Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Formation Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure Estimating
Formation Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure Estimating
Formation Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure Estimating
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281545135
READS
94
1 author:
Mohammadreza Zare-Reisabadi
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI)
16 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammadreza Zare-Reisabadi on 07 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Ali Najibi
Petroleum University of Technology,
Ahwaz, Iran
Encountered in several common types of operations in the
oil industry are problems associated with the estimation of
formation fracture pressure gradients. When wells are being
drilled in both new and old fields, lost circulation is often a
very troublesome and expensive problem. Complete loss of
circulation has been disastrous in some cases. Many times,
such disasters could have been avoided if techniques for
calculating fracture pressure gradient had been employed in
the well plans, and if casing strings had been set, and mud
weight plans had been followed accordingly. In areas of
abnormally pressured formations, the estimation of fracture
gradients during the well-planning stage is extremely
important. In fact, it is as important as the estimation of
formation pressure gradients, which has received a great deal
of attention in recent years.
II.
B. Eaton's Method
In 1972 Reference [7] published a technique for pore
pressure estimation. Eaton recognized that Hottman and
Johnsons basic relationship is correct, but can be improved.
Eaton also developed a similar equation that can be used with
interval transit time data. This equation can be used for both
sonic log and seismic data. It is as follows:
P (
P
D
D
D
D
t
t
(3)
g
(1 )
+ g (4)
FIELD APPLICATIONS
a.V b
(5)
0.2577V 0.2376
(6)
Where V is in ft/s and is in gr/cm3. Fig. 4 shows the
accuracy of predicted density.
B. Vertical Stress Gradient
The overburden is the weight of the column of sediments.
Although it is not measured directly, it can be easily computed
as the integral over depth of the bulk density:
h
v gdh
0
(7)
Fig. 5 shows the vertical stress gradient versus depth in the
Ahwaz oilfield. Fig. 6 shows that the data points have been
fitted well with a following exponential function:
v (h) ae
bh
ce
d h
(8)
Where v is in psi/ft, h is in ft, a=1.472, b=-1.514e-5,
c=-0.5847 and d=-9.141e-5
C. Ratio Prediction
Due to absence of laboratory data in studied wells, direct
calculation of Poissons Ratio is impossible. But the Poisson's
ratio is related to the sonic log with the physical equation [9]:
t s
1
t c
V p 2Vs2
(9)
2(V p Vs2 )
1
t 10 6
(10)
V s 2 .5228 V p
1 t s
1
2 t c
V.
0 .8386
ft/s
(11)
REFERENCES
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
0
5000
10000
15000
Velocity [ft/s]
20000
25000
Recorded density
Predicted density
Density [gr/cm3]
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
10800
11000
11200
11400
11600
11800
12000
12200
12400
12600
30000
Depth [ft]
Density [gr/cm3]
y = 0.2577x 0.2376
R2 = 0.4992
0.499
[1]
3.1
0.95
4500
1.05
11540
2000
11550
4000
11560
6000
Depth [ft]
Depth [ft]
0.85
8000
5500
6500
7500
8500
9500
10500
11500
11570
11580
10000
11590
12000
11600
14000
11610
Real
Predicted
Poisson's ratio
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
11500
11550
11600
11650
13000
0.8386
y = 2.5228x
12000
11700
R = 0.9191
11000
10000
11750
9000
8000
11800
7000
6000
11850
5000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
0.4
10
20
30
50
60
10
100
1000
500
Depth (m)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Fig. 10. Application of Clay Discrimination lines for filtering of sonic data
Fig. 10.2. Application of Clay Discrimination lines for filtering of sonic data
Fig. 11.1. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 1
Fig. 11.2. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 2
Fig. 11.3. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 3
Fig. 11.4. Filtered sonic log and its NCT in well number 4
Well No. 1
Well No. 2
Eaton's Method
Mud Weight
Fracture Pressure
Eaton's Method
Fracture Pressure
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
500
500
1000
1500
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
1000
1500
2000
2000
2500
2500
3000
Fig. 12.1. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 1
Fig. 12.2. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 2
Well No. 3
Well No. 4
Eaton's Method
Fracture Pressure
Mud Weight
Mud Weight
Fracture Pressure
10
15
25
10
15
20
500
500
1500
2000
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
1000
1000
1500
2500
2000
3000
Fig. 12.3. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 3
Fig. 12.4. Pore pressure and fracture pressure profile from well number 4