is used to estimate pressures below the 14,960 0.90 0.065 15,090 13.85
transition depth. 15,275 1.06 0.065 15,090 16.31
Example 2.20. Table 2.15 lists shale resistivities from an off gulf coast correlation, gob at 14,188 ft is 0.974 psilft and the
shore Louisiana well. The Rw for each shale reading is esti overburden stress is determined as
mated from an SP measurement in a nearby sand; Cols. 3 and O'ob = (0.974)(14,188) = 13,819psig.
4 of Table 2.15 give Rw values and sand depths, respectively.
Estimate the pore pressure at 14,188ft using Foster and Wha The equivalent depth is found to be 8,720 ft, where the over
len's technique. burden and pore pressure, respectively, are
Solution. The last column of Table 2.15 lists formation O'ob(eq) = (0.937)(8,720) = 8,171 psig
factors computed with Eq. 2.30. The formation factor at
14,188 ft is and P n{eq) = (0.465)(8,720) = 4,055 psig.
FR = 0.96/0.034 = 28.24. The predicted pore pressure and pressure gradient (density
equivalent), respectively, are
Fig. 2.64 plots the data. Deviation from normal compaction
appears to begin at approximately 11,800 ft. With Eaton's Pp = 4,055 + (13,819  8,171) = 9,703 psig
PORE PRESSURE 71
shallow.Even so, the most common procedure is to extrapo
late a straight normalcompaction line into the abnormally
pressured sediments.

I
f
lj 1 II
i
0.6 ...  J  1 ..  ...j ....
I 1 i
Jt 0.7 ....
[1    . I .... j .... t1.....
I I' .' I I
+tj  ~ 1  i! 
...f.j.........l...... l.....
0.9 .._..._ ... ... 11. ;..__ .. . ! I
, I I I
1,0
I
I
. I ,
I
, ,
I
1.0 1.6 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.26 t .5 1.75 2.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 0.0
Rn/Ro RnlRo or
I .
I I
I!
I !
y'
,!
c.! !
!,
11,500 1,920 !r i1 I
I
jl i
I
I' I
ent of 0.920 psi/ft at this depth. Estimate the porepressure 12,000 I I I I _l_..J........J
L_..L'_'....L....I....i....J....._' ........
1,000
i I I
4,000
gradient using (1) Eaton's technique and (2) Hottman and 200 300400 600 2,000
Johnson's correlation. Shale Conductivity, m c 1m
Solution.
1. Substituting terms into Eq. 2.35 gives Fig, 2.67Frio shale conductivity plot for a well in Nueces
County, Texas.
gp = 0.920  (0.920  0.465)(0.264)1,2
= 0.827 psi/ft. 2.9.4 Quality Control. Sonic logs are more versatile and offer
2. Determine the R,/Ro ratio using the Hottman and John better accuracy than electriclog correlations. However, almost
son curve, every well has resistivity or conductivity information at least
through the surface casing depth, while acoustic logs generally
Rn/Ro = 1.0/0.264 = 3.79. are scarcer across shallow strata. Regardless of which logs are
Fig. 2.65 gives a porepressure gradient of 0.894 psi/ft. available, some comments pertaining to quality control of the
log data and trendline construction are worthwhile.
Hydration of reactive clays in the vicinity of the borehole
The pressure predictions from the two techniques differ by
affect both the measuredsonic and electriclog readings. In
770 psi and l.3lbmlgal equivalent density. However, the ac
hibitive muds and deepinvestigation tools mitigate the ef
tual gradient in the subject well was determined to be 0.818
fects, but emphasis still should be placed on the more recent
psi/ft, a result that supports Eaton's approach.
Eaton originally proposed that the equations as published (deeper) data when constructing a normal trend line. Ob
were suitable for any area and offered three examples to sup viously, shale hydration should not be a major concern when
port this conclusion. Subsequent usage, however, suggests obtaining resistivity data from an LWD tool. .
that slight modifications to the exponent terms are necessary Constructing a normalcompaction trend line may be diffi
in older, less compactible shales. For example, it is common cult in many cases, particularly if clean shales are lacking or
procedure to reduce the resistivity exponent to 1.0 when if some of the data are poor quality. In addition, the truism per
changing from Miocene to Oligocene rock. Modifications to taining to trendline shifts and slope changes with geologic
the base equations should be deri ved by comparing calculated age also applies to openholelog methods. This presents a ma
pore pressures with the actual measured values in adjacent jor interpretation problem in some cases, particularly if nu
permeable sections. Service companies working in a specific merous fault blocks have been encountered or the geology is
area may have more accurate exponent numbers for use in the complicated in any way. Most wells require more than one
Eaton equations. trendline fit of the normally compacted data.
PORE PRESSURE 73
0.4 iii I
I
r" .. I" ..1 .,.I
iii i
1,000
O.S
J1 "'::1I '.'
~ 0.7
;1: +1[  T +
3,000
0.8
11+ ~ :ri , ....
0.9 1 ........ 1...... ,,. i' ....  .
i ! I i
4,000 1.0 ! ! i
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.8
NGRrlNGRO
Foster74 discussed the preparation and use of multiple Example 2.23. Table 2.17 lists GR count rates measured
overlays, covering Pleistocene through Wilcox (late Paleo while drilling an offshore Louisiana well that have been cor
cene) rock, to assist porepressureprediction efforts in the rected for borehole conditions. Estimate the porepressure
gulf coast. Similar overlays, or at least the expected trend gradient at 11,100 ft using Zoeller's correlation. Use the first
slope for a given geologic age, may be available in other three data points to establish the normalcompaction trend.
areas from local service companies or operators. Character Solution. Fig. 2.70 shows GR data plotted on semilog graph
izing the geologic sequence is an important consideration paper. A normalcompaction trend line having the same
and input from the prospect geologist is a definite asset in approximate slope as the equivalent section in Fig. 2.68 is
predicting pressure. constructed through the last two normalcompaction data
74 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
TABLE 2.17CORRECTED GAMMA RAY COUNT RATES
OBTAINED WHILE DRILLING A WELL LOCATED I \ 1 ' I
OFFSHORE LOUISIANA75 I
I
I
!.!
I II ! ! I ! 1
I ! I
7,900 48
II j.
1' rrrt
8,400 50 I
8,900 51 iii i
9,200 50 j ! f i
9,000
9,300 50
9,400 50 f
9,500 50 ;::
9,600 48 ~
9,700 45
aQ) .: r I I i I
Cl
9,800 48 01 iI :Ii! I :
9,900 47 10.000
,

t
..+1 .._._
....~.
......... ri..I....
10,000
10,100
50
50
I I
I'.
, NOlTl1al Compaci on
I I !
10,200 44 r I
10,300 45 o I II I I
1
10,400 44 I I
10.500
10,600
10,700
10,800
47
45
44
45
11,000
TR;lT~"F1T~
I
i I
0
I
!
i l
I
j
i
:1
I
10,900 44
i
11,000
11,100
43
42
12,000
20 30
I
40
I
50
I
60
I
70 80 90 100
I
Shale GR Count Rate. cps
points. The observed GR count rate at 11,100 ft is 42 cps and
the extrapolated normal rate is 57 cps. Fig. 2.7DMWD GR count rates for a well in south Louisiana.
NGR./NGRo = 57/42 = 1.36. mum stress is controlled by the overburden and acts in the ver
The predicted porepressure gradient from Fig. 2.69 is 0.61 tical direction. However, the maximum stress may act along
psi/ft (11.7Ibmlgal). a horizontal orinclined plane in those areas affected by active
or fairly recent tectonic activity. Terzaghi's principle still ap
plies in these cases, but quantifying the magnitude and direc
tion of the maximum stress requires insitu testing of the rock.
2.10 EffectiveMStress Models
Investigations since the late 1980s have done much to extend 2.10.1 Model Based on ExcessPorosity Characterization.
log porepressure predictions beyond their historical limita The first technique is a sophisticated variation of the equiva
tions.76.82 The impetus for much of the recent work has been lentdepth method in which abnormal pore pressures are
the developing LWDIMWD technology and the consequent quantified on the basis of the excess porosity observed in the
possibilities for log predictions on a realtime basis. Timely
undercompacted zone. Rasmus and GrayStephens/f ob
data acquisition and processing capabilities are an obvious
benefit when drilling into a transition zone. Other advantages served that sedimentporosity decline with depth could be
over the traditional empirical methods also have been realized, modeled by
including (1) elimination of the requirement for normalcom .................... , .... (2.37)
pactiontrend extrapolation, (2) more widespread application
in different geographic regions, (3) more widespread applica where Do:= the depth at which porosity is zero and and KD a ::=;
tion in different lithologies and geologic age rock, and (4) abil constant reflecting the depth/compaction relationship for the
ity to account for different geopressure mechanisms. area. Eq. 2.37 is similar to Eq. 2.10 except for the transposi
Space does not permit separate discussion of each refer tion of the depth and porosity terms. The direct expression for
enced technique. A representative sample is offered in this porosity is obtained as
text consisting of four different approaches to the problem,
each of which is unique in some way. All reIy on the effecti ve
stress principle as the basis for empirical or analytical predic
rp := iD [Iog(Do)  10g(D)]. , (2.38)
tion. The common objective is to apply logderived. petro The constants DO and KD can be evaluated by a semilog plot
physical parameters of the rock to a compaction model to of porosity vs. depth.
quantify effective stress. Knowing the overburden and poroe
lastic constant (generally assumed to be unity), Terzaghi'sl?
equation is resolved into one unknown (i.e., pore pressure). Example 2.24. Average porosities for North Sea Tertiary and
In all cases, the effective stress needed to characterize pore Upper Cretaceous shales are listed in Table 2.18. Estimate the
pressure is the maximum effective stress. Usually, the maxi values of Do and KD for this area.
PORE PRESSURE 75
TABLE 2.18AVERAGE SHALE POROSITIES Eq. 2.37 is represented as the curve shown in Fig. 2.72.The
IN THE NORTH SEA (Data Furnished by Schlumberger Anadrill) undercompacted rock at D exhibits abnormally high porosity
Depth for the burial depth; this porosity is expressed as the sum of
_j!!L_ Porosity the normal and excess or overpressure porosity,
1,000 0.475 1> = n + 1>op .. (2.39a)
2,000 0.360
3,000 0.320 The authors assumed a direct proportionality between depth
4,000 0.280 and effective stress. Accordingly, effective stress replaces
5,000 0.250 depth in Eq. 2.38 and the resulting expressions for normal and
6,000 0.225 overpressure porosity are substituted into Eq. 2.39. Rearrang
7,000 0.205 ing terms then yields
8,000 0.185
9,000 0.170 A..
'f'op _  KII
D
og(O"ve)
a '
Ven
.................. (2.39b)
10,000 0.150
11,000 0.135 where aVe and aVen = the abnormally pressured and normal
12,000 0.125 effective stresses, respectively, for the burial depth. Eq. 2.2 is
13,000 0.115 substituted for the effective stress terms and obtains the ex
14,000 0.105 pression for pore pressure,
15,000 0.095
16,000 0.085 Pp :=: O"ob (aob  Pn)10KIfiop. . ......... (2.40)
17,000 0.080
18,000 0.070 The decline constant for the area can be obtained graphically,
19,000 0.060 but the overpressure porosity requires proper measurement
20,000 0.055 and interpretation of the porosity and lithological indicators
if the estimate is to have any validity.
Solution. Fig. 2.71 shows a semilog plot reflecting an ex In the described application, LWD tools furnish measure
cellent straightline fit of the data. The line slope, KD, can be ments of the formation GR count rate and any combination of
determined by use of any two points that fall on the line. Se porosity indicators, such as resistivity, travel time, or bulk
lecting porosity values from 5,000 ft and 18,000 ft gives density. MWD provides downhole bit weight and torque
readings, while the drill rate and rotating speed are obtained
log(DdDJ) Iog(18,000/5, 000) from surface measurements. The data are fed into a wellsite
KD = 1>.  1>2 = 0.250  0.070 :=: 3.09. computer, and the software characterizes the measurements
Do is obtained by extrapolating the line to zero porosity.Al (including a drilling strength function) in terms of the volume
ternatively, use the same equation to obtain fractions occupied by the free water, bound water, overpres
sure water, and grain constituents. A mathematical minimiza
3.09
= log(Do/5,OOO) d tion technique8"3 is used to compute the "most likely" value
0.250  0 an for these parameters and the pore pressure is calculated with
Eq.2.40.
Do = 10(3.09)(0.25)X 5,000 = 29,612 ft.
t
'"
c
UndarcompactedPorosity
II +j II!III  i
i ! ! I I I r: 0.1 is the residual porosity (i.e., portion of the porosity which
o.t L j il. h1i does not conduct electricity). Actually, the two terms are not
constants but depend on the lithology. Nonetheless, the given
values are appropriate in most sandstones and are assumed to
r 1,', IT! .,,'T") ql
, ! i ~!' ,i: ,I , I'
0.2 T,II
Iii
.
I
I l I l 1
rr
II
~ ,
!
I ! I
apply in shales as well. Rearranging Eq. 2.41 yields a direct
expression for porosity.
! ; i : : I, : !. i I! I:
tj'+'+1' !+j ..+ +"1" _'tj I
0.3. </> = 1.~.~5++O';:R. .. (2.42)
I ! : ! 'I
I I I III i
It was further assumed that the shale is buried sufficiently
.1 ! .I~~j"j" _. ~.l111.;11i
0.4  _.
,! I I i I!I! 1
!! :!
deep so that essentially all the pore water is electrostatically
I
bound to the clays. The resistivity of the water bound to so
i
B 0,5 .... 
lI II !I
I "
f   i "T [1'' '1""1''  [. .. ;. .;_.J~IH_ dium
II, I I I
clays may be considered as constant at a given tempera
I
j'I _jJ 'f ___. J.I[1 .1~ = 297.6rI. (2.43) RWb 76, ...
0,6..  ...
!
~
I \ II I :', 1 ; where RWb = the boundwater resistivity and T= oF. Thus,
;
'II , 1 I
I
I
I
iInstantaneous SlOpe .. II, I
I t' I I
shale porosity is estimated with only the measured resistivity
1 II
. ;r I I ' T~tl..Tilll and temperature.
07 ! I I I
I I! I
mechanics to decribe effective stress as a function of the com
0.8    
The result is equivalent to a 12.5lbmlgal density at 7,500 ft. where rvj = the void ratio at the reference effective stress.
Obtaining an estimated effective stress in this fashion
and having knowledge of the overburden stress leads to a
There is an alternative approach. Effective stress is not direct porepressure solution withEq. 2.2. Ideally.Z, and ryj
proportional to depth if the overburden stress gradient is are determined from laboratory testing on reconstituted
variable. A more appropriate decline constant can be ob shale samples. Lacking this information, reasonable values
tained by measuring the slope of the effective stress vs. po probably can be obtained with a logderived compaction
rosity curve for the area. This procedure leads to a slope val model for the area. Example 2.26, drawn from Ref. 78,
ue of 3.46 for the North Sea and, in Example 2,25, a demonstrates the method ..
computed pore pressure of 4,992 psig. The same porepres
sure estimate is obtained when the equivalentdepth method Example 2.26. Triaxial compression tests on a North Sea
is used on a porosity vs. depth plot. shale sample indicate that an Ie value of 1.1 psi 1 is repre
sented in the effectivestress range between 1,100 and 2,300
2.10.2 ShaleCompaction Model. Alixant and Des psig. The experimentally determined rYi constant for the
brandes78 described another method for calculating effective shale is 3.84. Estimate the pore pressure at 5,000 ft if the
stress inshales from logderivedporosity estimates. They dis measured shale resistivity is 0.48 Q. m, the undisturbed
cussed characterizing porosity in terms of shale resistivity but formation temperature is 121P, and the overburden stress is
travel time or density porosities would be equally appropri 4,570 psig.
ate. They applied the PerezRosalest" relationship between Solution. Determine RWb using Eq. 2.43.
formation resistivity factor and porosity, RWb = (297.6)(121) 1.76 = 0.064 Qm.
The formation resistivity factor is
........... (2.41)
FR = 0.48/0.064 = 7.5,
PORE PRESSURE 77
TABLE 2.19POWERLAW COMPACTION CONSTANTS FOR
CERTAIN LlTHOLOGIES81
O'VeO
Formation (psi) .s:
Quartz sandstone 30,000 13.219
Average shale 18,461 8.728
Limestone 12,000 13.000
Anhydrite 1,585 20.000
Halite 85 31.909
CPo
Depth EffectiveStress
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.75Sediment compaction and undercompaction behavior as a function of depth and effective stress.
'Ierzaghi'sl? equation gives D2) and continues to track the virgin curve. This is an impor
tant point. Effective stresses in a normalcompaction trend or
Pp = 3,875  1,337 = 2,538 psig
in pure undercompaction always fall on or near the estab
or gp = 2,538/4,500 = 0.563 psi/ft. lished virgin curve. In the same lithological sequence, the
transition interval between D3 and D4 also implies undercom
paction because the effective stress remains constant.
In practice, GR measurements from an LWD tool are used The compaction strains shown in Fig. 2.75 are not revers
to computethe bulkrock constituents and shale fractions. Po ible in sedimentarybasin rock. In other words, some perma
rosities are determined from resistivity data by use of Ar nent porosity loss occurs if the effective stress subsequently
chie's FR relationships from a usersupplied Cw profile, and decreases. Consider the compaction state depicted at Dl in
the compaction model is used to compute pore pressure. Ar Fig. 2.76. Reducing the effective stress leads to a correspond
chie's equations, while simple to apply, do not recognize the ing increase in the porosity, but along a different track than
dualwater nature of clays and, in the strictest sense, are inad shown by the virgin curve. The observed behavior during an
equate for characterizing porosity in shaly rock. This and oth effectivestress reversal is defined as the unloading curve for
er potential sources of error are managed by a calibration pro
cedure in which the input Cw function is adjusted so that
predictions match measured porepressure data. A modified
Cw profile (actually a pseudoCo), determined in the calibra
tion well, should serve to increase the accuracy in subsequent
projects if these are drilled in a similar geological setting.
II
assume that shale undercompaction is the predominant geo
pressure mechanism. The sedimentloading diagrams in
Fig. 2.75 show compaction and undercompaction behavior.
The bottom left of Fig. 2.75a shows surface conditions at
maximum porosity; a decrease in porosity is seen with in
creasing burial depth. Point Dl represents the transition
depth into abnormal pore pressure, as noted by the mainte
nance of porosity through the depth D2. Curve extension into
greater burial depth corresponds to the normalcompaction
trend for the sediment.
Fig. 2.75b depicts the same compactionprocess in an effec
tivestress diagram. This relationship between porosity and
effective stress is defined from soilmechanics principles as EffectiveStress
the virgin curve of the rock. The effective stress increases Fig. 2.76Unloading curves associated with reductions in ef~
slightly in the previously defined transition zone (Dl through fective stress.
PORE PRESSURE 79
TABLE 2.2DABNORMAL PORE PRESSURE SOURCES
THAT CAN LEAD TO AN EFFECTIVE STRESS REVERSAL
IN SHALES
Source Mechanism
Actual Effective Strells
Surface erosion Overburden reduction
Clay diagenesis Fluid expansion D,
Gypsum diagenesis Fluid expansion (
Grain cementation Pore volume reduction
Aquathermal pressuring Fluid expansion CompactionModelEffecIIve Stress
Biochemical processes
. i i !
rl +H;_~.
ii !l ii 1i
.! ! I'i j
!
+ .
I
iii til I ! I . I
..........! !....I t
I
ltlt,i
...........
! .j l ~ _..
_ 1
__.~_+.
_.................... 1  .
_.+_ .! j
t
Iii iii f
1+
i
! I II i I I I
1 ~tt}j
! i II
.=j~I:tl:~ jI II i !
........
j
 ...1 J
'!
I!
_I.. I,_.. _li_
_.+..
I
i
I
.. t..
!.
I
.._
I
1,
_f _
,
I
j
I
,
..
4 _ 1 tt
itf!/_.
I, . I
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.78Characteristic translttlme plots for abnormal pressu res generated byundercompaotion and a stress reversal mechanism
80 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
.
TABLE2.21NORMALCOMPACTIONSHALEACOUSTIC
VELOCITYANDEFFECTIVESTRESS DATAFOR A WELLIN
JEFFERSON COUNTY,TEXAS
Depth Vsh Pp Uob OVe
__ (fUsee) (psig) (psig) (psi)
Virgin CUIV6 2,820 6,329 1,311 2,496 1,184
3,210 6,536 1,493 2,850 1,358
4,000 6,667 1,860 3,584 1,724
4,170 6,579 1,939 3,745 1,806
4,520 6,849 2.102 4,077 1,975
5,210 7,092 2,423 4,731 2,308
6,000 7,246 2,790 5,490 2,700
6,210 7,407 2,888 5,695 2,807
6,970 7,407 3,241 6,440 3,199
7,500 7,692 3,488 6,960 3,473
7,810 8,065 3,632 7,271 3,639
8,000 8,333 3,720 7,464 3,744
8,320 8,197 3,869 7,779 3,910
8,410 8,264 3,911 7,872 3,961
(a,.}.,. 9,000 8,333 4,185 8,460 4,275
9,010 8,547 4,190 8,469 4,280
Effectfve Stress
9,220 8,475 4,287 8,676 4,389
9,300 8,403 4,325 8,761 4,436
Fig. 2.79Shale effectivestress curves and associated vari
ables. 9,390 8,264 4,366 8,855 4,488
pressures. Stress unloading is observed if the effective An appropriate value for U can be obtained with a proce
stresses fall to the left of the virgin curve. dure for normalizing effectivestress reversal data from the
Both methods require at least one borehole in the area that area. Ref. 81 discusses the technique. Normally, (oYe)max can
has been drilled and logged through the transition and tested be selected as the computed effective stress at the transition
depth, while (Vsh)max is the corresponding acoustic velocity.
in an abnormally pressured permeable zone. Therefore, it is
difficult to apply the technique in rank wildcats or in im Fig. 2.79 depicts the equation variables.
Reconsider the ~uestion posed by Example 2.19. The Hot
permeable strata. Even so, a high/low range of possible pres
tman and Johnson 6 correlation was used to predict the pore
sures may be provided if suitable equation parameters are
pressure in an upper gulf coast well. The equivalentdepth
available for the area.
method also was applied, but the prediction with this proce
Over the practical effectivestress range, the virgin curve
dure turned out to be 1,460 psi less than the empirical (and ac
for shales can be approximated by
tual) result. The discrepancy is a strong clue that a geopres
V,h :::: 5,000 + AO~e' ............ (2.48) sure mechanism other than undercompaction is at work. Also,
refer to Fig. 2.62 and note the severe velocity reversal within
where Vsh:::: shale acoustic velocity (ft/sec) and A and the transition. Example 2.28 recasts this problem in the Bow
B = constants unique to the rock. ers method.
Let (OVe)max be the vertical effective stress at the onset of
unloading and (Vsh)max the corresponding acoustic velocity.
Example 2.28. Table 2.21 lists acousticvelocity data for the
Substituting these terms into Eq. 2.48 gives
normally compacted interval in Example 2.19. The effective
lIB stress values in the right column were computed with Eaton's
_ (V'h)max  5,000 overburden correlation and the normal pressure gradient for
, ( OVe)max  A . ........... (2.49)
[ ]
the gulf coast.
1. Estimate values for parameters A and B.
The unloading curve from (oYe)max is described by the em
2. Estimate the pore pressure at 11,190 ft using the Bowers
pirical equation
technique. The unloading 'parameter U for gulf coast and
Gulf of Mexico shales is 3.13 based on regional normaliza
The constant U = a measure of the relative plasticity of the log(v.h  5,000) = 10g(A) + Blog(ove)'
bulk rock and theoretically may vary in magnitude between Thus a plot of (Vsh  5,000) vs. aVe on logarithmic graph paper
one and infinity. The value U = 1 indicates a perfectly elastic should yield a straight line of Slope B. Accordingly, the data
system because the expression reduces back to Eq. 2.48, and are plotted as shown in Fig. 2.80 and a straight line is fit
an infinite value indicates permanent deformation because through the points. The line slope can be determined with
porosity (i.e., shale velocity) does not change during the un
loading process. Typical values for U range between 3.0 and B = 3.3210g[(VSh  5,000) at 20V,].
8.0 in most sediments. (Vsh  5,000) at OVe
PORE PRESSURE 81
e;tfecIIvestr.... pol
ElIec11V8 StreII.pol
6. Injection Well
The prospect objective is the Springer, which is expected at 2. What porepressure gradient is present 100ft updipat the
10,600ft and should have the same virginpressure gradient as fault contact?
the Morrow,The reservoir engineering group tells you thatthe
2.8 Refer to Example 2.2 and assume the same conditions ex
average Morrow pressure has declined to 2,500 psia.
cept that the top of the sand is at 500 ft instead of 1,000 ft. De
1.Determine the current Morrow pressure gradient interms
of equivalent density. termine the porepressure gradient in mudweight equivalent
2. What effect might this situation have on your pipe pro at the top of the structure,
gram?
2.9 A thrust fault has isolated and sealed a small sand body.
2.5 Consider a massive Tertiaryshale along the gulf coast that As a result, the sand was folded and compressed to the point
overlies an abnormally pressured sandstone at 8,500 ft. The that the gas pore volume was reduced by 25%. Quantify the
porepressure gradient in this sand is 0.779 psi/ft. Above the effect this tectonic event has on the pore pressure.
shale is a normally pressured sand at 7,500 ft. A study87
showed that a compacted shale at this depth should have a 2.10 Refer to Fig. 2.12 and assume that the sand lens on the left
permeability on the order of 0,002 md (2,0 X 109 darcy). Use was at 2,000 ft before 300 ft of ground surface eroded. Deter
Darcy's law to answer the following. mine the current porepressuregradient if the originalgradient
1. How many years will it take for gas to migrate from the was 0.433 psi/ft and the sand retained its original pressure.
lower sand to the upper sand if the average gas viscosity is
2.11 You are writing a drilling plan for a 5,OOOftprospect to
0.021 cp? Assume that the porepressure differential is the
only driving mechanism. develop banked oil in a waterflood, Over time, the producing
2. Repeat the calculation assuming that the pore pressure wells in the field developed the capability to flow. You pre
in the lower sand has been bled to a gradient of 0.500 psi/ft. pare the map shown in Fig. 2.84t which depicts the shutin
3, Compare y~ur results to the age of the Tertiary. casingtubing pressures for some of the producing well off
sets and the injection pressures for the water input wells.
2.6 Consider Problem 2.3 again, Determine the pressure gra What minimum mud density should you specify in the prog
dient at 500 ft if the aquifer is full of fresh water and it out nosis? Assume that the specific gravity (SG) of the produced
crops 300 ft above the drilling location. water is 1.07 and that gas production is zero.
2.7 The dipping structure shown in Fig. 2.83 is encountered 2.12 In an old field, gas has been leaking over time from a
at a depth of 900 ft, The downdip gas/water contact exhibits sand at 4,500 ft into a conglomerate at 2,900 ft. The current
a porepressure gradient of 0.465 psi/ft at 1,700 ft. Assume pore pressure of the deeper horizon is equivalent to a 7.0lbm!
that the hydrostaticpressure gradient of the gas is 0.06 psi/ft. gal fluid. Determine the maximum theoretical porepressure
1. What porepressure gradient can be expected upon drill gradient in the conglomerate. Assume a 0.7 sa gas and an av
ing into this structure? erage temperature of 115F.
PORE PRESSURE 83
TABLE 2.22SHALE BULK DENSITY DATA tions, is presumed to be normal. You obtain the logs and deter
FOR PROBLEM 2.19 mine the bulk densities shown in Table 2.22. Estimate the sur
Depth Bulk Density face porosity and the porositydecline constant for the area.
_l!!L (g/cm3) Assume an average sedimentmatrix density of 2.60 g/cm3.
550 2.12 '2.20 Derive Eq. 2.12.
700 2.14
1,250 2.13 2.21 Use the surface porosity and decline constant for the gulf
1,800 2.20
coast and determine the overburden stress in 1,000ft depth
1,950 2.20
increments using Eq. 2.12. Plot the calculated data from sur
2,200 2.18
2,700 2.21
face to 20,000 ft in terms of gradient and compare your curve
3,250 2.23 to Fig. 2.20.
3,600 2.26
3,900 2.25
2.22 You have been predicting pore pressures from shalepo
4,500 2.26 rosity indicators during the process of drilling a well and have
4,600 2.28 prepared the plot shown as Fig. 2.85.
5,000 2.29 1. Explain what might be affecting the data beginning at
5,500 2.31 approximately 9,500 ft.
5,650 2.31 2. Indicate the transition depth into abnormal pore pres
6,000 2.32 sures.
6,400 2.34 3. Which normalcompactiontrendline extrapolation
6,600 2.33 would you select to predict the pore pressure at 14,000 ft?
7,000 2.35 4. What is the equivalent depth for the abnormal pressure
7,200 2.35 at 14,000 ft?
7,600 2.36
7,900 2.36 2.23 Assume intervaltransit times decrease with depth accord
ing to a powerlaw relationship. Plot the data shown in Table
2.7 on logarithmic graph paper and rework Example 2.7.
2.13 An abnormally pressured formation at 19,000 ft has an
initial pore pressure of 17,750 psig. 2.24 Table 2.23 shows average interval times for a prospect
l.Determine the rockmatrix stress if the overburden gradi in Malaysia. The normal porepressure gradient is 0.442 psi/
ent is 1.00 psi/ft. ft. Densitylog data from the area is unavailable, and the over
2. Determine the matrix stress after production depletes the burdenstress gradient is assumed to be a constant 0.95 psi/ft. '
reservoir pressure to 2,500 psig. 1. Determine the transition depth.
2. Approximate the pore pressure at 7,500 ft.
2.14 A 1,OOOftoil zone in California has a virginporepres 3. Is it appropriate to use Pennebaker' s28correlation for this
sure gradient of 0.439 psi/ft. The overburden gradient at this problem?
depth is assumed to be 0.98 psi/ft.
1.Determine the rockmatrix stress at this initial condition. 2.25 Based on the chip holddown theory, explain how the fol
2. At what pore pressurewould you expect problems to de lowing conditions should affect penetration rate.
velop if the compressive strength of the rock is 700 psi? 1. Mud density.
2. Mud viscosity.
2.15 Determine the overburdenstress gradient for a rock 3. Solids content of the mud.
mass with an average grain density of2.60 g/m3, 18% poros 4. Circulation rate.
ity, and fresh water as the pore fluid. 5. Filtration rate.
6. Formation permeability.
2.16 Write a spreadsheet program for computing overburden 7. Bit type (roller cone vs. drag bits).
stress gradients using Eq. 2.9a. Assume matrix and pore fluid
densities of 2.60 and 1.074 g/cm3, respectively, and generate 2.26 Considering the MohrCoulomb failure criteria for rock,
a plot for the depth range of 0 to 20,000 ft. Compare the curve is it theoretically possible for a rock to fail in compression
to Eaton's47,48 gulf coast correlation in Fig. 2.20. simply from the weight of the overburden?
2.17 Use Eaton's overburden correlations to answer the 2.27 On the basis of Fig. 2.41, would you expect rock at the
following questions. Assume that the formations are nor bottom of a well bore to break more readily at the center of the
mally pressured. hole or toward the perimeter?
1. Estimate the overburden and matrix stress for a gulf coast
shale buried at 6,000 ft. 2.28 Give two reasons other than induced differential pres
2. Do the same for a rock layer in the Santa Barbara channel sure for the observed relationship between penetration rate
at this depth. and rock permeability.
2.18 What conclusions can you draw from Fig. 2.22 regarding 2.29 You conduct a drillofftest with an 81/2in.bitat a rotating
the relationship between a shale's age and its porosity? speed of 70 rev/min and obtain the following penetration
rates: 36 ftlhr at a bit weight of 40,00Qlbf; 31 ftlhr at 34,000
2.19 Your company has made a major Miocene discovery in lbf; and 23 ft/hr at 25,000 lbf.
a new area. The reservoir driUstem test at 8,000 ft indicates 1. Estimate the threshold bit weight.
a pore pressure of3,670 psig, which, on the basis of all indica 2. What value would you assign to the bitweight exponent?
84 ADVANCED WELL CONTROL
2.000  _............. . _  . .
4.000 .
............................
.
"'ftI _ _ ,
6.000 _ ~ _ _ _ .
10.000 _
r J
_  _ _ "''''''1' .
12.000
~~~~It
_._
  : _ _ .._  .
..
14,001) _ .. _ ._ _.... .: _ _ _ _ .. _ ..
16.000 _. . _.. ._ ._ _ _ .
18,000 _ _ ..
Fig. 2.85Shaleporoslty indicator plot for the well described in Problem 2.22.
2.30 You are drilling at 25 ftlhr with a 77/sin. bit. The bit 2.32 The modified d exponents in Table 2.24 were computed
weight is 30,000 lbf and the rotating speed is 150 rev/min. with shaledrilling data in a well drilled along the gulf coast.
1. Determine the d exponent. Predict the porepressure gradient and equivalent density at
2. Determine the modified d exponent if the normalpore 14,000 and 16,000 ft using the three correlations discussed
pressure gradient is 0.465 psi/ft and the mud weight is 10.0 in Sec. 2.7.2.
Ibm/gal.
2.33 Go back to Example 2.9 and use the equivalentdepth
method to predict the porepressure gradient at 6,050 ft. How
2.31 Select appropriately scaled Cartesian and semilog
does your answer compare with the results obtained from the
arithmic graph paper. Using the de exponent vs. depth slopes
empirical correlations? In which method do you have the
discussed in Sec. 2.7.2, prepare transparent overlays for the
most faith?
Rehm and McClendon method and for Zamora's method.
Draw porepressure lines in increments of 1.0lbm/gal equiv 2.34 While drilling at 10,000 ft in a normally pressured shale,
alent density. the bottomholeECD is increased from 9.2 t09.8Ibm/gal. The
PORE PRESSURE 85
TABLE 2.23AVERAGE INTERVAL TRANSIT TIMES FOR TABLE 2.24MODIFIED d EXPONENT DATA FOR THE GULF
THE MALAYSIA PROSPECT DESCRIBED IN PROBLEM 2.245 COAST WELL DESCRIBED IN PROBLEM 2.3244
Average Depth
Interval Midpoint Transitlime _illL Modifiedd Ex~onent
(tt) __j!Q_ ~seclft) lithology 8,150 1.51
2,500 to 3,000 2,750 160 Shale/sand 9,000 1.55
3,000 to 3,500 3,250 150 Shale/sand 9,600 1.58.
3,500 to 4,000 3,750 141 Shale/sand 10,150 1.51
4,000 to 4,500 4,250 132 Shale/sand 10,400 1.60
4,500 to 5,000 4,750 121 Shale/sand 10,650 1.61
5,000 to 5,500 5,250 110 Limeyshale 10,900 1.62
5,500 to 6,000 5,750 95 Limeyshale 11,100 1.58
6,000 to 6,500 6,250 92 limeyshale 11,300 1.66
6,500 to 7,000 6,750 120 Shale/sand 11,600 1.50
7,000 to 7,500 7,250 150 Shale/sand 11,700 1.61
7,500 to 8,000 7,750 150 Shale/sand 11,850 1.58
12,100 1.70
penetration rate drops from 40 to 32 ftlhr as result. Determine 12,200 1.45
the shalecompactibility coefficient. .. 12,300 1.30
12,450 1.22
2.35 Determine the choke backpressure that yields the ECD 12,750 1.21
change described in Example 2.11. What impact does this 12,900 1.26
procedure have on the equi valent density at the last shoe if the 13,000 1.19
13,300 1.18
casing is set at 3,000 ft?
13,450 1.12
2.36 The following drilling data are obtained in massive shale 13,550 1.06
13,750 1.02
above transition depth: depth, 10,500 ft; drill rate, 27 ftJhr;
13,900 1.05
and ECD, 9.4 Ibm/gal. The penetration rate at 10,800 ft in
13,950 0.96
creases to 35 ftlhr from an extrapolated normal rate of24.S ftI
14,050 1.00
hr with no change in the drilling parameters. Determine the 14,200 0.91
porepressure increase if c= 1.10 for this shale. 14,300 0.88
14,400 0.91
2.37 The following information pertains to a shale: depth, 14,600 0.89
13,000 ft; drill rate, 11 ftihr; ECD, 10.1 Ibm/gal; porepres 14,700 0.97
sure gradient, 9.S Ibm/gal; bit weight, S,OOOIbf/in.; rotary 14,800 0.90
speed, 80 rev/min; rotary speed exponent, 0.8; and compacti 14,950 0.94
bility coefficient, 0.9S. The penetration rate over the next 400 15,050 0.98
ft increases to 12 ftlhr. During this period, the bit weight and 15,200 0.93
rotary speed are reduced to 4,SOOIbf/in. and 70 rev/min. The 15,500 0.87
extrapolated normal rate at 13,400 ft is 9.7 ftlhr. Estimate the 16,300 0.85
porepressure gradient at this depth. 16,800 0.67
2.38 Refer to the data in Table 2.13. Estimate the pore pres
sure at 14,920 ft using both the Boatman57 correlation and the weighs 5.1 Ibm/gal because of entrained gas. Estimate the
equivalentdepth method. bottomhole pressure if a 50 psig backpressure is held on the
well by a rotating head. Ignore the annularfriction loss and
2.39 Compute the bulk density of a shale if the grain density the effect of drilled solids on mud weight.
is 2.55 g/cm3 and the porosity is 20%. Assume fresh water in
the pore space. Recalculate the bulk density if the rock matrix 2.43 Table 2.25 gives flowline temperatures for a well in the
=
contains 20% limestone (matrix density 2.71 g/cm3). South China Sea. Plot the data and determine the onset of ab
normal pore pressure.
2.40 Work Example 2.16 again except use a measured mix
ture density of 13.0 Ibm/gal. 2.44 List five reasons for seeing a surface increase in drilling
torque. List five reasons for increased hole drag.
2.41 Duplicate the curve shown in Fig. 2.51 using the calcula
tion method and data from Example 2.17. Assume that the cir 2.45 Would it be appropriate to use Boatman's? porepres
culating temperature gradient is a constant 1FIl 00 ft and ap sure correlation with wireline density measurements from a
ply the realgas law. Small depth iterations are necessary in well located along the U.S. gulf coast? Defend your answer.
the upper portion of the hole. The problem solution is assisted
greatly by use of a spreadsheet computer program. 2.46 Plot the predicted pore pressures in density equivalent
vs. depth for the well described in Table 2.14. Use the Hot
2.42 The following drilling conditions apply to a hypothetical tmanand Johnson65 correlation.
well: depth, 8,100ft; flowline temperature, 80F; bottomhole
temperature, 13SoF; mud density, 9.7 Ibm/gal; and atmo 2.47 The shale acoustictravel times in Table 2.26 were mea
spheric pressure, 13.5 psia. A surface sample of the mud sured on a well located in the Mackenzie delta. Determine the
2.49 Plot theRw values given in Table 2.15 vs. depth on semi 2.58 Prepare overlays suitable for U.S. gulf coast use that are
logarithmic graph paper. Could Rw be considered as a tool for based on the three Eaton porepres sureprediction equations.
detecting abnormal pore pressure?
2.59 The following conditionsmay impact acoustic and elec
2.50 Plot predicted pore pressures in density equivalent vs. triclog parameters to some degree. Discuss the effect (in
depth for the well described in Table 2.15. Use Foster and crease, decrease, or no change) and the relative importance
Whalen's72 technique. that each of the following conditions has on shale traveltime
and resistivity measurements.
2.51 Table 2.27 gives Miocene shaleresistivity measure 1. Hole washouts.
ments from a U.S. gulf coast well. Estimate the pore pressure 2. High porewater salinity.
at 12,910 ft using the Hottman and Johnson66 correlation. 3. Higher temperature.
4. Shale hydration.
2.52 WorkExample 2.20 using Hottman and Johnson's resis 5. Calcerous shales.
tivity correlation. How does your answer compare to that ob 6. Pyritic shales.
tained from Foster and Whalen's72 technique? 7. Gas in the pore space.
PORE PRESSURE 87
TABLE 2.27MIOCENE SHALE RESISTIVITY VALUES FOR TABLE2.2BFRIO SHALETRANSITTIMESFORA WELL
A WELL IN THE U.S. GULF COAST AREA68 IN NUECESCOUNTY,TEXAS67
Depth Resistivity Depth TransitTime
_j!!L_ (n.m) _j!!L_ (useclft)
5,220 5.5 7,400 100
5,300 5.1 7,550 93
5,410 5.5 8,300 90
5,500 5.2 8,350 89
6,350 5.7 8,400 89
6,450 5.5 8,500 8B
6,590 5.9 9,200 75
6,950 6.0 9,300 74
7,730 6.5 9,550 72
8,040 6.1 9,600 71
8,400 6.5 9,700 70
9,280 6.6 9,750 70
9,450 6.8 9,900 69
9,800 7.1 9,950 73
10,460 7.2 10,000 85
10,530 6.9 10,050 100
10,660 6.0 10,150 110
10,750 6.4 10,200 116
10,790 5.0 10,300 119
11,OBO 5.1 10,500 117
11,340 5.3 10,800 120
11,470 4.9 10,650 121
11,520 4.0 10,850 120
11,600 3.3 11,000 113
11,710 2.5 11,050 110
11,900 2.0 11,200 108
12,060 2.1 11,300 120
12,380 2.2 11,500 128
12,450 2.0
12,630 1.9 6. Solve Example 2.25 using the equivalentdepth method.
12,910 2.0
2.65 Table 2.30 lists sediment void ratios and overburden
stresses derived from Eaton's47,48gulf coast bulk density and
2.60 How would an unnoticed trendline shiftinto older,more overburden gradient curves (Figs. 2.17 and 2.20). The last
dense rock affect subsequent porepressure predictions? column of the table shows the calculated effective stress at
each 1,OOOft depth increment. Using the shallower data,
2.61 Table 2.29 gives corrected GR count rates measured graphically determine suitable values for Ie and rvi.
while drilling a U.S. gulf coast well. Estimate the pore pres
sure at 3,800 ft using Zoeller's75 porepressure correlation. 2.66 Determine the predicted normalcompaction porosity at
Extrapolate the normalcompaction trend using Fig. 2.68 as 10,000 ft for the rocks listed in Table 2.19. Use an overbur
a guide. denstress gradient of 0.95 psilft.
2.62 Estimate KD and Do values appropriate for use in the 2.67 Subsequent LWD measurements on the well described
U.S. gulf coast. in Example 2.27 indicate 24.1% porosity in a mixed sandi
shale bed at 11,220 ft. Estimate the pore pressure if the rock
2.63 Derive Eq. 2.40. Show all your steps. is 35.3% sandstone and 64.7% shale. Assume the constants
given in Table 2.19 and use an overburdenstress gradient of
i.64 The following questions pertain to the technique pres 0.935 psilft. .
ented by Rasmus and GrayStephens.I?
1. Estimate the surface porosity and porositydecline 2.68 Make suitable assumptionsand estimate the virgincurve
constants from the North Sea porosity data in Table 2.18. Use parameters for the North Sea using the data in Table 2.18.
the graphical procedure discussed in Example 2.4.
2. Develop an equation relating overburden stress as func 2.69 On a central North Sea well, the logged shale velocity in
tion of depth if the matrix density is 2.60 glcm3 and the pore a Jurassic formation at 15,500ft is 12,000ft/sec. Estimate the
fluid density is 1.044 g/cm3. pore pressure at this depth ifA = 8.116,B = 0.8002, U = 4.48,
3. Compute the effective stress at each depth for the normal and (Vsh)max = 5,200 ft/sec.
pressure gradient of 0.452 psi/ft. Plot the results vs. linear po
rosity on semilogarithmic graph paper. Nomenclature
4. Determine the slope KD from the effectivestress poros a = formation resistivity factor coefficient,
ity plot. dimensionless
5~Solve Example 2.25 using the KD value determined from aN = rotatingspeed exponent, dimensionless
the effectivestress plot. aw= bitweight exponent, dimensionless
88 ADVANCED WELL CONTROL
TABLE 2.29CORRECTED GR COUNT RATES OBTAINED TABLE 2.3OCOMPUTED GULF COAST VOID RATIO AND
WHILE DRILLING A GULF COAST WELL75 EFFECTIVESTRESS DATA FROM EATON'S20,47,4B POROS
ITY AND OVERBURDEN CORRELATIONS
Depth GR Count Rate
_j!!)__ (cps) Depth
ft
'v
fraction
CJob
psig
Pn
psig
CJVe
1,500 29  ~
1,600 30 3,000 0.471 2,661 1,395 1,266
1,700 30 4,000 0.408 3,588 1,860 1,728
1,800 31 5,000 0.370 4,535 2,325 2,210
1,900 6,000 0.316 5,496 2,790 2,706
30
7,000 0.282 6,475 3,255 3,220
2,000 32
8,000 0.250 7,464 3,720 3,744
2,100 33
9,000 0.220 8,469 4,185 4,284
2,200 34
10,000 0.190 9,480 4,650 4,830
2,300 32 11,000 0.176 10,505 5,115 5,390
2,400 32 12,000 11,544
0.163 5,580 5,964
2,500 33 13,000 0.149 12,571 6,045 6,526
2,600 33 14,000 0.136 13,622 6,510 7,112
2,700 34 15,000 0.124 14,685 6,975 7,710
2,800 35 16,000 0.111 15,744 7,440 8,304
2,900 39 17,000 0.109 16,813 7,905 8,908
3,000 41 18,000 0.101 17,874 8,370 9,504
3,100 42 19,000 0.093 18,924 8,835 10,089
3,200 40 20,000 0.086 20,000 9,300 10,700
3,300 38
3,400 40 K = drillrate model proportionality constant
3,500 39 Kn = depthdecline constant, dimensionless
3,600 35 K;p = porositydecline constant, ft1
3,700 34 m = cementation exponent, dimensionless
3,800 34 n = number of moles, Ibm mol
3,900 36 N = bit rotating speed, rev/min
4,000 38 NGRII = normal GR intensity, cps
4,100 40 NGRo == observed GR intensity, cps
P = pressure, psi
A == virgincurve compaction parameter, Pm = mudcolumn hydrostatic pressure, psi
. dimensionless Pmg = gascut mudcolumn hydrostatic pressure, psi
B = virgincurve compaction exponent, Pn = normal pore pressure, psi
dimensionless PII(eq) = normal pore pressure at the equivalent depth,
c = shalecompactibility coefficient, dimensionless psi
CII= normal conductivity, me 1m,q2/mL3 Pp = pore pressure, psi
Co = observed conductivity, me 1m, q2/mL3 Ps == surface pressure, psi
Cw = water conductivity, mn 1m,q2/mL3 r= radius, in.
d = bitweight exponent in Bingham's equation, rv = void ratio, dimensionless
dimensionless rvi = void ratio at an effective stress of unity,
diJ = bit diameter, in. dimensionless
de = corrected or modified d exponent, rw == wellbore radius, in.
dimensionless R = penetration rate, ftlhr
dell = normal de exponent, dimensionless Rg = universal gas constant,
cleo = observed de exponent, dimensionless (psiagal)J(ORlbmmole)
D= depth, ft Ro= resistivity of watersaturated rock, mL3/tq2,
Deq =: equivalent depth, ft Q'm
Rn = normal resistivity, mL3/tq2, Q. m
Do =: depth of zero porosity, ft
ftin = penetration rate functions
Ro == observed resistivity, mL3/tq2, Q. m
Rw = water resistivity, mL3/tq2, Q. m
ivg = gas volume fraction, dimensionless Rwb = boundwater resistivity, mL3/tq2, Q. m
ivgs = gas volume fraction at surface conditions in the s = poroelasticity constant, dimensionless
wellbore, dimensionless I!!..t = formation transit time, ,us/ft
FR = formation resistivity factor, dimensionless I!!..fJ= fluid transit time, ,us/ft
g = acceleration of gravity, 32.17 ftlsec2 I!!..tma = matrix transit time, ,us/ft
& = gravitational system conversion constant, 32.17 ~~ = normal formation travel time, ,us/ft
(lbmft)/(lbfsec2) Mo = observed formation travel time, ,us/ft
so = geothermal gradient, F/ft T= temperature, T, OFor OR[OCor K]
gil =: normalporepressure gradient, psi/ft . T;; = surface temperature, T, OR
gob =: overburdenstress gradient, psi/ft UH = heat flux, Btu/(hrft2)
gp = porepressure gradient, psi/ft U = unloadingcurve exponent, dimensionless
Ie = compression index, psi1 Vsh = shale acoustic velocity, ftlsec
PORE PRESSURE 89
(Vsh)max = shale acoustic velocity at the onset of sources, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York City
unloading, ft/sec (1976).
Vg = gas volume, gal 4. Parker, C.A: "Geopressures in the Deep Smackover in Missis
sippi," JPT (August 1973) 971; Trans., AIME 255
Vm = mud volume, gal
5. Mouchet, J.P. and Mitchell, A.: Abnormal Pressures While
W= applied bit weight, lbf
Drilling, Elf Aquitane Manuels Techniques 2, Boussens,
Xn = porosity indicator from the normaltrendline France (1989).
extrapolation 6. Pettijohn, P.J.: Sedimentary Rocks, Harper & Brothers, New
Xo = observed porosity indicator York City (1949) 476.
z= compressibility factor, dimensionless 7. Powers, M.C.: "FluidRelease Mechanisms in Compacting
~= compressibility factor at surface conditions in Marine Mudrocks and Their Importance in Oil Exploration,"
the wellbore, dimensionless AAPG Bull. (1967) 51, 1240.
a= plane angle, degree 8. Burst, J.P.: "Diagenesis of Gulf Coast Clayey Sediments and
{3 = natural compaction strainhardening Its Possible Relation to Petroleum Migration," AAPG Bull.
coefficient, dimensionless (1969) 53, 73.
Ysh = shale SO, dimensionless 9. Magara, K: "Reevaluation of Montmorillonite Dehydration as
A= thermal conductivity, Btu/(hrftOF/ft) Cause for Abnormal Pressures and Hydrocarbon Migration,"
AAPG Bull. (1975) 59,292.
Pb = bulk density, Ibm/gal, also g/cm3
10. Barker, C.: "Aquathermal PressuringRole of Temperature in
Peq = equivalent density, Ibm/gal Development of AbnormalPressure Zones," AAPG Bull.
Pt= fluid density, Ibm/gal, also g/cm3 (1972) 56, 2068.
Pg = gas density, Ibm/gal 11. Magara, K: "Importance of Aquathermal Pressuring Effect in
Pm = mud density, Ibm/gal the Gulf Coast," AAPG Bulletin (1975) 59, 2037.
Pma = matrix density, Ibm/gal, also g1cm3 12. Chapman, R.E.: "Mechanical versus Thermal Cause of Abnor
Pmg = gascut mud density, Ibm/gal mally High Pore Pressure in Shales," AAPG Bull. (1980) 64,
Pn = density equivalent of the normalporepressure 2179.
gradient, Ibm/gal 13. Sharp, J.M. Jr.: "Permeability Controls on Aquathermal Pres
Pp = porepressure equivalent density, Ibm/gal suring," AAPG Bull. (1983) 67, 2057.
Psh = shale bulk density, glcm3 14. Young, A and Low, P.P.: "Osmosis in Argillaceous Rocks,"
Pshn = normal shale density, g/cm3 AAPG Bull. (1965) 67, 1004.
15. Berry, P.A.P.: "Hydrodynamics and Geochemistry of the Ju
.Psho = observed shale density, g1cm3
rassic and' Cretaceous Systems in the San Juan Basin, N.W.
Pshw = shale/water mixture density, Ibm/gal
New Mexico and S.W. Colorado," PhD dissertation, Stanford
Pw = water density, Ibm/gal U., Stanford, California (1959).
a= stress applied normal to an element plane, 16. Barker, C: "Generation of Anomalous Internal Pressures in
psi Source Rocks," Migration of Hydrocarbons in Sedimentary
de = effective stress, psi Basins, B. Doligez (ed.), Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1987)
aVe = effective stress in the vertical direction, psi 22335.
aVeO= effective vertical stress that gives zero porosity, 17. Terzaghi, K:Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons
psi Inc., New York City (1943) 51.
aVe (eq) = effective vertical stress at the equivalent depth, 18. Biot, M.A: "General Theory of Three Dimensional Consolida
psi tion," J. Appl. Phys. (1941) 12, 155.
(aVe)max = effective vertical stress at the onset of 19. Morita, N. et al.: "A Quick Method to Determine Subsidence,
unloading, psi Reservoir Compaction, and InSitu Stress Induced by Reser
voir Depletion," JPT (January 1989) 71.
aVen = normal vertical effective stress, psi
20. Eaton, B.A: "Fracture Gradient Prediction and its Application
aHmax = maximum horizontal principal stress, psi
in Oilfield Operation," JPT (October 1969) 1353.
aHmin = minimum horizontal principal stress, psi 21. Bass, D.M. Jr.: "Properties of Reservoir Rocks," Petroleum
amax = maximum principal stress, psi Engineering Handbook, H.B. Bradley (ed.), SPE, Richardson,
amin = minimum principal stress, psi Texas (1987) 26, 7.
aob = overburden stress, psi 22. Mitchell, BJ.: Advanced Oilwell Drilling Engineering Hand
aob(eq) = overburden stress at the equivalent depth, psi book, ninth edition, SPE, Richardson, Texas (September 1992)
aa = normai stress on an arbitrary plane, psi 180.
t'max = maximum shear stress, psi 23. Magara, K: Compaction and Fluid Migration, Elsevier Scien
t'a = shear stress on an arbitrary plane, psi tific Publishing Co., New York City (1978).
<P = formation porosity, dimensionless 24. Rubey, W.W. and Hubbert, M.K.: "Role of Fluid Pressure in
<Po = porosity at zero depth, dimensionless Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting," GSA Bull. (1959) 70,115.
<Pn = normal porosity, dimensionless 25. Athey, L.P.: "Density, Porosity, and Compaction of Sediment a
ry Rocks," AAPG Bull. (1930) 14, 1.
<Pop = overpressure porosity, dimensionless
26. Constant, W.D. and Bourgoyne, AT. Jr.: "Method Predicts
Frac Gradient for Abnormally Pressured Formations," Pet.
References Eng. Inti. (January 1986) 38.
1. Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr. et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering, se 27. Constant, W.D. and Bourgoyne, AT. Jr.: "Fracture Gradient
cond printing, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas Prediction for Offshore WeIls," SPEDE (June 1988) 136.
(1991) 24699. 28. Pennebaker, E.S.: "An Engineering Interpretation of Seismic
2. Fertl, W.H. and Chilingarian, G.V.: "Importance of Abnormal Data," paper SPE 2165 presented at the 1968 SPE Annual Fall
Formation Pressures," JPT (April 1977) 347. Meeting, Houston, 29 September2 October.
3. Fertl, W.H: Abnormal Formation Pressures, Implications to 29. Dix, C.R: "Seismic Velocities from Surface Measurements,"
Exploration, Drilling, and Production of Oil and Gas Re Geophysics (1955) 20, 68.
POREPRESSURE 91
DrillingDerived Formation Strength," SPEDE (December 86. Gandino, A. and Zenucchini, G.: "Density Depth Correlation
1991) 264. in Po Valley Sediments," Bollettino de Geofisica Teorica ed
80. Accarain, P. and Desbrandes, R.: "NeuroCornputing Helps Applicata (1987) 29, 221.
Pore Pressure Determination," Pet. Eng. lntl. (February 1993)
39.
81. Holbrook, P.w., Maggiori, D.A., and Hensley, R.: "RealTime. SI Metric Conversion Factors
Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient Evaluation in All Sedi Btu x 1.055 056 E+OO =kJ
mentary Lithologies," paper SPE 26791 presented at the 1993 cp x 1.0* E+03 =Pa's
Offshore European Conference, Aberdeen, 710 September.
deg x 1.745 329 E02 =rad
82. Bowers, G.L.: "Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity Data:
Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Under ft x 3.048* EOl =m
compaction," SPEDE (June 1995) 89. ft2 x 9.290304* . E 02 = m2
83. Mayer, C. and Sibbit, A.: "GLOBAL, A New Approach to of (OF  32)/1.8 = C
ComputerProcessed Log Interpretation," paper SPE 9341 gal x 3.785 412 E+OO =L
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
in. X 2.54* E+Ol =mm
Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September.
84. PerezRosales, C.: "Generalization of Maxwell Equation for lbf x 4.448 222 E+OO =N
Formation Factor," paper SPE 5502 presented at the 1975 SPE Ibm x 4.535 924 E  OJ = Kg
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 28 Sep psi x6.894757 E03 =MPa
temberI October. . . "R R/I.S =K
85. Atwater, G.L. and Miller, E.E.: "The Effect of Decrease in Po
rosity With Depth on Future Development of Oil and Gl!SRe
/ls/ft x 3.280 840 =
E + 00 /ls/m
serves in South Louisiana," AAPG Bull. (1965) 49,334. 'Converslon factor Is exact.
3.2 Basic Principles From Rock Mechanics and Err = (dt  d2)/dt (3.3)
Rock mechanics, or how rock reacts to an imposed stress,
By convention, a negative strain denotes expansion.
~lays an important role in many aspects of drilling, comple
Plotting Ea as a function of the applied O'a yields the familiar
non, and production design. As Chap. 2 discussed, rock
uniaxialstress/strain diagram for the material. Fig. 3.2 is an
strength and confining stress greatly influence formation
example of a tensionstresslstrain diagram for a common
drill?bility. Understanding rock behavior is important to pro
aluminum alloy. It is worthwhile to review some definitions
duction and reservoir engineering when it comes to evaluat
a~d distinguis~ing characteristics of the relationships de
i~g perforati~g gun performance, controlling sand produc
picted on the diagram. The straightline portion from initial
non, modehng the effect of compaction on reservoir
loading up to Point A represents the elasticstress range. Elas
performance, and many other considerations. Creating a frac
tic behavior is described by Hooke's law,
ture by applying pressure to a wellbore is another process
controlled by the insitu properties of the formation. aa = EEa, (3.4)
FRACTURE PRESSURE 93
r 1 TensIon
r to the discussion.
Both curves are nonlinear from initial loading up to Point
A. The high degree of initial compliance corresponds to the
Initial CorIdition l..oIIded Condition closing of any microcracks or other defects within the sample.
Fig. 3.1Material deformatIon in reponse to an axial load. The stress at Point B is the elastic limit marking.the end of
elastic behavior and the onset of plasticity.
where the proportionality constant E is Young's modulus of Young's modulus for the sandstone and most rock is not a
elasticity. Young's modulus is considered a reproducible pa unique entity but depends instead on the magnitude of axial
rameter for materials having the same composition. Its value and confiningstresses.For thenonlinear portionof the diagram
usually is independent of the material strength and axial load (including the plastic range), E can be described one of three
ing direction (i.e, tension or compression). ways. The initial modulus & is the slope of the stress/strain
True elastic behavior is defined as the capacity of a material curve at initial loadingconditions, whereas the tangentmodu
to return to its original dimensions once the stress has been re lus Et is defined as the instantaneous slope at a specifiedstress.
leased. Exceeding the elastic limit to Point B results in a per Generally,the tangent modulus at the insitustressconditions
manent deformation of the material shown by the strain p. is the most useful designation when modeling hydraulic frac
The nonlinear portion of the curve between Point A and the ture behavior. The secant modulus Es is the ratio of the total
breaking point at Point C describes the plasticbehavior stress to the totalstrain at a specifiedstressand is usefulfor de
range, Materials that break or fracture at a stress below the scribing behavior across a fairly large stress range. Fig 3.4 il
elastic limit are defined as brittle, whereas those that rup lustrates the difference between the three moduli.
ture after significant plastic deformation are characterized Fig. 3.5 shows transverse strains for the same sandstone.
as ductile. Eq. 3.5 states that Poisson's ratio is constant as long as the ax
The ratio between the transverse and axial strains is a mate ial and transverse strains are linear with stress. However, this
rial property defined as the Poisson's ratio p.. dual linearity is evidenced only within narrowly defined
25,000
.......... ,,, (3.5) ! !
    Zero Confining Slresa
The negative sign is necessary for the customary use of nega _ 1,46().psl Confining stress
tive numbers to denote expansion. The Poisson's ratio for true
elastic materials is constant within the elasticstress range and
20,000
!..rI .T"'
......~. I
!
I
is on the orderof 0.3 for most metals. In the plastic range, Ii:
'[
I
however, the ratio begins to increase and may achieve the lim
iting value of 0.5.
Metallic alloys used as structural materials are polycrys
I 15,000 . .. _...._. t . Bl 
I
!
ii
;
 r
I
constants of these wellordered substances are predictable 10,000 __ ~.~_ . , 1 ._.,i.. _._ H .f.. _ ..,
in construction projects or within the earth's crust are com Fig. 3.3 Triaxialstressfstrain diagram for a sandstone at two
pressive; hence, rock usually is tested for compression and confining pressures.2
20,000
5,000
o
0.006 0.004 0.002 o 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.008 0.010
Transverse SUaln. InJin. .AxI&I Straln. In/lll.
Fig. 3.5 Triaxialstress/strain diagram and transverse strains for the sandstone shown in Fig. 3.3.2
FRACTURE PRESSURE 95
TABLE 3.1TYPICAL ELASTIC PROPERTIES OF ROCI(3
Young's Modulus
Rock Type (106 psi) Poisson's Ratio
Granite 3.7 to 10.0 0.125 to 0.250
Dolomite 2.8 to 11.9 0.08 toO.20
limestone 1.4 to 11.4 0.10 toO.23
Sandstone 0.7 to 12.2 0.066 to 0.30
Shale 1.1 to 4.3 0.1 to 0.50
0', 0',
e,
Normal_
0',
FRACTURE PRESSURE 97
'max'" 2, Ql~.I?~l. ...........
'f '" 1 p.~.P.:;L ._. _
Y ""'
_r_
4, Shear stress on the rupture plane is determined with an 3.3 Stress and FracturePressure Relationships
equivalent form of Eq, 3.10,
Lost circulation is an expensive and potentially hazardous sit
1:f = 1:max sin 2a uation when drilling any well. Whole mud can enter a forma
tion through two fundamentally different mechanisms. Mud
= (2,018) sin(125) = 1,653 psi. losses may result when a positive pressure differential is im
Fig. 3.10 shows an alternative graphical solution, posed across highpermeability avenues, such as open natural
fractures, solution channels, or coarsegrained porosity.
These thief zones frequently are associated with relatively
Coulomb's theory is useful in predicting brittle rock failure. shallow rock in a normal or subnormalpressure environ
However, all rocks evidence increasing ductility with increas ment. Hydraulic fracturing is a fundamentally different pro
ing stress and many rocks under lowstress conditions behave cess where rock grains part along a preferred plane in re
like plastic materials. Coulomb's equation is inadequate in sponse to excessive wellbore pressure.
these circumstances, and a more general relationship is need Three conditions must be met before a fracture will initiate
ed to predict shear failure. Mohr's criterion, expressed as and extend out into the surrounding rock mass. First, well bore
98 ADVANCEDWELL CONTROL
As Poisson's ratio is always less than or equal to 0.5, Eq.
3.21b demands that the horizontal stress be less than or equal
to the overburden stress. Heim15 proposed the latter in 1912,
suggesting that rock stresses at great burial depths are the
same in all directions. It follows that Poisson's ratio must be
0.5 to meet this hydrostaticstress environment. Thus far, the
effect of stress and temperature on plasticity suggests that
Heim's hypothesis is reasonable although his conditions are
unlikely for most rock at those depths currently penetrated by
the bit.
Eq. 3.21b generalizes a condition where the horizontal
stresses are less than the overburden stress. A hydraulic frac
ture takes the path ofleast resistance, parting rock along the
plane easiest to open. This corresponds to a fracture plane per
pendicular to the minimum principal stress. Hence, the equa
tion predicts that fractures will be vertical in orientation.
However, the simplifying asssumptions needed to derive
the expression are unsupportable in most, if not all, actual sit
uations. Even a minor degree of bed anisotropy, for example,
Fig. 3.12Transversereaction stresses for a confined linear favors one of the principal horizontal stress directions. In
elastic material. addition, other processes besides sedimentation loading can
lead to a significant change in horizontal stress over the de
3.12 shows how an elastic block, when loaded by an applied position and burial history.
vertical stress, avo strains in the x and y transverse directions Diagenesis, grain cementation, viscoelastic effects (creep
according to Hooke's law. and relaxation), and thermal expansion alter the insitu
stresses over geologic time. Compressive earth movements
ax ay av associated with thrust faulting, folding, and diapirism provide
Ex = E  P. E  p. E' (3.15)
one of the more important sources of horizontal stress. The
minimum principal stress may in fact be the overburden in ac
and Ey = ay
E  p. a"
E 
ay
liE'