IADC/SPE

IADC/SPE 14801

Pore Pressure and Porosity From MWD Measurements

by W.G. Lesso Jr. and T.M. Burgess, Anadri/1 Schlumberger
SPE Members

Copyright 1986, IADC/SPE 1986 Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, TX, February 10-12, 1986.

This paper was selected tor presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or International Association of Drilling
Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or SPE, its of-
ficers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989
SPEDAL.

INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT There is frequently a need to interpret formation
This paper describes a new empirical technique for pore pressures while drilling. At one extreme a
interpreting pore pressure and porosity while kick can result if the mud weight falls below the
drilling from MWD measurements of mechanical pore pressure at any point in the open wellbore. At
and formation properties. In-situ rock strength is the other extreme, the formation might break down
computed on a foot by foot basis from MWD weight if the weight of the mud exceeds the fracture
on bit and torque, plus surface computed values of pressure at any point in the open wellbore. If the
rate of penetration and rotary speed. The resultant pore pressure is reliably known, the mud weight
strength is sensitive to formation properties. can be kept just overbalanced resulting in safe
drilling and higher rates of penetration. This is a
Locally, the strength is modelled as a function of starting point for drilling optimization.
the clay fraction (computed from the MWD gamma
ray), and the porosity. Inverting the relationship Currently there are only two methods for directly
gives the "drilling" porosity. Logs of drilling measuring pore pressures. One is by wireline
porosity are very similar to logs of "density" formation testing techniques, the other is by
porosity measured by wireline tools. drillstem testing. Both occur after drilling, and
since they are costly they only tend to be used in
On a large scale a comparison is made between the the vicinity of hydrocarbon bearing zones.
average strength of the shales, and the predicted
strength of shales in normally pressured All other methods of determining· pore pressures
sequences in the same area. The pore pressure is are inferences or interpretations. They are based
estimated from the ratio between the two. on three types of measurements:

The technique is demonstrated with two examples. o mud-logging data

It is concluded that the method could significantly o physical formation measurements
improve pore pressure evaluation while drilling, o drilling data
particularly when used with standard mud-logging
techniques. Relevant mud-logging data consist primarily of
surface measurements of gas in the drilling mud,
and measurements of the density of shale cuttings.
An Increase in the background or connection gas,
and a change in the trend in the shale density, are
References and illustrations at end of paper. often used as qualitative indicators of increasing
pore pressure.
643
2 PORE PRESSURE AND POROSITY FRO'v1 MWD MEASUREMENTS
Relevant physical formation measurements are
wireline recorded values of resistivity, acoustic
properties, and density logs. A change in the trend
of these values in shales is often interpreted as a
change in pore pressure 1. Until MWD resistivity
was available, these techniques could not be used
while drilling.
Drilling data initially consisted of rate .Q.f
g,enetration (ROP), .§.Urface measured values of
weight Qn b.it (SWOB) and mtary speed (ROT). The
surface torque can not be used because of large
friction losses down the drillstring. The reciprocal
of ROP (ie. 1/ROP) normalized in some way with
the weight and rotary speed is a simple
instantaneous computation of in-situ rock
strength at the bit. For most rock types, this
strength varies inversely with the pore pressure.
If this function is known, the rock strength can be
used to interpret the pore pressure.
Rock strength computations based on ROP are
currently the only real time measurement of
formation properties at the bit. As such they must
be the primary source of pore pressure information
while drilling. Other sources of data must not be
ignored, but they exist in a supporting role.
Mud-logging data is normally lagged by at least 30
minutes and sometimes hours.
Rock strength measurements based on ROP are
normally used in a simple fashion. A gradually
increasing ROP (ie. lower strength) is often an
indicator of a pore pressure increase. Often the
driller decides what a "safe" ROP might be, then
increases his mud weight if he sees the ROP
increasing. The first real improvement to this
simple technique was the D-exponent based on
ROP, SWOB and ROT 2. A refinement on this
concept, using an empirical time dependent bit
wear model, led to the Instantaneous Drilling
Evaluation Log (I DEL) 3. Both of these methods
have been found to work well in many Gulf Coast
type environments if there is good transmission of
weight to the bit.
Until recently there have been no significant
improvements to the rock strength analysis. Three
recent events have led to the advancements
described in this paper. The first is the advent of
powerful computers at the well-site for real time
data acquisition and processing. 9 The importance
of efficient data organization should not be
underestimated. The second has been the
introduction of MWD measurements of Q.ownhole
~eight Qn .Qit (DWOB) and .Qownhole torque {DTOR).
644
14801
The DWOB measurement enables the rock strength
to be calculated with the "true" weight on bit. This
is particularly important in deviated holes or in
sections of poor wellbore stability where
tran~mission of weight is poor. The third has been
the development of new drilling models 4 that
have shown how the DTOR can be used to
effectively correct the strength measurement for
bit wear. This has led to a real time rock strength
measurement that is very sensitive to porosity and
pore pressure.
The next section describes a general framework
for .interpreting pore pressure and porosity from
existing MWD measurements. The following section
then describes how the techntque is locally applied
to a specific abnormal pressure environment in the
Gulf Coast. The method is demonstrated with two
examples, one in a normally pressured environment
and one in an abnormally pressured environment. A
similar approach could be taken in other
abnormally pressured environments. It is
concluded that this new method could significantly
improve real time drilling evaluation, particularly
when used with standard methods based on
mud-logging and MWD resistivity.
THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section will describe a strategy for
interpreting porosity and pore pressure from rock
strength measurements while drilling. This
strategy has led to the creation of a logic for data
processing that will be implemented on rig-site
computers in the near future. The result is a
program, or framework, for pore pressure
interpretation into which specific models for
different environments can be incorporated as they
are developed.
Six key concepts underlie this approach:
1) Currently, rock strength measurements
computed from ROP and MWD values of weight on
bit (DWOB) and torque (DTOR), are the only
strictly real time measurements available from
the bit, therefore they are the first indicator of
abnormal pressures and porosity.
2) Although rock strength is the cornerstone of
this analysis, it should not be considered in
isolation from other techniques based on
mud-logging and MWD physical formation
measurements.
14801 W.G. LESSO, JR. and T.M. BURGESS
3) Any pore pressure/porosity interpretation
technique must be proven to have local validity.
This involves two steps:
i) establishing the mechanism responsible for
the abnormal pressures and the associated
models,
ii) determining the parameters of the model
from offset well data.
This approach results in an interpretation that is
finely tuned to a particular environment.
4) The steps in an interpretation must be clearly
explained and easy to understand by wellsite
personnel. This is particularly important when
using an interpretation in the urgency of a real
time drilling problem. "Black-box" techniques
should be discouraged.
5) The computation of porosity and pore pressure
should be as independent as possible. This is
largely because of scale effects. The effect of
lithology on rock strength can be about an order of
magnitude greater than the effect of pore pressure
on strength. Significant changes in porosity can
occur over distances as small as six inches,
however significant variations in pore pressure
occur over much greater distances. This can be
used to distinguish between pore pressure and
porosity. The pore pressure interpretation should
not depend on the porosity interpretation. This
prevents errors in one from being compounded in
the other.
6) The interpreted porosity must have real
quantitative significance and be strongly
correlated with a well known porosity
measurement. This can be done by creating a
"drilling" porosity which has the characteristics
of a wireline formation density porosity. The
density log was selected since it is normally
available after drilling and the matrix volume
computation from it correlates well with rock
strength. The density is considered one of the
most accurate porosity computations and is
usually available on offset wells. · pressure is .Q (RSO). This can be written as:
Apart from these six concepts, the following
assumptions are made about the physical behavior
of rocks under the bit:
a) The rock ~trength (RS) can be expressed as the ·
product of three functions related to the rock
matrix, the porosity (0), and the differential
pressure ( ~p ) between the ~quivalent Qirculating
.Q.ensity (ECD) of the mud and the pore pressure
gradient. The ECD is the effective bottom hole
645
3
pressure while circulating:
RS = f1 (matrix)*f2(0)*f3( ~p) .............................. 1
Equation 1 can only be justified if the parameters
of the model are selected on a local basis and if
the model is not used across a very wide range of
porosities.
For a "clean" formation, like a sand, f 1 would be a
constant (possibly related to the bit type). For a
shaly formation, f 1 can be a function of the
percentage of clay.
f2 is assumed to have the same functional form
for all rock matrices, but can have a parameter
which varies as a function of the matrix. The
relationship used in the examples is:
.................................................................. 2
The function f3 is positive and increases with ~p.
It is defined to be equal to 1 when ~P equals 0.
b) In permeable rocks, like porous sands, the
differential pressure effect is negligible. It is
assumed that the spurt loss ahead of the bit is
sufficient to equilibrate the pore pressure over
the rock failure surface. This amounts to setting
f3 equal to 1 in sandstones.
c) The pore pressure gradient only changes in-
impermeable formations .like shales. In permeable
formations, like porous sands, the pore pressure
gradient with (true vertical) depth remains
constant and equal to the pore pressure gradient in
the immediately adjacent impermeable zones.
d) The differential pressure can be predicted from
the ratio of the average rock ~trength (ARS), to the
expected rock .s_trength when the differential
ARS = RSO* f3 ( .6p ) ................................. .- ................ 3
This is consistent with equation 2 above. RSO is
deduced from offset well drilling data. It amounts
to a second independent measurement. Thus
porosity and pore pressure are computed from RS
and RSO.
4 . PORE PRESSURE AND POROSITY FROM MWD MEASUREMENTS
In the examples below the following function was
used:
f3(~) = a*arctan[b* ~ +C] + a/2 ............................. .4
where the parameters a, b, and c were chosen to
satisfy the constraints on f3 and to fit the offset
well data.
In practice the functional forms of f 1 , f2 , and f3
depend upon the mechanism causing the abnormal
pressuring. Most authors recognize at least six
di~tinct ~echa~isms, namely; undercompaction
w1th rap1d bunal, shale diagenesis, abnormal
therm~l gradients, hydrocarbon generation,
t~cton1c forces, and faulting and vertical
displacement of sealed formations. References 5
and 6 give a more detailed treatment.
In practice, prior to drilling, one would establish
the c.ause ?f abnormal pressures from general
cons1derat1ons (seismic, geology, basin
development) and select the functional forms of
f 1 , f2, and f3 accordingly. The approach is
sufficiently flexible that the user can define the
functions best suited to his needs. Few
constitutive equations have been published,
therefore the functions and the parameters
asso.c~ated with th~m are usually selected
e~p!ncally after mterpreting drilling and
w1rellne logs from offset or neighboring wells.
During drilling, the porosity and·pore pressure are
computed on a real time basis according to the
following (simplified) algorithm:
0) Initialize parameters, and in surface hole
assume the pore pressure is equivalent to
hydrostatic.
i) Drill a unit of depth.
ii) Calculate True Vertival Depth (TVD) from
survey data.
iii) Calculate ECD from mud weight, pump rate,
pipe depth, etc. ·
iv) Calculate rock strength from ROP, ROT, MWD
DTOR and DWOB.
v) Calculate Shale Index (SI) from AS or MWD
GammaAay.
vi) Calculate 0 from:
0 = f2 -1 [AS/f 1(SI)*f 3 ( ~p )]
using previous value of ~p.
vii) Calculate average rock strength (AAS) from
previous AS values.
viii) If Sl is high (ie. impermeable) calculate
~p = f3- 1(AAS/RSO),
646
14801
otherwise ~Pis unchanged.
ix) go to i)
The recommended computation of in-situ rock
strength is the one described by Burgess and
Lesso 4 for milled tooth bits. It has been found to
be very sensitive to pore pressure and porosity
effects. ·
AS= 8* a1 *DWOB*AOT*Eff I (AOP*BS2) ........ 5
a1 is a "bit" constant associated with the cutting
action of the bit. Eff is a.n efficiency term related_
to the tooth wear. It is computed from the
DTOA/DWOB ratio. If only surface values are
available, a "second best" computation can be made
by replacing the MWD downhole weight on bit with
a surface value and by setting Eff to the value 1.
(This might tend to overestimate the rock strength
resulting in a low estimate of pore pressure).
LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNIQUE
So far this approach to pore pressure and porosity
interpretation has only been tested in the Gulf of
Mexico.
The strength analysis has only been tested with
mill tooth bits.
The rock strength in equation 5 accounts for the
mechanical work expended during drilling and
neglects the work expended hy the hydraulics. The
mud is considered only as a transport device· to
remove cuttings and ensure 1OOo/o cleaning under
the bit. It will not give a reliable rock strength
computation in those cases in which jetting is
used to drill. Other interpretations of rock
strength might do equally well.
Prior to performing the interpretation in real time
it is necessary to establish the mechanism causing
the abnormal pressuring and to perform drilling
interpretation on data from an offset, neighboring,
or exploration well.
UNDER COMPACTION·· DIAGENESIS
GULF COAST MODEL
The preceding sections have defined a strategy and
a framework for obtaining a reliable calculation of
pore pressure and porosity in real time. This
approach has been used to develop a model of the
effects of undercompaction and shale diagenesis
on sand shale sequences in the Gulf of Mexico.
14801
Under compaction is defined as the rapid burial of
sediments that would normally settle into a
competent matrix. It cannot compact because the
rate of burial is relatively high compared to the
rate at which the water can escape. Diagenesis is
a broadly used term. In this context, it shall be
used to represent a chemical transformation of
clay minerals such as smectites (mainly
montmorillonite) to illite. This results in, among
other changes, a dehydration of the clays and the
release of free water.
Both these events affect the porosity and pore
pressure of formations in the Gulf Coast. They are
similar in that excess trapped water begins to
support a larger portion of the total stress in the
rock. 5,6,?
In regard to permeability, two types of rock are
commonly encountered in the Gulf Coast. These
are sandstones and shales. Sandstone is several
orders of magnitude more permeable than shale.
There is also a marked difference in rock strength
between sand and shale. Shales drill much slower
than sands. By maintaining a running average of
rock strength in shale and establishing an envelope
around this, a sand/shale decision can be made
(Fig. 1). When the actual rock strength is below
the envelope, the matrix has sufficient
permeability to be called a sand or shaly sand.
Within the envelope it is a shale. A MWD gamma
ray measurement can be used to confirm the
sand/shale decision. This is based on selecting a
gamma ray value for sand and another for shale.
The two "picks" will be changed when the levels of
the gamma ray measurement change (Fig. 2).
Either of these two methods can be used to
automatically make a sand/shale decision.
Once the lithology is determined, it is possible to
interpret the porosity. From the general function
between porosity and rock strength (equation 1), a
specific equation has been developed empirically
for Gulf Coast lithologies using wireline density
porosity.
For a sandstone the assumption is that:
(1-0) =a· Rsb ................................................................ 6
where a and b are constants. Equation 6 is a
specific application of equations 1 and 2, where
1/b=m, and (1/a)(1/b) = f1(matrix) (f3 (L\p)=1).
It is shown graphically in Figure 3. Density matrix
W.G. LESSO, JR. and T.M. BURGESS 5
volume (1-0) is plotted versus rock strength.
Both are on a logarithmic scale. The analysis of
rock strength as compared to porosity data in this
fashion is the key to the interpretation of pore
presure and porosity. Equation 6 on the plot, is a
straight line with slope b. It is called the sand
line. The lower end of this line corresponds to the
porosity and strength of clean sandstone. It is
called the sand point. For less porous (or more
compacted) sandstones, the strength and matrix
volume increase. This corresponds to points
moving up the sand line. This is verified in the
examples.
It has been found from data analysis that data
corresponding to shales tend to lie near or on the
extrapolation of the sand line. The density porosity
of shales is usually always much less than the
density porosity of sands, regardless of the true
porosity. This means that in terms of strength,
shales hypothetically resemble very fine grained
cemented sandstones on the strength/density bulk
volume cross-plot. The centroid of the cloud of
points corresponding to shale is called the clay
point. It corresponds to a shale with the shale
average rock strength (SARS) and the QJ.ay point
porosity 0cl. In the absence of low porosity sands,
the sand line is defined by joining the clay point to
the sand point.
The next step is to define the porosity relationship
for shale. Density porosity of shales is nearly
always low. This means that changes in the clay
point with porosity will appear as a fairly flat
curve on the cross-plot. These changes in porosity
of shale in the Gulf Coast environment are usually
due to the effects of compaction or from pore
pressure changes. The changes are modelled by
another straight line passing through the clay
point. It is called the shale line (see figure 4). The
shale line is not well defined over short intervals.
However over several thousands of feet there is
normally sufficient change in shale porosity to
define a reasonable line. This can be done on
previous or nearby wells and then this line can be
used reliably throughout a field.
Experience has shown that shaly sands tend to lie
above the sand line. As shale content increases,
points appear to move from the sand point to the
clay point, describing an arc above the the sand
line (see figure 4). Using the sand and shale lines,
a simple method for interpolating porosity in shaly
sands has been developed. The fan of lines
originating from the clay point shows the
relationship between rock strength and porosity
for formations of varying shale volume. This shale
647
6 PORE PRESSURE AND POROSITY FRDrv1 MWD MEASUREMENTS
volume is derived from a shale indicator such as a
MWD gamma ray. It is defined with "picks" as
shown in Figure 2. This Shale Index varies from o
for a clean sandstone to 1 in shales. Drilling
porosity (0DRL) is computed from sand porosity
(0sD) and shale porosity (0sH) for a given rock
strength as follows:
0sD = 1 - C3scj * RS bsd .............. ······. ..... ...... ......... ........ 7
0sH = 1 -8.gt, * Rsbsh .................................................
0DRL =0sH•SI+0sD•(1-SI} ······························~· 9
Points to the right of the sand line (ie. high
strength} normally appear to correspond to drilling
problems like bit balling or poor weight transfer if
surface weight on bit is used in the computation
instead of downhole weight on bit.
Figure 5 shows the effect of mud weight changes
in the interpretation. An increase in mud weight
moves the clay point along a line of constant
matrix bulk volume, but increases the rock
strength. This is equivalent to changing the angle
of the sand line. The sand point remains fixed
because of the high permeability of porous sands.
The slope of the clay line remains unchanged. A
decrease in mud weight has the inverse effect.
Differential pressure is computed using shale
average rock strength (SARS). The relationship
currently used for the under compaction I
diagen~sis model is:
~p = x*tan{1t[(SARSIRSO}I(RSmax/RSO)] - 112}}
+Y ............................................................................... 10.
This is consistent with equation 4. RSmax is an
estimate of the maximum strength of shale in a
very overbalanced condition. The analysis is not
sensitive to the choice of RSmax provided it is
much larger (say more than 5 times) than RSO. x
and y are simply constants determined from the
slope of the ~P versus SARSIRSO plot at RSO
(balanced conditions). Figure 6 is a plot of
equation 10 showing the normal operating zone.
The ratio SARSIRSO is referred to as the
normalized rock strength.
Equation 10 was selected empirically after
attempting to find a function sufficiently flexible
to fit published laboratory data (eg. Cheatham et
alB) and field data from drilling and wireline
formation tests. It has certain appealing
characteristics. First, it has a near exponential
14801
shape for low positive values of ~p. This behavior
has ben proven successful in the Instantaneous
Drilling Evaluation Log3. Second, the strength
reachs a maximum at high values of ~p, a property
found to occur in laboratory triaxial tests on
shales. Third, a small change in strength in
underbalanced conditions is interpreted as a
significantly negative ~p. In other words the
model is sensitive to underbalanced conditions.
In practice the interpreter might only have a few
a wireline formation test pressures, or well tests
from offset wells with which to fit equation 10.
These are normally suff1c!er.t to well define the
curve in the operating zone.
In the Gulf Coast the expected shale rock strength
(RSO} normally appears to be a simple gradient of
true vertical depth, or to be a constant, depending
on the field and depths of interest. . It is fairly
straightforward to fit a simple function to the
shale rock strength over several hundred or
thousands of feet of data from an offset well.
The pore pressure gradient is computed as follows:-
PPG = ECD- ~I (TVD*cf} ......................................... 11
where ECD is the equivalent circulating density of
the mud. TVD is the true vertical depth and cf is
the conversion factor (English: 0.0519 psilft to
lbslgal).
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The porosity and pore pres·sure interpretation
framework with the Gulf Coast application, has
been developed into a computer program so that
large amounts of drilling data can be analyzed.
Two wells from different parts of the Gulf of
M_exi~o are presented here. The analysis includes
w1rel1ne data where available. A uniform display
of t~e data ha_s been _made for ease in comparing
the 1nterpretat1ons. F1gures 7 and 1o are six track
logs. The first track contains the pressure data
namely, differential pressure, pore pressure and
mud weight. The second track contains the gamma
ray and computed shale indicator. The third track
sho~s rock strength, shale average rock strength
and 1ts _envelope. !he fourth track is the porosity
companson. The f1fth and sixth tracks contain the
drilling data used in the analysis.
The first well (Fig. 7) is from the eastern Gulf of
Mexico. It has a relatively constant pore pressure
gradient. Figure 8 is a matrix volume from the
648
14801 • W.G. LESSO, JR. and T.M. BURGESS
density and rock strength cross plot for this well.
The sand and shale lines are drawn. The shale line
was not easy to determine reliably at first sight
since there was little compaction or change in
pore pressure gradient. However experience has
shown that the clay line has a fairly constant
slope across the Gulf Coast. Four major sand zones
are circled. They cluster along the sand line. The
clay point lies on the extrapolation of the sand
line. The numbers on the points correspond to
graduations on the shale indicator (in this case the
gamma ray). A low number indicates low gamma
ray. These are sandstones. A higher number
corresponds to higher gamma ray readings and
therefore shale points. One of the sand sections, a
shaly sand, has been highlighted in figure 9 to
show the increasing gamma trend, which
demonstrates the "fan" effect on figure 4 within
the accuracy of the data.
The strong correlation between drilling porosity
and wireline density porosity, in this case, is
partly a result of making the "picks" on the same
set of data. Nonetheless it is striking that much of
the fine detail is repeated on both logs. Two
discrepanCies are noted. At point "A", the density
porosity increases. The gamma ray indicated a
continuing shale. The wireline 9aliper showed an
enlarged hole at this depth indicating a washed out
shale with possible loss of density pad contact
leading to erroneously high porosity computations.
Point "8" shows a 30 foot section of abnormally
low drilling porosity. The rate of penetration is
also very low for that section. This was a cored
interval, where drilling conditions differ from
strength models used here.
The next example (Fig. 10) shows a well from the
central Gulf of Mexico. In this case the cross-plot
picks were made from experience on offset wells.
There is a pore pressure increase confirmed by RFT
data (at points "A" and "B") and by MWD resistivity
data.
Drilling porosity was compared to sonic porosity,
because the density porosity was not available.
Wireline sonic and density porosities usually agree
in sand sections. The acoustic travel time
measurement usually yields a much higher
porosity in shales. Drilling porosity follows this·
same pattern when compared to the sonic porosity.
Points "C" show the sands, note that the two
porosities do converge.
Point "D" shows the first mud weight increase.
Point "E" · shows the second. Note that rock
649
7
strength is increasing, indicating a higher ~p. The
pore pressure in this area remains constant at
about 12.0 ppg. At point "F" the strength starts to
decrease indicating the actual start of the pore
pressure increase. The pore pressure gradient
increase was confirmed by the MWD resistivity.
Figure 11 is a plot of MWD gamma ray, short
normal resistivity and the computed pore pressure
gradient. The resistivity is on a logarithmic scale
from .1 to 1. ohm-meters. Note the correlation
between the resistivity and computed pore
pressure gradient.
Point G ( on figure 10) does not correspond to a
sand. This is in fact a drilling problem at the start
of a bit run.
CONCLUSIONS
A general procedure has been described for
· determining pore pressure and drilling porosity
while drilling, in real-time from mechanical
drilling data. The method is sufficiently flexible
such that new models for different environments
can be incorporated as they are developed.
The method is applied on a local basis by picking
key parameters of the model from an analysis of
offset wells.
The drilling porosity approximates the familiar
density porosity.
Pore pressure can be computed by comparing the
average rock strength in impermeable formations
to the expected strength at balanced conditions.
This resulted in a specific interpretation
procedure for Gulf of Mexico wells, in which the
mechanisms for overpressuring were identified as
shale under compaction and diagenesis. The·
procedure was demonstrated with two examples.
The new technique is probably the most
quantitively reliable real-time method available
for formation evaluation and pore pressure
determination while drilling. Other methods based
on mud-logging or formation evaluation
measurements are subject to significant lag or
depth offsets.
ACKNO~EDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the oil companies who
choose to explore drilling data analysis and allow
these results to be published. Schlumberger
Cambridge Research should also be recognized for
many fruitful discussions on drilling models and
pore pressure mechanisms. The comments on
earlier drafts of this paper by T. R. Bates, Jr. and
G.S. Huchital were very much appreciated.
8 PORE PRESSURE AND POROSfTY FRCX\11 MWD MEASUREMENTS 14801

NOMENCLATURE REFERENCES

ARS average rock strength (general form) 1. Fertl, W.H. :Abnormal formation Pressures,
BS bit size Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York,
D1""ffi MWD torque (1976), pg.382.
DJ\03 MWD weight on bit
ECD equivalent circulating density 2. Jorden, J.R. and Shirley, O.J. : "Application of
Eft bit efficiency Drilling Performance Data to Overpressure
PA3 pore pressure gradient Detection," SPE 1407, SPE Symposium on
R:P rate of penetration Offshore Technology, New Orleans, LA.,
RJT rate of (rotary) turn (RPM) May 23-24, 1966.
RS rock strength
RSO expected rock strength at o ~P 3. Zoeller, W.A.: "Instantaneous Log is Based on
SARS shale average rock strength Surface Drilling Data," World Oil, Jan. 1978.
Sl shale index
SM:13 surface weight on bit 4. Burgess, T.M. and Lesso, W.G. :"Measuring the
TVD true vertical depth Wear of Milled Tooth Bits Using MWD Torque
a local porosity - strength offset and Weight-on-Bit," SPE/IADC 13475,
a1 cutting action bit constant SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
LA., March 6-8, 1985.
b local porosity - strength exponent
cf conversion factor .0519(psi/ft-ppg)
5. Magara, K.: Compaction and Fluid Migration,
f1 rock strength - matrix function
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York,
f2 rock strength - porosity function (1978), pp. 87-117.
f3 rock strength - pore pressure function
6. Hottmann, C. E. and Johnson, R.K.: "Estimation of
m porosity - ~trength exponent (general form)
Formation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale
x,y constants 1n pore pressure function
Properties," SPE 1110, 40th Annual Fall
~P differential pressure
Me.eting, Denver, CO., Oct. 3-6, 1965.
0 porosity (general form)
CZCL clay point porosity
7. Eaton, B.A.: "The Equation for Geopressure
e.t>AL drilling porosity Prediction from Well Logs," SPE 5544, 50th
0aJ sand porosity Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX., Sept.28-
es, shale porosity 0ct.1 , 1975.

8. Cheatham, C.A., Nahm, J.J., Heitkamp, N.D. :

"Effects of Selected Mud Properties on Rate
of Penetration in Full-Scale Shale Drilling
Simulations," SPE/IADC 13465, SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA., March
6-8, 1985.

9. Martin, C.A. : "Wellsite Applications of

Integrated MWD and Surface Data," SPE/IADC
14721, IADC/SPE 1986 Drilling Conference,
Dallas, TX., Feb. 10-12, 1986.

650
 SP·E l 4- H0 -1

gamma ray gamma ray

Shale Average shale 1
•_.L__..j,--Rock Strength sand 1

Sand I Shale gamma ray

Discrimination gamma ray
Envelope sand 2 shale 2

Fig. 1-Determining sand or shale and shale average rock strength Fig. 2-The determination of shale volume from a gamma ray
from a running average of rock strength and a cutoff · measurement.
envelope.

log
DENSITY
MATRIX
VOLUME

(1-0)

log ROCK STRENGTH (kpsi)

Fig. 3-Sandstone porosity as determined from rock strength along the lithology line for sands.

CLAY
POINT

log
SHALE
DENSITY 100%
MATRIX
VOLUME
DRILLING
(1-0) PROBLEM
ZONE

0%

log ROCK STRENGTH (kpsi)

Fig. 4-With the shale relationship defined , a shale indicator is used to determine drilling porosity
for a strength from sand and shale porosities.
 SPE 14 8 0 1

log
DENSITY -+
MATRIX
VOLUME

(1-0)

log ROCK STRENGTH · (kpsi)

Fig. 5-The effect of differential pressure on the clay point and sand line.

8.-------------------------------------------

Ap a·tan[n~ 5 ~:x]-.sJ +b

maximum
pore pressure

effect on strength

operating zone

Normalized Rock Strength

Fig. 6-The relationship between differential pressure and shale average rock strength used in the
Gulf of Mexico.
 SPE 1 4 8 0·1
-I 08-- DP -woe so
18 -MW
18 · · · .. · PPG

Fig. 7-A pore pressure and porosity analysis for a well in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico.
 SP·E 1 4 ~ 0·1
.9
(full log scale)

&
I

w .a
~
::J
...J
0
> CJ
"0
Q)

......
X
a:
1-
<(
~ .7
>-
1-
Ci5 ~~
z
w
0

.6~----------------------------~-----------------------------L----------------------------~
.1 1 ROCK STRENGTH (kpsi) 1o 100

Fig. 8-The density matrix volume-rock strength crossplot for the well data in Fig. 7.

Sand 4 6 8

6
8

7
7 I.J

5
I.J
6

Fig. 9-An expansion of Sand 4 in Fig. 8, showing the trend in shaliness for that sand.
 SPE 1480·1
500-ROP
0 ...... RPH

-RFT 11. Sppg

FT 14.6ppg

Fig. 10-A pore pressure and porosity analysis for a well in the central Gulf of Mexico.
 SPE 1 4 8Q. 1

--GR - RSN
118 --PPG

MWD

resistivity

lz
lo
I::IJ
IS:
I~
liJ
I::IJ
MWD I~
lcn
lc
I
I~
IQ
pore pressure
l::o
I)>
I~
gradient
lm
I 13

~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Fig. 11-A comparison between the computed pore pressure gradient and
MWD resistivity for the well data in Fig. 10.