See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315574049

Issues Faced while Calculating Overburden Gradient and Picking Shale Zones
to Predict Pore Pressure

Conference Paper · March 2017

DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201700042

CITATIONS READS

26 4,353

5 authors, including:

Souvik Sen Sumangal Dasgupta

Baker Hughes Incorporated PETRONAS
80 PUBLICATIONS 1,464 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 114 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Late Cretaceous sedimentology, Reservoir Quality and Geomechanics in Gulf of Suez, Egypt View project

Stress Path Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Souvik Sen on 24 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mo PP1B 02
Issues Faced while Calculating Overburden
Gradient and Picking Shale Zones to Predict Pore
Pressure
S. Sen* (Geologix Limited), J. Corless (Geologix Limited), S. Dasgupta
(Indian Institute of Technology (ISM)), C. Maxwell (Geologix Limited) & M.
Kumar (Geologix Limited)

SUMMARY
Over-pressure is one of the important drilling hazards seen globally. Estimates of over-pressured zones/
locations and over-pressure magnitudes have a direct impact on well drilling and completion.
Overburden gradient (OBG), Pore pressure (PP) and Fracture Gradient (FG) are the three basic outputs of
any pore pressure analysis.
OBG is calculated from density (RHOB) log data. As density log data does not start from surface/seabed,
we use several equations to compute shallow section pseudo-RHOB and integrate it with LWD/wireline
RHOB log data. This article discusses the issues with various ways to fill the data gap of shallow section
density.

PP is normally predicted against shale zones and then calibrated with the most reliable and direct pressure
measurements against sands and log data from adjoining shales. This paper also addresses the various
issues faced while picking shale points to predict pore pressure.

First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction

19-21 March 2017, Pau, France
Introduction

As the industry moves into more hostile environments and the cost of drilling continues to escalate,
pore pressure analysis has become a key part of the asset team’s planning process. Accurate
knowledge of pore pressure is fundamental to any safe and economic well construction. It needs the
calculation of Overburden gradient (OBG) and prediction of Pore pressure (PP) and Fracture Gradient
(FG). PP is normally predicted against shale zones and then calibrated with the most reliable and
direct pressure measurements (i.e. Drill Stem test, Modular Dynamic test etc.) against sands and log
data from adjoining shales. The assumption behind this is the sands and adjacent shales achieve
pressure equillibrium over geological time. This paper addresses two major issues faced while
calculating OBG and picking shale points to predict pore pressure.

Issues with Overburden Gradient (OBG) calculation

Vertical stress or overburden stress is the combined weight of the overlying rock and the fluids at a
specific depth (Dasgupta et al., 2016). Most reliable source to calculate overburden stress is the
density log. In practical scenario, density log from mudline to TD are not common. There are several
ways to compute psuedodensity of shallow/upper part of the well, where no density log is available.
The pseudodensity can be integrated with LWD/wireline density to get a composite density profile for
the full well. OBG is calculated with this composite density. Below is the snapshot (Figure 1) of
overburden gradients calculated from four different synthetic shallow section densities.

Figure 1 Overburden Gradient (OBG) calculated from four differently computed shallow densities
(Miller RHOB, Amoco empirical relation, RHOB from seismic using Gardner equation and RHOB
from mudlogging service provider) appended with wireline RHOB, output taken from Pore Pressure
module, GEOSUITE of software, Geologix Limited.

First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction

19-21 March 2017, Pau, France
Mudlogging service providers (MLU) can provide measured shale densities for the shallow sections.
Synthetic density can be calculated using Miller’s equation, Amoco empirical relationship and
Gardner equation (from seismic velocity/sonic data) (Gardner et al., 1974). User can have density-
sonic plot from an offset well and might use the relationship to compute RHOB from sonic/interval
velocity instead of Gardner equation. Even user can consider a constant density value till the top of
LWD/wireline RHOB. There had been cases where only offset well LWD resistivity data was the
only available parameter (seismic had very low resolution and well seismic tie was unavailable). Faust
equation (Faust, 1951,1953; Tiwary et. al., 2004; Ojala, 2009) and Gardner equation had been applied
to generate synthetic RHOB and used as reference RHOB for shallow section after correlation.

All these empirical equations differ from each other as both input and output perspective and the
resultant composite densities differ from each other in the shallow part, which ultimately affects OBG
– mostly in shallow section and less in deeper section. This exercise has been tested in good number
of wells in various basins and resulting OBG differences came in the range +/- 1-1.5 PPG with respect
to each other. This difference can be minimised if proper values of different constant parameters
associated with the above mentioned equations are used after basinal calibration. Since pore pressure
computation takes OBG as one of the inputs, this variation will effect predicted pore pressure (PP) as
well, when same normal compaction trend (NCT) is drawn against shale zones.

Issues with selecting shale points

Picking shale points involves detailed understanding of regional geology as well as log signatures of
different formations. Gamma ray of shale volume (Vshale) cutoffs are used to demarcate shales. This
works out well but there are numerous situations when this simplistic approach might need
modification.

• Silt effect – Silt is an intermediate grainsize between sand and clay. Silt (or fine sand) occurrence
in shale does not unduly affect formation properties or log response in itself, until the distribution
of the silt varies and its content increases to such an extent that it contributes to the porosity and
can affect the transport properties like electrical conductivity, acoustic velocity, etc. There might
not be visible variation always in gamma ray log response for shale and silty shale, but
compressional velocity (VP) or sonic log (DT) and resistivity log response can be a good
distinguisher of pure shale and silty shale.

Figure 2 Effect of silt with clay in the shale framework on logs.

Besides the lithological effect of silty horizons, the presence of gaseous silts may effect log
responses. Gas silts affect VP log by lowering velocity and increases resistivity values
(Purkayastha et al., 2016). In such cases gamma/ shale volume cutoff will not be the best shale

First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction

19-21 March 2017, Pau, France
 indicator. Although, identification of gas silts during model setup stage can help in building a
robust model, the chance of erroneous real time prediction is quite high if the real-time shale
picks are affected by gas silt.

• Effects of radioactive non-Shales – Sand can be highly radioactive like shales and may show high
gamma ray log values (i.e. arkosic sandstones). Radioactive sands are very frequently
encountered, but if present, can make the shale picking exercise a very tough task. Continental
sands formed from volcanic fragments containing tuffs and marine deep water sands may be
enriched in uranium. Apart from uranium, glauconitic or micaceous sands coupled with the
presence of high potassium content can reveal high GR values. At times, these sands may be
affected by saline formation water and can give low resistivity values similar to shales. These type
of radioactive sands can give a false impression and leaves high chance of misinterpretation as
shales. Even verification through RHOB, NPHI (Neutron porosity) and VP logs may be masked
down by bad borehole conditions (Purkayastha et al., 2016).

Mud dominated carbonates like packstone, wackestone are deposited in low energy environments
and typically have high gamma ray values (Lucia, 1999). These carbonates can be enriched in
organic content, as organisms consume uranium rich nutrients for survival. The uranium
enrichment may make the carbonates radioactive, resulting in high gamma ray log values
(Purkayastha et al., 2016).

Best way to nullify this confusion is to go through the detailed wellsite lithology description,
microscopic investigation are the best suited tool in this regard. Therefore, identification of clean
end member shales and their discrimination from high GR sands can be very critical if there is no
other supporting evidence to validate.

• Organic rich Shales – Organic rich shales are the typical source rocks in clastic systems. These
shales normally show high gamma ray, low RHOB, high neutron porosity, low compressional
velocity and overall marginally higher resistivity peaks against highest concentration of organic
matters (Purkayastha et al., 2016). These log responses are very similar to that of an
overpressured shale. This results in difficulty to distinguish and differentiate them and
considering them as a reliable shale pick for pore pressure prediction (Purkayastha et al., 2016).
During drilling these organic rich shales may release high amount of gas. It may not be a critical
issue for development wells, but in wild cat exploratory wells, where uncertainty is quite high, it
complicates the exercise of shale picking.

Conclusion

While calculating pseudo density for shallow section of a well, user should trust seismic data as input
(if available), which can be calibrated with direct measurements of shale densities coming from MLU.
If seismic data is unavailable, Miller equation can be used. Although Miller equation is more reliable
for sediment porosities in the upper 1000ft to 2000 ft below mudline depths. It can be calibrated with
shale density measurements from MLU (if available). This way user can generate the best suitable
density profile for shallow sediment, hence composite density (after appending) and OBG.

The fundamental in shale picking strategy during real-time monitoring is that maintenance of
consistency with what has been done during the model building stage. Typically inconsistency results
from human bias i.e. different worker following different shale picking philosophy and difference in
the data set used e.g., wireline during model setup stage but using LWD during real time prediction. It
is recommended to keep a record of the shale picking strategy used during the model building stage,
so that the same can be replicated during real time pore pressure analysis.

The ultimate goal behind an optimal shale picking exercise is that the predicted pore pressures and the
well behaviour must be in mutual agreement. The shale resistivity and sonic picks are used to
calculate porosity and can be transformed into pore pressure. Overpressure indicators in the well bore

First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction

19-21 March 2017, Pau, France
can give an idea on the overbalance with respect to the effective mud pressure and hence indicative of
the change in pore pressure. Thus, these indicators can help the predictors to apply appropriate
judgement in picking the shale points. The most trending drilling indicators frequently seen in high
pressure wells as a result of insufficient overbalance in the well bore, are drilling break, occurrence of
connection gases, increased background gas and splintery cavings.

Identifying the correct cause of overpressure is key to selecting the appropriate method to use when
preparing an analog well assessment or a well planning prediction. When possible, the team should
utilize as many independent techniques as are available. The use of multiple methods is a viable
means of increasing confidence in a prediction.

Acknowledgement

Pore Pressure module from GEOSUITE of software by Geologix Limited has been used for the work.
Authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Geologix Limited for giving permission to
submit this work. The authors thank all of those forward-thinking individuals in the petroleum
industry whose hard work and perseverance have provided solid foundation in pore pressure analysis.

References

Dasgupta, S., Chatterjee, R. and Prasad, S.P. [2016]. Prediction of pore pressure and fracture pressure
in Cauvery and Krishna-Godavari basins, India. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 78, 493-506.

Faust, L. Y. [1951]. Seismic velocity as a function of depth and geologic time. Geophysics, 16, 192-
206.

Faust, L. Y. [1953]. A velocity function including lithologic variation. Geophysics, 18, 271-288.

Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R. [1974]. Formation velocity and density – The
diagnostic basis for stratigraphic traps: Geophysics, 39, 770 - 780.

Lucia, F.J. [1999]. Carbonate Reservoir Characterization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, New York, 62.

Ojala, I.O. [2009]. Using rock physics for constructing synthetic sonic logs, ROCKENG09:
Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto, May 2009 (Ed: Diederichs, M.
and Grasselli, G.)

Purkayastha, A.D., Kumar, M., Nair, P., Hansen, K.S. and Couzens-Schultz, B.A. [2014]. Shale
Picking Issues and Strategies: Key to Robust Real-Time Model Based Pore Pressure Prediction.
International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10-12 December
2014.

Tiwary, D.N., Singh, B., Arasu, R.T., Rahman, M., Saha, P. and Chandra, M. [2004]. Travel Time
Modelling using Gamma Ray and Resistivity Log in Sand Shale Sequence of Gandhar Field. 5th
Conference & Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics, Hyderabad-2004, India, 146-151.

First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction

19-21 March 2017, Pau, France

View publication stats