SPE-124295-PP

New Integrated Approach for Updating Pore-Pressure Predictions During

Drilling

M. Lthje, H. M. Helset, and S. Hovland, SINTEF Petroleum Research

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 47 October 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a new integrated approach for updating pore pressure predictions during drilling of a well. Pore pressures
in sedimentary rock can vary from hydrostatic (normal) pressures to very high (abnormal) overpressures. Sediment pore
pressures are important constraints that need to be carefully considered when planning a new well, and will influence drilling
strategy, casing program and mud-weights.

A pre-drill prediction of pore pressures is used as input in the well planning phase. This prediction is based on an assumption
of the local geology in the prospect, typically extrapolated from near-by wells. However, the pre-drill prediction may be
inaccurate or erroneous due to incorrect assumptions

To help solving this problem we have developed an integrated approach for updating the pore pressure prognosis during
drilling. The methods for pore pressure predictions are integrated with an eDrilling system for real-time simulation of the
drilling process. Data from the drilling operation are processed real-time and calculated and measured data are stored in a
common database. The data includes drilling parameters, logging while drilling data (sonic and resistivity log), and other
measurements performed during drilling. The bases for a real-time update are pre-drill pore pressure predictions from basin
modelling using Monte Carlo analysis. As drilling and log data becomes available during the drilling operation, fast
calculations of pore pressure along the well are performed. The calculated pressure along the well is used for weighting of the
pre-drill Monte Carlo results in order to update the pore pressure prediction ahead of the bit.

The paper presents the methodology and simulation results from log data from the Norwegian continental shelf. Simulations
indicate significant improvements over the pre-drill predictions, when updating predictions based on the drilling logs.

Real-time updated pore pressure predictions is of vital importance for advanced computer based systems for online supervision
and decision support during drilling, such as in Integrated Operations. Early warnings can be supplied if abnormal
overpressures are to be expected ahead of the bit, or if measures should be taken to avoid dropping below the pore pressure.

The novel combination of automatically updated pore pressure data during drilling with an advanced real-time integrated
drilling simulator provides a powerful tool for next generation drilling software.

1. Introduction
Sediment pore pressures are important constraints that need to be carefully considered when planning a new well, and will
influence drilling strategy, casing program and mud-weights. The pore pressures in sedimentary rock can vary from
hydrostatic (normal) pressures to very high (abnormal) overpressures. The variation in overpressure with depth and location in
a basin are controlled by a number of factors: overburden permeability and thickness, sediment compaction and diagenetic
alteration. In order to give decision support during drilling using computer based systems real time updated pore pressure
prediction is needed.
2 SPE-124295-PP

A pre-drill prediction of pore pressures is used as input in the well planning phase. This prediction is based on an assumption
of the local geology in the prospect, typically extrapolated from near-by wells. However, the pre-drill prediction may be
inaccurate or erroneous due to incorrect assumptions regarding local geology (e.g. sediment properties) or sub-surface fluid
flow patterns (fault properties, lateral communication).

To help solving this problem we have developed an integrated approach for updating the pore pressure prognosis during
drilling. The methods for pore pressure predictions are integrated with an eDrilling system for real-time simulation of the
drilling process. Data from the drilling operation are processed real-time and calculated and measured data are stored in a
common database. The data includes drilling parameters (weight on bit (WOB), rate of penetration (ROP), rotational speed
(RPM), hole diameter), logging while drilling data (sonic and resistivity log), and other measurements performed during
drilling. The bases for a real-time update are pre-drill pore pressure predictions from basin modeling using Monte Carlo
analysis. This provides the most likely pressures vs. depth together with minimum and maximum ranges. As drilling and log
data becomes available during the drilling operations, fast calculations of pore pressure along the well are performed. The
calculated pressure along the well is used for weighting of the pre-drill Monte Carlo results in order to update the pore pressure
prediction ahead of the bit. The updated pore pressure prediction is used as input to the wellbore-stability, well pressure
models and models providing warnings and decision support to the drilling engineers.

In this paper the eDrilling system is introduced followed by a description of how the pre-drill pressure as well as the pressure
while drilling is calculated. The pre-results are then presented and finally the methods and results are discussed and concluded
upon. The model has been tested on existing real-time data from the Norwegian North Sea. In the example presented here, the
real-time data has been processed in play-back mode.

2. Methods
2.1 eDrilling
eDrilling is a system for real time drilling simulation, 3D visualization and monitoring of the drilling process, from a remote
drilling expert centre (Rommetveit et al. 2008). The concept uses all available real-time drilling data (surface and downhole) in
combination with real time modeling to monitor and provide advisory for more optimal drilling. This information is visualized
in real-time in a graphical user interface . The core of eDrilling is an Integrated Drilling Simulator, capable of modeling the
different drilling sub-processes dynamically, and also the interaction between these sub-processes in real time. The Integrated
Drilling Simulator consists of a set of advanced dynamic models that calculate the well conditions based on all available data
from the drilling process. Figure 2 shows the different dynamic models that are a part of the Integrated Drilling Simulator.

In addition to calculating important properties such as pressure, Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD), torque etc, the
eDrilling system can also provide diagnostics, that is, warnings and advice based on measured and calculated data. For
instance, eDrilling can warn the user if there is a danger of kick or loss situations. In order for these warnings to be
representative for the well situation, it is very important that the data that eDrilling bases its warnings on are reliable. For
instance, formation properties such as the formation pore pressure should represent the present state of the formation. In many
cases, the available pore pressure data are obsolete, and the need for updated data is crucial in order to be able to make a
proper diagnose.

2.2 Pore pressure prediction

The in-house pressure simulator PRESSIM is used to do the pressure modeling. The simulator is developed to calculate
pressure build up and dissipation on geological time scale in sedimentary basins (Borge 2000, Lothe 2004). Figure 3 shows the
different processes simulated in PRESSIM. The fault traces mapped at the top reservoir level delineates the lateral extent of
the pressure and stress compartments that are used in the simulator. The lateral Darcy flow of formation water across low-
permeable faults is calculated using an explicit forward Euler solution technique (Borge 2000). Depth-converted maps of the
overlying sediments are used to construct the burial history that is adjusted for decompaction. The development of pressure
and stresses are reported for a series of time steps. Time steps are correlated to the depositional ages of the stratigraphic
horizons that are used to build the model. Porosity-depth relation in the shales is used to model mechanical compaction
(Baldwin & Butler 1985) and a kinetic model for quartz cementation (Walderhaug 1996) is used to model chemical
compaction of the sands. Hydrocarbon migration is not taken into account in this work that presents one-phase simulation.

The geo-mechanical properties for the caprock are allowed to vary through time with changing burial depths (Lothe et al.
2004). Isotropic horizontal stresses are assumed and the minimum horizontal stress is estimated using an empirical formula
SPE-124295-PP 3

(Grauls 1998). The vertical stress varies versus time depending on sedimentary loading. No strain is included and a passive
sedimentary margin is assumed. Fault permeability is modeled as depth dependent. The fault transmissibility depends on the
burial depth, the length, width and the dip-slip displacement of the faults, thickness of the reservoir layers and the permeability
inside the fault block (Borge & Sylta 1998). Juxtaposition faults (faults where the reservoir is self-juxtaposed) have high
transmissibilites, while faults with no overlap have lower transmissibilites. The Griffith-Coulomb failure criterion and the
frictional sliding criterion are used to simulate hydraulic fracturing from the overpressured compartments (Figure 4).

2.2.1 Stochastic modeling

As outlined in Krogstad & Sylta (1996), Sylta & Krogstad (2003) and Sylta (2004), 3D hydrocarbon basin simulations can be
carried out using Monte Carlo simulation.
The same methods can be used to simulate pressure versus depth in wells. Sylta & Krogstad (2003) assumes, building on the
study from 1996, that at least 1000 runs are required in each applications to make reliable fluid flow predictions. This, since
fluid flow is a non-linear problem to solve.

Sylta & Krogstad (2003) used a probabilistic description of the key input parameters like e.g. thickness of source rock unit as
the sum of a) a map grid of the most likely values and b) a standard deviation from the most likely values. This can also be
used in our case, where the most important input variables can be described with a deterministic distribution.

Minimum and maximum cut-off values should be used, when using normal distribution to avoid negative values, resulting in a
truncated normal distribution (Sylta & Krokstad 2003). The calibration of the model consists of finding a set of input variables
and their values that results in a match to:
present-day pressures versus depth in wells
present-day stresses versus depth in wells

2.2.2 Pre-drill pressure prediction

Before drilling, Pressim is used to model the pressure in the pressure cell (bordered by geological faults) where the well is
located. The model is run several hundred times where parameters not know for certain influencing the over pressure are
varied slightly. Each simulation results in a pressure prognosis for the well. The mean result as well as the std. deviation is
depicted in Figure 5 together with the hydrostatic and lithostatic pressure. With greater depths the uncertainty in pressure
increases

2.2.3 Pressure prediction while drilling

When drilling starts the client is via the eDrilling system provided with real time resitivity and sonic data. Using these
measurements the pressure is calculated based on Eaton 1972 and Eaton 1975:

Resistivity

nr
R
pobs = s ( s pn ) sh ,obs (1)
R
sh , n
with nr = 1.2

Sonic log (Eatons equation) (Eaton, 1972)

ns
Tsh ,n
pobs = s ( s pn ) (2)
T
sh ,obs
with ns = 3.0

s = Overburden stress (Pa) and is given as a function of the average formation bulk density.
pn = Normal pore pressure (Pa) and is a function of the average formation fluid density.
4 SPE-124295-PP

Rsh = Shale resistivity (m)

Tsh = Shale travel time (s/m)

Note that
subscript obs refers to the observed (actual pressured) condition
subscript n refers to the hydrostatic (normally pressured) condition

The corrected drilling exponent for normally compacted/pressured formation can be inferred from offset wells at the same
depth, or from extrapolation of trend data in the normally compacted/pressured formation.

From the Monte-Carlo runs and the observed pressure calculated from the resitivity, sonic, and drilling exponent one can
calculate weights wi given to each simulation run i, based on the log data information. In basin modeling, these weights are
calculated based on observed pressures Pobs from a calibration measurement as follows (Sylta and Krokstad 2003)
N
wi = N
(3)
a (p
n =1
n
mod( i )
n p ) obs 2
n

where N is the number of calibration depths, n refers to the well depth, an is a weight of importance applied to each
mod( i ) obs
calibration depth. pn is the modeled overpressure for depth n in run i, and pn is the observed (measured)
overpressure for the calibration depth.
An estimator for the most likely value of p is then
I

p mod( i )
wi
p= i =1
I
(4)
w
i =1
i

The equations above are rewritten based on equivalent expressions in (Sylta and Krokstad 2003) where the stochastic variable
is oil or gas column height H, rather than overpressure p.
obs
In this implementation we calculate pn as the arithmetic average of the pore pressure calculated according to resistivity,
sonic and drilling data. If one of these is missing, it is ignored.

The client then updates the calculated pressure as often as required and updates the weight and hence predicts the most
probable pressure at greater depths. As more and more information is gathered a better prediction is found for the pressure at
greater depths.

3. Data
Input data is needed for the Pressim model to set up the pre-drill pressure prediction and also for updating the pressure
prediction while drilling. As input to the Pressim pre-drill model, regional depth maps giving the depth of the horizons as well
as the lithological composition are needed. In addition, fault traces are needed to define the boundaries of the pressure
compartments and the flow transmissibilities between pressure compartments.

For updating the pressure prediction during drilling, real time data was used in this study. The data were collected recently
using wired drillpipe from a well in the Norwegian North Sea, courtesy of StatoilHydro. The data available from wired
drillpipe operations contains a massive amount of information at a very high bandwidth; see Olberg et al (2008) for a
description and discussion. In our data set, however, the data rate is 0.33Hz.

The field comprises two reservoir intervals but in this paper we will only use data from the day when the top reservoir was
entered. The well was deviated when entering the reservoir. During the day reported here, a total of 85 m was drilled,
corresponding to an increase in TVD of 31 m. Figure 1 shows the resistivity and sonic log versus measured depth from this
day. Errorous data has been removed from the plot and especially the sonic log contains a fair amount of noise. In addition to
these data, drilling parameters such as WOB, ROP, RPM and hole diameter are used as input to the pore pressure prediction
model.
SPE-124295-PP 5

4. Results
The geology of the sub-surface can be highly variable. Also the model representation of the geological and petrophysical
properties in a basin model is very simplistic, leading to uncertainties in the predicted pore pressures. To evaluate the
uncertainties in the pre-drill predictions, Monte Carlo simulations for pore pressure were preformed using Pressim. Both the
vertical effective permeability and the lateral fault transmissibilities were varied.

Figure 6 shows the probability distribution of overpressure in the deepest reservoir. The pressure plotted is taken from the
pressure compartment containing the planned well location. Even with the variation put on the vertical and lateral flow
parameters, the prognosed reservoir pressure is quite focused around 210 bars. A normal distribution, plotted together with the
probability distribution, clearly gives a poor representation of overpressure in this case.

The predicted overpressure is plotted vs. depth (mTVDSS) in Figure 7. The upper and lower reservoirs can be seen as intervals
with constant overpressures. Only drilling data when drilling into the upper reservoir is presented below.

During drilling the pre-drill pressure prognosis is updated using log data acquired during drilling. In this example we are using
data measured during drilling in play-back mode to simulate model updates during drilling. Figure 8 shows the results during
one day of drilling. Pr and Ps are overpressures calculated from resistivity and sonic logs respectively, using Eqs. (1) and (2)
and the data presented in Figure 1. Mean is the average of Pr and Ps. PMC is the original pre-drill prediction from Pressim,
while PMCc is the updated prediction ahead of the bit honoring the Pr and Ps calculated so far. The updated prognosis ahead
of the bit is calculated using Pr and Ps in the weighting of the previously performed Pressim Monte Carlo simulations as
described earlier (Eqs. (3) and (4)). The pre-drill prognosis is updated continuously as new log-data becomes available during
drilling.

5. Discussion
Log data can be highly variable over short depth intervals which is also the case for the data used here. Pore pressures
calculated based on the log data also has quite a large spread. Using the pore pressures calculated from log data to weight the
pre-drill Monte Carlo results seem to have the effect of regularizing the prediction, thereby avoiding the noise seen in the log-
based calculations.

If during drilling the pre-drill model is found to be too inaccurate, the weighting procedure will not work properly, and the
predictions ahead of the bit will not be optimal. Errors in the pre-drill model can be caused by errors in the geological model
eg. wrong depths of formation tops or actual lithology being different from the expected model. The Pressim Monte Carlo
simulations should then be updated and re-run to honor the actual geology and pressures at the depth of drilling. The update
can be done in a matter of hours.

Lithology effects are important on log responses. A more detailed lithology model that what is used in this example may be
necessary if abrupt changes in sediment permeability, and thereby also in pore pressure, is expected.

However, as it is seen in Figure 8 from the PMC and PMCc curve the pore pressure ahead of drill is predicted to be slightly
lower (around 3 bars) than originally modeled. As more and more data becomes available and is used in the weighting process
the prediction will more accurate.

6. Conclusion
Real-time updated pore pressure predictions is of vital importance for advanced computer based systems for online supervision
and decision support during drilling, such as in Integrated Operations. Early warnings can be supplied if abnormal
overpressures are to be expected ahead of the bit, or if measures should be taken to avoid dropping below the pore pressure. As
shown in the example, the pore pressure predictions ahead of the bit are improved when updating predictions based on
Logging-while-drilling data.

The novel combination of automatically updated pore pressure data during drilling with an advanced real-time integrated
drilling simulator provides a powerful tool for next generation drilling software. A full real time study will be done the coming
autuum.
6 SPE-124295-PP

7. References
(Baldwin & Butler 1985) Baldwin, B. and Butler, C. O.:. Compaction curves. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 69(4),
622-662.
(Borge 2000) Borge, H.:. Fault controlled pressure modelling in sedimentary basins, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
(Borge & Sylta 1998) Borge, H. & Sylta, . 1998. 3D modelling of fault bounded pressure compartments in the North Viking Graben.
Energy, Exploration and Exploitation 16, 301-323.
(Eaton 1972) B. A. Eaton; Graphical method predicts geopressures worldwide, World Oil 182 (6), 51-56.
(Eaton 1975) B. A. Eaton; The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs, paper SPE 5544 of the 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the
SPE-AIME, Dallas, USA, 1975.
(Grauls 1998) Grauls, D. 1998. Overpressure assessment using a minimum principal stress approach. In: Overpressures in petroleum
exploration; Proc. Workshop 22. Bull. Centre Rech. Elf Explor. Prod., Pau, France, 137-147
(Krogstad and Sylta 1996) Krogstad, W. & Sylta, . 1996. Risk assessment using volumetrics from secondary migration modelling:
assessing uncertainties in source rock yields and trapped hydrocarbons. In: Quantification and Prediction of Petroleum Resources
(edited by Dore, A. G. & Sinding-Larsen, R.). NPF Special Publication 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 219-235
(Lothe 2004) Lothe, A.E.: Simualtions of hydraulic fracturing and leakage in sedimentary basins. Dr. Thesis, University of Bergen, 184 p.
(Lothe et al. 2004) Lothe, A. E., Borge, H. & Gabrielsen, R. H. 2004. Modelling of hydraulic leakage by pressure and stress simulations: An
example from the Halten Terrace area, offshore Mid-Norway. Petroleum Geoscience 10(3), 199-213
(Olberg et al. 2008) Tor Stein Olberg, Harald Laastad, Bill Lesso and Adrian Newton. The Utilization of the Massive Amount of Real-Time
Data Acquired in Wired Drillpipe Operations. IADC/SPE 112702. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference , Orlando, USA,
2008.
(Rommetveit et al. 2008) Rolv Rommetveit, Knut S. Bjrkevoll, Sven Inge degrd, Mike Herbert, and George W. Halsey. Automatic Real-
Time Drilling Supervision, Simulation, 3D Visualization and Diagnosis on Ekofisk. IADC/SPE 112533. Presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference , Orlando, USA, 2008.
(Sylta 2004) Sylta, . 2004. A probabilistic approach to improved geological knowledge and reduced exploration risks using hydrocarbon
migration modelling. Petroleum Geoscience 10, 187-198
(Sylta and Krogstad 2003) . Sylta and W. Krogstad; Estimation of oil and gas column heights in prospects using
probabilistic basin modelling methods, Petroleum Geoscience 9 (2003) 243-254.
(Walderhaug 1996) Walderhaug, O. 1996. Kinetic modelling of quartz cementation and porosity loss in deeply buried
sandstone reservoirs. AAPG Bulletin 80(5), 731-745.

8. Acknowledgement
We would like to thanks StatoilHydro for providing the data set.

9. Figures

Figure 1: Showing resitivity and sonic log data versus MD for one day of drilling.
SPE-124295-PP 7

Pore Pressure
Flow model; model
p, T, cuttings
status
ROP model

Wellbore
Torque/Drag Stability model
model
Vibration
model
Mechanical
Earth Model

Figure 2: Advanced, dynamic models in eDrilling.

Lateral flow
Shale drainage

Shale compaction
Quartz cementation

Hydraulic leakage

Figure 3: Different processes simulated in PRESSIM.

'
Frictional
sliding failure Griffith-Coulomb
envelope failure envelope

n
3 1
Figure 4: Failure criteria used in the simulations to simulate hydraulicfailure due to pressure build up in overpressured
compartments.
8 SPE-124295-PP

Pressure/Stress [bar]
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
Mean pressure
Standard deviation
Hydrostatic pressure
Lithostatic stress
500

1000
Depth [m]

1500

2000

2500
Figure 5: Schematic illustration of pore pressures predicted pre-drill. Uncertainty ranges are given from Monte Carlo analysis.
SPE-124295-PP 9

80

70
% of total number of runs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Overpressure [bar]
Figure 6: Probability distribution for compartment 150 (planed well location), reservoir layer 2.
10 SPE-124295-PP

Overpressure [bar]
0 50 100 150 200 250
Most probable overpressure
Min/Max (60%)
Depth [m]

Figure 7: Mean and min/max overpressures vs. depth (mTVDSS) for pressure compartment 150 (well location).
SPE-124295-PP 11

Overpressure (Bar)
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0

Pr
Ps
Mean
PMC
PMCc
Depth (mTVDRKB)

Figure 8: Overpressure calculated from sonic and resistivity logs over a TVD interval of 29 m. The depth scale has been removed
from the plot but spans 150 m. Mean = average of overpressures from sonic and resistivity. PMC = pre-drill prognosis from Pressim.
PMCc = updated prognosis ahead of the bit. The difference between PMC and PMCc is of the order of 3 bars.